Fluoridation protectionists
have faith in fluoridation; but fluoridation research reviewers need science. And it's just not there.
The trusted UK-based
Cochrane Group is yet another respected scientific research body to find that fluoridation’s benefits are built upon a house of cards (June 2015). Cochrane reports that studies purporting to show fluoridation’s
ability to reduce tooth decay are out-dated, have a high risk of bias and were conducted before
the widespread use of fluoridated dental products, in other words - scientifically
invalid.
Unlike the US Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association which work very closely together with industry promoting fluoridation, Cochrane does not accept commercial or conflicted funding which Cochrane says “is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, produced by people who can work freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.”
Unlike the US Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association which work very closely together with industry promoting fluoridation, Cochrane does not accept commercial or conflicted funding which Cochrane says “is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, produced by people who can work freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests.”
Fluoridation is newly framed
as a boon to poor kids. But, Cochrane reports, “There is insufficient evidence
to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in
caries [cavities] levels across SES [socio-economic-status or income]."
Other untrue arguments
fluoridationists present to too-trusting governing bodies aren’t supported by valid science either
e.g. fluoridation benefits adults and tooth decay rates go up when
fluoridation is stopped. Cochrane could find no proof that this is true.
As is often the case, new
information doesn’t stop organized dentistry from spinning the results to
protect and promote fluoridation.
The Cochrane’s fluoridation
review was conducted using a precise scientific method over a necessary period
of time. It took the British
Dental Association (BDA) less than one day to spin Cochrane’s results via a news
release, cherry-picking data to report favorably - that fluoridation reduces cavities by up
to 35%. Cochrane answered its critics on its blog
The BDA's figure is based on
the poor and biased science, revealed by Cochrane, which shows a child’s fluoridation “benefit” is just less than two primary teeth or one permanent tooth over their lifetimes. Even if
this “benefit” was based on sound-science, this small decay
reduction doesn’t justify the hundreds of millions of dollars poured into
fluoridation schemes, lobbyists, hand-outs, research reviews, strategy meetings, spokesperson
training and fluoridation consultants and PR agents hired by the CDC and many states and organizations to protect and promote fluoridation. The costs to remedy fluoride's health-damaging effects add to the country's financial burden.
According to Dr. Stan Litras BDS BSc, Cochrane pooled old data from as long as 70 years ago when decay rates were 10 times greater than today. Thus the slim cavity reduction Cochrane reports reflect savings over the entire period from the 1930's to the present. "This is not an indication of any reductions to be expected in contemporary society," he writes
According to Dr. Stan Litras BDS BSc, Cochrane pooled old data from as long as 70 years ago when decay rates were 10 times greater than today. Thus the slim cavity reduction Cochrane reports reflect savings over the entire period from the 1930's to the present. "This is not an indication of any reductions to be expected in contemporary society," he writes
After the BDA's news release, an unnamed
author wrote an article on an American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) fluoridation-promoting website, also
criticizing Cochrane in an all-too-familiar knee-jerk non-scientific fashion.
The CDC funded the Cochrane Review to upgrade the 2013 U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation (which itself is based on the same low-quality evidence.
When Cochrane's review didn't come out the way CDC would have liked, the CDC diverted attention away from Cochrane in favor of the out-dated Task Force Review.
It should be noted that the Task Review says the basis for its report is a previous 2000 fluoridation systematic review dubbed the "York Review" (McDonagh 2000). In 2003, the York (McDonagh 2000) reviewers were forced to explain: "We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence...We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide."
The CDC funded the Cochrane Review to upgrade the 2013 U.S. Community Preventive Services Task Force’s Fluoridation Recommendation (which itself is based on the same low-quality evidence.
When Cochrane's review didn't come out the way CDC would have liked, the CDC diverted attention away from Cochrane in favor of the out-dated Task Force Review.
It should be noted that the Task Review says the basis for its report is a previous 2000 fluoridation systematic review dubbed the "York Review" (McDonagh 2000). In 2003, the York (McDonagh 2000) reviewers were forced to explain: "We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence...We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide."
Fluoridation protectionists will always
pick apart any study or review that’s critical of fluoride or fluoridation; but
never look in their own backyard – even when objective researchers point out flaws.
