This is how the American Dental Association (ADA) instructs it's obedient foot soldiers to respond. This is from an e-mail that was sent 7/22/05 to their members and sympathizers in a knee-jerk attempt to dismiss this well-researched news report showing a cover up of science linking fluoride to bone cancer probably more to to
retain the ADA's political viability with legislators, whom should be very embarrassed that fluoridation is supported with these weak and non-scientific talking points. (Our talking points are in parentheses)
July 22, 2005
A forum for breaking news and timely information from the ADA
Water Fluoridation and Alleged Risk of Rare Bone Cancer
The Wall Street Journal (July 22, Section B-Market Place, page 1) and other news outlets are reporting that a Harvard University doctor was charged with misrepresenting the findings of a doctoral student's thesis that reportedly found that fluoridated water increases the risk of osteosarcoma (a rare bone cancer). Harvard University is conducting an investigation into the matter. Your local media may report on this story, and your patients may ask you about it. We will post a brief media statement about this issue on ADA.org.
To help you respond to patient inquiries, the ADA provides the following points:
Recent news reports may be alarming people unnecessarily about the safety of water fluoridation.
(How is it "alarming people unnecessarily" to tell people about studies showing their drinking water caused bone cancer and worse that the findings are being cover-up.. This is just one of many studies linking fluoride to cancer in general and fluoride to bone cancer, specifically. We think its just alarming the ADA whose political viability is being diminished.)
We're talking about one doctoral student's paper, a paper that has not been published in a scientific journal and therefore has not been available for peer review. Peer review is a process where a group of experts review studies prior to publication to determine if the study is designed well and if the conclusions are valid.
(What the ADA isn't telling you is that PhD theses (actually dissertations) usually go through extensive review by the faculty readers before they are approved. Thus the ADA is implying that the Harvard professors who signed off on the dissertation may not have been on the ball. Elise Bassin received her PhD based on this dissertation. If it didn't have merit, she wouldn't have received her degree. Also
the Wall Street Journal reporter has a science degree, knows science very well and taught at New York University's Science and Environmental Reporting Program for a stint. She already checked the viability of Bassin's dissertation with objective outside sources w ho said the paper is publishable. And, I guess, the ADA also wants you to ignore this quote, "She did great shoe-leather epidemiology," says William Maas, head of oral health at the CDC and a supporter of fluoridation)
The student notes in her thesis that there are several limitations to her study and recommends that the findings be confirmed using data from other studies. For example, she notes that the study may not accurately reflect the actual amount of fluoride consumed by study subjects.
(Show us any studies that support water fluoridation which reflect the amount of fluoride consumed by study subjects. This is a huge flaw, we always point out, in the studies the ADA uses to support its theory that fluoridation safety reduces tooth decay. Interesting the ADA uses the argument when they think it works for them)
The vast majority of studies by nationally recognized researchers in widely-published, respected and peer-reviewed scientific journals conclude that water fluoridation has not shown any ill effects on health.
(The truth is that both a U.S. government panel and British scientists
found fluoridation proponent studies flawed and scientifically invalid)
Studies show that water fluoridation can prevent between 15-40 percent of tooth decay, and that there is no association between cancer rates in humans and optimal levels of fluoride in drinking water.
(Also not true - the New Jersey Department of Health reports higher rate of osteosarcoma in fluoridated portions of New Jersey. The National Toxicology Program found more osteosarcoma in fluoridated rats. Procter & Gamble reports a link between fluoride and cancer. Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis found a higher rate of cancer in
fluoridated communities even after adjusting for age, sex and race. When fluoridation proponents were put on the witness stand in courts of law, Drs. Burk and Yiamouyianns's cancer studies could not be refuted scientifically. But cancer isn't the only health problem laid at fluoridation's door)
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has proclaimed community water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
(Notice they didn't say tooth decay reduction was the achievement. Yes organized dentistry has been very successful in spreading around fluoridation for the last 60 years to 2/3 of Americans via their water supply and 100% via the food supply; but the U.S. Surgeon General reports tooth decay is a national epidemic.)
According to our current Surgeon General, fluoridation is the single most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and to improve oral health for a lifetime, for both children and adults.
(Tooth decay has gone down over the years equally in fluoridated and non-fluoridated countires. There's no evidence that proves fluoride in any form is responsible for the drop in tooth decay. Health generally has improved markedly during the same time that decay rates declined)
Unless and until the weight of scientific evidence shifts to the contrary, the American Dental Association continues to recommend that community water supplies be fluoridated to reduce the risk of tooth decay.
(This is sad because scientists are denied federal grant money to study the ill health effects of fluoride. Those that do manage to get grants and show ill effects get fired and see no more research money, such as Phyllis Mullenix who found and published a study showing fluoride enters the brain and adversely affects behavior. Self survival steers scientists away from even looking into this subject. What the ADA is telling you is that the ADA's stack of invalid science is still higher
than the valid science showing fluoridations' harm - so the ADA wins. That's not scientific.)
As a dentist, my goal is to help protect and improve your oral health. I believe that water fluoridation is important in preventing tooth decay.
(Yes they "believe." The science doesn't support this belief.)
As a member of the American Dental Association, I will be kept up to date on the latest dental research, so if the science on this issue changes, I will certainly let you know immediately.
(I've already shown you that the ADA will lie to it's members. The only reason, dentists now were made aware of the bone cancer link is because the media has picked up on it. So the ADA's number one goal is to protect the image of fluoridation and, therefore, their own image)
As the leader of a science-based profession, the ADA is open to new scientific information and welcomes the opportunity to address it according to the standards that prevail in the scientific community.
(The ADA is just a union that represents the best interest of dentists - not the American public. We would like a discussion not only on the merits of the Bassin dissertation; but the merits of the studies which show fluoridation is safe and effective and saves money, because actually it's does none of those things)
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation