Steven Slott's comments and my reply
Read Steven Slott's letter at the bottom of the page first
.
Steven,
Your opinion of Paul’s integrity is indication of your own biased view. Why
would he have a scientific literature on fluoridation in his name? He only
looked into the practise after he retired when his wife asked him to look into
it. At least he knows more than you do where your expertise is teeth. And where
is your peer reviewed scientific literature on fluoridation?
I have seen the job description of the assistant chief dental officer for the
UK and it entailed the promotion of fluoridation. So comical and laughable?
I should think Paul will be glad when this insane drive to force
fluoridation on an ever more unwilling public is over.
Have you ever thought your tone of censure is so annoying that perhaps you
drive people who would normally support you into our point of view?
OK so we are zealots, what about Prof Trevor Sheldon is he a zealot as well? (Below)
Bill
DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH STUDIES
Innovation Centre
York Science Park
University Road
York YO10 5DG
HEALTH STUDIES
Innovation Centre
York Science Park
University Road
York YO10 5DG
Professor Trevor A. Sheldon
Head of Department
Head of Department
Tel: (01904)
435142
Fax: (01904) 435225
Fax: (01904) 435225
3/1/2001
In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented. The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.
1 Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from "massive".
2 The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue".
3 The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.
4 There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.
5 The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
6 Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
In my capacity of chair of the Advisory Group for the systematic review on the effects of water fluoridation recently conducted by the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination the University of York and as its founding director, I am concerned that the results of the review have been widely misrepresented. The review was exceptional in this field in that it was conducted by an independent group to the highest international scientific standards and a summary has been published in the British Medical Journal. It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors.
1 Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from "massive".
2 The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as "just a cosmetic issue".
3 The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.
4 There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health.
5 The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation.
6 Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews.
7 The review
team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over
several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform
policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite
evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the
likely effects and costs of water fluoridation.
(Signed) T.A. Sheldon,
Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, MSc, DSc, FMedSci.
(Signed) T.A. Sheldon,
Professor Trevor Sheldon, MSc, MSc, DSc, FMedSci.
From: Steve Slott
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 4:22 PM
Subject: [UK Against Fluoridation] New comment on FLUORIDE: Put an
end to outdated practice.
Steve Slott has
left a new comment on your post "FLUORIDE:
Put an end to outdated practice":
Bill,
1. Your sterling personal opinion of Paul Connett does not change the fact that he misrepresents science, uses erroneous and skewed data, cherry picks studies, cites discredited studies as his "evidence", ignores the volume of scientific literature which directly contradicts his claims, and uses emotion and fear-mongering tactics in lieu of facts supported by valid evidence. Neither does it change the fact that while he promotes himself as being some sort of "authority" on fluoridation, Connett has not one, single, peer-reviewed piece of scientific literature on fluoridation to his name.
"Information recently published by the Fluoride Action Network based on Australian data, suggesting a substantial difference in tooth eruption between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas of Australia, have been confirmed as being based on
erroneous data."
"The Australian research centre (ARCPOH) responsible for these data have confirmed the data error and reported that when the error is corrected there is little variation in the number of permanent teeth present at each age between children in
Queensland and all of Australia."
"The studies and reports cited by Professor Connett to try and validate an argument for delayed tooth eruption either do not make the claims he suggests, or do not have direct relevance to trying to assess the issue. The claimed association is at odds with
the published literature which indicates minimal variation in eruption time of permanent teeth by exposure to fluoride. "
----National Fluoridation Information Service (2011): Does Delayed Tooth Eruption Negate The Effect of Water Fluoridation?
National Fluoridation Information Service Advisory June 2011, Wellington, New Zealand.
2. Your implication that fluoridation advocates are doing so because of a "job description" could not be any more comical or hypocritical, given the fact that the only people of whom I'm aware are profiting from keeping this issue alive are Paul Connett, his family, and his cohorts. It actually is in their "job descriptions" to keep the issue alive, and, as is a matter of public record, they are paid to do so, along with whatever expenses are paid for Connett's trips to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada, and all over the United States.
