|
Sound Science vs. the Anti-Fluoridation Gang (EWG and FAN)
By Marvin Schissel, D.D.S.
Glaring examples of anti-fluoride paranoia have recently made the news. An outfit called FAN (Fluoride Action Network), another called the Lillie Center, and the EWG (Environmental Working Group) have weighed in with media releases that demonstrate quack modus operandi: misstatements of fact, half-truths, and dubious, cherry-picked, non-contextual data. They use a November 2006 statement by the American Dental Association as a jumping-off point, mischaracterizing the ADA recommendation to generate false implications.
Environmental Working Group
This from the EWG: "Even the American Dental Association has changed its tune and tells parents to avoid fluoridated water...It's troubling that children across the country are drinking fluoridated water in spite of serious health concerns." And the FAN letter asserts that the ADA recommendation "clearly excludes the use of fluoridated tap water" for preparing infant formula. Both the EWG and FAN cite a recent paper from Harvard that reportedly suggests a link between fluoridated water and the development of osteosarcoma, a rare bone cancer.
But the authors of the Harvard paper, which is a limited part of a larger fifteen-year study scheduled by the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, note that their work constitutes an "exploratory analysis" that will require scientific confirmation to substantiate or refute the findings. Moreover, the principal investigator of the larger study states that the full study will not suggest an overall association between fluoride and osteosarcoma.
And the assertions about the ADA's position are false: the ADA clearly states that infant formula prepared with fluoridated water presents no health risk but may create an increased risk of fluorosis, which is not a disease but can affect the way teeth look. ADA's November recommendations on simple ways to reduce fluoride intake for infants and young children relate to fluorosis, not to any health risks. The most common type of tooth fluorosis is barely detectable except by an expert eye (in a half-century of active dental practice in fluoridated New York City, I can't recall any patients complaining of noticeable fluorosis). That the EWG cites a questionable study and a small chance of a cosmetic flaw as evidence of "serious health concerns" casts further doubt on their pretense to be reliable environmental advocates.
To feature such dubious risks against the undeniably demonstrated benefits of fluoridation flies in the face of the risk-benefit principle and is characteristic of quackery. For the hundreds of millions of people who drink fluoridated water, the demonstrated protection from dental caries is overwhelming, there are no known health risks, and the risk of fluorosis very small, if not non-existent.
Fluoride Action Network
FAN states that the U.S. is "one of the few remaining fluoridating countries." But over 405 million people in over sixty countries worldwide enjoy the benefits of fluoridated water. These countries include Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Brazil, Chile, Israel, Singapore, and New Zealand. Some other countries, because of water supply problems, have instituted programs of fluoride supplements and fluoridated salt. The oft-repeated assertion that Europe has banned fluoridation is false.
FAN, referring to a report by the National Research Council, misleadingly states that the National Research Council says that the Environmental Protection Agency safe drinking water standard for fluoride is unsafe and should be lowered. But the NRC report refers only to naturally occurring fluoridated water, not to the water fluoridation program, and the EPA water standard is four times the amount of fluoride used in fluoridation -- this has nothing to do with community water fluoridation, and FAN'S juxtaposition of the allegation with their implications about fluoridation is deceitful. As a matter of fact, the NRC report itself states: "The report does not examine the health risks or benefits of the artificially fluoridated water that millions of Americans drink, which contains 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L of fluoride."
FAN falsely claims that the anti-caries activity of fluoride is only topical, and that therefore drinking fluoridated water is not useful. Topical fluoride is indeed effective, but fluorides ingested regularly during tooth formation (preeruptively) are integrated into the enamel and provide longer-lasting protection than topical fluoride. Also, fluoridated water enhances the topical effect: ingested fluoride is incorporated in saliva that continually bathes the teeth.