It was admitted that fluoridation
gives dentistry “political viability” in a 1981 Journal of the American Dental
Association article. (“Fluoridation
Election Victory: A Case Study for Dentistry in Effective Political Action”)
In the 1940s and 1950s, dentists in their eagerness to
have a magic bullet that would enhance their professional prestige, promoted fluoridation
heavily and dismissed legitimate debate over the merits of fluoridation within
the scientific, medical and dental communities, according to an American
Journal of Public Health article by
Catherine Carstairs, PhD (June 2015).
Carstairs writes, “Moreover,
some of the early fluoridation studies had methodological problems, which may
have exaggerated their benefits.”
Carstairs
concludes “After 70 years of investigation, there are still questions about how
effective water fluoridation is at preventing dental decay and whether the
possible risks are worth the benefits,” she writes.
Also surprised by the lack
of valid fluoridation science, John Doull, PhD, Chairman , US
“What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo
regarding fluoride for many years—for too
long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look,”
Doull says. “In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled.
I mean, when the U.S.
Maybe Doull was surprised because voices of opposition have been suppressed since the
early days of fluoridation, according to Chemical and
Engineering News (1988). Journals rarely published articles critical of fluoride or fluoridation.
A Nassau/Suffolk (NY) Oral Health Coalition created a rule that members
had to sign an affidavit claiming they would promote the goals of the NYS Oral
Health Coalition so that the one fluoridation dissenter would be forced to
leave or lie. I left.
On another occasion (April
18, 2015), I was rudely asked to leave a free pro-fluoridation strategy session
funded by my taxes, in my neighborhood and at a public university. Only
later did I discover through a freedom of information request that organizers
were fearful of my attendance and that the decision to oust me came from the
then Dental Bureau Chief, dentist J. V. Kumar. Ironically, they were teaching
dental hygienists how to answer questions from those who oppose fluoridation!
Authors of a 1999 textbook (revised 2005), by Burt and Eklund, admitted that the early fluoridation trials, which
are the foundation for the entire fluoridation program, “were rather crude…statistical
analysis by today’s standards, were primitive; data from the control
communities were largely neglected after the initial reports, with conclusions
based on the much weaker before-after analyses.”
Some examples of those mistakes were reported in Fluoridation Errors
and Omissions in Experimental Trials, by Sutton
In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH)/CDC
panel convened to evaluate
tooth decay research, published between 1839 and 1965, and reported
"... the
panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it
reviewed. According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly
described, or otherwise methodologically flawed" (over 560 studies
evaluated fluoride use).
Even pro-fluoride dental
researchers worried that the lack of evidence-based-dentistry practiced in the US
"If
the current weak trend of caries research in the United States continues,
history will be harsh on all of us for our failure to use our knowledge and
resources to reduce, if not eliminate, the burden of one of the world's most
prevalent diseases."
In 2001, Cohen and Locker reported that fluoridation may be immoral with benefits exaggerated and risks minimized Journal of the Canadian Dental Association . "Ethically, it cannot be argued that past benefits, by themselves, justify continuing the practice of fluoridation," they write.
In 2001, Cohen and Locker reported that fluoridation may be immoral with benefits exaggerated and risks minimized Journal of the Canadian Dental Association . "Ethically, it cannot be argued that past benefits, by themselves, justify continuing the practice of fluoridation," they write.
A 1990 New York
State Department of Health report concluded
“The effectiveness of water
fluoridation alone cannot now be determined…the effects of fluoride exposure
cannot be accurately assessed based solely on the fluoride content of drinking
water in an area”
In 1978, Pennsylvania JudgeJohn P. Flaherty who had a science background, presided over a court case (Aikenhead
v. Borough of West View), where
fluoridation proponents were sworn under oath to tell the truth and were
subjected to cross-examination. He concluded,
“In my view, the evidence
is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water
supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body, and,
a review of the evidence will disclose that there was no convincing evidence to
the contrary...”
In the 1950’s, Francis Bull,
the state dental director in Wisconsin
Bull infamously lead
dental directors in 1951 to “sell” fluoridation with slick PR and political
strategy but to never ever debate. For example:
“Now,
why should we do a pre-fluoridation survey?
Is it to find out if fluoridation works? No. We have told the public it
works, so we can’t go back on that.”
“You know these research people – they can’t get over their feeling
that you have to have test tube and animal research before you start applying
it to human beings.”