So, as can be plainly seen, you have it all backward, as is the usual case with antifluoridationists. The dedicated ones are those healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and other concerned citizens who volunteer their time and efforts in trying to overcome the obstacles to improved oral and overall health for all citizens, which are constantly being erected by self-serving, uninformed activist zealots such as you......with the ones carrying out their "job descriptions" for which they are paid, being Connett, his family, and his cohorts.
3. Yes, when attempting to provide accurate information to the public, in the face of an onslaught of unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and blatant fear-mongering by activists who do not bother to constrain themselves within the bounds of truth, accuracy, or integrity of any sort....it does cost a lot of money.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Bill,
1. Your sterling personal opinion of Paul Connett does not change the fact that he misrepresents science, uses erroneous and skewed data, cherry picks studies, cites discredited studies as his "evidence", ignores the volume of scientific literature which directly contradicts his claims, and uses emotion and fear-mongering tactics in lieu of facts supported by valid evidence. Neither does it change the fact that while he promotes himself as being some sort of "authority" on fluoridation, Connett has not one, single, peer-reviewed piece of scientific literature on fluoridation to his name.
"Information recently published by the Fluoride Action Network based on Australian data, suggesting a substantial difference in tooth eruption between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas of Australia, have been confirmed as being based on
erroneous data."
"The Australian research centre (ARCPOH) responsible for these data have confirmed the data error and reported that when the error is corrected there is little variation in the number of permanent teeth present at each age between children in
Queensland and all of Australia."
"The studies and reports cited by Professor Connett to try and validate an argument for delayed tooth eruption either do not make the claims he suggests, or do not have direct relevance to trying to assess the issue. The claimed association is at odds with
the published literature which indicates minimal variation in eruption time of permanent teeth by exposure to fluoride. "
----National Fluoridation Information Service (2011): Does Delayed Tooth Eruption Negate The Effect of Water Fluoridation?
National Fluoridation Information Service Advisory June 2011, Wellington, New Zealand.
2. Your implication that fluoridation advocates are doing so because of a "job description" could not be any more comical or hypocritical, given the fact that the only people of whom I'm aware are profiting from keeping this issue alive are Paul Connett, his family, and his cohorts. It actually is in their "job descriptions" to keep the issue alive, and, as is a matter of public record, they are paid to do so, along with whatever expenses are paid for Connett's trips to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada, and all over the United States.
So, as can be plainly seen, you have it all backward, as is the usual case with antifluoridationists. The dedicated ones are those healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and other concerned citizens who volunteer their time and efforts in trying to overcome the obstacles to improved oral and overall health for all citizens, which are constantly being erected by self-serving, uninformed activist zealots such as you......with the ones carrying out their "job descriptions" for which they are paid, being Connett, his family, and his cohorts.
3. Yes, when attempting to provide accurate information to the public, in the face of an onslaught of unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and blatant fear-mongering by activists who do not bother to constrain themselves within the bounds of truth, accuracy, or integrity of any sort....it does cost a lot of money.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
posted by Bill at
7:14 PM
22 Comments:
Well now, Steve, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, or in this case, the drinking. Since the fluoridation chemicals have never undergone any toxicological tests proving them safe for human consumption, as a fanatical proponent of fluoridation, you are the ideal guinea pig to demonstrate that, for your one-size-fits-all medicine to be safely ingested over a lifetime in unlimited daily quantities by all, from the tiniest infants to the frailest elderly, it must also be proven non lethal in its undiluted form. If you are still in fine fettle after downing a couple of jugs of the noxious, fuming chemical hexafluorosilicic acid, we can be sure that an adequate margin of safety has been established to protect the most vulnerable.
It is only fair to warn you, however, that respected scientists such as Westendorf (Hamburg, 1975) with 30 years PhD research and Coplan and Masters in 2001, found that fluorosilicates do not always dissociate in water and may reassociate in the acid PH of the stomach when ingested, to form some very nasty compounds indeed that create havoc at cellular level in the body.
You see, Steve, I have met Paul Connett several times and, not only is he extremely well informed, but a very honourable man who respectfully observes the Precautionary Principle, with the greatest concern for the most vulnerable victims of the reckless practice of water fluoridation.
