At a minuscule cost, fluoridation has improved the lives of millions of Americans, and should remain a key part of the public-health toolkit.

Dr Paul Connett who is the director of the Fluoride Action Network wrote a long reply back in the comments. It is rare to see Paul comment, so what annoyed him with this simple editorial piece? It might have been too close to home. Many of his points have been debunked many times over but he continues to spread his misinformation.

Paul Connett’s reply

Sadly the Globe’s editorial board is simply parroting the propaganda dished out by the dental lobby (i.e. the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division) at face value. According to WHO data the so-called “gains” from the American fluoridation program have been no greater than those obtained in the vast majority of countries that are unfluoridated, including 97% of Europe.

The Globe’s claim that “It would require chugging gallon after gallon of fluoridated water to reach even a potentially dangerous level” is utter nonsense. A Harvard meta-analysis (Choi et al, 2012) shows that the mean value of 20 studies associating a lowering of IQ with consumption of fluoride in water is less than the EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm. This leaves no margin of safety to protect all American children drinking fluoridated water and getting fluoride from other sources.

The very last children who need their IQ lowered are those from low-income families and yet they are the children being targeted by fluoridation promoters.

With so many risks involved and with no randomized control trial (RCT) after 70 years demonstrating fluoridation’s effectiveness it is time to end this outdated and unethical practice.

Fluoridation is a red herring. The real cause of tooth decay is too much sugar, not enough fruit and vegetables and too little education on dental hygiene. When these real causes are tackled head on as in the Childsmile program in unfluoridated Scotland the results are both dramatic and cost-effective. Reducing sugar consumption also has the added benefit of tackling obesity and its costly and tragic health consequences.

I first questioned fluoridation while I was teaching environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University 19 years ago. The first fact that struck me was that, despite its abundance, nature had not used fluoride in any biological process in the body. It is not an essential nutrient. No disease occurs from fluoride deficiency. On the other hand there are plenty of biological molecules and processes that are harmed by fluoride. So why are we being forced to swallow it?

Perhaps the most telling fact of all is the level in mothers’ milk. It is remarkably small compared to the level used in fluoridation programs: 0.004 versus 1 ppm. In my view, nature is protecting the baby from fluoride, and water fluoridation removes that protection. This is a reckless thing to do.

Professor (retired) Paul Connett, PhD,
Director of the Fluoride Action Network,
Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010).

If you think Paul had made some good points, think again. Steve Slott DDS wrote a long and detailed reply back to Paul targeting each of his points.

Reminded me of this – Brandolini’s Law

Steve Slott’s reply

Paul, you are claiming authoritative, factual information from the American Dental Association, and the United States Centers for Disease Control, two of the most highly respected healthcare entities in the world… to be “propaganda”, when, in reality, the problem is your lack of understanding of fluoridation, not with the information provided by these entities.

First, for the sake of disclosure, it must be noted that the existence of your “Fluoride Action Network”, its reportedly $150,000 annual budget, the salaries/stipends paid to you, your family, your paid lobbyist, William Hirzy, and whatever may be paid to others within your organization …whatever expenses “FAN” pays for your repeated visits to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada, and all over the United States and sales of your non peer-reviewed book are all dependent on your ability to keep the fluoridation issue alive, and create “controversy” where none exists.

With that gross conflict of interest aside, let’s look at your comments.

1. “According to WHO data the so-called “gains” from the American fluoridation program have been no greater than those obtained in the vast majority of countries that are unfluoridated, including 97% of Europe.”

The cause and preventive measures involved in dental decay are myriad and diverse. The attempt by you and your followers to gauge the effectiveness of but one preventive measure, fluoridation, based on snapshots of WHO data which control for no confounding factors, is ludicrous.

2. “The Globe’s claim that ‘It would require chugging gallon after gallon of fluoridated water to reach even a potentially dangerous level’ is utter nonsense”

No, not as much as you like to portend.

Let me explain:

Simply put, water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (ppm=mg/liter). Thus, for every liter of fluoridated water consumed, the “dose” of fluoride intake is 0.7 mg. The average daily water consumption by an adult is 2-3 liters per day. So, let’s go to an extreme and double that to an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water consumption per day. This translates to 4.2 mg “dose” of fluoride intake per day from the water. The CDC estimates that of the total daily intake, or “dose”, of fluoride from all sources including dental products, 75% is from the water. Thus as 4.2 mg is 75% if the total daily intake from all sources, the total daily intake, or “dose” from all sources would be 5.6 mg for an individual who consumed an excessive 6 liters of fluoridated water per day.

