This email chain has not been changed. Fluoridation lobbyiest, Johnny Johnson falsely accused me of attempting "to use smoke and mirrors to influence local CWF decision-makers into thinking that community water fluoridation (CWF) is some evil sinister conspiracy to dumb down the masses." He implies falsely that I embrace that CWF is a communist plot, a Nazi concentration camp tool used against the Jews, a John Birch Society crusade, or a modern day conspiracy theory against everyone in the world that’s done CWF research. Sadly, he snookered many Potsdam residents and officials to believe these lies. My reply is at the top. Johnny's email is below mine. (For the record, my story is here: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/p/my-story.html )
For the record: I don’t believe fluoridation is some evil sinister conspiracy to dumb down the masses. I do not believe fluoridation is a communist plot nor is there any evidence, as Johnny Johnson says, that fluoridation was used in Nazi concentration camps against the Jews. I know nothing of the John Birch Society crusade except that fluoridationists bring it up. And I do not believe fluoridation is a modern day conspiracy theory against everyone in the world who has done community water fluoridation research, as Dr. Johnson has accused me of.
Simply put. Science does not support fluoridation, only politics does. Judging by the people who were cc’d in Dr. Slott’s email to you, you are a target of a national fluoridation campaign. I understand the political pressure you must be under. One of the cc’s was to their fluoridation PR Person, Matt Jacob, who only has a degree in journalism and who has advised fluoridationists to avoid talking about risks because they can’t win on that issue. They are all associated with rich and powerful groups.
I can only provide you with information. And that’s what I’ll continue to do as new information comes forward
By the way, after I spearheaded the end of fluoridation in Levittown, I thought journalists didn’t understand science. So I wanted to become one of them to get the truth out. While my kids were young, I started school, received a BS in biology then a MA in NYU’s Science and Environmental Reporting Program – where I learned politics, lobbying and pressure also dictates what gets reported and what doesn’t.
Good Luck to all of us
From: Johnny Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2017 3:38 PM
Cc: AKENMORE@WDT.NET ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Carol S. Kopf ; Johnny Johnson
Subject: Carol Kopf: What she doesn't want you to know
Dear Mayor Tischler and Trustee’s Garner, Sheehan, Warr, and Lee,
As expected, Ms. Kopf swoops in to attempt to use smoke and mirrors to influence local CWF decision-makers into thinking that community water fluoridation (CWF) is some evil sinister conspiracy to dumb down the masses. CWF is not a communist plot, a Nazi concentration camp tool used against the Jews, a John Birch Society crusade, or a modern day conspiracy theory against everyone in the world that’s done CWF research.
Kopf's crusade to undermine a safe and effective public health measure, CWF, is shameful. I often ask her "Do you not care for people that are suffering and can’t afford to see a dentist? That is what you continue to promote. Stopping CWF’s preventive benefits will result in more dental disease which in turn will increase the treatment of cavities instead of preventing them. That’s not how medicine and dentistry work. Our focus is on prevention of this Infectious and Transmissible disease."
I have to smile when she stated: "Being a non-scientist, as I assume most if not all of you are, I don’t judge by my personal experience but rely on experts to wade through the science to make fluoridation studies clear for me. The UK Cochrane’s group of researchers are considered the gold standard of scientists, independent and trusted, even partially funded by our own CDC.” Her statement about the CDC partially funding the Cochrane Group is absolutely false.
Kopf is a non-scientist. She has no training in human physiology or the healthcare sciences. She is the media relations director for the anti-CWF group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN). To speak about the Cochrane Oral Health Group (COHG) as though she's been informed by the powers that be, is humorous. Paul Connett does not have biological or physiological training in the health sciences either. He is a chemist. The body is not a test tube.
1. Cochrane Oral Health Group Meeting:
I attended a meeting in London in the summer of 2015 with three of the Cochrane Oral Health Group's authors, as well as top researchers from around the world, academicians, Israel’s dentist in the Ministry of Health, and the British Fluoridation Society (BFS). It was to discuss their CWF report, methodology, and the anti’s use of their review to convince communities to stop CWF.
