|
Suppression
of science
(and common sense)
Fluoridation's political history is characterized by denial, obfuscation
and diversion. In the series of stories found here, readers will learn
who the major players are and why they'd like to keep you believing
that fluoridation is a net positive. Many readers will find this information
shocking; like any dark secret it requires a period of adjustment.
|
Fluoride
Free Fairbanks Web Archive
|
Voices
of opposition have been suppressed since early days of fluoridation
Excerpt: Hileman B, Chemical & Engineering News,
1988 August 1, 66, pp 26-42
Ever since the
Public Health Service (PHS) endorsed fluoridation in 1950, detractors
have charged that PHS and the medical and dental establishment,
such as the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American
Dental Association (ADA), have suppressed adverse scientific information
about its effects. Some of those who generally support fluoridation
make similar charges. For example, Zev Remba, the Washington Bureau
editor of AGD Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of
General Dentistry, wrote last year that supporters of fluoridation
have had an"unwillingness to release any information that would
cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry
has lost "its objectivity - the ability to consider varying
viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion.
"
The dozen or
so scientists C&EN was able to contact who have done research
suggesting negative effects from fluoridation agree on this aspect.
They all say that fluoridation research is unusual in this respect.
If the lifeblood of science is open debate of evidence, scientific
journals are the veins and arteries of the body scientific. Yet
journal editors often have refused for political reasons to publish
information that raises questions about fluoridation. A letter from
Bernard P. Tillis, editor of the New York State Dental Journal,
written in February 1984 to Geoffrey E. Smith, a dental surgeon
from Melbourne, Australia, says: "Your paper ... was read here
with interest," but it is not appropriate for publication at
this time because "the opposition to fluoridation has become
virulent again." The paper poses the question: Are people ingesting
increasing amounts of fluoride and can they do so with impunity?
Sohan L. Manocha,
now a lawyer, and Harold Warner, professor emeritus of biomedical
engineering at Emory University medical school in Atlanta, received
a similar letter in 1974 from the editor of AMA's Archives of Environmental
Health. The editor rejected a report Manocha and Warner submitted
on enzyme changes in monkeys who were drinking fluoridated water
because of reviewers' comments such as: "I would recommend
that this paper not be accepted for publication at this time"
because "this is a sensitive subject and any publication in
this area is subject to interpretation by anti fluoridation groups."
These papers
were subsequently published in prestigious British journals, Science
Progress (Oxford) and Histochemical Journal. Many other authors
have reported similar difficulties publishing original data that
suggest adverse effects of fluoridated water. Most authoritative
scientific overviews of fluoridation have omitted negative information
about it, even when the oversight is pointed out. Phillips Grandjean,
professor of environmental medicine at Odense University in Denmark,
wrote to the Environmental Protection Agency in June 1985 about
a World Health Organization study on fluorine and fluorides: "Information
which could cast any doubt on the advantage of fluoride supplements
was left out by the Task Group. Unless I had been present myself,
I would have found it hard to believe."
In his 1973
Ph. D. thesis on the fluoridation controversy, Edward Groth, III,
a Stanford biology graduate student at that time, concluded that
the vast majority of reviews of the literature were designed to
promote fluoridation, not to examine evidence objectively. Groth
also noted a number of anti fluoridation reviews that were equally
biased. According to Robert J. Carton, an environmental scientist
at EPA, the scientific assessment of fluoride's health risks written
by the agency in 1985 "omits 90% of the literature on mutagenicity,
most of which suggests fluoride is a mutagen."
Several scientists
in the U.S. and other countries who have done research or written
reports questioning the benefits of fluoridation or suggesting possible
health risks were discouraged by their employers from publishing
their findings. After their paper had been rejected by the editor
of Archives of Environmental Health, Manocha and Warner were told
by the director of their department not to try to publish their
findings in any other U.S. journal. NIDR had warned the director
that the research results would harm the cause of fluoridation.
Eventually, Manocha and Warner were granted permission to publish
their work in a foreign journal.
In 1982, John
A. Colquhoun, former principal dental officer in the Department
of Health in Auckland, New Zealand, was told after writing a report
that showed no benefit from fluoridation in New Zealand that the
department refused him permission to publish it. In 1980, Brian
Dementi, then toxicologist at the Virginia Department of Health,
wrote a comprehensive report on "Fluoride and Drinking Water"
that suggested possible health risks from fluoridation. This 36-page
study has been purged from the department's library even though
it is the only one the department has prepared on the subject. According
to current employees, no copy exists anywhere in the department.
Spokesmen say the report was thrown away because it was old but
also say the department will be preparing another report on the
subject soon.
An ADA white
paper written in 1979 states: "Dentists' nonparticipation [in
fluoridation promotion] is overt neglect of professional responsibility."