The Institute of Medicine has established that the daily upper limit for fluoride intake from all sources, for adults, before adverse effects will occur, short or long-term, is 10 mg. Thus, even the excessive 6 liter per day consumer of water will still only take in a daily “dose” of fluoride that is slightly more than half the upper limit before adverse effects.

The range of safety between the miniscule few parts per million fluoride that are added to existing fluoride levels in your water, is so wide that “dose” is not an issue. Before the UL of 10 mg could be reached, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

3. “A Harvard meta-analysis (Choi et al, 2012) shows that the mean value of 20 studies associating a lowering of IQ with consumption of fluoride in water is less than the EPA’s current safe drinking water standard of 4 ppm. This leaves no margin of safety to protect all American children drinking fluoridated water and getting fluoride from other sources”.

A. The Harvard study was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian villages. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Philippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

“–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

–Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study.

B. Seventy years of fluoridation, hundreds of millions having chronically ingested fluoridated water during that time, and no proven adverse effects. Clearly the “margin of safety” has been entirely sufficient.

4. “The very last children who need their IQ lowered are those from low-income families and yet they are the children being targeted by fluoridation promoters.”

There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water “lowered IQ” of anyone.

5. “With so many risks involved and with no randomized control trial (RCT) after 70 years demonstrating fluoridation’s effectiveness it is time to end this outdated and unethical practice”.
A. There is no “risk” of adverse effects from optimal level fluoride.

The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects. The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else. Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.

Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

B. 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 amounts far below EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety, the question is… on what exactly do you wish there to be a “randomized control trial”? Fluoride ions which most people fave ingesting their entire lives, fluoridated water or not… or barely detectable trace contaminants in amounts which have already been deemed safe by the United States Environmental Protection Agency?

C. There is nothing “unethical” about local officials authorizing the raising of existing fluoride ions in public water systems under their jurisdiction, by a minuscule amount to a level which has been observed to provide maximum benefit, with no adverse effect. If anything, it is unethical for you to constantly insist that citizens of communities do not obtain the maximum benefit from a substance which they will ingest anyway.

6. “Fluoridation is a red herring. The real cause of tooth decay is too much sugar, not enough fruit and vegetables and too little education on dental hygiene”

The causes of dental decay are myriad. You haven’t the education, training, experience, or knowledge to credibly assess what is “the real cause of tooth decay”. Addressing the causes of dental decay, as has been done for at least the past century, certainly does not preclude the need for viable preventive measures of this disorder, as is the public health initiative of water fluoridation. Fluoridation strengthens teeth against the assault of acid secreting bacteria fed by sugar. In an ideal world, diets would be perfect, oral hygiene habits would be perfect, and access to proper dental care would be readily available to everyone. Given that we don’t live in an ideal world, we cannot simply stick our heads in the sand and ignore the lifetimes of devastating effects of untreated dental decay simply because you, or anyone else, erroneously assumes that the causes of dental decay are not being “tackled head on”.

7. “I first questioned fluoridation while I was teaching environmental chemistry and toxicology at St. Lawrence University 19 years ago. The first fact that struck me was that, despite its abundance, nature had not used fluoride in any biological process in the body. It is not an essential nutrient. No disease occurs from fluoride deficiency. On the other hand there are plenty of biological molecules and processes that are harmed by fluoride. So why are we being forced to swallow it?”

A. The purpose of water fluoridation has never been intended to be to correct any sort of fluoride deficiency. It is simply to provide additional strength to the teeth enabling them them to better resist the devastating effects of untreated dental decay.

B. Exactly how are you being “forced to swallow” fluoridated water? Does someone tie you down, pry your mouth open, and pour it down your throat? If so, you should report this to the appropriate authorities. No one is “forced” to do anything in regard to fluoridation. People are entirely free to consume it or not, their choice.

If fluoridation opponents truly believed all of the ridiculous claims they make about fluoridated water, assuming they are otherwise sane, they would not go within a mile of it, much less drink it. That you freely consume and otherwise utilize fluoridated water belies the claims of “concern” with safety which you constantly disseminate.

8. “Perhaps the most telling fact of all is the level in mothers’ milk. It is remarkably small compared to the level used in fluoridation programs: 0.004 versus 1 ppm. In my view, nature is protecting the baby from fluoride, and water fluoridation removes that protection. This is a reckless thing to do.”

Your personal opinion on what you deem,”nature to be doing”, notwithstanding, the content of “mother’s milk” is nothing but your own “red herring”.

“Mother’s milk” is deficient in Iron, Vitamin D, and Vitamin K to the point of breastfed infants requiring supplements. By your logic, “nature” intends for infants to be anemic, free bleeders, who develop Ricketts.

