Letter from Prof Paul Connett
I challenge those who believe that science is on the side of water fluoridation to read the book I co-authored with James Beck, MD, PhD and Spedding Micklem D.Phil, entitled "The Case Against Fluoride" (Chlesea Green, 2010).
For over 60 years this program has been promoted via endorsements from "authorities." Endorsements are no substitute for references to the primary scientific literature.
Sadly most scientists are not interested in the subject and most doctors and dentists are too busy treating patients to spend the time reading this literature. Instead, they simply rely on (and repeat) reassurances from their professional bodies. They also rely on pronouncements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On some issues this might be a safe thing to do, but NOT on fluoridation. There is only one small group at the CDC that is responsible for the fluoridation program and that is the Oral Health Division (recently downgraded to a branch). This consists of 30 employees and most of their qualifications are dental. Very few (if any) have any qualifications in toxicology or specialized branches of medicine. Not only are they not qualified to review the literature on the harm posed by fluoride but they also have a huge conflict of interest in the matter. Their job is to PROMOTE fluoridation not QUESTION it. Essentially they act like an adjunct of the American Dental Association.
This is what the American Dental Association had to say about professional responsibilities of dentists with respect to fluoridation in a white paper from 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.” (American Dental Association, “White Paper on Fluoridation,” Council on Dental Health and Health Planning, 1979, http://fluoridealert.org/ada.white.paper.1979.html )
Very little has changed. Behind the scenes many dentists tell us that they are OK with the use of fluoride in topical treatments but do not feel it is right to force it on people via the public water supply. However, they are loathe to express this opinion in public because of peer pressures from their colleagues.
I urge readers to look at our book to learn more about the history and science of this issue. If they haven't got time for that spend 28 minutes watching the videotape "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" which can be accessed for free online at www.FluorideAlert.org
Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network
For over 60 years this program has been promoted via endorsements from "authorities." Endorsements are no substitute for references to the primary scientific literature.
Sadly most scientists are not interested in the subject and most doctors and dentists are too busy treating patients to spend the time reading this literature. Instead, they simply rely on (and repeat) reassurances from their professional bodies. They also rely on pronouncements from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). On some issues this might be a safe thing to do, but NOT on fluoridation. There is only one small group at the CDC that is responsible for the fluoridation program and that is the Oral Health Division (recently downgraded to a branch). This consists of 30 employees and most of their qualifications are dental. Very few (if any) have any qualifications in toxicology or specialized branches of medicine. Not only are they not qualified to review the literature on the harm posed by fluoride but they also have a huge conflict of interest in the matter. Their job is to PROMOTE fluoridation not QUESTION it. Essentially they act like an adjunct of the American Dental Association.
This is what the American Dental Association had to say about professional responsibilities of dentists with respect to fluoridation in a white paper from 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.” (American Dental Association, “White Paper on Fluoridation,” Council on Dental Health and Health Planning, 1979, http://fluoridealert.org/ada.white.paper.1979.html )
Very little has changed. Behind the scenes many dentists tell us that they are OK with the use of fluoride in topical treatments but do not feel it is right to force it on people via the public water supply. However, they are loathe to express this opinion in public because of peer pressures from their colleagues.
I urge readers to look at our book to learn more about the history and science of this issue. If they haven't got time for that spend 28 minutes watching the videotape "Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation" which can be accessed for free online at www.FluorideAlert.org
Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network
posted by Bill at
9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home