An ADA spokesperson says this is still the association's official
policy. In recent years, several dentists who have testified on
the anti fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state
dental officers.
ADA and PHS also
have actively discouraged research into the health risks of fluoridation
by attacking the work or the character of the investigators. As
part of their political campaign, they have over the years collected
information on perceived anti fluoridation scientists, leaders,
and organizations. Newspaper articles about them are stored in files,
as are letters about them from various proponents of fluoridation.
Little or no effort has been made to verify the accuracy of this
information. It is used not only in efforts to counteract arguments
of the antifluoridationists, but also to discredit the work and
objectivity of U.S. scientists whose research suggests possible
health risks from fluoridation.
One example
is the false information about the late George L. Waldbott, founder
and chief of allergy clinics in four Detroit hospitals, that ADA
disseminated widely to discredit the validity of his research. Rather
than deal scientifically with his work, ADA mounted a campaign of
criticism based largely on a letter from a West German health officer,
Heinrich Horning. The letter made a number of untrue statements,
including an allegation that Waldbott obtained his information on
patients' reactions to fluoride solely from the use of questionnaires.
ADA published Hornung's letter in its journal in 1956 and distributed
a news release based on the letter. ADA later published Waldbott's
response to this letter. But the widely disseminated original news
release was not altered or corrected, and continued to be published
in many places. As late as 1985, it was still being quoted. Once
political attacks effectively portrayed him as "anti fluoridation,"
Waldbott's work was largely ignored by physicians and scientists.
In November 1962
and 1965, ADA included in its journal long directories of information
about anti-fluoridation scientists, organizations, leaders, and
others known to be opposed to fluoridation. Listed in alphabetical
order were reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists,
scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan. Information was
given about each, including quotes from newspaper articles, some
of which contained false data. The information was published for
use by proponents of fluoridation in local fluoridation referenda.
John S. Small,
information specialist at the National Institute of Dental Research,
is quite willing to talk about the files he keeps on anti fluoridation
organizations and their leaders. "Of course, we gather information,"
he says. "These people are running all over the country opposing
fluoridation. We have to know what they are up to." Consumer
advocate Ralph Nader has a different view of this activity. He calls
it an "institutionalized witchhunt."
It is easy to
understand why research on risks of fluoridation has never been
more vigorously pursued. Most of the individuals and agencies involved
have been promoting fluoridation publicly for nearly 40 years. Research
that suggests possible harm threatens them with a loss of face.
For example, PHS has historically been the principal source of funds
for fluoride research; but ever since June 1950, PHS has been officially
committed to and responsible for promoting fluoridation. Thus, the
agency has a fundamental conflict of interest.
Colquhoun, now
teaching the history of education at the University of Auckland,
offers another explanation for what appears to be the suppression
of research. He notes that the editorial policy of scientific journals
has "generally been to not publish material which overtly opposes
the fluoridation paradigm." Scientific journals employ a referee
system of peer review. But when the overwhelming majority of experts
in an area from which the referees are selected are committed to
the shared paradigm of fluoridation, Colquhoun notes, the system
lends itself to preservation and continuation of the traditional
belief that fluoridation is safe and effective. This results in
"single-minded promotion, but poor quality research, and an
apparent inability to flexibly reassess in the presence of unexpected
new data," he says."
 Fluoride
Free Fairbanks Web Archive |
Is Science Censored?
Excerpted from Newsweek Sept. 1992 issue by Sharon Begley
Ideology may
influence what studies get published. This is how science works?
Despite its objective face, science is as shot through with ideology
as any political campaign, and now that dirty secret is coming out.
The party line is that papers submitted to journals are rejected
only for reason s of substance-the methodology is suspect, the data
don't support the conclusions, the journal has better papers to
use. But lately scientists have been privately fuming over rejections
they blame on censorship. And this summer, the issue exploded in
public. Dr. One leading cancer journal, for instance, recently published
an industry study concluding that the fluoride added to drinking
water does not increase the risk of cancer in lab animals. That
same journal rejected a government study, by researchers at the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, that reported
an increase in rare bone cancers among male rats fed fluoride. The
journal explained that it does not publish lab-animal studies anymore.
"No one wants to touch this," says toxicologist James
Huff of NIEHS about the persistent evidence that fluoride poses
some hazard. Chalmers hasn't made many friends at science journals
by opening this debate, but some researchers applaud him. "
He's made statements about something that is very, very disturbing,"
said toxicologist Ellen Silbergeld of the University of Maryland.