Steven D. Slott, DDS

He goes on to say in a further comment:

Paul Connett and his followers attempt to impose upon entire populations, their ideology against fluoridation by portraying it as a complex process involving the addition to drinking water of “foreign substances”, “medication”, etc. which have never had “clinical trials”, and other such nonsense, while intentionally using inflammatory terms such as “toxic waste” to erroneously describe the fluoridation compounds.

In actuality, however, fluoridation is simply the determining of the existing fluoride content of a water supply, adding whatever minuscule amount of fluoride ions it takes to raise that level up to the optimal level of 0.7 ppm at which maximum dental decay prevention will occur with no adverse effects, then strictly monitoring and maintaining that fluoride at that optimal level. In those water supplies which already have an existing fluoride content at or above the optimal level, fluoridation is not needed and is not done. In instances where the existing level of fluoride is found to be excessively high, not only is fluoridation not done, but the recommendation, or sometimes mandate, is made to lower that existing level, through filtration.

Thank you Steve for this long reply and your continued work of reducing the misinformation on the internet. For those who don’t know who Steve is, you will find him debunking misinformation around fluoridation in many of the comment sections on media websites. If you see one of his comments, go say thanks.

TLDR:

• Dr Paul Connett scaremongers.
• Science shows fluoridation is safe and effective.
• Dr Steve Slott is a fluoridation myth buster.

 

Edit:

We contacted Dr Paul Connett for a possible online debate against Dr Steve Slott. He refused saying “Please do not contact me again”.

The post Dr Paul Connett gets schooled appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

Rita’s original paper here. My first response here. Rita’s first response here.

You can read the PDF version here.

Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Second Response To Rita Barnett-rose

Written by Daniel Ryan

Introduction

This is my second response to Associate Professor Rita Barnett-Rose to her paper “Compulsory water fluoridation: justifiable public health benefit or human experimental research without informed consent”. It is a response to her document “RE: CWF Working Paper Article” (hereafter referred to as “Rita’s reply.”). I wish to thank Rita for acknowledging in that papers should be referenced accurately by using citations to the original sources rather than simply referencing activist sources. I am also pleased she is getting experts to review the science in her paper and am interested to know who the independent reviewers are.

In this response I have collected a number of comments to consider under separate headings.

Objectively looking at the science.

Rita’s reply:

“…you object to my failure to include contrary studies that reaffirm the (English speaking countries’) public health agencies’/dental lobby positions on the safety and benefits of compulsory water fluoridation.”

“…with respect to your complaint or desire that I cite to contrary (i.e., pro-fluoridation) studies in addition to (or in lieu of) the published studies that I cite that tend to weigh against fluoridation”

“It is not meant to be an exhaustive examination of all studies on fluoridation and is specifically and accurately identified for what it is”

“…you are just as guilty of ‘cherry picking’ your sources and your studies as you suggest I am.”

“I am not interested in a battle of the studies debate”

“These reasons would remain even if compulsory water fluoridation were proven to be entirely safe, which it most definitely has not, despite the presumed “majority” view in the English speaking countries”

My reply:

Rita implies I only use ‘pro-fluoridation’ or ‘English speaking countries’ papers. This is incorrect – I cite papers which provide the best weight in regards to evidence. Science doesn’t take sides (good papers are neither “anti-fluoridation” nor “pro-fluoridation”, they present data and reasoning) and these are international. To clarify, my issue is not that Barnett-Rose (2014) was not using ‘pro-fluoridation’ papers, it was the quality of the studies themselves. Reviewers of the science should attempt to understand and evaluate the quality of the research.

I also look at the quality of journal. And I try to cite papers which are in high quality journals more as those journals attract the best scientific papers. Journals use a metric called “impact factor” that basically states how many times an average paper is cited by other papers. It is an independent, objective method to judge the quality of published research.

The hierarchy of scientific evidence in the literature is also important I illustrate this in the image below.

Secondary reviews published in peer-reviewed, high-impact journals and high quality randomised controlled trials with definitive results should be the preferred sources. For consideration of human health effects I consider that animal studies would be placed above “expert opinion” in this hierarchy.

Overall one needs to approach the literature intelligently and critically – considering the evidence provided in the individual papers and also considering other published material.

Instead I saw that Barnett-Rose (2014) did not evaluate the evidence well, only selecting evidence of harm in order to persuade the audience to accept her position. There is no reason to use low validity papers when there is plenty of high quality papers but unfortunately this happens when trying to “price” a preconceived idea.