But there is an ideal compromise to satisfy all on both sides of the fluoridation debate......by bottling the industrial effluent and distributing it to all who believe it will do them the world of good.
By
Carrie, at 20 August, 2015
Bill,
1. "Your opinion of Paul’s integrity is indication of your own biased view."
My opinion of Connett's integrity is based on facts, which I provided, properly cited, in my comment.
2. "Why would he have a scientific literature on fluoridation in his name? He only looked into the practise after he retired when his wife asked him to look into it."
3. Connett promotes himself as being an authority on fluoridation, with some of his people actually proclaiming him to be the "Premier International Authority on Fluoridation". Any legitimate authority on a science and healthcare issue would be expected to have published a volume of peer-reviewed scientific literature on that issue. Connett has none.
4. "At least he knows more than you do where your expertise is teeth. And where is your peer reviewed scientific literature on fluoridation?"
I have taken Connett down on a couple of occasions when he has ventured out in comment sections to challenge me, refuting every one of his arguments, with facts supported by valid evidence. He cannot make any argument that I have not seen and refuted dozens of times.
Dentists and MDs are licensed and authorized by state and federal government to prescribe the full range of drugs and medications. If we were not fully educated on, and aware of, the effects of substances on the entire body, we would not be allowed to do so. Neither would we be allowed to diagnose and treat disorders of the human body. The education of dentists and MDs includes numerous chemistry courses, biochemistry, biology, physics, physiology, gross and microscopic anatomy, microbiology, toxicology, pharmacology, and the clinical sciences. Connett has a PhD in biochemistry. His education, training, and experience are insufficient for him to be authorized to prescribe any medications, or to understand the significance or insignificance, of the effects of substances on the body. .
5. "And where is your peer reviewed scientific literature on fluoridation?"
I have published no peer-reviewed scientific literature on fluoridation. However, neither do I claim, nor promote myself, to be an authority on fluoridation, as does Connett promote himself to be.
6. "I have seen the job description of the assistant chief dental officer for the UK and it entailed the promotion of fluoridation. So comical and laughable?"
Yes, antifluoridationist claims that dedicated healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and concerned citizens who advocate for improved oral and overall health because they are paid to do so, or because it is in their "job descriptions", are comical and laughable. When you take into consideration the fact that Connett, his family, and his cohorts are indeed paid to keep this issue alive, you can also add "hypocritical" to the list.
7. "I should think Paul will be glad when this insane drive to force fluoridation on an ever more unwilling public is over."
According to the latest US CDC report, the US was 74.6% fluoridated in 2012, increased from 73.4% in 2011. This is hardly indicative of an "ever more unwilling public".
to be continued
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
I await your scathing comment on Prof Trevor Sheldon’s letter, Steven. I’ll be very surprised if you don’t dismiss him.
One thing you keep repeating that Paul and his cohorts make money from their activities I suppose you think I do. I know many people like myself throughout the country are working tirelessly for no reward. The group we formed in Southampton just a few dedicated people spent in some cases their own money to stop the fluoridation threat. We never paid Paul when he came over apart from a partial payment towards expenses. So I know saying we make money out of this is 100% wrong.
Not all dentists believe that fluoridation is as good as you do. There are two in Southampton that agreed with us although one would not get involved as he was frightened he might get in trouble with the BDA.
Yes I know that in numbers there are more being fluoridated than those who stop but never has the public been so educated and the ground swell of opinion is now so strong – we will win.
My point with the job description is that a dentist applying for the top job who did not agree with fluoridation could hardly apply for it.
If I assume you are doing this for no financial gain why can’t you believe that we put in the time and effort for no financial reward?
Bill
By
Bill, at 20 August, 2015
Bill.....continued
8. "Have you ever thought your tone of censure is so annoying that perhaps you drive people who would normally support you into our point of view?"
There are no people who "would normally support" me who get annoyed by my tone and intolerance for those who seek to deprive entire populations the benefits of water fluoridation, based on false statements, unsubstantiated claims, misrepresented science, and misinformation. Anyone who supports fluoridation fully understands my irritation with those who are too lazy to properly research this issue from legitimate sources, instead relying solely on nonsense they glean from activist websites. Those who claim that they have "researched this issue from both sides" are "open minded", "used to be in favor of fluoridation until they began looking at it more closely", and other such claims, are inevitably antifluoridationists whose minds could not be changed regardless of how much valid and science is presented to them. These people are hopeless, and I don't waste time worrying about whether their feelings have been hurt or not.
to be continued......