"[Suppression of studies] is particularly vicious when they
concern public-health issues." But the risk that censorship
poses to public health may be the least of it. If science loses
its reputation for probity, its conclusions will carry no more weight
than any interest group's.
|
 Fluoride
Free Fairbanks Web Archive
|
Water
activists challenge dental association
Bob Vrbanac,
Chronicle Staff
Published on Jul 22, 2009
The president
of the Ontario Dental Association is defending the use of fluoride
in drinking water, despite repeated calls for source science by
a Waterloo advocacy group.
Ontario Dental
Association President Dr. Ira R. Kirshen has offered to provide
the local anti-fluoridation group, WaterlooWatch, the science behind
the association’s support of water fluoridation, its benefits and
its cost-effectiveness. Kirshen said while the association doesn’t
have the source science in hand, bodies like Health Canada do.
As recently
as 2007, Health Canada reviewed the scientific literature and still
came out in support of the benefits, safety and cost-effectiveness
of water fluoridation in preventing cavities. “It just shouldn’t
be a debate at this point in time,” said Kirshen, who took over
the presidency of the association in June after eight years on the
body’s board of directors.
“When you come
out and read that the World Health Organization, Health Canada and
the Centres for Disease Control in the States are in support — they
also have hundreds of studies in support of the science not just
one or two.” Robert Fleming of WaterlooWatch wants the association
to provide a list of scientific studies, economic analysis and dental
carries comparisons that supports those claims.
“The Ontario
Dental Association touts the benefits and safety of drinking water
fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid, an industrial toxic waste,
but yet have failed to produce any science,” said Fleming. “They
want to say how cost-effective water fluoridation is, yet nobody
is really tracking these costs at the municipal level.
“Since the newest
president of the Ontario Dental Association, Dr. Kirshen, seems
to believe they have the science, I ask they he please shows us
the science.”
Fleming made
a similar request to the City of Waterloo and Region of Waterloo
in a Freedom of Information request filed in May. He asked them
to produce any research they had that supports the practise so that
it can be made public in time for a planned plebiscite on the issue
being held during the 2010 municipal election. Fleming argues that
after 40 years of fluoridation in Waterloo the information should
be readily available.
“Where’s the
source science which proves that swallowing water fluoridated with
hydrofluorosilicic acid actually causes any reduction in dental
carries?” said Fleming. “Opinions and endorsements are not science.
If water fluoridation is to be decided by the people it seems odd
that the people don’t have the science and the costs to fluoridate
so that they can weigh it for themselves.”
Kirshen acknowledged
that the optimal concentration of fluoride in the water has changed
over time. The most recent change was in 2007, when Health Canada
recommended a 0.6 ppm in fluoridate water. “There are advances in
science,” said Kirshen.
“We we’re seeing
some fluorosis, but it’s not a disease and is easily controlled.
It’s not a risk compared to the benefit the people in the lowest
socioeconomic levels receive from this.”
Kirshen said
he’s only seen a couple of cases of dental fluorosis , which cause
pitting and the discoloration of the teeth, in his 29-year career.
In fact, at
his Richmond Hill practice, he’s noticed people who were drinking
well water compared to fluoridated town often had more dental carries.
As for people
concerned about safety of hydrofluorosilicic acid, Kirshen said
he admitted he doesn’t have all the information about its history
as an industrial byproduct. But he doesn’t like the scare tactics
that are being used in describing it.
“The one thing
that really gets to me is that they’ll trot out the fluoride that
gets transported with the big skull and crossbones on it, and say
‘Look what poison you’re putting in our water,’ ” said Kirshen.
“But get a bottle of chlorine that is supposed to be sanitizing
and cleansing the water, and it has the same warning. “Nobody ever
complains about chlorine in water, and for me scientifically it’s
way more caustic.”
Kirsten said
the association will continue its support and made a deputation
at Thunder Bay council on the topic Monday night. He said while
communities here are debating fluoridation, the number of communities
in the U. S. that are fluoridated have gone up by 10 per cent in
the last decade.
|
Fluoride
Free Fairbanks Web Archive
|
Attack
on a health officer
Thurdsay,
June 11, 1970, by Smith G,
North Hill News (The North Hill
News originated in the 1950's. It later became The Calgary
Mirror, which was purchased by the Calgary Sun in
the early 1990's)
An exhausted,
harassed grey-haired man walked down the city hall staircase.
"Life would be so much easier if I did not stand up for
my principles." he told me following a shocking attack
on him in the council chamber.
Dr. W.H.
Hill, medical officer of health for the City of Calgary, was
soon to retire, a broken man, and he did not have long to live
He was a victim of persecution because of his brave stand over
fluoridation advising caution against the fluoridation of the
city water supply, Hill was abused by councillors, attacked
by dentists and victimized by some of his medical colleagues.
The fluoridation dispute was one of the most disgusting episodes
in the civic history of Calgary during the fifties. The entire
campaign was in the tone of the painful transition from smalltown
politics.