An example of this is Barnett-Rose (2014) used an opinion article from the Scientific American many times as her source. This is not a scientific paper, it is not peer-reviewed or in a research journal; furthermore the writer is not a scientist and definitely not an expert on the subject. This type of evidence would come below “expert opinion” on the image above. I hope such problems would be given as feedback from the independent reviewers.

Rita accuses me of cherry picking but fails to back this up. I do try to use only the best sources of evidence – usually systematic reviews. A systematic review is a literature review focused on a research question that tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question.

The evidence shows

Rita’s reply:

“However, what I do believe is that the burden of proving safety and effectiveness lies with the pro-fluoridation side”

“It also appears to me that the pro-fluoridation side is playing “whack a mole” with the studies weighing against CWF – often trying to hammer down/marginalize the opposition each time a negative study pops up, rather than trying to consider the evidence objectively.”

“However, to me, if even one strong study exists, then the entire compulsory practice must be re-evaluated.”

My Reply:

The scientific consensus is that fluoridation works, it is safe and it is cost effective. We have evolved with fluoride and had it adjusted in our water for over 60 years in some countries. Developed countries where natural fluoride levels are low but choose not to use community water fluoridation (CWF) generally use other methods such as milk and salt fluoridation, which again are both safe and effective, or have very effective public health and dental systems. Over 5,500 papers have been systematically reviewed and no consistent association between fluoridation and illness has been found that has been confirmed through later research.

Using the latest evidence: Public Health England just released their water fluoridation review this month – “Water fluoridation Health monitoring report for England 2014” and it concluded:

“This monitoring report provides evidence of lower dental caries rates in children living in fluoridated compared to non-fluoridated areas. Similarly, infant dental admission rates were substantially lower. There was no evidence of higher rates of the non-dental health indicators studied in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated areas. Although the lower rates of kidney stones and bladder cancer found in fluoridated areas are of interest, the population-based, observational design of this report does not allow conclusions to be drawn regarding any causative or protective role of fluoride; similarly, the absence of any associations does not provide definitive evidence for a lack of a relationship.”

Last month a review “Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence” written on behalf of the Royal Society of New Zealand and the Office of the NZ Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor concluded:

“Councils with established CWF schemes in New Zealand can be confident that their continuation does not pose risks to public health, and promotes improved oral health in their communities, reducing health inequalities and saving on lifetime dental care costs for their citizens. Councils where CWF is not currently undertaken can confidently consider this as an appropriate public health measure, particularly those where the prevalence and severity of dental caries is high. A forthcoming study from the Ministry of Health is expected to provide further advice on how large a community needs to be before CWF is cost-effective (current indications point to all communities of 1000+ people).

It is recommended that a review such as this one is repeated or updated every 10 years – or earlier if a large well-designed study is published that appears likely to have shifted the balance of health benefit vs health risk.”

Looking at the many other systematic reviews you will find a similar pattern. CWF is shown to be safe and effective. So the “burden of proof” really is on those claiming evidence of harm. They need to produce well supported and peer-reviewed studies which back up their claims.

If there is a strong evidence for health risks of fluoridation then I totally agree with Rita that it needs to be re-evaluated. Every year many studies are written on fluoridation and continued monitoring of the scientific findings occurs in many countries with the precautionary principle of being alert to any possible negative effects.

Health organisations

Rita’s reply:

“Please also note that any and all of your cites to the ADA lobby, or to the CDC (which, though its oral health division, works hand in hand with the ADA promoting fluoridation and thus has a serious conflict of interest/credibility problem) are unpersuasive to me – as they should be to anyone conducting even a minimum level of research into the history of and politics behind fluoridation (some of which is chronicled in my article, including the story of the EPA’s NTEU battle).”

“it does not take long to discover how politically motivated many “public health agencies” and “professional dental associations” are — or how willing they are to obscure, minimize, or bury contrary evidence or to marginalize the anti-fluoridation messengers, regardless of the evidence or the credentials of those messengers (e.g., Waldbott, Taylor, Marcus, Mullenix, Bassin, Hirzy).”

My reply:

I think Rita is placing her own bias on these judgments. One could equally say: “It does not take long to discover how politically motivated Dr Paul Connett and FAN are — or how willing they are to obscure, misinform, or bury contrary evidence or to marginalise the pro-science messengers, regardless of the evidence or the credentials of those messengers.”

If Rita has a specific problem with the CDC or the ADA, I can use some of the many other hundreds of health organisations around the world. They all have similar conclusions about fluoridation. As I said in my first response, there is not one reputable health organisation that is against fluoridation. We already have Dr Paul Connett suggesting a massive conspiracy, I hope you do not agree with his accusations as this is generally the last resort for people who cannot find reasonable faults in the evidence but still refuse to believe it.