FAN's release is signed by a list of "600 professionals," but their cited credentials do not inspire confidence. A quick look shows a glut of pseudo-science buzz-words: Natural, Holistic, Chiropractic, Organic, Oriental Medicine, Acupuncture, Environmental Health, Orthomolecular Health-Medicine, Integrative Medicine, Biological Dentistry, Environmental Medicine. Certain organizations, like the "International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology," keep popping up. It claims as "professionals" self-styled nutritionists, authors of half-baked books, and even the folk singer Pete Seeger. (Seeger is a legendary entertainer who in the past has given significant support to important environmental programs. It is sad to see him, at the twilight of his career, lending his name to anti-fluoridation quackery, with the implication that he's a science "professional.")
After all the noise, one solid fact remains: fluoridation is safe, effective, and essential. No valid health risk has ever been demonstrated.
Dr. Marvin J. Schissel is a dentist and an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. See also: ACSH's full report, A Primer on Dental Care: Quality and Quackery. 
nyscof (September 6, 2007)
Blue-Ribbon Scientific Panel Exposes Fluoridation's Serious Health Risks
New York - Fluoride jeopardizes health - even at low levels deliberately added to public water supplies, according to data presented in the March 2006 National Academy of Sciences' / National Research Council (NRC) report. Fluoride poses risks to the thyroid gland, diabetics, kidney patients, high water drinkers and others and can severely damage children's teeth. At least three panel members, and co-authors of the report, now advise avoiding fluoridated water:
Kathleen Thiessen, PhD says, "I have become increasingly convinced that deliberate exposure of a large fraction of the U.S. population ... to uncontrolled and unmonitored intake of fluoride in their drinking water is unwise at best, and probably harmful to a substantial number of people."
Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, writes, " ... it is obvious that the benefit of fluoridation is next to nil. ... I am even more convinced that fluoride should be banned as a systemic drug (which includes water fluoridation) ..."
Robert L. Isaacson, PhD says, "The health of the entire country is at risk as long as fluoridation of the drinking water remains uncurbed."
I wonder if Dr. Schissel ever actually read the NRC fluoride report. However, panel members took several years to read, understand and discuss hundreds of studies about fluoride�s adverse health effects.
Many fluoridationists, not only Schissel, mistakenly believe this report has nothing to do with water fluoridated un-naturally to 1 ppm. However, it does.
The 12-member NRC fluoride committee unanimously decided that fluoride's 4 milligrams per liter (4 mg/L) maximum-contaminant-level-goal (MCLG) must be lowered. They concluded that healthy average adults consuming 8 milligrams fluoride daily, via two liters of 4mg/L fluoridated water, risk weakened bones, fractures, and stage II skeletal fluorosis (pain, joint stiffness, pelvis and spine osteosclerosis).
However, some high-water drinkers consume 8 milligrams fluoride daily when only 1 mg/L is added to their water supplies, according to the report. And fluoride is found but unlabeled in foods, beverages, medicines as well as in the dental products.
The EPA is allowing additional fluoride in foods via sulfuryl fluoride pesticide residues. When he was New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer wrote the EPA that, ""...the tolerances established by EPA are not sufficiently protective against adverse health effects,"
Schissel cherry-picked the names from that professionals' list. I guess that makes him guilty of promoting half truths.
Signers include a Nobel Prize winner, three members of the NRC panel members, two officers in the Union representing professionals at EPA headquarters, the President of the International Society of Doctors for the Environment, and hundreds of medical, dental, academic, scientific and environmental professionals, worldwide.
Signer Dr. Arvid Carlsson, winner of the 2000 Nobel Prize for Medicine, says, �Fluoridation is against all principles of modern pharmacology. It's really obsolete.�
�The NRC report dramatically changed scientific understanding of fluoride's health risks," says Paul Connett, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry. "Government officials who continue to promote fluoridation must testify under oath as to why they are ignoring the powerful evidence of harm in the NRC report,� he said.
An Assistant NY State Attorney General calls the report �the most up-to-date expert authority on the health effects of fluoride exposure.�
Fluoride has detrimental effects on the thyroid gland of healthy males at 3.5 mg a day. With iodine deficiency, the effect level drops to 0.7 milligrams/day for an average male, according to the NRC report.