The “say
this; not that” approach to political fluoridation activism is still encouraged
by a pro-fluoridation activism website claimed by the American Academy
Fluoridation
promoters generally use a CDC slogan as proof that fluoridation is safe and effective. But few realize that the CDC does not do
original research but relies on others’ reports and reviews, many of which do
not prove that fluoridation is safe and effective, as former CDC Oral Health
Division Director erroneously presented
to a Fairbanks, Alaska, city council.
In 2009, the American Public Health Association used the same misinformation.
In 2009, the American Public Health Association used the same misinformation.
Other believers presented the same misinformation more recently e.g. (slide
9)
Taxpayers should be shocked to learn that the CDC
does spend time and money on political strategy to win fluoridation referenda, according
to “The Public Votes on Fluoridation – Factors Linked to the Outcome ofFluoridation Campaigns,” (CDC April 2010)
Here’s some of
the advice given:
“For the most part, the less visible the campaign, the more
likely that fluoridation was approved by the voters.”
“Conduct social marketing research with voters…This could be
valuable in developing the most effective campaign messages and finding the best
ways of promoting these messages to the public.”
“In all four sites where fluoridation was approved, fluoridation
advocates were able to write or influence the wording of the ballot. Ballot
wording becomes an important piece of voter education, the way a ballot measure
is phrased can influence how voters interpret and cast their votes.”
“The take-away message is that it cannot be assumed that people
will trust only official and/or governmental sources of health and scientific
information. The American public is becoming increasingly confident about
making their judgment about what is good science. The term “junk
science” may no longer be an effective communication strategy.”
But “junk
science” is the exact phrase still used by many fluoridation promoters e.g. Shelly Gehshan,
when she represented the Pew Foundation.
You would think
some investigative reporter would write a book about this. Oh yeah, someone did.
“Fluoride science is corporate science.
Fluoride science is DDT science. It’s asbestos science. It’s tobacco
science It’s a racket,”
said Christopher Bryson,
the award-winning investigative reporter who wrote, The Fluoride
Deception, after ten years of study.
Science is explained in the carefully referenced The
Case Against Fluoride – How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and
the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There , by Connett, Beck
and Micklem
We've had 70 years of fluoridation reaching record numbers of Americans, 60 years of fluoridated toothpaste, a glut of fluoridated dental products and a fluoride-saturated food and beverage supply. Yet, the US is still facing a tooth decay epidemic along with a steep increase in fluoride overdose symptoms - dental fluorosis (discolored teeth).
The Surgeon General reported in 2000 that tooth decay is a silent epidemic in the US. Since then things have gotten worse. According to Wendell Potter on the Huffington Post:
-- Since 2000, the number of people living in areas where they
can't easily see a dentisthas climbed from 25 million to 47 million.
The Surgeon General reported in 2000 that tooth decay is a silent epidemic in the US. Since then things have gotten worse. According to Wendell Potter on the Huffington Post:
-- The number
of people seeking treatment for dental problems in hospital emergency rooms--one
of the most expensive and least effective places to treat patients in pain
because of bad teeth and diseased gums--nearly doubled from 1.1 million in 2000
to 2.1 million in 2010.
-- Dental
decay is still the number one chronic illness among children.
-- More than a third of elementary school children have untreated tooth decay; the rate is twice as high for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black children and even worse for Native Americans.
-- More than a third of elementary school children have untreated tooth decay; the rate is twice as high for Hispanic and non-Hispanic black children and even worse for Native Americans.
-- Even
though more children have dental benefits, half of all kids on Medicaid did not
get in to see a dentist in 2011, in large part because 80 percent of dentists
nationally still do not accept Medicaid payment
Harvard describes a court case about a few corporations that sell fluoridated toothpaste and reported they "had long ago launched products with the maximum amount of fluoride allowed by health authorities. Yet caries [cavities] remained a significant threat to public health in many countries, both developing and developed."
Every fluoride modality promises that steep cavity declines can occur. Tooth decay should be obliterated by now if all that was true. But it's getting worse.
So, why is fluoridation still promoted?
Maybe the wheels
of government turn slowly. It took 50
years before the cancer/smoking link emerged from the scientific literature
into popular acceptance.
Or, maybe, we might
say Follow the Money!
END
Posts