CAMPAIGN
LAUNCHED
At the outset
Dr Hill was not opposed to fluoridation, I know, I broke the
story. What happened was this: The campaign was getting into
gear behind the scenes. The way it suddenly flooded North America
was a triumph of propaganda and, like all large-scale publicity
operations, it was backed by funds, large funds which were not
raised from impoverished reporters. One year (1949?) the American
Dental Association was resolving to launch a campaign to discourage
the consumption of pop. Next year pop was forgotten as the mighty
union jumped on the bandwagon for fluorides.
The campaign
in Calgary was carefully planned as a brilliant operation. Calgary
was considered a key city in Canada. It was compact with one
municipal authority and one water supply controlled by that
single authority. The population was young, the birth rate fantastic
at 32 per 1000, young parents were crowding into the new suburbs
The emphasis in the campaign was on the progressive young families.
NEW GENERATION
Housewives
were to be flattered as bright, young intelligent persons willing
to back progress. Fluorine was the panacea for the modern generation.
At that
point in time, a municipal authority could order fluoridation
without referendum. Later the Alberta government imposed a referendum
requirement.
The campaign
was headed by a group of brash young dentists sweeping all before
them. It was even rumoured that they had imported a man from
Vancouver and, put him on city council -- an easy move under
city-at-large elections given the right financial backing and
support from the old Civic Government Association, succeeded
after that became discredited by the United Citizens' Association.
Both were much the same sort of pompous stuffed shirt brigade
from downtown business.
MEDIA
BRAINWASHED
The incumbent
councillors were quickly influenced by the campaigners. The
media daily newspapers, radio and the infant television were
brainwashed in one of the easiest offensives in modern political
history. Reporters were brought to heel. It was at that time
before the campaign entered the public arena that I asked Dr
Hill for his views. To me fluoridation was a mystery but it
sounded like a Good Thing. The arguments were convincing for
a layman.
Hill did
not oppose it initially. He was subsequently driven into that
situation. He merely said that, until fluoridation had been
thoroughly tested and proven not only effective but 100% safe
to all consumers, any responsible public health officer must
advise caution. Authorities were divided on the issue, he said
and until there was unqualified recommendation, he could not
recommend it.
FURIOUS
GROUP
The campaigners
were furious . Not simply because Hill had questioned their
magic, but because I had anticipated their campaign. They wanted
the campaign launched with favorable propaganda. One of the
dentists cornered me in the office, inflated with arrogance
because he had thought all reporters were disciplined. He told
me that he played badminton with the publisher and that the
publisher had personally ordered support in the newspaper.
The attack
was intensified later, both inside and outside the newspaper
office. I was even abused at public meetings. It was the start
of a protracted and bitter persecution from members of city
council.
Fluoridation
was now in the open and it has since been dragged out into the
arena periodically for the past 15 years. The public has grown
bored with it.
PUBLIC
HEARING
At that
time the campaigners were full of confidence. They turned up
at a public hearing of Calgary city council and did a lot of
talking. One young dentist dramatically drank a glass of fluoridated
water. He seemed a bit unbalanced but otherwise OK. Although
they had talked most councillors into support, there was one
who refused to be browbeaten with science. That was James D.
Macdonald lawyer, who tied the dentists up in a few knots when
he wanted to know such things as how much research had they
done into fluoridation and what was the optimum dosage.
You would
not have read much of that in the Calgary press. My report was
censored.
Hill was
given the roughest mauling of all. He was a convenient target,
a shy reserved man who did his job without playing politics
and without cultivating the big noises who ran the city. The
wolves cornered him, abused him and confused him. One alderman
of this city proclaimed in a public speech that "Dr Hill
is practising quackery in the 20th century." After the
meeting I found three young dentists shouting at Dr Hill in
the hall. He told me later that one had threatened to "knock
your block off."
CHILDREN
BETRAYED
That was
typical of the campaign. Opponents were more than reactionary,
they were "betraying the children of this fair city."
As the campaign proceeded, the daily newspapers became more
strident The opposition could obtain no platform anywhere. The
public became suspicious and although the plebiscite required
a 66% majority, it was defeated in a straight vote. The Herald
wrote a eulogy on the dentist who had organized the campaign
and pointed out that it was the poor people who had most to
gain, who had rejected fluoridation. Since then we've had further
plebiscites all defeated but the campaigns were conducted on
a somewhat higher level.
|
Fluoride
Free Fairbanks Web Archive
|
Are Proponents of Water Fluoridation Suppressing
Scientific Evidence and Debate?
by Dr Mark
Diesendorf
Introduction
Fluoridation
involves increasing the generally low natural levels of fluoride
in drinking
water, by a factor of 5 to 10, to about 1 part per million (ppm),
in order to try and reduce
tooth decay in children’s teeth. Before 1950, fluoride was generally
considered to be a toxic
environmental pollutant, and fluoride levels of 1 ppm or more
were considered to be
sufficient reason for rejection of a water supply in the USA.