Furthermore, studies linking fluoride to cancer and lowered IQ are plausible, reports the NRC panel.
Based on the science reported by the NRC, the MCLG for fluoride should be close to zero.
This is why the MCLG for fluoride should be set near zero and/or fluoridation stopped. According to the NRC report:
A) Babies under one year consume over their adequate intake (to avoid moderate fluorosis) from the water supply alone at the so-called optimal concentrations (0.7 - 1.2 mg/L).
B) Some athletes, workers and/or military personnel already consume up to 10 milligrams fluoride from optimally fluoridated water, alone.
C) "...severe renal insufficiency appears to increase bone fluoride concentrations, perhaps as much as twofold."
D) "The elderly are at increased risk of high bone fluoride concentrations due to accumulation over time..."
E) "There are medical conditions that can make people more susceptible to the effects of fluoride."
F) "...several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function...it is difficult to predict exactly what effects on thyroid function are likely at what concentration of fluoride exposure and under what circumstances."
G) "...all children through 12 who take fluoride supplements (assuming low water fluoride) will reach or exceed [optimal]."
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.
PO Box 263.
Old Bethpage, NY 11804.
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/
Fluoride Action Network
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
Fluoride Journal
http://www.FluorideResearch.Org
Bernard W. Miltenberger (September 7, 2007)
The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland, Inc.
294 E. Main St.
Frostburg, Maryland 21532-1952
Phone: 301-689-5686
Fax: 301-689-3309
www.fluoridealert.org
Dear Editor,
Currently more than 600 hundred health professionals signed a petition statement asking for a congressional hearing on water fluoridation and to immediate stop the program nationwide because of the negative health effects.
The new ADA guidelines posted on November 9th, 2006 ADA website,
http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/pubs/adanews/adanewsarticle.asp?articleid=2212
supports the pediatricians’ recommendations on the benefits of breast feeding and notes that using a product that needs to be reconstituted, parents and caregivers should consider using water that has no or low levels of fluoride. This announcement spells trouble for fluoridation. The ADA concern is largely focused on the systemic toxic effect that they cannot hide - or deny – dental fluorosis. With 32% of kids in the US now afflicted with this damaged enamel (CDC 2005) - it is abundantly clear that kids are being grossly over-exposed to fluoride in this country (as well as other fluoridated countries like Australia, New Zealand and Ireland). One contributing factor to this is bottle feeding with fluoridated water and correctly the ADA now advises against it.
In JADA. Vol. 126, June 1995 19-S, the association report on dietary fluoride supplements. Do not give full-strength tablets (1milligram) to children under the age of 6. Do not give the half-strength tablets (0.5 milligram) to children under 3, or to children under 6 when your drinking water fluoride content is 0.3 parts per million or more. Do not the quarter-strength tablets (0.25 milligrams) to children under 6 months, or to children under 3 years when fluoride content is 0.3 parts per million or more.
The Policy Statement of Pediatrics May, 1998 Volume 95, Number 5, along with the PDR - 6th Edition Fully Revised and Updated 2003 by Thomson, states that fluoride supplementation is no longer recommended from birth, and doses have been decreased during the first 6 years of life. These guidelines for fluoride supplements and the optimal 1 ppm equivalent in fluoridated drinking water now need to be recognized by pediatricians and dentists alike. Mass medicating 170,000,000 people when the most vulnerable among us namely infants and toddlers, people with renal failure and the elderly shouldn't be exposed to this toxin is insane.
