top
US
US
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

How Dentists Manipulate Legislators to Get Fluoridation Mandates Passed

by NYSCOF
Adding unnecessary fluoride chemicals into public water supplies is harmful to health. Politics, not science, keeps it going. Profiteers include legislators, corporations, organized dentistry and others - not those forced to drink fluoride-laced tap water and eat and drink restaurant and supermarket foods & beverages made with fluoridated water without their knowledge of fluoride content. Yet, there's no dispute that a little too much fluoride damages bones and children's teeth.
Ignoring the democratic process and discouraging a healthy dialogue, California fluoridationists worked secretly, quickly and dishonestly to pass a 1995 California fluoridation law, that forces most California communities to add unnecessary fluoride chemicals into their water supplies, whether Californians want it or not, according to “The Fluoride Victory,” published in the Journal of the California Dental Association.(1)

California Assemblywoman Jackie Speier, working with the California Dental Association (CDA), sponsored a fluoridation bill, eventually signed into law, forcing all California water companies, with 10,000 service connections, to add nonessential fluoride chemicals into the drinking water to prevent tooth decay, without constituent or local governing body approval, discussion or vote.
“To make the most of the element of surprise, it was decided that Speier would wait until the last possible moment to introduce her fluoridation bill,” writes author Joanne Boyd.

“’We pretty much knew we’d catch (the anti-fluoridation faction) by surprise because it wasn’t well known outside of the dental community what was going on,' said Liz Snow, assistant director of CDA’s Government Relations (lobbying) Office. ‘But we didn’t want to give the other side any more time to mobilize than absolutely necessary,’” writes Boyd.

William Keese, CDA Director of Government Relations, a lobbyist, received many compliments from other lobbyists on the campaign.

“I wouldn’t say we pulled a rabbit out of a hat, but it was a coup. We worked hard at getting prepared and using the element of surprise to our advantage. We moved fast and did it in one year," Boyd quotes Keese as saying.

Many of the nation’s most familiar pro-fluoride lobbiests, were involved in the California battle including zealous fluoridationist, dentist Michael Easley brought in from Kentucky, at the time. (By the way, tooth decay doubled in Kentucky after water fluoridation (2)).

Intending to insult science-savvy Americans opposed to fluoridation, Boyd quotes fluoridation lobbiest Snow as saying, “’When you’re a single-issue person – when that issue pops up, regardless of where it is – that’s where you go,’ Snow said. They remind me of Deadheads. Anywhere the Grateful Dead would go, there would be the same group of followers.” Snow’s criticism more aptly fits herself and other nationalfluoridation lobbiests provided by the country-wide dentists’ union, the American Dental Association (ADA)and its constituent and sister dental groups.

Unlike pro-fluoridation special-interest groups, fluoridation opponents use their own time, their own money, usually to protect their own drinking water and have actually studied the issue. There are different opponents in every town.

On the other hand, the ADA, went all out to support the 1995 California fluoridation bill, assisting in spokesperson training, legislative testimony and providing literature to distribute, reports Boyd.

With decades of commercials, advertisements and organized dentistry’s web of support, influence and money working against them, and during the OJ trial, Californians opposed to fluoridation hardly had a chance to voice dissent.

The California campaign is a "blueprint" for oranized dentistry to push fluoridation across the USA. This despite evidence fluoridation fails to reduce tooth decay by the same dentists who told the California legislature the opposite.

Untrained to diagnose fluoride’s adverse effects, California fluoridationist and dentist “Howard Pollick, …, likened the anti-fluoride activists to the Flat Earth Society. ‘Ever since science proved that the earth is round, there’s been a Flat Earth Society whose members refuse to acknowledge a scientific truth,”’ Writes Boyd in “The Fluoride Victory.”

Pollick should join the Flat Earth Society – in fact – he should be their President because he doesn’t even believe his own research.

According to Pollick and colleagues, "It may...be that fluoridation of drinking water does not have a strong protective effect against early childhood caries (ECC)," was reported in the Winter 2003 Journal of Public Health Dentistry(4).

