Canada - Listen to the dentists Fluoridation?
Listen to the dentists Fluoridation
Yves Marchand
Waterloo Region Record
October 19, 2010
Fluoridation
|I have followed the commentary on the fluoridation of Waterloo's water supply and conclude little has changed since the debates I followed back in the 1960s when Kingston put the same question to the voters.
Freely available information is not necessarily balanced or accurate. Information from anti-fluoridation websites is similar. There are quotes from "peer reviewed journals" such as the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, but I dug a little deeper and discovered such journals to be nothing but a platform for lobbyists to publish their opinion pieces - opinion based on little or no research, presenting results that are invalid or irreproducible.
The information I find that supports fluoridation comes from government websites and accredited medical and dental groups, the same groups mocked by the anti-fluoride lobby. That information is properly researched, peer reviewed and published in credible scientific journals. That research shows that fluoride added to the water supply, regardless of the compound from which it was derived, is safe and effective in reducing the rate of dental caries by five to 40 per cent depending on the age of the individual.
On balance, I find the opinion of dentists and doctors more credible and will vote to continue with fluoridation.
Yves Marchand
Waterloo
Sounds reasonable but not good advice many dentists are against fluoridation but are too frightened to speak out. And the official pro fluoridation authorities tell spout fibs including the 40% reduction of tooth decay and they ignore the rampant fluorosis.
Yves Marchand
Waterloo Region Record
October 19, 2010
Fluoridation
|I have followed the commentary on the fluoridation of Waterloo's water supply and conclude little has changed since the debates I followed back in the 1960s when Kingston put the same question to the voters.
Freely available information is not necessarily balanced or accurate. Information from anti-fluoridation websites is similar. There are quotes from "peer reviewed journals" such as the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, but I dug a little deeper and discovered such journals to be nothing but a platform for lobbyists to publish their opinion pieces - opinion based on little or no research, presenting results that are invalid or irreproducible.
The information I find that supports fluoridation comes from government websites and accredited medical and dental groups, the same groups mocked by the anti-fluoride lobby. That information is properly researched, peer reviewed and published in credible scientific journals. That research shows that fluoride added to the water supply, regardless of the compound from which it was derived, is safe and effective in reducing the rate of dental caries by five to 40 per cent depending on the age of the individual.
On balance, I find the opinion of dentists and doctors more credible and will vote to continue with fluoridation.
Yves Marchand
Waterloo
Sounds reasonable but not good advice many dentists are against fluoridation but are too frightened to speak out. And the official pro fluoridation authorities tell spout fibs including the 40% reduction of tooth decay and they ignore the rampant fluorosis.
posted by Bill at
10:19 AM
14 Comments:
Very few dentists are against fluoridation. Most of them in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada campaigned vigorously for it but were mocked by the antifluoride lobby as being in the pocket of big pharma.
The evidence supporting the case for fluoridation is overwhelming and is only countered by manipulating the facts or by expressing opinion loudly and frequently. All letters to the editor in local papers that were against fluoridation were written by lobbyists and people exhibiting irrational fear of any chemical. Everyone is entitled to have their fears, rational or otherwise. I take exception when the irrational ones start affecting how society makes its choices.
I stand by my position. By the way, fluoride was removed from Waterloo's water supply the first week of December 2010.
By
Unknown, at 10 December, 2010
were written by lobbyists? I've never met any, lobbyists get paid and there is nothing in it for those who speak out against fluoridation except grief.
I do know several dentists against fluoridation but they won't say anything as they know it may do them harm. Most dentists only have time to read what the BDA and BFS (UK) send to them and boy do they tell fibs.
By
Bill, at 11 December, 2010
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Unknown, at 11 December, 2010
Who said members of a lobby are paid? By definition, it is a collection of individuals that seek to promote one point of view or one opinion. Those that lobby senior levels of government may be paid but it is usually single person who is paid by a company or industry seeking a favour.
In the Americas, it is very much in the interest of doctors and dentists to keep quiet about fluoride. Those that speak out as those who spoke out during our last referendum in support of fluoride are vilified and mocked.