The COHG was not happy that Ms. Kopf and FAN were abusing their Plain Language Summary (PLS) that they had written. Cochrane writes a PLS for all of their research so that leaders around the world can understand their findings and be able to boil down the research to common, non-scientific language. They were so upset that Kopf and FAN were so blatantly abusing their PLS that they took the unprecedented step to rewrite their PLS to stop this.
After that meeting in London, a "Critique of the review of ‘Water Fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries’ published by the Cochrane Collaboration in 2015” was published in the British Dental Journal. I was a co-author and contributor. It is a thorough document that completely describes the shortcomings of how the COHG review was conducted, the methodology, how they chose the studies to include and more importantly, exclude solid studies, and methods that the Cochrane Collaboration have established for Public Health Interventions, which they chose not to use.
2. Kopf Continues to distort the truth:
Attached below is a comment exchange that Kopf and I had over the COHG in comment sections time and time again. It clearly shows how she has tried to twist the findings of the COHG. She knows full well that they indeed did find cavity reductions in children from CWF. The issue with their literature search was that they had a very narrow inclusion criteria for the literature to meet their grading system, GRADE. That was because they were updating the York Review from 15 years prior and had to use the same criteria. Their inclusion criteria was so narrow that it excluded most contemporary research that has been done. They even state that in their PLS.
3. Kopf Challenges the CDC:
It might come as a surprise to her that we know that she tried to get the CDC to say that they funded the COHG study. Yes, I have the email Ms. Kopf. The CDC said no that they had not. Here is the official reply to Kopf from the CDC:
Dear Ms. Kopf:
This note is in response to your June 29, 2015, inquiry about CDC’s involvement with the Cochrane report, Water
Fluoridation to Prevent Tooth Decay. CDC did not fund the 2015 Cochrane review of fluoridation research. However,
through a competitive process, the Cochrane Oral Health Group was awarded a contract in 2011 to update all of the oral
health reviews in The Guide to Community Preventive Services (www.thecommunityguide.org). Among these was a water
fluoridation review that included most of the same studies that were included in the recent Cochrane review.
The COHG was awarded the contract. These were the same COHG authors that wrote the 2015 Review of CWF. I personally verified this with the COHG in a conversation. I’m certain that Kopf knows well that they signed off on the Community Guide which states that CWF is recommended on strong evidence: (document attached)
"Task Force Finding (April 2013) The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends community water fluoridation based on strong evidence of effectiveness in reducing dental caries across populations. Evidence shows the prevalence of caries is substantially lower in communities with CWF. In addition, there is no evidence that CWF results in severe dental fluorosis.
Evidence indicates the economic benefit of CWF is greater than the cost. In addition, the benefit-cost ratio increases with the size of the community population.”
4. Anti-Fluoridationists revealed:
Instead of tackling each of Kopf's accusations below, which can be done, perhaps it’s time that the Village of Potsdam’s officials know who they’re really dealing with in her and the other opponents to CWF. Below is a White Paper which identifies Ms. Kopf and each member of the anti-fluoridation movement. It is a tell all document.
5. Same pew, different church:
Ms. Kopf, leave these people alone. You bring these same twisted arguments to every city that has anything going on with CWF. Whether they’re purchasing additives, replacing a piece of equipment, considering starting up a CWF program, budget meetings, or any other angle for which you can capitalize on. It didn’t work in my home county of Pinellas, FL. It didn’t work in Brooksville, FL, Wellington, FL, Ormond Beach, FL, Gainesville, FL, Clarksburg, West Virginia, Green Bay, WI, Albuquerque, NM, Dallas, TX, or Meadville, PA just to name a few of your losses. The science is Crystal Clear on CWF. It is safe and effective for all. Not a single study of the thousands that have been done on CWF since 1945 when it was initiated, has backed up the anti’s claims.
