FLUORIDATION and the Public Health Officials
In light of the irrefutable research studies that we now have, why haven't the public health officials changed their position on fluoridating the drinking water? Some of the answers are found in the other articles on this site; some are found in the book, Fluoridation, The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.
The following information helps explain this recalcitrant position:
Some of the reasons why a health official would avoid checking into current research on fluoridation are:
A.) Not enough time
B.) Not enough interest or reward for doing so.
C.) Being comfortable with one's dependence upon the “experts” who “run things.”
D.) It's hard to see the danger.
E.) Peer pressure.
F,) Retraction or reduction of research grants and other funding.
G.) Good intentions coupled with a total unquestioning focus on dental caries.
H.) Human nature seeks comfort rather than pain. “The truth was a bitter pill to swallow. But swallow it I did,” states Dr. Limeback.
I.) Job security.
Question: How do we explain the difference between those who do the testing and those who set the official policy and remain pro-fluoridation?
A.) Must be a complex issue.
B.) The medical and government establishments are slow to admit mistakes.
C.) Proponents fear loss of funding and prestige.
D.) Proponents fear legal suits (a la tobacco).
E.) Proponents have undue faith in research done 40-50 years ago.
F.) Proponents can't read.
All of these responses factor into the answer—all except the last one. Proponents can read, but simply have not read the latest research.
Faulty, Disingenuous Information: The public health officials have been given very one-sided, even erroneous materials on fluoridation. For example, Dr. Richard Foulkes authored a report in 1973 recommending mandatory fluoridation for the province of British Columbia; and then in 1992 he concluded, “Fluoridation of community water supplies can no longer be held to be safe or effective in the reduction of tooth decay…Even in 1973, we should have known this was a dangerous chemical.” Dr. Foulkes points out that his original report was based on information given to him, which was biased and selected.
The August 1, 1988 issue of Chemical and Engineering News carried a 17-page article on fluoridation as its cover feature. It deals with the attempts of fluoridation promoters to suppress the publication of articles which might indicate that fluoridation is unsafe or ineffective.
Robert C. Atkins, M.D., is the founder of a New York City medical clinic, author of several best-selling books, and host of a nationally syndicated radio health program. He states, “Our government has spent forty years telling us fluoridation is safe, and actively promoting what is, in effect, forced medication, and now it's paralyzed by the enormity of its error.”
Fluoridation Not Effective: But what about the anecdotal accounts of fluoride reducing cavities? Fluoride applied topically (toothpaste, etc.) helps some in reducing cavities but ingesting it via drinking water does not. For more information see the other articles on this web site. We offer this one example: The largest study ever done was in New Zealand and consisted of 59,331 students. The conclusion of this study was that there wasn't a significant difference in the number of dental caries between the fluoridated areas and the
non-fluoridated areas.
Dr. A.L. Miller, Congressman and former Nebraska State Health Director, states, “You will note that all of the experts grounded in the science of biochemistry have advocated the go-slow sign on the use of fluorides in drinking water. I believe that the dental profession and other public-minded individuals, like myself, have been misled by the Public Health Service.”
Does manipulation and/or censorship of information matter? YES! This is a rather ridiculous question. Life-affecting decisions are made on information available.
The image the pushers of fluoridation like to promote is one where science is all on their side and opponents are not learned and somewhat paranoid. This is a fraudulent image. Reality is very different. The reality is the EPA water safety scientists and many others, after many years of research, have turned their thumbs down on fluoridation.
Proponents say fluoridation is safe for everyone. The following is just another example of how this is not true. In 1993, in their “Toxicological Profile on Fluoride” (TP91/17), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services warned, “Existing data indicate that subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds. These populations include the elderly, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems…. Post menopausal women and elderly men in fluoridated communities may also be at risk of fractures.” (emphasis added)
There are more than 500 peer-reviewed studies documenting the adverse effects of fluoridation.
For more information on water fluoridation go to www.fluorideaction.net