How do I know all those who wrote the local press that wanted to ban fluoride were part of the anti-fluoride lobby? I simply Googled each and every author's name and was presented with hits that ranged from newspaper articles about their anti-fluoride activity with local municipalities that lead to the plebiscite to work they have done with "Waterloo Watch" and "Fluoride Alert". Both lobby groups worked hard in Waterloo to keep accredited doctors and dentists and their associations from speaking publicly, from advertising and from distributing literature. When a few brave souls did speak out, they were mocked in subsequent letters and statements to the press.
By
Unknown, at 11 December, 2010
I'm sure you are right it is an active group that write as we do here. I took an interest in fluoride about 30 years ago when my son was violently sick on the two occasions that he had fluoride treatment at the dentist's. It wasn't coincidence in the same week I read in the New Scientist that a child in Australia died in the dentists chair while it was being administered. I've felt guilty about not researching it first I didn't know then that the fluoride was a poison and perhaps the dentists didn't either as obviously he had allowed my son to swallow some. thanks to that he now has fluorosed teeth.
The benefits of fluoride were supposedly discovered when it was noticed that people living in areas with calcium fluoride in the water had better teeth albeit stained..
If they used the same calcium fluoride I don't think there would be half the opposition to it. The fluoride ion is more stable than the form they use. Did you know the Hexafluorosilicic acid they put in our water is only 98% pure and as they would pour in 200 tons into the water here in Southampton yearly if they go ahead and fluoridate that is a lot of lead arsenic and other elements tipped in, some radioactive as well.
Prof Paul Connett who I'm sure you are aware of as he said he thought we were nuts until his wife asked him to look into fluoridation and now no one is more opposed than he is. I belong to a group and our chairman is or was a member of the Primary care Trust that requested fluoridation for Southampton. He not only read the information that the decision was based on but researched it himself and voted against. He now fights tooth and nail with us to get it stopped. He obviously no longer works for the PCT.
We were given a consultation by the Strategic Health Authority and 72% of 10,000 wrote in to say no we don't want it but the SHA board met in public and all board members voted to impose it on us. No wonder people get mad as their views are ignored.
By
Bill, at 12 December, 2010
Ok, I understand your opposition based on the specific compound. It makes sense and I don't argue that excess doses of fluoride cause problems. Such cases are proven and well documented. I know of one person in Kitchener (neighbor city) that does not fluoridate its water and yet he has dental fluorosis. He had fluoris because his mother, a dental hygienist, gave him the fluoride rinse too often. Any professional (dentist or hygienist) who exceeds recommended dosages which result in fluorosis should be called to account as should any professional whose treatments result in harm.
The hydrofluorosilicic acid being used here only contained trace amounts of contaminants which, given the dilution rate, were undetectable in Waterloo's water supply. After 45 years of use here, no ill effects could be attributed to the use of this compound in water. On the other hand, dentists in the area noted how much lower the incidence of cavities were in this city compared to the incidence of cavities in neighboring communities.
As for the matter of public health being implemented by plebiscite or popular support, I do have concerns. If all matters of public health were left to individuals or as a matter of popularity, I suspect we would have much higher incidences of communicable diseases or would have other preventable health concerns. Such matters should be left to true and independent professionals who should properly advise our politicians. Where such a professional abuses the office and makes an inappropriate recommendation, our leaders have the right to call that person to acccount and to terminate that individual. That is the basis for public trust and is how representative democracy should work.
By
Unknown, at 21 December, 2010
I read Prof. Paul Connett's commentary (Phd in Chemistry). He is certainly entitled to criticise past studies on fluoride, particularly the ones he cites that are so old. Research methodology has indeed changed over time and what might have been accepted as good research in 1945 may not be accepted today. Unfortunately, he presents no original research but only an opinion on selected articles from the distant past. Out of the hundreds of articles out there, it is too easy to find some that are invalid. The fact that some studies are bad does not mean all of them or even a significant minority of them are bad.
The concept of a study of studies has merit, but only when it is based on the total body of research out there and not just a selected few that meet author-defined criteria. It is just too easy to manipulate results which is why researchers must publish their works and thus leave themselves open to the scrutiny of their peers. That ensures the integrity of the process and results.