Dental and skeletal fluorosis
(both discussed below) were already known to be among the ill-effects
of ingestion and
inhalation of fluoride.
Fluoridation
was first introduced as a public health measure in the USA in
the 1950s, after
cross-sectional studies of naturally fluoridated regions of
that country suggested that levels of
tooth decay declined as the fluoride concentration in drinking
water increased. An intense
lobbying campaign was organised by a group of dentists and dental
officials. Several
‘controlled fluoridation trials’ were conducted in the USA and
Canada and, even before they
were complete, the US Public Health Service reversed its previous
cautious stance and
endorsed fluoridation. Then, in Australia, the National Health
& Medical Research Council,
Australian Dental Association and Australian Medical Association
all endorsed fluoridation
in the 1950s, despite considerable opposition from doctors in
the letters columns of the
Medical Journal of Australia. At that time there was almost
no knowledge of the mechanisms
of action of fluoride in the human body. The promoters of fluoridation,
rewriting existing
scientific knowledge, claimed that there were no adverse effects,
apart from a slight increase
in the prevalence of dental fluorosis (fluoride-induced mottling
of teeth).
In 1960,
a book published by Dr Philip R.N. Sutton, a dental researcher
at the University of
Melbourne, showed that the early North American fluoridation
trials were riddled with
fundamental errors of experimental design and were therefore
unreliable. More recently, Dr
John Colquhoun, former head of the New Zealand Fluoridation
Promotion Committee, called
into question the early research of naturally fluoridated communities
of the USA, by showing
that the key published paper derived its results by selecting
a few communities from
hundreds actually studied. However, by then fluoridation had
become institutionalized in
several countries, including Australia and New Zealand.
Nowadays
the majority of people consume artificially fluoridated water
in only six countries:
USA, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Columbia and Singapore.
The vast majority of
countries have discontinued or never implemented fluoridation.
My original
interest in this controversial issue arose 25 years ago when
I was secretary of the
Society for Social Responsibility in Science in Canberra. Since
then, from time to time, I’ve
published papers on the subject in scholarly journals
such as Nature and Australia & New
Zealand Journal of Public Health (1). Recently I had the opportunity
to attend the
international conference on fluoride research, held in Dunedin,
New Zealand in January
2003, and to review the issues.
Health
hazards of fluoridation
One manifestation
of fluoride toxicity is the high prevalence of dental fluorosis.
This is not
simply a cosmetic effect, as apologists for water fluoridation
like to say. In the more severe
forms, dental fluorosis involves damage to tooth enamel and
tooth function. In artificially
fluoridated regions, dental fluorosis is now much more prevalent
and severe than the initial
proponents of fluoridation predicted. The University of York’s
Fluoridation Review (2)
estimates that up to 48% of children in fluoridated areas have
some form of dental fluorosis.
To reduce this to the original target of 10% of the population
with so-called ‘mild’ dental
fluorosis, we would have to terminate fluoridation.
When people
drink fluoridated water, about half the fluoride is stored in
the bones and the
rest is mostly excreted through the kidneys (provided the kidneys
are working properly).
There is a large and growing body of research on a fluoride-induced
bone disease called
skeletal fluorosis. This disease is observed on x-rays as increased
bone density, structural
damage to bones, and calcification of joints and ligaments.
In severe cases, some patients
cannot straighten their arms or even walk upright.
Most people
assume that these severe manifestations of skeletal fluorosis
occur at much
higher fluoride levels than the 1 ppm that is in fluoridated
Australian and New Zealand water
supplies and that our health authorities have ensured that there
is a very large safety margin
for artificial fluoridation. To the contrary, clinically significant
cases of skeletal fluorosis
have been reported in at least 9 papers from 5 countries when
natural fluoride concentrations
are below 4 ppm and are mostly below 2.5 ppm (3). A few cases
are even reported in India
and China at fluoride concentrations slightly below 1 ppm. Incidentally,
in India and China
naturally occurring fluoride is regarded as a chronic poison
and the main issue is how to
remove it from drinking water as effectively and cheaply as
possible.
Unfortunately,
there are no well-designed studies to detect skeletal fluorosis
in artificially
fluoridated regions of western countries. American and Australian
medical doctors are taught
that the disease does not exist below 4 ppm and very few would
be able to recognise it.