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
Bill continued..............
9. "OK so we are zealots, what about Prof Trevor Sheldon is he a zealot as well? (Below)"
Sheldon's personal opinions are to be respected. However they are just that, his personal opinions, and should only be considered in concert with the rest of the enormous body of opinions, studies, and scientific literature of fluoridation.
First of all, Sheldon's point about the quality of scientific studies also applies to the few cherry-picked ones utilized by antifluoridationists as evidence for their claims of this disorder and that. Regardless of Sheldon's opinions, York did not find any sufficient evidence to support the claims of antifluoridationists. In regard to his points:
A. . "Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from 'massive'."
The "15%" to which he refers is in regard to the increase in the number of those totally free of dental decay in fluoridated areas, versus those totally free of dental decay in non-fluoridated areas.....not in regard to comparison of decay reduction.
At any rate, what defines "massive" is subjective and debatable. Even one untreated cavity in one tooth can and does cause lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, black discoloration and loss of the entire dentition, development of serious medical conditions, life-threatening infection, and death.
B. "The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis which was not characterised as 'just a cosmetic issue'.
1). Dental fluorosis is split into different degrees of severity: Mild to very mild, moderate, and severe.
The only dental fluorosis which may be attributable to optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse. The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water considered mild to very mild dental fluorosis to not be an adverse effect.
The 2010 CDC study by Beltran-Aguilar reported that 41% of adolescents examined showed signs of dental fluorosis. They categorized this as 37.1% mild to very mild, 3.8% moderate, with the moderate being attributable to improper ingestion of toothpaste, or exposure to abnormally high levels of environmental or well-water fluoride in the teeth developing years of 0-8.
---Prevalence and Severity of Dental Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004
Eugenio D. Beltrán-Aguilar, D.M.D., M.S., Dr.P.H.; Laurie Barker, M.S.P.H.; and Bruce A. Dye, D.D.S., M.P.H.
----- The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
Hiroko Iida, DDS, MPH and Jayanth V. Kumar, DDS, MPH
http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/855.long
2) It has also been found that mild to very mild dental fluorosis occurs almost equally in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas, with its impact on quality of life being non-existent.
"A child's caries experience negatively affects OHRQoL, while fluorosis has little impact."
-----J Dent Res. 2014 Oct;93(10):972-9. doi: 10.1177/0022034514548705. Epub 2014 Aug 25.
Effects of enamel fluorosis and dental caries on quality of life.
Onoriobe U1, Rozier RG2, Cantrell J3, King RS4.
3) In 33 years of practicing dentistry in a fluoridated community surrounded by fluoridated communities, I have as yet to see one single case of dental fluorosis which could be attributable to the water, which would even be detectable outside of close examination in my dental chair.
to be continued.........
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
Bill continued..............
D. "The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed."
Neither did the review find fluoridated water to be unsafe. In the 70 year history of this initiative, there have been no proven adverse effects, in spite of heroic efforts of antifluoridationists through the decades, to find anything, anything at all they could claim to be an adverse effect linked to fluoridation. Given that the only substances ingested as a result of fluoridation are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety....the real question is what exactly do antifluoridationists deem need to be tested for safety? Fluoride ions they've been ingesting their entire lives, or trace contaminants in amounts which have already been deemed safe by the US EPA?
E. "There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health."
"The small number of studies conducted in this field and the relatively low quality rating given by the York reviewers to those studies suggest a need for caution in interpreting their findings. Nevertheless, the York review found that, in terms of the average number of decayed, missing and filled teeth, '..there appears to be some evidence that water fluoridation reduces the inequalities in dental health across social classes in 5 and 12-year olds'. "
----The Dental Benefits of Water Fluoridation
British Fluoridation Society
http://www.bfsweb.org/onemillion/W04%20One%20in%20a%20Million%20-%20The%20dental%20benefits%20of%20water%20fluoridation.pdf
RESULTS:
"A statistically significant interaction was observed between material deprivation (measured by the Townsend Deprivation Index) and water fluoridation (P < 0.001). This means that the social class gradient between material deprivation and dental caries experience is much flatter in fluoridated areas."