In addition, Lancet is one of the most respected medical journals in a report Wednesday, November 08, 2006, by Margaret Munro, Chemicals impair kids' brains in 'pandemic' proportions, the reports points to evidence many of pesticides and solvents can affect the brain. It describes manganese, fluoride, and perchlorate as “emerging neurotoxic substances." In January, 2007 San-xiang Wang, Zheng-hui Wang, et.al. - Water Arsenic and Fluoride Exposure and Children’s Intelligence Quotient and Growth in Shanyin County, Shanxi, China was published in which Chinese researchers have found a lowering of IQ in children exposed to natural fluoride in their drinking water. A pdf copy of the paper can be accessed free at
http://www.ehponline.org/members/2007/9270/9270.pdf
From a toxicological point of view fluoride is far too toxic to place in the mouth of a child. Fluoride is more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than arsenic. If I went to the local school and gave each child bubble gum flavored lead candy the parents would call the police and charge me with child endangerment. Yet, a dentist can go to the same school and teach tooth brushing with a bubble gum flavored fluoridated toothpaste and no one thinks twice about thing about it. Furthermore , the word quack comes from the German language, meaning one who puts mercury in one's mouth. The use of mercury amalgams is the reason why the ADA was founded in the first place.
So that brings us to why dentists would recommend a xenobiotic for use in oral hygiene where it is likely to be absorbed and ingested. Dentists are not licensed to diagnose or treat any of the diseases that ingested fluoride may cause except of course the crooked teeth, alveolar bone loss and the dental fluorosis. Thyroid suppression, cancer and bone pathology are not in their purview. Therefore assurances of safety from unlicensed doctors should not be accepted as adequate evidence of safety by any governmental body, especially for systemic use.
The FDA recently ruled it's OK to make health claims on fluoridated water, but you can't make the claim on bottled water intended for use in infants. Of course, the FDA has never performed any research on systemic fluoride. They grand-fathered in this protected pollutant because it was in use as a rodenticide in 1938. That was good enough for them to sign off on a systemic poison for use in human beings, how bizarre!!!
Currently the State of Tennessee maybe the first state to ban outright the use of water fluoridation. Go to http://www.wsmv.com/video/10846883/index.html The growing opposition to fluoridation in Tennessee and features interviews with NRC panelist Dr. Kathleen Theissen. Dr. Thiessen has written to the Governor of Tennessee in support of Dr. Joseph Hensley’s (a state legislator) call for an end to fluoridation in the state http://www.fluoridealert.org/hensley.pdf.
I would recommend that you watch these five videotapes in this sequence:
1. "Don't Swallow Your Toothpaste" (Channel 4, UK) (24 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5118194644870429589&hl=en
2. Canadian TV debate on fluoridation in the "Medical Hotseat" series (Health Discovery Channel, Canada) (22 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8651924132181016035
3. Harvard cover-up (Fox-TV, Boston) (7 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6559260786488769155
4. "The Fluoride Deception" (FAN's interview with Chris Bryson) (28 minutes)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7319752042352089988&q=the+fluoride+deception
5. This is the nine minute testimony of Dr. William Hirzy before a US Senate committee. This can be accessed at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8903910725020792574&q=fluoridation
I make that a total viewing of 90 minutes. This is a short - and riveting - investment of time to find the truth out about this issue. Other than the die-hard promoters of fluoridation I cannot imagine that an open-minded person could watch these five videos and not be shocked that this practice has continued for over 60 years.
In today's world where so many people get their information from the internet and from moving pictures, these five videos represent our strongest ammunition to end fluoridation worldwide. It is also nice to have the arguments and concerns fully documented in Bryson's book, the NRC (2006) report and our web page: http://www.FluorideAction.net
Please call me if you want further information or assistance.
Bernard W. Miltenberger
President
The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland, Inc.
