FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1095: Response to Scott Tomar
October 27, 2009
Most people in the fluoridating world have probably never heard of Dr. Scott Tomar, however he is quoted nearly every day -not by name but via his work -somewhere in the world.
Scott Tomar was the co-author of articles which underpins two CDC claims:
1) Fluoridation is "one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century" (ref 1)
2) For every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 is saved on dental health care. (ref 2)
A citizen sent us a copy of Tomar's response to the following five questions submitted to him by Mr. Cunninghm, PE, a water engineer in Gainesville, Florida, on September 23, 2009.
1. Please cite or list studies and research that demonstrate fluoride is safe and in particular safe in drinking water.
2. Please summarize the benefits of ingesting fluoridated water. Please describe how ingesting fluoridated water impacts teeth.
3. Please cite studies and research that indicate fluoridation of water supply is effective.
4. Is there an individual toxicological study that has been performed on Hydrofluosilicic Acid?
5. Provide any other insight or expertise that would be helpful in addressing this topic.
Scott Tomar's answers and my response to his answers can be accessed at http://fluoridealert.org/connett.tomar.oct.2009.pdf
Today, I sent my response to Mr. Cunningham with a copy to Scott Tomar and to the County Commissioners who serve Gainesville, Florida. Hopefully, it might encourage the commissioners to pause just a little before they sanction the continuation of fluoridation in Gainesville.
I also hope that it will encourage Dr. Tomar to respond to my comments. If he does it might help to raise the level of the debate on this contentious issue. Meanwhile, I will print out Tomar's response to question 5 and my reaction to it.
Tomar's response to:
5. Provide any other insight or expertise that would be helpful in addressing this topic.
The allegations that have been made concerning community water fluoridation at the recent meeting of the Regional Utilities Committee and in the video that was sent to members of Gainesville City Council are nothing new. They, and many others, have been made for years. The spokespersons on that video are well known opponents of fluoridation. The 2,000 or so scientists and professionals who signed the petition opposing water fluoridation represent an exceedingly small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care professionals who continue to enthusiastically support community water fluoridation. The best available evidence supports the effectiveness of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries, and does not support the claimed adverse health effects.
Paul Connett's response:
5. On professional opposition to fluoridation.
a) The DVD. This can be viewed at www.FluorideAlert.org
Tomar dismisses the DVD "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" (produced by the Fluoride Action Network): "The spokespersons on that video are well known opponents of fluoridation."
This is a pretty meaningless criticism. The issue (at least in science, as opposed to politics) is not who is saying something but a) what they say and b) what evidence they bring to bear to support their position.
This DVD deserves to be taken far more seriously than Tomar does. The 15 featured scientists include three members of the National Research Council review panel (NRC, 2006). It also includes two scientists who worked at the US EPA. It also includes a infant and fetal pathologist who has carefully reviewed the 23 studies indicating an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. It also includes a Nobel Prize winner who led the successful fight to stop fluoridation in Sweden (Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner for medicine, 2000).
Moreover, Tomar's cavalier dismissal is not even accurate. For example, Sir Ian Chalmers is not a "well-known" opponent of fluoridation. He is better known in the UK for his championing of the systematic reviews that Tomar refers to several times. The thing that surprised Chalmers when he looked at this issue is that there has never been a grade A study demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation, let alone the kind of randomized clinical trial for fluoride, that is required by the FDA for other medicinal practices or drugs. In fact, Chalmers joined Professors Cheng and Sheldon writing an article for the British Medical Journal on these concerns (Cheng et al, 2006). This article uses a graph very similar to Figure 2 above.
b) The Professionals' statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. This can be accessed at www.FluorideAlert.org
Tomar also dismisses the significance of the 2,000 or so scientists and professionals who signed the petition opposing water fluoridation as representing: "an exceedingly small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care professionals who continue to enthusiastically support community water fluoridation."
I agree with Tomar's view of the numbers here but with the following caveats.
I would question how much of that "enthusiastic support for fluoridation" he refers to is based upon a thorough and first hand knowledge of the primary literature rather than simply following the advice of professional bodies like the ADA or the policies sent down to them from the CDC.
This is what the ADA said to its members in a White paper published in 1979 (ADA, 1979):
"Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility."
According to Hileman (1988) the view that "non-participation (in promoting fluoridation) is overt neglect of professional responsibility" was still the position of the ADA in 1988.
Thus I would also raise the question whether the number of doctors and dentists signing our statement would not be much larger if there were not so many intimidating pressures put on them "to toe the line" on this practice from their peers, professional associations and government bodies. Here is an example of a horribly intimidating statement from a dentist who works for the Florida Health Department:
"Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice." (Easley, 1999)
Thus 2600 professionals calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide may not seem like a lot right now, but we believe that the number is going to grow and grow as many more doctors, dentists and independent scientists, actually read the literature with an open mind, instead of simply parroting second-hand statements from bodies like the ADA and the CDC.
I would add that another 3 professionals signed the statement today, bringing the current total to 2662. But we need many more. Please do what you can to get professionals you know to add their names to the statement. The DVD discussed above could be very helpful in persuading them to do so.
Paul Connett
References:
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. MMWR 48(41): 933-940 October 22.
Authors: Scott Tomar and Susan Griffin - see citation 27, on page 27 of Tomar's Curriculam Vitae
2. Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. 2001. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent 61(2):78-86. [ Abstract ]
http://www.FluorideAlert.Org
FAN Bulletin 1095: Response to Scott Tomar
October 27, 2009
Most people in the fluoridating world have probably never heard of Dr. Scott Tomar, however he is quoted nearly every day -not by name but via his work -somewhere in the world.