CONCLUSION:
"Water fluoridation reduces dental caries experience more in materially deprived wards than in affluent wards and the introduction of water fluoridation would substantially reduce inequalities in dental health."
----Riley JC, Lennon MA, Ellwood RP (1999): The effect of water fluoridation and social inequalities on dental caries in 5-year old children. International Journal of Epidemiology, 28: 300-305.
F. "The review could come to no conclusion as to the cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation"
The cost-effectiveness of water fluoridation is well documented in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. I will be glad to cite the studies if anyone so desires.
G. "or whether there are different effects between natural or artificial fluoridation."
As there is no difference between "natural or artificial fluoridation", there can be no difference in the effect of either. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless of the source compound from which it is released into the water.
H. "Probably because of the rigour with which this review was conducted, these findings are more cautious and less conclusive than in most previous reviews."
This opinion by Sheldon does not make York's findings any more, or less, important than a number of other reviews.
to be continued.........
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
Bill continued..........
I. "The review team was surprised that in spite of the large number of studies carried out over several decades there is a dearth of reliable evidence with which to inform policy. Until high quality studies are undertaken providing more definite evidence, there will continue to be legitimate scientific controversy over the likely effects and costs of water fluoridation."
As Sheldon well knows, the randomly controlled trials which he considers to be the "high quality studies" are all but impossible to perform in regard to fluoridation, and will never be done. Therefore the observational studies which have been done, are the next best thing, and are entirely acceptable within the scientific community as being valid evidence.
Even Cochrane recognized the infeasibility of RCTs in population based public health initiatives.
"However, there has been much debate around the appropriateness of GRADE when applied to public health interventions, particularly for research questions where evidence from randomised controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area."
"we accept that the terminology of 'low quality' for evidence may appear too judgmental. We acknowledge that studies on water fluoridation, as for many public health interventions, are complex to undertake and that researchers are often constrained in their study design by practical considerations. For many public health interventions, the GRADE framework will always result in a rating of low or very low quality. Decision makers need to recognise that for some areas of research, the quality of the evidence will never be 'high' and that, as for any intervention, the recommendation for its use depends not just upon the quality of the evidence but also on factors such as acceptability and cost-effectiveness (Burford 2012)."
------Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries (Review)
Iheozor-Ejiofor Z, Worthington HV, Walsh T, O’Malley L, Clarkson JE, Macey R, Alam R,
Tugwell P, Welch V, Glenny AM
The Cochrane Collaboration
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
Bill
I have not expressed an opinion on whether you and your group are paid in any manner. If asked, I probably would have guessed no, and thought nothing more about it. The "cohorts" to whom I refer are Connett's lobbyist, William Hirzy", Neurath and/or any of his other staffers, "Attorney Deal", Alex Jones, and any others affiliated with "FAN" who seek to profit through frivolous lawsuits, sales of bottled water, filtration systems, or anything else.
Personally, I could not care less how much Connett profits, or whether antifluoridationists are paid. I don't raise that issue. I simply respond when antifluoridationists ridiculously claim that fluoridation advocates are paid, bribed, or whatever other nonsense they come up with. I respond only in order to expose the hypocrisy of those claims.
Yes, there is not complete unanimous agreement on any scientific issue, and fluoridation is no exception. However when you put your two dentists in the perspective of there being roughly 175,000 dentists in the US and 50,000 in the UK, you don't have much of an argument there.
I have no real knowledge of the BDA, but I can tell you that a claim that US dentists are afraid to speak out because of feared repurcussions from the ADA, could not be any more ridiculous. The ADA is an organizatin governed by its membership. The membership directs the ADA what to do, not the other way around. Neither I, nor any other dentist of whom I'm aware, would give a fleeting thought to any repurcussions from the ADA in regard to our expressed views. If the ADA had any power, or desire, to censor dentists, I would have been drummed out long ago. My public and private advocacy for dental midlevels is far more grievous to our leaders than is anything I could say one way or the other in regard to fluoridation. The ADA has no power to prevent me from practicing dentistry, and no desire to censor my, or anyone else's, expressed opinions. The worst the ADA could do would be to refuse to accept my yearly dues payment.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
Wow I’m impressed Stephen.