www.fluoridealert.org
Marvin Schissel (September 7, 2007)
It seems that any public act of support for fluoridation is met by an impassioned torrent of disapproval from the faithful anti’s. This has been going on for some 60 years: references to alleged studies, testimony from cutting-edge researchers, Nobel prize winners, Assistant Attorney Generals, even folk singers. But the astute observer will notice that there is one thing missing from the anti’s collective noise: a scientifically-confirmed example of any human being who has ever been harmed by drinking properly fluoridated community water. A statement from the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. complains I was mistaken when I wrote that the NRC report applies only to naturally fluoridated water, not to the fluoridation program. To back this they remarkably cite an item in the report relating to naturally fluoridated water! Finally they get to around mentioning that some people get as much as 8 mg of fluoride from artificially fluoridated water. But they fail to mention that you have to drink 32 glasses of water daily to achieve this dose. And even from this over-watered group have they ever found anyone harmed by the fluoride? I’ll repeat: the NRC report itself states: "The report does not examine the health risks or benefits of the artificially fluoridated water that millions of Americans drink, which contains 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L of fluoride." (I suppose it is always possible that the authors of a 500 page report don’t really understand what their report is about.) The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland notes that “The ADA concern is largely focused on the systemic toxic effect that they cannot hide - or deny – dental fluorosis. With 32% of kids in the US now afflicted with this damaged enamel”. But as I thought I made clear in the article, dental fluorosis is not a toxic effect, it is merely cosmetic, and a blemish that is generally barely noticeable except by an expert eye. And it is not “damaged enamel” in any tooth-threatening way. I have been hearing similar allegations for 60 years: fluoridation has been called a communist plot to poison our wells, it has been claimed to cause practically every disease and bone, skin, muscle, and brain defects (even Down’s Syndrome). Once a spurious claim has been refuted they come up with another one, equally spurious: this for 60 years. Of course if any of these assertions turn out to be legitimate we would have to act accordingly, but it is best to base policy on the present consensus of sound science. The CDC has called fluoridation of drinking water one of the ten great public health achievements of the 20th century. Every major national and international scientific organization supports fluoridation. Here follows a list of some of them (the ADA lists these and 100 others). Is it possible that all these distinguished and authoritative organizations are being duped? Or perhaps they are all part of a giant conspiracy to join evil-doers like myself in destroying the world’s health. Institute of Medicine American Medical Association U.S. Public Health Service American Dental Association March of Dimes Canadian Public Health Association American College of Physicians American Public Health Association American School Health Association American College of Preventive Medicine American Cancer Society American Association for the Advancement of Science American Academy of Family Physicians Child Welfare League of America The Children’s Health Fund Canadian Medical Association
EUES Ireland (September 8, 2007)
I would like to respond to Marvin Schissel's obviously formulaic advocacy of fluoridation. He argues by rote, never once citing any definitive scientific study which shows the undeniable "safety and efficacy" of hydrofluorosilicic acid being added indiscriminately to public drinking water. Hardly surprising, as even the comprehensive review by the University of York in 2000 could not find ANY reliable supporting evidence in 60 years of material! http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
Schissel quotes a number of organisations as being supporters of fluoridation, however, I have taken a few minutes to look at some of these so-called supporters and here is what I found.
American Cancer Society: They are quite equivocal, saying "…The overall consensus among these reviews, based on the studies done to date, is that there is no strong evidence of a link between water fluoridation and cancer. However, several of the reviews note that further research, including better-designed studies, is needed to address this topic. " Doesn't sound like a staunch supporter to me.
Canadian Medical Association: "Fluoridation and Fracture
The article “Current and projected rates of hip fracture in Canada” (CMAJ 1997;157[10]:1357-63), by Emmanuel A. Papadimitropoulos and colleagues, exhibits
the “view through the wrong end of the telescope” that is so often criticized as a deficiency of allopathic medicine. This paper is excellent. In Cooper, the epidemiological studies of the same authors showing a statistically significant relation between residence in a “fluoridated” community and PFF are not cited. Also omitted are studies by other researchers showing a positive relation.(4,5) The study reported in CMAJ found a lower incidence of PFF among men in BC than in the other two provinces studied — of the three, BC happens to be the one with the least fluoridation. Several researchers have observed higher incidences of PFF in fluoridated than in non-fluoridated communities.(6,7)
The issue of the relation between fluoride and PFF is of concern at the level of government. For example, the Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine (F), published by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Services, includes the following statement:(8)
The weight of evidence . . . suggests that fluoride added to water can increase the
risk of hip fracture in both elderly women and men. . . . If this effect is confirmed, it
would mean that hip fracture in the elderly replaces dental fluorosis in children
as the most sensitive end point of fluoride exposure.