6. Public Health:
Public Health exists for the Public. Just like public highways, public schools, public libraries, and public airports. Some people may not use public provided services, but the vast majority should not be penalized by those who chose not to do so. Public policy exists for the masses. It cannot be tailored to an individual. This is what makes the U.S. a democracy instead of a state of chaos. Community water fluoridation is the most effective means to get the proper amount of fluoride to everyone in the community. You simply drink the water and you realize the benefits of it. There is no substitute. CWF, fluoridated toothpaste, fluoridated mouth rinses, and fluoride varnish are all needed to reduce cavities to the max. One of these does not replace another. They work in harmony.
Village of Potsdam’s Trustees, please follow the credible evidence-based science that our health and medical organizations do. These organizations are not a rubber stamp for CWF. Consider who you’d take your child or yourself to if you were to have a dental or medical problem; a dentist or physician, or someone that is spreading misinformation on the internet. Leading medical and health organizations endorse CWF as safe and effective. These include:
1. American Academy of Pediatrics
2. American Dental Association
4. Mayo Clinic
5. World Health Organization.
Not a single credible scientific organization in the world opposes CWF. Not one.
Over 211 million people served by community water supplies receive optimally fluoridated water daily. That is 3 out of 4 people (75%) on community water systems in the U.S. And it continues to climb.
Please rely on the true scientific experts and vote to proceed with your plans to continue CWF. It’s the right thing to do. It levels the playing field for all.
Do not hesitate to contact me with any questions that you may have.
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Diplomate American Board of Pediatric Dentistry
President, American Fluoridation Society-a non-profit, non-paid, all volunteer group of healthcare professionals
P.S. Ms. Queor, would you please get a copy of this email and the attachment to Trustee Lee for me? I can not locate her email address. Thank you so very much. Johnny
From: "Carol S.. Kopf" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: October 9, 2017 at 2:43:00 PM EDT
To: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, <email@example.com>
Subject: Fluoridation Failed St. Lawrence County
To Potsdam Village Board of Trustees
This letter is also attached in case the photos don’t come through.
One would think that dentists, who claim to be so deeply concerned for kids suffering in dental pain, would organize their fellow dentists to actually fill cavities instead of bellies with fluoride and without evidence of “fluoride-deficiency.”
Claims that stopping fluoridation would raise tooth decay rates are disproved by several studies. Also, Poughkeepsie NY stopped fluoridation in 2008. Third-graders cavity rates declined steadily – 61% in 2013; 51% in June 2014; 45% in October 2014; and 31% in 2015, according to NYU researchers.
Low-income folks are more cavity-prone, despite fluoridation, and more susceptible to fluoride’s adverse effects
There is evidence that St. Lawrence children are “dentist-deficient” judging by St. Lawrence County’s very high rate of ER visits for 3-5 year olds.
Despite a 66% fluoridation rate, 67% of St. Lawrence County’s third graders have tooth decay, 40% are untreated, according to NYS Dep’t of Health Statistics. This is higher than NYS statistics which is only 40% fluoridated (when NYC is excluded). St. Lawrence’s cavity rates are higher than those in non-fluoridated NYS counties, such as Nassau, Suffolk, Rockland, Dutchess, Essex, and Schuyler Counties.
Being a non-scientist, as I assume most if not all of you are, I don’t judge by my personal experience but rely on experts to wade through the science to make fluoridation studies clear for me. The UK Cochrane’s group of researchers are considered the gold standard of scientists, independent and trusted, even partially funded by our own CDC.
The Cochrane group of researchers reported in 2015 that they could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay.
Fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth over a lifetime), they reported. But Cochrane cautions these studies have “high risk of bias” and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants.
In fact, a recent article by Julia R. Barrett in US Government Scientific Journal, Environmental Heath Perspectives also published an article including this statement "For people who get enough fluoride from toothpastes and dental treatments, fluoridated drinking water could result in overexposure.” (under the picture)
“Despite significant financial, training, and program investments, US children’s caries experience and inequities continued to increase over the last 20 years,” according to the American Journal of Public Health (2017).