Scott Tomar was the co-author of articles which underpins two CDC claims:
1) Fluoridation is "one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th Century" (ref 1)
2) For every dollar spent on fluoridation $38 is saved on dental health care. (ref 2)
A citizen sent us a copy of Tomar's response to the following five questions submitted to him by Mr. Cunninghm, PE, a water engineer in Gainesville, Florida, on September 23, 2009.
1. Please cite or list studies and research that demonstrate fluoride is safe and in particular safe in drinking water.
2. Please summarize the benefits of ingesting fluoridated water. Please describe how ingesting fluoridated water impacts teeth.
3. Please cite studies and research that indicate fluoridation of water supply is effective.
4. Is there an individual toxicological study that has been performed on Hydrofluosilicic Acid?
5. Provide any other insight or expertise that would be helpful in addressing this topic.
Scott Tomar's answers and my response to his answers can be accessed at http://fluoridealert.org/connett.tomar.oct.2009.pdf
Today, I sent my response to Mr. Cunningham with a copy to Scott Tomar and to the County Commissioners who serve Gainesville, Florida. Hopefully, it might encourage the commissioners to pause just a little before they sanction the continuation of fluoridation in Gainesville.
I also hope that it will encourage Dr. Tomar to respond to my comments. If he does it might help to raise the level of the debate on this contentious issue. Meanwhile, I will print out Tomar's response to question 5 and my reaction to it.
Tomar's response to:
5. Provide any other insight or expertise that would be helpful in addressing this topic.
The allegations that have been made concerning community water fluoridation at the recent meeting of the Regional Utilities Committee and in the video that was sent to members of Gainesville City Council are nothing new. They, and many others, have been made for years. The spokespersons on that video are well known opponents of fluoridation. The 2,000 or so scientists and professionals who signed the petition opposing water fluoridation represent an exceedingly small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care professionals who continue to enthusiastically support community water fluoridation. The best available evidence supports the effectiveness of community water fluoridation in preventing dental caries, and does not support the claimed adverse health effects.
Paul Connett's response:
5. On professional opposition to fluoridation.
a) The DVD. This can be viewed at www.FluorideAlert.org
Tomar dismisses the DVD "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" (produced by the Fluoride Action Network): "The spokespersons on that video are well known opponents of fluoridation."
This is a pretty meaningless criticism. The issue (at least in science, as opposed to politics) is not who is saying something but a) what they say and b) what evidence they bring to bear to support their position.
This DVD deserves to be taken far more seriously than Tomar does. The 15 featured scientists include three members of the National Research Council review panel (NRC, 2006). It also includes two scientists who worked at the US EPA. It also includes a infant and fetal pathologist who has carefully reviewed the 23 studies indicating an association between moderate exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children. It also includes a Nobel Prize winner who led the successful fight to stop fluoridation in Sweden (Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Prize winner for medicine, 2000).
Moreover, Tomar's cavalier dismissal is not even accurate. For example, Sir Ian Chalmers is not a "well-known" opponent of fluoridation. He is better known in the UK for his championing of the systematic reviews that Tomar refers to several times. The thing that surprised Chalmers when he looked at this issue is that there has never been a grade A study demonstrating the effectiveness of fluoridation, let alone the kind of randomized clinical trial for fluoride, that is required by the FDA for other medicinal practices or drugs. In fact, Chalmers joined Professors Cheng and Sheldon writing an article for the British Medical Journal on these concerns (Cheng et al, 2006). This article uses a graph very similar to Figure 2 above.
b) The Professionals' statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. This can be accessed at www.FluorideAlert.org
Tomar also dismisses the significance of the 2,000 or so scientists and professionals who signed the petition opposing water fluoridation as representing: "an exceedingly small percentage of the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health care professionals who continue to enthusiastically support community water fluoridation."
I agree with Tomar's view of the numbers here but with the following caveats.
I would question how much of that "enthusiastic support for fluoridation" he refers to is based upon a thorough and first hand knowledge of the primary literature rather than simply following the advice of professional bodies like the ADA or the policies sent down to them from the CDC.
This is what the ADA said to its members in a White paper published in 1979 (ADA, 1979):
"Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants and that non-participation is overt neglect of professional responsibility."
According to Hileman (1988) the view that "non-participation (in promoting fluoridation) is overt neglect of professional responsibility" was still the position of the ADA in 1988.
Thus I would also raise the question whether the number of doctors and dentists signing our statement would not be much larger if there were not so many intimidating pressures put on them "to toe the line" on this practice from their peers, professional associations and government bodies. Here is an example of a horribly intimidating statement from a dentist who works for the Florida Health Department:
"Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the public trust occasionally occurs when a physician or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses their professional standing in the community to argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of professional ethics, the principles of science and community standards of practice." (Easley, 1999)
Thus 2600 professionals calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide may not seem like a lot right now, but we believe that the number is going to grow and grow as many more doctors, dentists and independent scientists, actually read the literature with an open mind, instead of simply parroting second-hand statements from bodies like the ADA and the CDC.
I would add that another 3 professionals signed the statement today, bringing the current total to 2662. But we need many more. Please do what you can to get professionals you know to add their names to the statement. The DVD discussed above could be very helpful in persuading them to do so.
Paul Connett
References:
1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 1999. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries. MMWR 48(41): 933-940 October 22.
Authors: Scott Tomar and Susan Griffin - see citation 27, on page 27 of Tomar's Curriculam Vitae
2. Griffin SO, Jones K, Tomar SL. 2001. An economic evaluation of community water fluoridation. J Public Health Dent 61(2):78-86. [ Abstract ]
posted by Bill at
9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home