NRC Report

Rita’s reply:

“However, I believe that its review of fluoride toxicology is highly relevant to exposures from fluoridated water (and its exposure data itself suggests that some people drinking fluoridated water can, indeed, receive doses that can cause adverse health effects, including severe dental fluorosis and bone fractures).”

“In addition, in a number of health risk areas, the NRC panel concluded that there was not enough data, and/or that more research needed to be conducted, before definitive statements could be made with respect to other potential adverse health effects due to excess exposure to fluoride.”

My reply:

I will not repeat what I said in my earlier reply. The review itself said that it was not relevant to exposures to concentrations used for fluoridated water and to say it is “highly relevant” is spreading misinformation. The NRC report furthered shows the safety of fluoridation. As for the “more research needed”, that is always the case with science. That is why responsible public health agencies continue to monitor research findings.

Ethics

Rita’s reply:

“I would genuinely be interested in knowing why you feel so strongly that imposing this practice on everyone is ethically justifiable.”

“Thus, I am very curious as to why there appears to be such an aggressive campaign on the pro fluoridation side to impose this practice on the world – and why anyone believes that personal liberties and rights to bodily integrity should be sacrificed for a public health practice addressing a non-contagious disease.”

“I would also be interested in understanding where you personally believe compulsory public health practices should begin and end (e.g., do you believe governments should mandate compulsory flu shots? What about the HPV vaccine that the Governor of Texas tried to mandate for girls? Where should the personal right to bodily integrity begin and end, in your opinion? And how comfortable are you with public health officials mandating what is good for you?…)”

My reply:

I don’t see how you conclude that I “feel so strongly that imposing this practice on everyone”. I, myself, could say I am strongly against misinformation. The MSoF society is here to help explain what the actual scientific evidence shows to the public, not to advocate for CWF at any cost. It is up to the communities if they want to use CWF and we, the MSoF Society, support their democratic right to decide.

But regarding ethical aspects, you might be interested in what the Nuffield Council on Bioethics decided. It:

• Rejected the prohibition of water fluoridation based on the argument of mass medication and restricting personal rights.
• Affirmed that water fluoridation should be accepted based on the quantified risks and benefits, the potential alternatives, and, where there are harms, the role of consent.

They also used a ‘stewardship mode’ to analyse the acceptable degree of state intervention to improve population health, concluding that water fluoridation can be justified based on its contribution to the goals of stewardship: the reduction of health inequalities, the reduction of ill health, and the concern for children, who represent a vulnerable group.

The New Zealand High court this year ruled that fluoridation of the water supply:

• is not a medical treatment,
• does not violate the right to refuse medicine,
• is not in breach of the Bill of Rights,

And that

• the Council was thoughtful and responsible in making their decision to begin fluoridation, and had no obligation to consider “controversial factual issues” (anti-fluoride propaganda).

You could say there is an aggressive campaign on both sides, but people are pushing for fluoridation simply because it works – reducing up to 40% of caries over a whole population.

Dental caries is a serious chronic disease, it makes no difference if it is contagious or not. The Royal Society Review pointed out that

“…tooth decay (dental caries) remains the single most common chronic disease among New Zealanders of all ages, with consequences including pain, infection, impaired chewing ability, tooth loss, compromised appearance, and absence from work or school. Tooth decay is an irreversible disease; if untreated it is cumulative through the lifespan, such that individuals who are adversely affected early in life tend to have pervasive decay by adulthood, and are likely to suffer extensive tooth loss later in life. Prevention of tooth decay is essential from very early childhood through to old age”.

The Royal Society Review also suggested that removing fluoridation would have direct and indirect costs to society.

“Tooth decay is responsible for significant health loss (lost years of healthy life) in New Zealand. The ‘burden’ of the disease – its ‘cost’ in terms of lost years of healthy life – is equivalent to 3/4 that of prostate cancer, and 2/5 that of breast cancer in New Zealand. Tooth decay thus has substantial direct and indirect costs to society.”

I am all for protecting the vulnerable. If individuals do not consent, they can simply choose not to partake of the community water supply (bottled water, filters, rain water, etc.). I feel this is starting to head slightly off-topic but to answer your question, if the vaccine given out is safe and effective for the general public then I have no problems with compulsory shots for children. While choice is nice thing to have, you cannot always get it, especially if it is going to lower the quality of life in children.

The New Zealand High court summarised some ethical aspects in the decision I referred to above:

“Provided it does not have consequences for public health a person has the right to make even the poorest decisions in respect of their own health. But where the state, either directly or through local government, employs public health interventions, the right is not engaged. Were it otherwise, the individual’s right to refuse would become the individual’s right to decide outcomes for others. It would give any person a right of veto over public health measures which it is not only the right but often the responsibility of local authorities to deliver.”