However, Indian researchers describe skeletal fluorosis in its
mild form, even before it is
visible on x-rays, as involving pain and stiffness in bones
and joints -- symptoms which are
similar to those of arthritis. A report by Access Economics
for the Arthritis Foundation of
Australia found that 3.1 million (16.5%) Australians had arthritis
in June 2000, up from
14.7% in 1995. Concern about the massive increase in arthritis
in the USA is reflected in the
cover story of Time Magazine of 16 December 2002 being devoted
to it. Arthritis is a multi-
factorial disease. Is it possible that part of this big increase
is actually the early stages of
skeletal fluorosis?
The question of safety margins has been addressed in more detail
by Dr William Hirzy of the
union of the scientists at the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Dr Hirzy points out that,
on the basis of toxicology, safety levels should be set to protect
those members of the
community who are at greatest risk. This goal means that environmental
chemicals generally
have a safety margin of at least 100 times the exposure level.
This allows for both the wide
range of individual sensitivities to the chemical and the wide
range of individual exposures.
But, in the
USA, the unsafe level for fluoride in drinking water has been
set at only 4 times
the average level of artificially fluoridated drinking water,
on the basis that it should avoid
anyone getting crippling skeletal fluorosis. This was done by
ignoring the body of contrary
scientific data from naturally fluoridated regions of developing
countries and the USA itself.
The notion
that there is an adequate safety margin can also be refuted
by simply considering
the wide range of variation of water intakes among people. Groups
with high water intake
include athletes, outdoor workers, people with diabetes insipidus,
and infants who are bottle-
fed with milk formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.
Incidentally, these infants receive
100 times the daily fluoride dose of breast-fed babies and at
least 4-6 times that
recommended by medical authorities for fluoride supplementation
in unfluoridated areas (5).
In practice,
the top fluoride consumers in places with 1 ppm of fluoride
in drinking water
ingest about the same amount of fluoride daily as the average
fluoride consumers in places
with 4 ppm.
As we age,
the amount of fluoride stored in our bones steadily increases.
Dr Paul Connett,
Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University in the USA,
argues that it is this
cumulative dose that is the significant dose in determining
whether people develop skeletal
fluorosis and hip fractures in old age. Several years ago, people
with another bone disease,
osteoporosis, were treated with high doses of fluoride for just
a few years. As a result they
developed a high prevalence of hip fractures and these results
are widely accepted (6).
According to a simple calculation, these people received a similar
cumulative dose of fluoride
to that which will be ingested by those drinking fluoridated
water at 1 ppm for a lifetime.
On comparing hip fracture rates between fluoridated and unfluoridated
communities around
the world, there have now been 19 studies, and 11 of them show
a higher rate of hip fractures
in fluoridated communities (7). In particular, a recent epidemiological
study, which examined
the aged in six naturally fluoridated Chinese villages, hip
fracture rates doubled at 1.5 ppm,
and tripled at 4.3 ppm, when compared to the fracture rates
at 1 ppm fluoride (8). This
finding again suggests a very small (if any) safety margin for
such a serious outcome. In
Mexico, a linear correlation between the severity of dental
fluorosis and the incidence of
bone fractures in children has been observed (9).
Biological
effects of fluoride
Some worrying
results have also been published on the biological effects of
fluorides, based
on laboratory and animal experiments. It is well known to biochemists
that, contrary to one of
the profluoridation myths, fluoride is highly active biologically,
forming a strong hydrogen
bond with the groups found in proteins and nucleic acids (10).
In vitro experiments
demonstrate that fluoride inhibits enzymes, and induces chromosome
aberrations (11) and
genetic mutations (12).
Professor
Anna Strunecka of Charles University in the Czech Republic has
shown in
laboratory experiments that fluoride in the presence of aluminum
disrupts G-proteins (13). G-
proteins take part in a wide variety of biological signaling
systems, helping to control almost
all important life processes. Furthermore, pharmacologists estimate
that up to 60% of all
medicines used today exert their effects through a G-protein
signaling pathway. Professor
Strunecka suggests that aluminium fluoride (AlFx) complexes
might induce alterations in
homeostasis, metabolism, growth and differentiation in living
organisms. Thus, the
malfunctioning of G-proteins could be a causal factor in many
human diseases, including
Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, memory disturbance, migraine and
mental disorders.
Animal experiments
reveal that fluoride increases the uptake of aluminum into the
brain at 1
ppm in the drinking water (14). Dr NJ Chinoy from Gujarat University,
India, has found that
higher doses of fluoride cause reproductive problems (15). Dr
Z. Machoy, from the
Pomeranian Academy of Medicine, Poland, points out that AlF3
activates several guanine
nucleotides, mimicking the actions of some neurotransmitters
and hormones. His group has
performed computer modeling of how AlF3 attacks the biologically
important GDP
nucleotide (16).