At the same time, fluoride overdose symptoms - Dental Fluorosis - is Up 600%; Dentists profit from this and advertise their services to cover the unsightly teeth by these dentist advertisements using before and after fluorosis photos of their handiwork. See http://tinyurl.com/DentalFluorosis
You may wonder why so many respected organizations endorse fluoridation. It’s because they were lobbied using practiced one-sided talking points just the way you may be lobbied by fluoridationists. What you aren’t told is that many organizations have asked to be removed from this list such as the National Kidney Foundation. Many other organizations that used to be on the list have disappeared from the list such as the American Cancer Society
It took 50 years for the smoking/cancer link to emerge from the literature into popular acceptance. Before that dentists and MD’s endorsed smoking. It took 75 years for surgeons to believe that washing their hands before surgery would save lives. And incubators were a side show at Coney Island before doctors believed the machine could save premature babies’ lives. Most endorsements were garnered in the 1950’s as part of a political strategy to encourage fluoridation – which seemed like a good idea at the time and when vitamins and minerals were discovered to “cure” diseases. Dentists thought fluoride was the magic bullet required to prevent tooth decay.
However, modern science now shows that ingesting fluoride is ineffective at reducing tooth decay, that fluoride is not a nutrient or essential for healthy teeth and that fluoride can be harmful to health, even at low levels added to public water supplies. In fact, the CDC concedes fluoride’s beneficial effects are topical and not systemic.
The CDC reports, “In the earliest days of fluoride research, investigators hypothesized that fluoride affects enamel and inhibits dental caries (cavities) only when incorporated into developing dental enamel...” but now CDC admits that: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…”
CDC also admits that “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.” and
"Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas. This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity."
Consuming a fluoride-free diet does not cause tooth decay. Rotten diets make rotten teeth and no amount of fluoride changes that. Tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities, states and countries. See http://www.FluorideNews.Blogspot.com
Additionally, according to NYS Department of Health statistics tooth decay rates are not necessarily lower in more highly fluoridated NYS counties when compared to less fluoridated counties (using 2004 statistics – top chart and 2012 statistics – bottom chart)
Former NYS Department of Health dentist, JV Kumar, who works too closely with the politically-motivated private dentist union, the American Dental Association (ADA), (as does Florida dentist Johnny Johnson), actually confirmed fluoridation's failure. Kumar compared 2004 to 2012 cavity rates and reported "disparities between high and low income children widened." (page 62, National Oral Health Conference).
Sadly, too many New Yorkers are fluoride-overdosed and dentist deficient. A majority of NYS dentists do not treat Medicaid patients I’ve read that only 15% of NYS dentists treat a reasonable number of Medicaid patients. And the ADA successfully lobbied to have dental benefits excluded from Medicare.
Legalizing Dental Therapists (DT) in NYS, as other states have done, would be the answer to the dental health crisis facing too many New Yorkers. DTs just need two years training to do dental work as well as dentists. They would go into mouths and areas where dentists refuse to go and accept Medicaid patients. Sadly, the ADA with its pockets full of corporate cash lobbies long and hard against Dental Therapists preferring to protect its lucrative monopoly instead.
Unfortunately, too many well-meaning dentists and other officials truly believe in fluoridation, like a religion, so they come before you as the honest people they are – making your job more difficult. However, as you know individual experience isn’t indicative of science. The science is screaming at us right now that fluoridation is unnecessary, ineffective and/or unsafe.
But you need to know that Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. Dentists are putting you in a position to act like a physician and prescribe fluoride to your entire constituency, have it delivered by by water engineer and in doses based on thirst – not age, health, weight or need. Fluoride ingestion must be an individual decision not a community decision. And the FDA has never approved fluoride for ingestion, labeling it an unapproved drug, instead.
We hope you reject any grant money and drop fluoridation for the benefit of your constituents.
I spearheaded the 1983 effort that stopped 29 years of fluoridation in Levittown, NY. Now, I volunteer for both the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. and the Fluoride Action Network. If you want to learn how I became involved, my non-sad story is here: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/p/my-story.html
Carol S. Kopf
Levittown, New York
PS: My “Fluoride Dangers” blog is here: http://www.FluorideDangers.Blogspot.com