The discontinuation of fluoridation should be considered — along with diet, exercise and decreased tobacco and alcohol consumption—as a frontline strategy to prevent PFF. The issue of prevention should be addressed before we immerse ourselves in the debate about which treatment is best and which causes the lowest incidence of iatrogenic illness.
Richard G. Foulkes, MD
Abbotsford, BC
4.Fluoridated water and fractures of the elderly (France) [letter]. JAMA 1995;273(10):775-6.
5. Sowers MFR, Clark MK, Jannausch ML, Wallace RB. A prospective study of bone
mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. Am
J Epidemiol 1991;133:649-60.
6. Saurez-Almazor ME, Flowerdew G, Saunders LD, Soskolne CL, Russell AS. The
fluoridation of drinking water and hip fracture hospitalization rates in two Canadian
communities. Am J Public Health 1993;83(5):689-93.
7. Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Cooper C, Lockwood SA. The association between water
fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older.
A national ecologic study. Ann Epidemiol 1992;2:617-26.
8. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US Public Health Services. Toxicological profile for fluoride, hydrogen fluoride,
Murray M. Finkelstein, PhD, MD, CM
Assistant Professor
Department of Family and Community
Medicine
Mount Sinai Hospital
Toronto, Ont.
Nope, not them, either.
American College of Physicians: no obvious support on their site, many articles relating to fluoride and osteoporosis and brittle bones
March Of Dimes: The March of Dimes spends up to $30 million of your donations annually on animal experiments that can potentially mislead and hinder progress for humans. MOD should stop using this money on animal tests and instead channel these donations exclusively to worthwhile services, including prenatal care, education, social programs, and human-based research. Find out more about the March of Dimes and animal experiments >http://www.pcrm.org/resch/charities/mod/experiments.html
Well, I wouldn't even trust these guys with my pet, much less my own health!
NAS/NRC Institute of Medicine: http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000126.htm
The Institute never did its own fluoride research! Much of the Pro-Fluoride Lobby supports its "argument" by quoting other PFL members who quote other PFL members, ad nauseum, with little actual research at the end of the line.
American Association for the Advancement of Science: “Not all teeth benefit from fluoride - reports from American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting”:
“At first, the data contradicted long-held assumptions. For example, the scientists noticed an increase in cavities and missing and filled teeth in children participating in fluoridation programs. Upon closer analysis, however, they realized that these findings held true only for Hispanic children. Yet the analysis of garbage indicated that Hispanic kids did not eat more cavity-inducing diets; they even tended to brush their teeth about twice as often as other children. These results need further study, Jones notes. But they lead him to suspect that certain genetic factors may outweigh the value of dental hygiene measures for some groups and may account for the sometimes conflicting results of fluoridation efforts.” http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n10_v145/ai_14908932
So, of the few organisations I checked that Schissel mentioned, (besides the obvious ADA and PHS) there is not one who will come out and say unequivocally, with supporting research and a long-term health study, that fluoridation has been proven to be “safe and effective”, the mantra the lobby has been repeating for 60 years. Indeed, those organizations are wise to not do so, as it is only a matter of time before those advocating and marketing fluoride in drinking water will be lumped in with those who claimed smoking did not cause cancer, lead was safe and effective in improving your car’s performance and asbestos was the best home insulating material ever. With attendant legal liability. I am afraid that Schissel comes out more like the lobbyist in the movie “Thank You For Smoking” than a serious and objective researcher.
http://euesireland.blogspot.com/
Colette McLean (September 8, 2007)
Perhaps Dr. Marvin J. Schissel, dentist and advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, the National Council Against Health Fraud, and the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, can enlighten my 39 year old daughter as to why she has a high blood fluoride level [pathology proven 3 times] when she lives in an un-fluoridated city, and doesn't use fluoridated toothpaste or any other fluoride products?
