I recently wrote a letter to the editor in the NZ Dental Journal (NZDJ) about Stan Litras. The fun part was when he ventured the opinion to the editor that the letter might be computer-generated, and I might be an algorithm. I had to phone to confirm that I exist.
Misinformation of Fluoridation
Dear Sir,
We represent an online group called ‘Making Sense of Fluoride’ (MSOF) which was created in July 2013, as a lay group looking into the science of fluoridation. The group has now grown to include scientists, sceptics, teachers, health professionals, students and other individuals advocating that this significant public health initiative is either introduced or maintained in New Zealand’s communities. We are concerned by the large amount of misinformation regarding fluoridation which is published on the internet by those who are opposed to this important, effective public health intervention.
Our Facebook page allows both sides to debate and discuss the subject. We commonly observe scare tactics being employed by the anti-fluoride side, in the lines of ‘it’s a poisonous toxic waste medicine made from chimneys by corrupt corporations’. The evidence presented in support of these claims is often based on low quality news or internet articles. Many of the poorer-quality academic papers they cite are drawn from the anti-fluoridation journal “Fluoride”, while good-quality papers are frequently misquoted or misrepresented. Simply scratching the surface can expose the misinformation in many of the popular anti-fluoride arguments.
The letter by Dr. Stan Litras in the December 2013 issue of NZ Dent J suggested that dentists engage in continuing education regarding fluoridation. While this goal is laudable, we are concerned that in this letter Dr Litras presented himself as a pro-fluoridation advocate. However, the nature of his on-line comments clearly demonstrate that he is opposed to this public health initiative
In our opinion, it appears that Litras’ NZ Dent J letter was a ploy, intended to give the appearance of balance to his upcoming anti-fluoride ‘Fluoride Information Network for Dentists’ event, in order to make it more likely that other health professionals would accept their invitations to participate [5]. This would in turn give an appearance of ‘false balance’ when in fact the scientific consensus is in favour of continued community water fluoridation – an appearance that could be further exploited by those in opposition to it.
References:
Leave a Reply