My first thought is though why no reference to his statement that. “It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society.”
You accuse us of misleading people - your lot are as bad.
Prof Newton, pro fluoride, told me the same thing that Trevor Sheldon letter is just one man’s opinion. Hardly, he was put in charge of the York Review which was supposed to be the definitive valuation of the practise. What about Dr Hardy Limeback former head of Preventive Dentistry at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, a position he served for 18 years. Why shouldn’t I listen to these people as well as yourself and from that say the risk is not worth it. There are proven ways to help those born into families that do not teach their young to look after their teeth?
I don’t think dentists look into fluoridation they just accept what the BDA tell them so numbers mean nothing.
Bill
By
Bill, at 20 August, 2015
Would you have confidence in the BDA after looking at Chief Executive Peter Ward's performance in this video Stephen? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq8E84PgP3g
By
Bill, at 20 August, 2015
Carrie
1. Carrie: "Since the fluoridation chemicals have never undergone any toxicological tests proving them safe for human consumption,"
Facts:
Fluoridation substances do not reach the tap in fluoridated water. They are not ingested. There is no requirement, nor any need for "toxicological tests proving them safe for human consumption" for substances which are not consumed by humans.
As ground water courses over rocks, it picks up fluoride ions which have been leached from calcium fluoride and fluorosilicates in those rocks. These fluoride ions are to what is commonly referred as being "naturally occurring" fluoride.
The most widely utilized fluoridation substance is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). When HFA is added to drinking water, due to the pH of that water, the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated) into fluoride ions, identical to those "naturally occurring" ones, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts so far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainty that the ones detected aren't those that exist in the water already. After this point, HFA no longer exists. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. It is therefore of no concern, whatsoever.
2. Carrie: "It is only fair to warn you, however, that respected scientists such as Westendorf (Hamburg, 1975) with 30 years PhD research and Coplan and Masters in 2001, found that fluorosilicates do not always dissociate in water and may reassociate in the acid PH of the stomach when ingested, to form some very nasty compounds indeed that create havoc at cellular level in the body."
Facts:
A. Using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) technology, Finney, in 2006, put to rest the theory of incomplete hydrolysis of fluorosilicates. Not even Connett attempts to make that argument any more.
----Reexamination of Hexafluorosilicate Hydrolysis By F NMR and pH Measurement
William F. Finney, Erin Wilson, Andrew Callender, Michael D. Morris, and Larry W. Beck
Environmental Science and Technology/ Vol 40, No. 8, 2006
B. While reformation of HF can occur at the low pH of the digestive tract, there are far too few fluoride ions in fluoridated water for this to have any effect one way or the other. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support a claim to the contrary. Humans have been ingesting fluoride in water since the beginning of time. If such reformation was an issue there would have been massive epidemics of destruction of the epithelial lining of the gut all through the eons.
3. Carrie: "You see, Steve, I have met Paul Connett several times and, not only is he extremely well informed, but a very honourable man who respectfully observes the Precautionary Principle, with the greatest concern for the most vulnerable victims of the reckless practice of water fluoridation."
A. Your personal opinion of Connett is irrelevant
B. The Precautionary Principle applies only in the absence of scientific consensus that the issue under consideration is safe. With over 150 of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world fully supporting fluoridation, there is obvious scientific consensus of the safety of this initiative. Thus, the Precautionary Principle has no application to fluoridation.
That Connett fails to under the Precautionary Principle is yet further evidence of how uninformed he remains on this issue.
C. Your opinion that fluoridation is "reckless" is not shared by the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.
to be continued..........
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
Carrie continued............
4. Carrie: "But there is an ideal compromise to satisfy all on both sides of the fluoridation debate......by bottling the industrial effluent and distributing it to all who believe it will do them the world of good."
