Fluoride question not settled
Fluoride question not settled
In regard to fluoridation, people are likely to ask the following question: Why can’t we trust our doctors and dentists on this issue?
The problem with giving a simple “We can!” is that the public health establishment and the American Dental Association so zealously promote fluoridation that they have shut the door on further discussion of fluoridation safety and effectiveness.
Both sectors — public health, headed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the dental profession, whose primary group is the American Dental Association — treat fluoridation as a settled matter. They pass the gospel of fluoridation down through their chains of command. Historically, both the government and the association have at times used a heavy hand to maintain support of the policy within the ranks.
The biologist, Dr. Edward Groth III, has said, “The political pro-fluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially anti-scientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.”
It is interesting to me that the ADA’s primary informational piece, the lengthy “Fluoridation Facts,” found on their website, was last updated in 2005. Thus it omits any scientific studies of fluoridation after that date. That includes a major review in 2006, “Fluoride in Drinking Water,” conducted by a committee of the prestigious National Research Council.
I think that the average practicing doctor or dentist, fully absorbed with patient care, keeping up with current procedures and rules, and often running a practice, finds it reasonable to accept the official position of their oversight organizations on fluoridation and other matters. How many of them would want to independently investigate the issue and then expend the energy to “buck the system,” even if they were so inclined?
The American Medical Association and ADA both questioned fluoridation prior to the Public Health Service endorsement of the practice in 1950. In 1944, for example, the Journal of the ADA said, “Our knowledge of the subject certainly does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies.” But a few months after the PHS endorsement, the ADA hopped on board the fluoridation train.
JACK CROWTHER
Rutland
In regard to fluoridation, people are likely to ask the following question: Why can’t we trust our doctors and dentists on this issue?
The problem with giving a simple “We can!” is that the public health establishment and the American Dental Association so zealously promote fluoridation that they have shut the door on further discussion of fluoridation safety and effectiveness.
Both sectors — public health, headed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the dental profession, whose primary group is the American Dental Association — treat fluoridation as a settled matter. They pass the gospel of fluoridation down through their chains of command. Historically, both the government and the association have at times used a heavy hand to maintain support of the policy within the ranks.
The biologist, Dr. Edward Groth III, has said, “The political pro-fluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially anti-scientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues.”
It is interesting to me that the ADA’s primary informational piece, the lengthy “Fluoridation Facts,” found on their website, was last updated in 2005. Thus it omits any scientific studies of fluoridation after that date. That includes a major review in 2006, “Fluoride in Drinking Water,” conducted by a committee of the prestigious National Research Council.
I think that the average practicing doctor or dentist, fully absorbed with patient care, keeping up with current procedures and rules, and often running a practice, finds it reasonable to accept the official position of their oversight organizations on fluoridation and other matters. How many of them would want to independently investigate the issue and then expend the energy to “buck the system,” even if they were so inclined?
The American Medical Association and ADA both questioned fluoridation prior to the Public Health Service endorsement of the practice in 1950. In 1944, for example, the Journal of the ADA said, “Our knowledge of the subject certainly does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies.” But a few months after the PHS endorsement, the ADA hopped on board the fluoridation train.
JACK CROWTHER
Rutland
posted by Bill at
9:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home