The World Health Organization

Rita’s reply:

“Data published by the WHO suggests that the decline in dental caries is similar in both fluoridated and unfluoridated countries, and I have heard of no massive outbreak of a worldwide dental carie epidemic that has been attributed to a lack of fluoridated water (rather than to poverty, poor nutrition, or a lack of access to proper dental care).”

My reply:

Petersen & Lennon (2004), a WHO funded study showed dental caries remain a major public health concern, affecting 60–90% of schoolchildren and the vast majority of adults. While fluoride is not a silver bullet, it is just part of the problem, it should not be ignored when it can clearly help very effectively. Their study goes into a number of suggestions for alleviating tooth decay, one being fluoridation.

“Water fluoridation, where technically feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial advantages particularly for subgroups at high risk of caries. Alternatively, fluoridated salt, which retains consumer choice, can also be recommended. WHO is currently in the process of developing guidelines for milk fluoridation programs, based on experiences from community trials carried out in both developed and developing countries.”

As for the similar DMFT decline between fluoridated and unfluoridated countries Rita claims this needs to be considered critically. Fluoride occurs naturally everywhere and it is very hard to compare one country to others because of the many other contributing factors such as; history, culture, ethnic differences, as well as differences in health services, dental practice and assessments. The graphical evidence FAN promotes on their website and elsewhere they do not account for naturally occurring fluoride or other programs (fluoride vanish, mouth rinse programs, etc.) and different history and social practices. Their graphs also use only 2 data points for each country. There is no consideration of also changing fluoridation amounts over time and their graph is very confusing. It does not enable proper consideration of different DMFT declines in different countries. The stats show Denmark having the lowest DMFT and FAN marked them as not fluoridated, but they actually have high levels of naturally occurring fluoride.

If you look at the WHO data in more detail (graph left does this for the Irish Republic using the same WHO data) you will find that fluoridated areas show faster declines in DMFT than unfluoridated areas.

Making Sense of Fluoride

Rita’s reply:

“…you complain about FAN not being a legitimate source of credible scientific information, but your organization is also a political advocacy (pro-fluoridation) group”

“I urge you to conduct such a battle with a more appropriate sparring partner, such as FAN-NZ.”

My reply:

Like yourself, I am not a scientist – I am a software developer; my responses get checked by scientists but I would always look into the evidence in scientific studies. I avoid political or activist organisations (legitimate or not). The Making Sense of Fluoride society is not a pro-fluoridation group, we are a pro-science group. We will go with what the scientific consensus says and will spread warnings, if for example: sometime in the future, CWF was really found to be harmful.

The objectives of the MSoF incorporated society are:

1. To foster awareness and dispel misinformation regarding fluoride with a focus on CWF.
2. Use the scientific method as the foundational platform upon which this awareness is promoted.

FANNZ, now known as Fluoride Free NZ (and a close partner of FAN), will always be anti-fluoride no matter what the evidence shows. For that reason it is usually not fruitful debating them. Their incorporated society main purposes make clear their opposition to CWF irrespective of the science:

1. To bring about the permanent end to public water fluoridation (“fluoridation”) in New Zealand.
2. To provide resources, both personal and material, to others opposing fluoridation in New Zealand.
3. To provide a central contact point for those opposing fluoridation in New Zealand.

Apology

Rita’s reply:

“This statement about “mounting scientific evidence” at the start of my paper (near fn. 2) actually references an entire section of my article – (“See discussion infra Sec. II-B”) — and not an opinion piece by Colquhoun, which is only referenced – appropriately – at footnote 65 (referring to “formerly avid fluoride proponents” who have changed their minds). I have no desire to engage with insincere zealots, so I hope that you simply made a mistake there.”

My reply:

I apologise for mistaking you and any offense it may have caused you. It was clearly a simple mistake that anyone could have made and I had no intention to twist your words.

Wrapping up

Rita’s reply:

“After this exchange, however, I am only interested in a private discussion with you, which is something you may not be interested in as it may not advance your organization’s agenda”

“However, your Facebook posting has generated some contact to me by a few rude (and seemingly unbalanced) pro fluoridation folks”

My reply:

MSoF is always happy to have private discussions if you are willing to listen to our feedback. A lot of our work is outside of what the public sees but we always up for public exchanges to share to our followers.