Science does not advance on the basis of criticism, doubt and speculation. Researchers are required to do original work and publish the results in peer reviewed journals. Why does Prof. Connell not do this or arrange for this to be done? Public criticism makes for good journalism (controversy sells) and there may be enough material to publish a book. Indeed there are plenty of authors out there that have made good money selling books detailing their opinion of fluoride. Throwing out credentials for good measure certainly adds to the credibility factor. Unfortunately, too many individuals abuse the trust they engender via their credentials when there is money to be made.
None of this is a good substitute for proper and original scientific research.
By
Unknown, at 21 December, 2010
In response to your reasonable comment can I direct you to look at a short video by Bill Osmunson, a dentist for 30 years. He promoted fluoridation for 25 years, he too presumed he saw the benefits like yourself for those living in fluoridated areas to those who didn't.
The URL is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk It's called Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap Water.
You talk about trace elements have you seen this comparison graph of arsenic lead and fluoride. All three are similar in toxicity but EPA maximum contaminent levels for lead and arsenic are parts per billion.
http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/Fluoride%20Lead%20Arsenic%20Comparison.pdf
Once I would have agreed with you leave it to the experts but not any more having come into contact with some of them. including the SCSHA chairman and the Chief Dental Officer. As for those who make the decisions look at our MP's lining their pockets lying and cheating to obscene lengths for money.
Sorry I haven't your faith with people in authority.
By
Bill, at 21 December, 2010
I did not realise Prof Connett is also a director of Fluoride Action Network, one of the active lobby groups in the recent fluoride plebiscite in my community. It took a while to find information that even remotely resembled some form of scientific debate about Prof Connett's views rather than the flame wars in blogging sites. I did discover that the Australian government commissioned a study following what it perceived as a growing "controversy" with respect to fluoridation. The study, at web address: http://www.be-md.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/ addresses the concerns of the anti-fluoride lobby and concludes there is little basis for the fears being spread. This study, published in 2007, confirmed that fluoride is effective. It is an interesting read, and definitely more credible that the opinion presented on the www.fluoridealert.org website. Only the most die-hard fluoride opponents can deny the evidence, which, conveniently enough, they do with alarming regularity. Too often, their arguments are peppered with "don't believe the government / health authorities / doctors / published research". Only believe what I / my leader says.
I am always willing to read evidence from one side or the other. What has been accepted as truths in the past may not hold in the future as evidence mounts to either support or solidly refute a theory. In this case, I find the evidence in support of fluoridation overwhelming and the case against woefully lacking in real, hard evidence. Passion about a subject won't change the facts though it often will hold sway in the court of public opinion.
By
Unknown, at 21 December, 2010
In a democracy, one may choose what to believe for whatever reason. It does not have to be based on fact or evidence. In your last post, I see the same counter-arguments that have been posted by those committed to the removal of fluoride in other blogs or discussion groups. I respect that you have come to a decision on the subject and I understand that you are committed to what you believe in. In this case, we will just have to agree to disagree. Good luck in your campaign.
By
Unknown, at 21 December, 2010
Note: For some reason, this post which I had written before your rebuttal disappeared some time after I had originally posted it. I apologise if it looks like I wrote it after my final post.
====================================
I did not realise Prof Connett is also a director of Fluoride Action Network, one of the active lobby groups in the recent fluoride plebiscite in my community. It took a while to find information that even remotely resembled some form of scientific debate about Prof Connett's views rather than the flame wars in blogging sites. I did discover that the Australian government commissioned a study following what it perceived as a growing "controversy" with respect to fluoridation. The study, at web address: http://www.be-md.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/ addresses the concerns of the anti-fluoride lobby and concludes there is little basis for the fears being spread. This study, published in 2007, confirmed that fluoride is effective. It is an interesting read, and definitely more credible that the opinion presented on the www.fluoridealert.org website. Only the most die-hard fluoride opponents can deny the evidence, which, conveniently enough, they do with alarming regularity. Too often, their arguments are peppered with "don't believe the government / health authorities / doctors / published research". Only believe what I / my leader says.