There are no "sides" to the public health initiative of water fluoridation. There is only the peer-reviewed science which fully supports it......and the false statements, misrepresented science, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation disseminated by uninformed antifluoridationists.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
Bill
1. "My first thought is though why no reference to his statement that. 'It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the British Medical Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society.' "
"You accuse us of misleading people - your lot are as bad."
A. It is not my responsibility to address whatever feud Sheldon may have with these organizations. That is between he and they. Even if it were, I would have to see the statements to which he refers before accepting his claim that they are misleading.
B. While I have the utmost respect for these organizations, they are not my lot.
2. "Prof Newton, pro fluoride, told me the same thing that Trevor Sheldon letter is just one man’s opinion. Hardly, he was put in charge of the York Review which was supposed to be the definitive valuation of the practise."
A. Sheldon was not in charge of the York Review. He was the Chair of its Advisory Group.
B. The opinions of the York Committee are to be respected. However, this was just one committee and one review. It should only be taken in concert with the rest of the volumes of scientific literature on fluoridation.
I personally know of no one who considers this York Review to be any more definitive than the 1993 and 2006 NRC reviews, or any of a number of other such literature reviews.
3. "What about Dr Hardy Limeback former head of Preventive Dentistry at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Toronto, a position he served for 18 years. Why shouldn’t I listen to these people as well as yourself and from that say the risk is not worth it. There are proven ways to help those born into families that do not teach their young to look after their teeth?"
As Dr. Limeback is well aware, I have a great deal of respect for him as a dental educator and researcher. He and I obviously differ in opinion. To what you should listen, however, are the facts and supportive evidence. You should seek out valid information from respected, trustworthy sources, read the scientific literature from original sites, unfiltered and unedited through third party websites, and make inquiries to knowledgeable sources when you have questions. Quite often the authors of the scientific studies are responsive to queries about their work as long as the queries are sincere efforts to understand. You should request valid evidence to support all claims made, and not accept those for which no such evidence can be produced. While I don't always readily provide citation of evidence that supports my claims, before I make those claims I make every possible effort I can to ensure that I can provide such evidence if requested.
4. "I don’t think dentists look into fluoridation they just accept what the BDA tell them so numbers mean nothing."
Then check out their claims. See if they can provide valid evidence to support them. See if you can find valid evidence which refutes them.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
It wasn't just one man falling out with the BDA, BMA etc
Look at this:
What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found
Originally released : 28 October 2003
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 CRD Fluoridation Review website 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.
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature
world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial
effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit
to children's teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis
(mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.
An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture
and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because
the quality of the evidence was poor.
The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory
and unreliable.
Since the report was published in October 2000 there has been no other scientifically
defensible review that would alter the findings of the York review. As emphasised in the
report, only high-quality studies can fill in the gaps in knowledge about these and other
aspects of fluoridation. Recourse to other evidence of a similar or lower level than that
included in the York review, no matter how copious, cannot do this.
The full report is available via the CRD website.
http://www.york.ac.uk/media/crd/crdreport18.pdf
By
Bill, at 20 August, 2015
Well, this is just a statement from the people who commissioned the Review, and is just a rehash of what Sheldon said. Again, I have no involvement in the feud between Sheldon, the organization that commissioned the Review, theYork Committee or whomever else vs. the BFA, BMA, and whatever other groups may be involved. That is between those parties. Even if I did feel any need to address it, I would have to see whatever statements they claim to be misleading, in their full and complete context.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 20 August, 2015
I’m disappointed in you Stephen that you disregard Sheldon’s letter and the York review statement as a feud. If that is the best you can do it shows that you are no better than Ward with his fatuous la la get out.
I’ve been advised that it is useless trying to exchange views with you as either you are a troll or you're being paid to spend hours each day over the years to belittle anybody who is objecting to enforced medication. You certainly couldn’t be a working dentist more like you aren’t even one person.
Bill
By
Bill, at 21 August, 2015
Bill,
What you want is for me to accept Sheldon's claim that whatever quotes he stated were "misleading" were indeed misleading, without my having seen the quotes. This is exactly the way that antifluoridationists approach this issue. They blindly accept nonsense spoon-fed to them from antifluoridationist websites and blogs, making no effort to verify the validity of any of it. As I said, I verify the validity of my claims before I make them, not after.
