Wednesday, May 23, 2012

You Gotta Read the"white paper" that "proves" the case for fluoride!!

At the very beginning they tell the reader that fluoride opponents totally misrepresent the valid research of the National Research Council's (NRC) 2006 study  by stating that the study was a focus on those living in the US cities who had "natural" fluoride levels that were double or triple the levels in the managed fluoridated cities.  They end it by reminding us that, after all, "As the NRC itself stated, 'it is important to note that the safety and effectiveness of the practice of water fluoridation was outside the scope of this report and is not evaluated.'”

First, they cite NYSCOF with quoting a case in 2009 and another case in 2010 that's supposed to totally discredit them for misrepresentation of some women who died of fluoride overdose but left out that one drank brick tea that automatically has high levels of fluoride in it and brushed her teeth with fluoridated toothpaste every two hours, and the other woman allegedly ate a tube of toothpaste every other day, so both got higher doses of fluoride then what is in the water, and it's not "fair" to compare them to the managed water levels.

Second, they discredit a Canadian website regarding Europe's ban on fluoride, saying it's a spin, and then mentions that the Canadian website "leaves out" that Europe has fluoridated table salt and fluoridated milk.

Third, they claim the fluoride opponents misquote the HHS's Assistant Secretary of Health, Dr. Howard Koh, when he gave the infant fluoride warning.  The two dentist's "white paper" claims that,  "This HHS message suggests another option for parents who may be concerned about fluorosis, but it is a far cry from telling parents to avoid fluoridated water."

Fourth, they attack Fluoride Action Network website with using scare stories that are about fluoride effects in India that has huge amounts of it from pollution and natural ground water that's "15 times higher" than what we have in the United States.  They attack the NYSCOF website again by quoting a Chinese study with fluoride causing bone fractures, stating that the Chinese use brick tea that has high levels of natural fluoride that's between "3 and 10 times higher" than in the US's fluoridated drinking water.

Fifth, they quote the opponents of fluoride who quote the study done in Cuba, where the cavities went down when fluoride was removed in 1990, but say the opponents neglect to include that fluoridated mouth wash was started in their school system that same year.  (Wait, hold on! If Cuba had fluoridated water already when they stopped in 1990, then how did the cavities go down just from using fluoridated mouth rinse at school??  Logically speaking, wouldn't the cavity rate have been down already from their fluoridated water??)

Sixth, they discredit all fluoride opponents who quote any medical authorities by stating, "...several of these quotes are more than 40 years old and, therefore, are not based on the latest research."  They give the example of fluoride opponents quoting a former AMA president from 1930's before fluoridation was even in practice as their "proof" of quoting old research.

Seventh, they quote headlines from fluoride opponents who ask if it's "possible" that fluoride could cause such-n-such disease, without any scientific data to back up the scare tactic, such as "Could Fluoride Cause Fibromyalgia?" as one example.

Eighth, one by one, they attack and try to discredit a list of persons who have ever been vocal against fluoride! and other "various" resources reveal what's "wrong" with these anti-fluoride people:  Mike Adams (he called fluoride "rat poison," and he's also against vaccinations), Dr. Mercola (the FDA has sent him warning letters to stop promoting alternative health care), Dr. Yiamouyiannis, (a chemist who falsely claimed that HIV did not cause AIDS, was close friends with Dr. Paul Connett, and besides, he died at age 58 from rectal cancer because he refused conventional treatment, and "Consumer Reports" criticized the junk science on his fluoridation work, but the Fluoride Action Network website still praises his expertise work), Dr. Stanley Monteith (he's a long time John Birch Society member and believes a "New World Order" conspiracy is out there), Dr. Mehmet Oz (he promotes reverse osmosis filters to remove fluoride and promotes other alternative health care, plus he has alternative health care people on his TV show, like Dr. Mercola), Dr. Paul Connett (he brags about having so many dentists, but he only has 200 dentists out of the nation's 150,000 dentists on his professional statement to end fluoride, his website Fluoirde Action Netowrk is family owned and family operated, plus they quote him as being over heard to say, "In an unguarded moment with an interviewer, Connett recently stated, 'All these liberal commentators around the world immediately jump in and use the fact that the Tea Party is involved to slam us as being crazy conspiracy theorists. We might be wrong, but we’re not looney.'”), Christopher Bryson (not only does his research not meet up to "scientific scrutiny" and is of "poor quality," he also paints this horrible picture against fluoride when he said in a public interview, '“The post-war campaign to fluoridate drinking water was less a public health innovation than a public relations ploy sponsored by industrial users of fluoride including the government’s nuclear weapons program.'”), Dr. Hardy Limeback (direct quote from them: "He seems to have changed his support for fluoridation after losing a bid for the presidency of the Canadian Dental Association."), Carol Kopf (member of NYSCOF, housewife with no medical training, and a ghost writer for others in the NYSCOF).

The conclusion statements from the two dentists' "white paper":

"The anti-fluoridationists’ fake scientific controversy has resulted in reduced dental health, needless pain, suffering, and lost productivity, with substantially increased financial burdens on individuals and our health care system.  The anti-fluoridation movement employs classic propaganda methods, such as misrepresentation, fear mongering, false analogies and outright lies to further their political goals. As William Jarvis, past executive director of the National Council Against Health Fraud, has said:

"These charges seem to grow out of a mentality of distrust. Anti-fluoridation groups are led by many of the same people who oppose immunization, pasteurization, sex education, mental health programs, and other public health advances. Most are closely connected with sellers of alternatives to medically accepted products and services.
"Fluoridation is safe, effective, efficient, socially equitable, and environmentally sound public health policy for the prevention of the most common disease afflicting children and adults. It is imperative that the optimal fluoridation of community water systems continue throughout the United States and, indeed, the world."

White Paper: The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health, April 2012
    Remember, the Florida author in the other article that brought this "white paper" to our attention, Jann Bellamy, who said to take this "white paper" with you to city council meetings if a "water war" starts so that you can "defend your community's health" with it.  We can't let this slide so that it becomes acceptable to think this way against open, honest reporting of scientific evidence that's out there, and then be labeled as a "threat."  As one of my secretaries puts it, you exterminate bugs and diseases that are a "threat" to public health, and asks if they're intending to do the same with these pesky little anti-fluoridationists.  What's your opinion on this latest development against opponents of fluoride?  Anybody know somebody who can and will go through the "white paper" point after point and write a legal, hard-core, third-party evidence type of rebuttal (that's legal-speak for evidence that holds up in court, which their "white paper" is more about slander and libel and should be laughed out of any city council meeting if they are reality-based), and that they can have the same weight of authority behind their rebuttal as the two dentists have in their "white paper."


  1. Do not miss who is behind the scam!

    Check the names and you find ACSH, and their frontorganization the "sceptical(not) movement"

  2. Almost missed seeing this comment. Thank you for the above weblink. Yes, checked the names as you suggested, reading their bios and list of publications. A lot of control and power in that group! Based on their "group-think," they must really enjoy the Supreme Court's latest ruling on health care.