I am always willing to read evidence from one side or the other. What has been accepted as truths in the past may not hold in the future as evidence mounts to either support or solidly refute a theory. In this case, I find the evidence in support of fluoridation overwhelming and the case against woefully lacking in real, hard evidence. Passion about a subject won't change the facts though it often will hold sway in the court of public opinion.
By
Unknown, at 21 December, 2010
I've met Paul Connett quite a few times and he certainly isn't in it for the money. He came to Southampton UK 3 times during the consultation and never charged us at all. He certainly won't make any money out of the book. He is a toxicologist not a dentist so surely his views are worth considering.
In the UK we had the once and for all review of all the available literature it was called the York Review and despite restrictions on its investigation it never endorsed fluoridation look at
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
A statement from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)
In 1999, the Department of Health commissioned CRD to conduct a systematic review into the efficacy and safety of the fluoridation of drinking water. The review specifically looked at the effects on dental caries/decay, social inequalities and any harmful effects. The review was published on the web and in the BMJ in October 2000.
We are concerned about the continuing misinterpretations of the evidence and think it is important that decision makers are aware of what the review really found. As such, we urge interested parties to read the review conclusions in full.
I do find it amazing that two people seeing the same evidence can be so far apart in what they believe to be true but that's life.
My best wishes to you.
By
Bill, at 21 December, 2010
(Third attempt at post no.7 - I apologise for it looking out of turn)
I did not realise Prof Connett is also a director of Fluoride Action Network, one of the active lobby groups in the recent fluoride plebiscite in my community. It took a while to find information that even remotely resembled some form of scientific debate about Prof Connett's views rather than the flame wars in blogging sites. I did discover that the Australian government commissioned a study following what it perceived as a growing "controversy" with respect to fluoridation. The study, at web address: http://www.be-md.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/ addresses the concerns of the anti-fluoride lobby and concludes there is little basis for the fears being spread. This study, published in 2007, confirmed that fluoride is effective. It is an interesting read, and definitely more credible that the opinion presented on the www.fluoridealert.org website. Only the most die-hard fluoride opponents can deny the evidence, which, conveniently enough, they do with alarming regularity. Too often, their arguments are peppered with "don't believe the government / health authorities / doctors / published research". Only believe what I / my leader says.
I am always willing to read evidence from one side or the other. What has been accepted as truths in the past may not hold in the future as evidence mounts to either support or solidly refute a theory. In this case, I find the evidence in support of fluoridation overwhelming and the case against woefully lacking in real, hard evidence. Passion about a subject won't change the facts though it often will hold sway in the court of public opinion.
By
Unknown, at 21 December, 2010
(Fourth attempt at post no.7 - I apologise for it looking out of turn)
I did not realise Prof Connett is also a director of Fluoride Action Network, one of the active lobby groups in the recent fluoride plebiscite in my community. It took a while to find information that even remotely resembled some form of scientific debate about Prof Connett's views rather than the flame wars in blogging sites. I did discover that the Australian government commissioned a study following what it perceived as a growing "controversy" with respect to fluoridation. The study, at web address: http://www.be-md.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2222595/ addresses the concerns of the anti-fluoride lobby and concludes there is little basis for the fears being spread. This study, published in 2007, confirmed that fluoride is effective. It is an interesting read, and definitely more credible that the opinion presented on the www.fluoridealert.org website. Only the most die-hard fluoride opponents can deny the evidence, which, conveniently enough, they do with alarming regularity. Too often, their arguments are peppered with "don't believe the government / health authorities / doctors / published research". Only believe what I / my leader says.
I am always willing to read evidence from one side or the other. What has been accepted as truths in the past may not hold in the future as evidence mounts to either support or solidly refute a theory. In this case, I find the evidence in support of fluoridation overwhelming and the case against woefully lacking in real, hard evidence. Passion about a subject won't change the facts though it often will hold sway in the court of public opinion.
By
Unknown, at 21 December, 2010
Post a Comment
<< Home