Based on Sheldon's comments which I dismantled in previous comments here, I question his true understanding of any of this. The fact that he seems to believe there to be a difference between fluoride ions added through fluoridation, and those which already exist in water, means one of two things.......either he needs to go back and take a high school chemistry course, or he is intentionally seeking to give credence to such nonsensical claims made by antifluoridationists. Either way, I am not willing to take his word on anything in regard to fluoridation, without verifying its validity from independent sources.
And, as for, the personal attack, well, that's to be expected, I suppose. Antifluoridationists inevitably fall back on that tactic when I refute all their arguments. It is an indication of their frustration with the facts and evidence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 21 August, 2015
I don’t know why you sound offended you insult everybody else.
Anyway you’ve had your say which I’ve given due prominence and it is up to other people to either believe you or not.
Bill
By
Bill, at 21 August, 2015
No, not offended, Bill, just pointing out your frustrations with the facts and evidence.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
By
Steve Slott, at 21 August, 2015
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Bill, at 22 August, 2015
I’m pleased you are not offended Stephen and I’m not frustrated with facts and evidence although I feel that any sensible reader would on balance say no to fluoridation because of the strongly held views and the controversy. Knowing that improvements to children’s teeth can be improved with education as has happened in Scotland why dump thousands of tonnes of fluoride with its contaminants into the water supply? ( 200 tonnes would have gone into our water alone in Southampton each year if it had gone ahead.)
Did you as a dentist ever go out of the way to treat under privileged children? At least children here can get free treatment while in the States they even let a child die rather than treat him?
Bill
By
Bill, at 22 August, 2015
"Steve:
"Fluoridation substances do not reach the tap in fluoridated water. They are not ingested. There is no requirement, nor any need for "toxicological tests proving them safe for human consumption" for substances which are not consumed by humans."
That's amazing Steve, that a few little fluoride ions survive the journey to the tap but the rest of the rubbish in the chemicals miraculously disappears. What an ingenious way to get rid of industrial waste......dump it in the public water supply where the water spirits and guardian angels will work their magic to neutralise all the toxic elements. Gosh, maybe even nuclear waste could be disposed of in this way. The possibilities are endless to solve our environmental pollution problems.
" While reformation of HF can occur at the low pH of the digestive tract, there are far too few fluoride ions in fluoridated water for this to have any effect one way or the other. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support a claim to the contrary. Humans have been ingesting fluoride in water since the beginning of time. If such reformation was an issue there would have been massive epidemics of destruction of the epithelial lining of the gut all through the eons."
You've just admitted that HF does not behave the same as calcium fluoride in the body, but those few little fluoride ions must be dynamite to be the miraculous saviour of tooth enamel, and bless their little cotton socks for passing innocently through the digestive tract. Professor Susheela, however, in many years of research, found the damage to the microvilli from ingesting fluoridated water to be catastrophic in vulnerable individuals.
" Your personal opinion of Connett is irrelevant".
Irrelevant to what Steve? Presumably yours is the only one that counts. How arrogant.
"the Precautionary Principle has no application to fluoridation."
In your own words, Steve, your opinion is irrelevant. World Health Organisation guidelines are clear that the Precautionary Principle must be observed in the case of water fluoridation.
"There are no "sides" to the public health initiative of water fluoridation. There is only the peer-reviewed science which fully supports it......"
What utter tosh. Fluoridation is now thoroughly discredited by the overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence, and the 'other side' of the debate you pretend does not exist are the well informed and highly motivated antifluoridation groups who have the truth, integrity and the science on their side.
By the way, as you haven't volunteered yourself as a guinea pig, I presume you are only too aware that hexafluorosilicic acid is a class 2 listed poison, and the old adage that the dose is in the poison does not let it off the hook, though Paracelcus could be forgiven for overlooking the concept of relative toxicity in the 15th century. That's why fluorosilicates are on the poisons list and water isn't.
But when all is said and done Steve, it's a waste of time discussing the whys and wherefores of fluoridation when Scotland has found a much more effective and ethical way of improving oral health through their Childsmile scheme, without mass medicating an unwilling population."
Comment from Carrie
By
Anonymous, at 22 August, 2015
Post a Comment
<< Home