She has suffered some of the debilitating symptoms of fluoride poisoning for many years, eg. crumbling discoloured teeth to the point they have to be removed [fluorosis]and continuously aching bones assumed to be arthritis to name two, but has only recently been diagnosed with fluoride overdose.
We know why, but an explanation from you, Dr. Marvin J. Schissel, would be very interesting because nobody promoting fluoridation WILL answer. She [and others like her] is considered to be 'collateral' damage by pro-fluoridationists; just brushed aside and of no consequence in their great scheme of things.
Dr. Marvin J. Schissel, you are NOT my daughter's dentist NOR her prescribing doctor, so what gives you the right to tell her she must consume more of this 'dosage uncontrolled drug', when her body is already over-loaded with it, just to 'help' a sub-set of the population? SHE is in a sub-set of the population who have adverse reactions to fluoride - who is helping those people? Which sub-set has more right to be 'helped'? The people who don't have good dental hygiene; the people who eat all the wrong foods that cause decay; or the people adversely affected through no fault of their own, by forced medication?
Obesity is a greater problem, so why not add something to the water to 'help' these people also? Doesn't matter whether others need it or not, does it? And why stop there? How about 'helping' Diabetics, Epileptics, and stressed out Skeptics? Let's see - that covers Xenical, Insulin, Epilum, and Valium - or how about Prozac? Hang on, Prozac already contains fluoride! Why would fluoride be included in an anti-depressant, I wonder? To keep the teeth of depressed people happy?
Regardless of the effects of fluoride, negative or positive, the bottom line is the 'hidden' danger of overdosing without knowing from where you are getting your over-dose, and the ill health it causes, because dosage is only controlled by a person's hunger or thirst. As fluoride is contained in just about everything we eat and drink these days, and in the air we breathe, nobody CAN know how much they are getting on a daily basis.
My daughter objects very strongly to fluorosis being considered only a 'cosmetic' effect and is living testimony to the fact that overdosing is very real, just by ingesting foods and drinks containing fluoride, while NOT living in a fluoridated area. And ingesting fluoride didn't stop her teeth from rotting, it CAUSED her dental decay.
Perhaps everyone living in these areas and those people diagnosed with 'arthritis', should request a fluoride blood/urine test, which is absolutely their right to do. They might be unpleasantly surprised by the results!
The CDC recommends that ALL sources should be considered before fluoridation takes place, and that is NEVER done. Why? Because it can't be!
So Dr. Marvin J. Schissel, you and people like you, caused my daughter's problem, so you should fix it. And will you please explain to my daughter why she doesn't matter???
Gottaliv and Letliv.
Sally Stride (September 8, 2007)
In a 1980 book, Dr. Marvin J. Schissel argued that a substantial amount of the dentistry practiced in the U.S. is substandard. He also noted that the profession's code of ethics, as put into practice by dentists and by the American Dental Association, places more emphasis on suppressing criticism of colleagues than it does on the responsibility of dentists to provide the best care to their patients. Schissel also suggests that dental licensing boards are not primarily concerned with maintaining high standards of quality. Rather, "their interest is to regulate the amount of dentists in their own state, to keep competition at a reasonable level."
http://www.marketmed.org/licensing.asp?fmmfont=fontsml
Schissel's Book: "Dentistry and Its Victims"
Sally Stride (September 8, 2007)
Dr. Schissel, without valid science, tries to discount those against fluoridation by insulting and/or discounting signatories to a professional statement asking to end fluoridation and urging Congressional hearings as to why fluoridation is continued by government agencies in the face of mounting scientific evidence of fluoridation's harm to human health.
I think every ACSH scientific advisor ought listen to the discussion between Schissel and Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, Executive Director, Fluoride Action Network, Professor Emeritus of Chemisty, when Schissel and Connett appeared together on the Mike Gallagher radio show. I think after listening to Schissel, you may want to resign from the ACSH advisory panel.
