Canada - Incensed with fluoride 'lobbyist'
Incensed with fluoride 'lobbyist'
To The Editor:
The three communities of greater Moncton have been debating water fluoridation. Dieppe council recently had a presentation by the southeast New Brunswick medical officer of health. The doctor gave a pro-fluoride talk that was basically summarized on one slide: fluoridation reduces dental decay rates by 20-40 per cent, fluoridation is proven safe, fluoridation reduces dental inequalities, and fluoridation saves money.
When it came time for councillors to ask questions, one of them remarked that in his supporting materials the doctor had listed the year 2000 York University Review as a study supporting fluoridation (to which the doctor concurred). The councillor then proceeded to quote a letter from the chair of the York study that refuted each one of the arguments advanced by the good doctor: fluoridation reduces dental decay rates by at most 15 per cent, is not proven to be safe or to reduce dental inequalities and does not save money.
When asked about this apparent misrepresentation, the doctor admitted he had never read the York review despite having indicated it supported fluoridation! The councillor then asked about another study by the National Research Council in 2006 which found health problems associated with fluoridation but went unmentioned in the presentation. The doctor turned beet-red and became quite tongue-tied when confronted by these alleged omissions and distortions.
Another council member declared that the doctor made an excellent fluoride lobbyist! Clearly shaken, the doctor left the meeting with his head hung low and his credibility shattered.
An officer of public health is not supposed to have bias. When helping non-experts to make medico-related policy decisions, he has a duty of care to summarize the science based on the facts - including the valid/copious evidence against fluoride. On an issue that affects the health of everyone consuming city water, such bias illustrates a level of ignorance bordering on professional misconduct. I am outraged that my tax dollars subsidize lobbyists who act with a deplorable disregard for professional ethics and public health.
Armand Melanson,
Dieppe
To The Editor:
The three communities of greater Moncton have been debating water fluoridation. Dieppe council recently had a presentation by the southeast New Brunswick medical officer of health. The doctor gave a pro-fluoride talk that was basically summarized on one slide: fluoridation reduces dental decay rates by 20-40 per cent, fluoridation is proven safe, fluoridation reduces dental inequalities, and fluoridation saves money.
When it came time for councillors to ask questions, one of them remarked that in his supporting materials the doctor had listed the year 2000 York University Review as a study supporting fluoridation (to which the doctor concurred). The councillor then proceeded to quote a letter from the chair of the York study that refuted each one of the arguments advanced by the good doctor: fluoridation reduces dental decay rates by at most 15 per cent, is not proven to be safe or to reduce dental inequalities and does not save money.
When asked about this apparent misrepresentation, the doctor admitted he had never read the York review despite having indicated it supported fluoridation! The councillor then asked about another study by the National Research Council in 2006 which found health problems associated with fluoridation but went unmentioned in the presentation. The doctor turned beet-red and became quite tongue-tied when confronted by these alleged omissions and distortions.
Another council member declared that the doctor made an excellent fluoride lobbyist! Clearly shaken, the doctor left the meeting with his head hung low and his credibility shattered.
An officer of public health is not supposed to have bias. When helping non-experts to make medico-related policy decisions, he has a duty of care to summarize the science based on the facts - including the valid/copious evidence against fluoride. On an issue that affects the health of everyone consuming city water, such bias illustrates a level of ignorance bordering on professional misconduct. I am outraged that my tax dollars subsidize lobbyists who act with a deplorable disregard for professional ethics and public health.
Armand Melanson,
Dieppe
posted by Bill at
1:39 PM
1 Comments:
Even if fluoride was helpful to teeth, distributing any drug in drinking water is the most expensive and wasteful method. As a Civil Engineer, I know that people drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining 99 ½ % of the water with this toxic fluoride chemical (Hexafluorosilicic acid) is dumped directly into the environment through the sewer system.
For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this outdated practice.
That would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.
Fluoridation surely is in contention as the most wasteful government program. Giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.
By
jwillie6, at 20 December, 2011
Post a Comment
<< Home