FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FAN objects to mischaracterization of fluoridation opponents
June 25, 2010
Being such an extremely bad medical practice, it is not surprising that opposition to fluoridation comes from people all across the political spectrum. However, for over 60 years it has suited fluoridation proponents to characterize opposition as coming only from right wing extremists who thought that fluoridation was some communist conspiracy. This opposition was brillinatly satirized in Stanley Kubrick's movie "Dr. Strangelove." Portraying opponents as crackpots and conspiracy theorists has served the pro-fluoridation cause well because it distracts attention from the very weak science that they claim supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
As a result of a candidate winning the Republican primary in Nevada, some Democratic supporters have seen it advantageous to use this candidate's opposition to fluoridation as a way of ridiculing her. Whatever else this person believes, her opposition to fluoridation is not grounds for this kind of treatment. Instead, it reflects badly on those who are using it this way. It indicates that they have done little, if any, research on the matter and have simply taken the simplistic propaganda of fluoridation proponents at face value. In short, they have been duped. It is particularly sad from my own personal perspective that one of the commentators who has joined in this ill-founded abuse has been Rachel Maddow. Hitherto, I have respected this hard hitting and outspoken commentator from the left. But her comments on this matter do not do her credit and makes it doubly difficult to watch the commercials for her program in which she proclaims her fairness. What she is doing here is not fair to the candidate in question, and is not fair to opponents of fluoridation in general and the sooner that she makes a public apology on this matter the better. Moreover, because it betrays a serious lack of research into this issue it undermines the confidence one has in the professionalism of her research staff.
I have written to Rachel Maddow twice on this matter and have received no reply. Others have as well. This week FAN put out a media release on this matter.
Paul Connett
FAN PRESS RELEASE:
Political Mischaracterization of Fluoridation Opposition Dismays Scientists
CANTON, N.Y., June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Scientists representing the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) strongly object to recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid's Nevada re-election campaign.
"Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing," says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There." Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.
"We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that commentators are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice," says Connett.
"FAN's website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective," says Connett. "In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children." On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."
"The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries," Connett states.
The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriate medical practice. These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride's toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists.
According to Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, fluoridation is an "obsolete" practice that "is against all principles of modern pharmacology." FAN's site also has a listing of over 2800 scientists and professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.
The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride's predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk. Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.
"Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it," says Connett.
According to Connett and other scientists, "Fluoridation is reckless as there is clear science indicating that fluoride has the potential to damage human bones, kidneys, thyroid and to lower children's IQs."
June 25, 2010
Being such an extremely bad medical practice, it is not surprising that opposition to fluoridation comes from people all across the political spectrum. However, for over 60 years it has suited fluoridation proponents to characterize opposition as coming only from right wing extremists who thought that fluoridation was some communist conspiracy. This opposition was brillinatly satirized in Stanley Kubrick's movie "Dr. Strangelove." Portraying opponents as crackpots and conspiracy theorists has served the pro-fluoridation cause well because it distracts attention from the very weak science that they claim supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
As a result of a candidate winning the Republican primary in Nevada, some Democratic supporters have seen it advantageous to use this candidate's opposition to fluoridation as a way of ridiculing her. Whatever else this person believes, her opposition to fluoridation is not grounds for this kind of treatment. Instead, it reflects badly on those who are using it this way. It indicates that they have done little, if any, research on the matter and have simply taken the simplistic propaganda of fluoridation proponents at face value. In short, they have been duped. It is particularly sad from my own personal perspective that one of the commentators who has joined in this ill-founded abuse has been Rachel Maddow. Hitherto, I have respected this hard hitting and outspoken commentator from the left. But her comments on this matter do not do her credit and makes it doubly difficult to watch the commercials for her program in which she proclaims her fairness. What she is doing here is not fair to the candidate in question, and is not fair to opponents of fluoridation in general and the sooner that she makes a public apology on this matter the better. Moreover, because it betrays a serious lack of research into this issue it undermines the confidence one has in the professionalism of her research staff.
I have written to Rachel Maddow twice on this matter and have received no reply. Others have as well. This week FAN put out a media release on this matter.
Paul Connett
FAN PRESS RELEASE:
Political Mischaracterization of Fluoridation Opposition Dismays Scientists
CANTON, N.Y., June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Scientists representing the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) strongly object to recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid's Nevada re-election campaign.
"Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing," says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There." Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.
"We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that commentators are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice," says Connett.
"FAN's website http://www.FluorideAlert.org has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective," says Connett. "In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children." On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."
"The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries," Connett states.
The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriate medical practice. These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride's toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists.
According to Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, fluoridation is an "obsolete" practice that "is against all principles of modern pharmacology." FAN's site also has a listing of over 2800 scientists and professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.
The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride's predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk. Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.
"Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it," says Connett.
According to Connett and other scientists, "Fluoridation is reckless as there is clear science indicating that fluoride has the potential to damage human bones, kidneys, thyroid and to lower children's IQs."
posted by Bill at
6:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home