Research
on aged human cadavres by Dr Jennifer Luke at University of
Surrey has shown
that fluoride concentrates in the pineal gland (17). Furthermore,
in animal studies, she
showed that this concentration is associated with the earlier
onset of puberty. As a
mechanism she makes the hypothesis that the increased fluoride
concentration leads to the
reduced production of melatonin (because fluoride is known to
inhibit the enzymes needed to
produce it) and that this in turn leads to an accelerated sexual
maturation. This work dovetails
with studies which have shown that girls in the US – one of
the world's most heavily
fluoridated countries – are reaching puberty earlier and earlier.
Proponents
refuse scientific debate
No matter
how much evidence of fluoridation hazards is put forward, the
standard response
by proponents of fluoridation is to chant that fluoride is safe
and effective, and that any
scientific questioning of fluoridation could undermine what
they describe as “one of the top
10 public health measures”. As a matter of policy, pro-fluoridation
officials and professionals
refuse invitations to participate in conferences, scientific
seminars and public debates where
an anti-fluoridation case is presented.
On 6 May
2003 the US Environmental Protection Authority sponsored a scientific
debate on
fluoridation in Washington DC. The ‘anti’ case was presented
by Professor Paul Connett
(mentioned above). But, despite sending invitations to many
prominent pro-fluoridation
doctors and dentists, the EPA could find no-one willing to present
the pro-fluoridation case at
the ‘debate’. In Australia and New Zealand, pro-fluoridation
authorities have also refused to
debate Professor Connett and other scientific opponents of fluoridation.
This suggests that
proponents are maintaining fluoridation by political power and
influence, rather than by
open, rational, scientific argument and evidence.
Alleged
benefits of fluoridation
When it is
safe from contradiction in public, the Australian Dental Association
still repeats
the ancient, discredited claim that fluoridation reduces tooth
decay by “up to 50%”. However,
a major cross-sectional survey of 84 cities in the USA by JA
Brunelle and JP Carlos at the
National Institute of Dental Research found that children aged
5 to 17, who had lived their
whole lives in fluoridated cities, had on average only 0.6 fewer
decayed, missing and filled
tooth surfaces (DMFS) per child than those in unfluoridated
cities (18). In Australia a survey
by pro-fluoridationist Professor John Spencer from University
of Adelaide (1996) found an
average reduction of only 0.12 to 0.3 DMFS per child (19). Since
the total number of
permanent tooth surfaces in a child's mouth is 128, the US and
Australian reductions are less
than one half and one quarter of one percent of tooth surfaces,
respectively.
To make matters
worse, this negligible benefit is not obtained from ingesting
fluoride. Many
dental researchers (such as Dr Hardy Limeback from University
of Toronto and Professor
Brian Burt from University of Michigan) and the pro-fluoridation
US Center for Disease
Control, now accept that the mechanisms are predominantly ‘topical’,
that is, acting directly
on the surface of teeth (20). People are being misled into drinking
a medication that does not
need to be swallowed. Brushing with fluoride toothpaste, which
contains up to 1,000 times
the fluoride concentration of fluoridated water, is sufficient.
Role of
vested interests
Several fluoride
researchers have published accounts of attempts by dental, medical
and
public health authorities to intimidate them and to suppress
their work (21). I had personal
experience of this, but fortunately am less vulnerable, since
I am not a dentist or a medical
doctor and so do not require a licence to practise.
Pro-fluoridation
dentists consider their support for fluoridation as their contribution
to public
health. Only a few, like the late Dr John Colquhoun, former
head of the New Zealand
Fluoridation Promotion Committee, have the knowledge and courage
to admit publicly that
they were wrong.
It is my
personal opinion that, behind the dental and medical associations,
who promote
fluoridation with religious fervour, are powerful corporate
interests:
1. the sugary
food industry (e.g. sugar, soft drinks, processed breakfast
cereals and sweets)
that benefits from the notion that there is a Magic Bullet that
stops tooth decay, whatever
junk food our children eat;
2. the phosphate fertilizer industry that sells its waste silicofluoride
to be put in drinking
water instead of paying for its safe disposal; and
3. the aluminium industry, which had an image problem with the
atmospheric fluoride
pollution it produces, and funded some of the early research
in naturally fluoridated
regions of the USA that appeared to show that fluoride was good
for teeth.
Some governments
support fluoridation because they consider it to be a cheaper
way of
addressing tooth decay than running effective dental services
for school-children and older
people, and politically safer than tackling the promotion of
sugary foods that are the main
cause of tooth decay.