You will find that your paper got sent all over Facebook and the media; because it was publicised in a press release from FAN. That is how I found out about it. It is a pity you were subjected to insults because of that publicity. That said I was also hit with insults on Fluoride Free NZ Facebook pages because of my response to you. These insults are common and something I have gotten used too; in either case it is a shame that people feel it best to engage in debate in disrespectful ways. Fluoridation is an emotional topic for some – personally I do my best to stick with the science and keep my emotions out.

Thank you Rita for making time in reading our feedback and responding to us.

The post Discussion – Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Second Response To Rita Barnett-rose appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.

You can read Part 1 of the public exchange here.

Rita’s reply in PDF here.

To: Daniel Ryan, Making Sense of Fluoride
From: Rita Barnett-Rose
RE: CWF Working Paper Article
Date: 9/25/14

Dear Daniel,

I have now had a chance to consider your comments to my draft article. In some respects, I am flattered that you have devoted so much time to an unpublished working paper, and I thank you for giving me some of your opinions. I absolutely want to make sure that I have cited to sources accurately and have not mischaracterized any particular study I reviewed. To that end, I have now engaged independent review of my article from several highly qualified scientists/researchers with the specific request that they review my article for scientific accuracy. After I have received their comments, I will revise my draft accordingly.

Unfortunately (or fortunately for me), I did not find in your review any specific places where I actually mischaracterized any cited study. Instead, your primary points of contention seem to be twofold: (1) you object to my use of Fluoride Action Network’s (“FAN”) website as a cited source; and (2) you object to my failure to include contrary studies that reaffirm the (English speaking countries’) public health agencies’/dental lobby positions on the safety and benefits of compulsory water fluoridation. First, with respect to my reliance on FAN. Of the 209 footnote references in my article, I believe only 17 of them are cites to FAN. Of those 17 cites, I am citing to the FAN website primarily as an easy way to get to the primary source material (e.g., studies or newspaper articles from around the world). For example, in footnotes 85-87, I could have listed the primary source studies, but I have found that many of these studies are hard to get on the internet for those who do not have paid subscriptions to the various science databases. I myself had to order a number of the primary sources from my University intra-library loan system and felt that it would be better to simply provide a link so that the reader could see the names of the studies and determine for himself/herself how to get to those primary sources. Nevertheless, your point is well-taken that I should not give the appearance of relying upon an advocacy group (including yours), and I will review those 17 cites to see if I should instead cite to primary sources.

Second, with respect to your complaint or desire that I cite to contrary (i.e., pro-fluoridation) studies in addition to (or in lieu of) the published studies that I cite that tend to weigh against fluoridation, as I have already indicated to you on two occasions: I am not interested in a battle of the studies debate, and I urge you to conduct such a battle with a more appropriate sparring partner, such as FAN-NZ. Specifically: you complain about FAN not being a legitimate source of credible scientific information, but your organization is also a political advocacy (pro-fluoridation) group, and, from your critique, you are just as guilty of “cherry picking” your sources and your studies as you suggest I am. Moreover, and in stark contrast to you, the section of my article where the studies are discussed is specifically entitled: “Scientific Evidence Against Compulsory Water Fluoridation.” It is not meant to be an exhaustive examination of all studies on fluoridation and is specifically and accurately identified for what it is. I am well aware of many of the pro-fluoridation studies — as well as the criticisms of many of those studies (in terms of who funded them, flaws in methodology, conflicts of interest, etc.) by those opposed to fluoridation. I do not believe either side has definitively proved their case with respect to safety/benefits or lack thereof. However, what I do believe is that the burden of proving safety and effectiveness lies with the pro-fluoridation side, as it is your side that is insisting on imposing this “public health measure” on everyone else, even in the face of substantial objection and despite existing studies suggesting serious risks of harm. It also appears to me that the pro-fluoridation side is playing “whack a mole” with the studies weighing against CWF – often trying to hammer down/marginalize the opposition each time a negative study pops up, rather than trying to consider the evidence objectively. I note throughout your critique that you often refer to studies that weigh against fluoridation as “flawed” or “debatable” or as somehow lacking in proper control mechanisms – while studies that support fluoridation are “quality studies.” (p.8). You also minimize any existing evidence weighing against fluoridation by qualifying it: “there is no quality research” (p. 4) “there is no robust evidence” (p. 4), “there is no strong evidence” (p. 6). However, to me, if even one strong study exists, then the entire compulsory practice must be reevaluated.