The Mike Gallagher Radio with Drs. Schissel & Connett is at this website
http://noforcedfluoride.org/
Marvin Schissel (September 10, 2007)
(NOTE: The comments fields now read paragraph breaks correctly.)
EUES Ireland writes that he/she has checked with my list of fluoridation-supporting organizations and found that “there is not one who will come out and say unequivocally, with supporting research and a long-term health study, that fluoridation has been proven to be ‘safe and effective’”.
This is sophistry. In Science you cannot prove a negative; you can only demonstrate a negative’s high probability. You can never prove that anything is completely safe, you can only demonstrate that, up to now, it has not been shown to harmful. But you can prove a positive: in the case of fluoridation, it has been definitely shown to be effective.
nyscof (September 10, 2007)
Dr. Schissel hasn't been reading the literature:
New York - May 2007 - Contrary to belief, fluoridation is damaging teeth with little cavity reduction, according to a review of recent studies reported in Clinical Oral Investigations.(1)
Pizzo and colleagues reviewed English-language fluoridation studies published from January 2001 to June 2006 and write, "Several epidemiological studies conducted in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities suggest that [fluoridation] may be unnecessary for caries prevention..."
They also report that fluoride-damaged teeth spiked upwards to 51% from the 10-12% found over 60 years ago in "optimally" fluoridated communities. Dental fluorosis is white-spotted, yellow, brown-stained and/or pitted teeth.
Fluoridation began in 1945 when dentists thought that ingested fluoride incorporated into children's developing tooth enamel to prevent cavities. However, Pizzo's group reports that fluoride ingestion confers little, if any, benefit and fails to reduce oral health disparities in low-income Americans.
Also, any difference in fluoride tooth enamel surface concentration between fluoridated and low-fluoridated areas is minimal. And the relationship between higher enamel fluoride levels to less tooth decay was not found.
"Some risk of increasing fluorosis may be attributed to the ingestion of powdered infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water... [and] foods and beverages processed in fluoridated areas... Furthermore, the use of dietary fluoride supplements during the first 6 years of life
is associated with a significant increase in the risk of developing fluorosis," they write.
Lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation says, "Recent news reports claiming fluoride-free bottled water caused the cavity increase trends in toddlers are implausible because rising fluorosis rates clearly indicate that children are over-fluoridated, not under-fluoridated."
"There's no dispute that too much fluoride damages teeth, actually making them more decay-prone. Research is indicated to see if fluoride is causing the cavity escalation," says Beeber.
Some studies Pizzo reviewed focused on communities that stopped water fluoridation. "...after the cessation, caries prevalence did not rise, remained almost the same or even decreased further," writes Pizzo's
group.
"In most European countries, where [water fluoridation] has never been adopted, a substantial decline [75%] in caries prevalence has been reported in the last decades," they report.
To avoid dental fluorosis, the American Dental Association and the Centers for Disease Control advise against mixing concentrated infant formulas with fluoridated water.
"Fluoride is bone- and health-damaging as well," says Beeber.
In 1999, researchers found that children in Connersville, Indiana, (2) consumed over recommended levels of fluoride even though their water supply wasn't fluoridated. Organized dentistry still successfully instigated fluoridation and the American Dental Association (3)
bragged about it, carelessly putting more children at risk of developing dental fluorosis.
Reference:
1) "Community Water Fluoridation and Caries Prevention: A Critical
Review," Clinical Oral Investigations, by Giuseppe Pizzo & Maria R.
Piscopo & Ignazio Pizzo &
Giovanna Giuliana 2007 Feb 27; [Epub ahead of print]
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/Pizzo-2007.pdf
2) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&...
3) http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/us_fluoridation.pdf
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.FluorideAction.Net
http://www.FluorideResearch.Org
Fluoridation News Releases
http://tinyurl.com/6kqtu
Tooth Decay Crises in Fluoridated Areas
http://www.fluoridenews.blogspot.com/
|