Conclusion
This review
of fluoride research reveals a situation where people in fluoridated
communities
are required to ingest a harmful and ineffective medication
with uncontrolled dose. The
medication actually doesn’t need to be swallowed, since it acts
directly on tooth surfaces. The
benefit of fluoridation is at best a reduction in tooth decay
in only a fraction of one tooth
surface per child. Pro-fluoridation authorities ignore and suppress
the above scientific results,
that do not support the official line, and refuse to participate
in scientific debate. It appears
that fluoridation is an issue where the scientific method and
principles are being set aside by
public health authorities. I must stress that I do not consider
the promotion of fluoridation to
be a conspiracy. Rather, I see it as a result of a conjunction
of professional, corporate and
political interests.
Further
reading
The pro-fluoridation
position is articulated at the web page of the American Dental
Association www.ada.org. The anti-fluoridation position is further
elaborated at
www.fluoridealert.org and a comprehensive and annotated bibliography
can be found at
www.SLweb.org/bibliography.html.
References
1. e.g. Diesendorf
M 1986, ‘The mystery of declining tooth decay’, Nature 322:
125-129;
Diesendorf M, Colquhoun J, Spittle BJ, Everingham DN, Clutterbuck
FW 1997, New evidence on
fluoridation. Australian & New Zealand J. Public Health
21:187-190; Diesendorf M 1995, ‘How
science can illuminate ethical debates: a case study on water
fluoridation’, Fluoride 28(2): 87-
104.
2. McDonagh M, et al. 2000, A Systematic Review of Public Water
Fluoridation. ("The
York Review"), NHS Center for Reviews and Dissemination,
University of York,
September.
3. e.g. Singh A, Jolly SS & Bansal BC, 1961, Skeletal fluorosis
and its neurological complications,
Lancet 1:197-2000; Jolly SS, Prasad S, Sharma R & Chander
R, 1973, Endemic fluorosis in
Punjab. I. skeletal aspect, Fluoride 6:4-18; Siddiqui AH, 1970,
Neurological complications of
skeletal fluorosis with special reference to lesions in the
cervical region, Fluoride 3:91-96.
4. Diesendorf M, 1990, The health hazards of fluoridation: a
re-examination, International Clinical
Nutrition Review 10(2):304-321.
5. Diesendorf M & Diesendorf A 1997, Suppression by medical
journals of a warning about
overdosing formula-fed infants with fluoride, Accountability
in Research 5:225-237.
6. Riggs BL, et al., 1990, Effect of fluoride treatment on the
fracture rates in postmenopausal
women with osteoporosis, New England Journal of Medicine 322:802-809.
7. See references listed in http://www.SLweb.org/fluoride-bone.html
8. Li Y, et al. 2001, Effect of long-term exposure to fluoride
in drinking water on risks of bone
fractures. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research 16(5):932-9.
9. Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. 2001, Well water fluoride, dental
fluorosis, bone fractures in the
Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride 34(2): 139-149.
10. Emsley J, et al. 1981, An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond:
Ab initio calculations and
spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems. Journal of
the American Chemical Society 103:
24-28.
11. Suzuki N, Tsutsui T. 1989, [Dependence of lethality and
incidence of chromosome aberrations
induced by treatment of synchronized human diploid fibroblasts
with sodium fluoride on different
periods of the cell cycle]. [Article in Japanese] Shigaku. 77(2):436-47.
12. Caspary WJ, et al. 1987, Mutagenic activity of fluorides
in mouse lymphoma cells. Mutation
Research 187(3):165-80.
13. Strunecka A & Patocka J, 1999, Pharmacological and toxicological
effects of aluminofluoride
complexes, Fluoride 32:230-242.
14. Varner JA, et al. 1998, Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride
and sodium-fluoride to rats
in drinking water: Alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular
integrity, Brain Research 784:
284-298.
15. Chinoy, NJ, Narayana MV 1994, In vitro fluoride toxicity
in human spermatozoa. Reproductive
Toxicology 8(2):155-9.
16. Machoy Z 2002, Interactions between guanosine diphosphate
(GDP) and aluminum fluoride
(AlF3) (conference abstract), Fluoride 35:244-5.
17. Luke J 2001, Fluoride deposition in the aged human pineal
gland, Caries Research 35:125-128.
18. Brunelle, JA & Carlos JP, 1990, Recent trends in dental
caries in U.S. children and the effect of
water fluoridation, Journal of Dental Research 69 (special edition):
723-727.
19. Spencer AJ, Slade GD & Davies M, 1996, Water fluoridation
in Australia, Community Dental
Health 13, Supplement 2, 27-37.
20. Centre for Disease Control 2001, Recommendations for Using
Fluoride to Prevent and Control
Dental Caries in the United States, Mortality and Morbidity
Weekly Review 50(RR14):1-42.
Centre for Disease Control 1999, Achievements in Public Health,
1900-1999: Fluoridation of
Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. Mortality and Morbidity
Weekly Review 48(41): 933-
940.
21. For an early account, see Waldbott G 1965, A Struggle with
Titans, New York: Carlton Press.
|