Please also note that any and all of your cites to the ADA lobby, or to the CDC (which, though its oral health division, works hand in hand with the ADA promoting fluoridation and thus has a serious conflict of interest/credibility problem) are unpersuasive to me – as they should be to anyone conducting even a minimum level of research into the history of and politics behind fluoridation (some of which is chronicled in my article, including the story of the EPA’s NTEU battle). Incidentally, as someone who did not have a pony in this race before doing the actual research (i.e., I am not a long-time anti-fluoridation advocate), it does not take long to discover how politically motivated many “public health agencies” and “professional dental associations” are — or how willing they are to obscure, minimize, or bury contrary evidence or to marginalize the anti-fluoridation messengers, regardless of the evidence or the credentials of those messengers (e.g., Waldbott, Taylor, Marcus, Mullenix, Bassin, Hirzy).

With respect to the NRC Report, I agree with you that it did not specifically address compulsory water fluoridation. However, I believe that its review of fluoride toxicology is highly relevant to exposures from fluoridated water (and its exposure data itself suggests that some people drinking fluoridated water can, indeed, receive doses that can cause adverse health effects, including severe dental fluorosis and bone fractures). In addition, in a number of health risk areas, the NRC panel concluded that there was not enough data, and/or that more research needed to be conducted, before definitive statements could be made with respect to other potential adverse health effects due to excess exposure to fluoride. This is hardly a ringing endorsement of the safety of fluoride or fluoridation. Nor is the NRC Report irrelevant to the fluoridation debate.

I see no point in going through your critique page by page to point out various flaws in it, as mostly you seem to be trying to persuade me with contrary evidence rather than identifying any mischaracterizations of the studies I did cite. I will, however, point out that your opening accusation on p. 2 that my “paper starts off by saying there is mounting scientific evidence against fluoridation” and that I used an opinion piece by John Colquhoun as my “evidence” to support this statement is outrageously incorrect, and it almost prompted me not to respond to you at all, as I do not appreciate my words being twisted or my cites misused to inflate your argument. This statement about “mounting scientific evidence” at the start of my paper (near fn. 2) actually references an entire section of my article – (“See discussion infra Sec. II-B”) — and not an opinion piece by Colquhoun, which is only referenced – appropriately – at footnote 65 (referring to “formerly avid fluoride proponents” who have changed their minds). I have no desire to engage with insincere zealots, so I hope that you simply made a mistake there.

As I said to you privately, I am more than willing to revise my article where I have misstated any of the cited scientific evidence. However, I disagree with you that a discussion on the legal and ethical aspects of CWF would be “confusing” or “pointless” at this point and I would genuinely be interested in knowing why you feel so strongly that imposing this practice on everyone is ethically justifiable. Data published by the WHO suggests that the decline in dental caries is similar in both fluoridated and unfluoridated countries, and I have heard of no massive outbreak of a worldwide dental carie epidemic that has been attributed to a lack of fluoridated water (rather than to poverty, poor nutrition, or a lack of access to proper dental care). Thus, I am very curious as to why there appears to be such an aggressive campaign on the pro-fluoridation side to impose this practice on the world – and why anyone believes that personal liberties and rights to bodily integrity should be sacrificed for a public health practice addressing a non-contagious disease. I would also be interested in understanding where you personally believe compulsory public health practices should begin and end (e.g., do you believe governments should mandate compulsory flu shots? What about the HPV vaccine that the Governor of Texas tried to mandate for girls? Where should the personal right to bodily integrity begin and end, in your opinion? And how comfortable are you with public health officials mandating what is good for you? Do you contend that they haven’t been wrong on a public health issue before?).

As for me, I remain convinced that CWF is legally and ethically unjustifiable. My article sets forth my reasons, so I won’t repeat those arguments here. These reasons would remain even if compulsory water fluoridation were proven to be entirely safe, which it most definitely has not, despite the presumed “majority” view in the English speaking countries. You will also find many of my reasons articulated by dissenting justices in fluoridation cases over the last 60+ years, when presumably even less “science” was available to support their nevertheless valid legal/ethical objections to CWF. I include some of these cases and dissenting opinions in my article.

Daniel, I thank you for your (heretofore) civilized exchange with me and I do welcome your thoughts if you have any on the legal and ethical justifications of CWF. After this exchange, however, I am only interested in a private discussion with you, which is something you may not be interested in as it may not advance your organization’s agenda. However, your Facebook posting has generated some contact to me by a few rude (and seemingly unbalanced) pro-fluoridation folks, and I have no interest in entertaining their rants (which certainly do nothing but convince me that the pro-fluoridation side has something to hide). In any event, I do thank you for reaching out and for your interest in my article. I hope to ensure that my final draft will address any legitimate criticisms/issues.

Sincerely,

Rita

Daniel’s second response to this. 

The post Discussion – RE: CWF Working Paper Article appeared first on Making Sense of Fluoride.