Dear All,

Included below is a statement from Karen Yoder, the editor of the American Public Health Association’s Newsletter, sent to us courtesy of Jane Jones.

According to Yoder, a recent large survey found that “dental professionals’ knowledge about fluoride was far behind the science”. What the survey is likely referring to is the fact that many dentists and doctors have yet to grasp the fact that most leading dental researchers now concede that fluoride’s benefits (such that exist) are topical not systemic. Many dentists and doctors have yet to get this message and are still prescribing fluoride tablets to children before their teeth have erupted, and some are even prescribing fluoride tablets to pregnant women.

It is a pity however that the APHA didn’t survey its members on the current literature which points to fluoride’s potential health dangers, via accumulation in the bones, the pineal gland and other soft tissues . For the APHA to continue to promote fluoridation in the absence of serious study of recent findings of fluoride’s impact on the brain, the thyroid gland and G-proteins shows a very unprofessional approach to its public health mission.

Its not enough for associations like the APHA to hide behind the skirts of agencies like the CDC, especially when these organizations are so lacking in credibility on this issue. In particular, they should ponder why the CDC insists that the decrease in dental decay in this country is due largely to fluoridation, when the same decreases have been achieved in most other industrialized countries which are not fluoridated. and why it is that where communities in Cuba, Finland, former Eastern Germany and Canada have stopped fluoridation in recent years, tooth decay did not increase as would have been predicted by pro-fluoridationists, but actually continued to decline <See http://www.fluoridealert.org/feb-2001.htm>.Typically, when confronted with arguments like this, public health officials retreat to the claim that we need fluoridation to help the children from lower income families, because they cannot afford fluoridated toothpaste. Such arguments are well intentioned, but are poorly informed for several reasons. Firstly, the poor are more susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects, because of their poorer nutritional status; secondly, the poor are less able to afford avoidance measures like bottled water or filtration equipment, and thirdly, the major cause of serious dental decay in poor communities is baby bottle tooth decay which cannot be stopped by water fluoridation.So its high time the APHA approached this issue professionally and did their own homework. If it is the poor they are truely wishing to help then they should use their lobbying power to insist on better dental care for those who cannot afford insurance. At present the only treatment provided under medicare is extraction for pain! In this area the Europeans leave us cold and their figures prove it. Dosing our poor children with a poison instead of real preventive care is a cop out and a nasty cop out at that.So in answer to Yoder’s last two questions: ” If we don’t educate health professionals and the public, who will? The Anti-fluoridationists?” The answer has to be if the CDC, the APHA et al continue to do a such a shoddy job of researching the potential health effects of fluoride, it will have to be the anti-fluoridationists who educate the public on this matter. But it sure would be nice to get some help from people who earn their living in the public health field.Paul Connett.————————————–From Jane Jones:American Public Health Association. Winter Newsletter, 2001An Opinion: It’s Time to Move On…By Karen Yoder, Editor.http://www.apha.org/sections/newsletters/oralhealthwinter2001.htm “We surveyed all dentists and hygienists in the state and through 2,391 responses (40 percent) learned that dental professionals’ knowledge about fluoride was far behind the science. . . .Dental professionals in our states need to learn the implications of the new understanding of fluoride’s mode of action and need to understand the possible implications of the significant increase in dental fluorosis . . . If we don’t educate health professionals and the public, who will? T and why it is that where communities in Cuba, Finland, former Eastern Germany and Canada have stopped fluoridation in recent years, tooth decay did not increase as would have been predicted by pro-fluoridationists, but actually continued to decline .

Typically, when confronted with arguments like this, public health officials retreat to the claim that we need fluoridation to help the children from lower income families, because they cannot afford fluoridated toothpaste. Such arguments are well intentioned, but are poorly informed for several reasons. Firstly, the poor are more susceptible to fluoride’s toxic effects, because of their poorer nutritional status; secondly, the poor are less able to afford avoidance measures like bottled water or filtration equipment, and thirdly, the major cause of serious dental decay in poor communities is baby bottle tooth decay which cannot be stopped by water fluoridation.

So its high time the APHA approached this issue professionally and did their own homework. If it is the poor they are truely wishing to help then they should use their lobbying power to insist on better dental care for those who cannot afford insurance. At present the only treatment provided under medicare is extraction for pain! In this area the Europeans leave us cold and their figures prove it. Dosing our poor children with a poison instead of real preventive care is a cop out and a nasty cop out at that.

So in answer to Yoder’s last two questions: ” If we don’t educate health professionals and the public, who will? The Anti-fluoridationists?” The answer has to be if the CDC, the APHA et al continue to do a such a shoddy job of researching the potential health effects of fluoride, it will have to be the anti-fluoridationists who educate the public on this matter. But it sure would be nice to get some help from people who earn their living in the public health field.

Paul Connett.

————————————–

From Jane Jones:

American Public Health Association. Winter Newsletter, 2001

An Opinion: It’s Time to Move On…
By Karen Yoder, Editor.

http://www.apha.org/sections/newsletters/oralhealthwinter2001.htm

“We surveyed all dentists and hygienists in the state and through 2,391 responses (40 percent) learned that dental professionals’ knowledge about fluoride was far behind the science. . . .Dental professionals in our states need to learn the implications of the new understanding of fluoride’s mode of action and need to understand the possible implications of the significant increase in dental fluorosis . . . If we don’t educate health professionals and the public, who will? The antifluoridationists?”

Print PDF