Howard Pollick, DDS, is a clinical professor with the University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, and co-chairman of the California Fluoridation Task Force and has been a fluoridation spokesperson for the American Dental Association.

Pollick's team studied 2,520 California preschool children as part of the “California Oral Health Needs Assessment of Children Study” which helped convinced California legislators to mandate fluoridation statewide in 1995(5).

A majority of Asian-American children that Pollick and his research team studied, lived in areas with fluoridated water; yet they suffered with the highest prevalence and the greatest amount of cavities.

"...the primary sampling units were selected on the basis of fluoridation status: three were fluoridated urban regions, two were rural (nonfluoridated),and five were non-fluoridated urban regions," they report. "Our analysis did not appear to be affected by whether or not children lived in an area with fluoridated water," reports Pollick et al.

Pollick, turned fluoridation lobbiest in Arkansas where fluoridationists followed the California blueprint and secretly lobbied newby legislators to pass a fluoridation mandate without public debate or knowledge.

Fluoride opposition is based on sound science – not back-door political subterfuge Fluoridationiss have the power and money. Those opposes have the truth.
by Randy Johnson
Nyscof – The re-post of a 2005 propaganda piece is as flawed now as it was then – three falsehoods and distortions of facts in just the first paragraph.

Fluoridation, like other water treatment processes, can only be considered “unnecessary” if one believes that an increased risk of dental decay, water-borne diseases, and exposure to lead and other water contaminants is beneficial. In fact, it is the seventy-year body of evidence that continues to support the scientific consensus of relevant experts that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure for reducing dental decay and related health issues in communities that practice community water fluoridation.

Nyscof doesn’t even seem to understand that no one is forced to drink fluoridated water any more than they are forced to drink water that contains residual disinfectants, disinfectant byproducts and a host of other chemicals regulated to be within safe limits. If someone has an unwarranted paranoia about drinking safe, public tap water they can treat it or find other sources – they do not have the right to demand custom tap water.

Nyscof also appears not to understand the concept that ingesting too much of any substance is harmful – people have died from drinking “a little too much” water (in 2007 a woman died after drinking about six liters of water in three-hours), while no one has ever died from ingesting fluoride ions in optimally fluoridated water, nor is there legitimate evidence of any harm.

A “healthy dialog” and a legitimate “democratic process” can only occur if the public is educated by an accurate explanation of legitimate scientific evidence and not scared into submission by the fear-mongering tactics of fluoridation opponents (FOs). None of the anti-F propaganda is an truthful representation of the available evidence.

FOs post disingenuous misinformation that has been edited and misrepresented so it is completely contrary to the actual facts and carefully designed to create fear in those who choose to believe it.

There are a number of facts that nyscof failed to mention.

Fact: Modern science continues to support fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay in communities.

Fact: Because of the current scientific consensus, over 100 recognized national and international science and health organizations (and their many thousands of members) continue to recognize the benefits of fluoridation. These organizations include The WHO, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association and the American Dental Association.
~> http://ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation/fluoridation-facts/fluoridation-facts-compendium
~> http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/

Fact: There are only a few marginal science/health organizations that accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate. These fringe organizations include the IAOMT which has increased the bottom lines of members by advocating expensive, unnecessary removal and replacement of safe, durable, long-lasting amalgam fillings by employing the same types of scare tactics used in the campaign against fluoridation.

Fact: The FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation, initiated in 2007 actually proves the outlier status of anti-F opinions. The PStEWF had collected about 4,700 signatures worldwide by March, 2015, and by March 2018 a whoppin’ 4,790 signatures had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental and scientific professionals in the world. For example, only:
** 378 dentists worldwide signed the petition. That’s roughly 0.02% of the 1.8 million practicing dentists in the world.
** 581 MDs signed the petition. That’s about 0.005% of the 10-15 million practicing physicians in the world.
** 106 pharmacists signed the petition. That’s approximately 0.005% of the more than 2 million practicing pharmacists world-wide.
Those minute percentages don’t even reflect the millions more retired professionals who could have signed the petition if they believed the anti-F propaganda was accurate and legitimate.

Fact: Community water fluoridation to reduce the disease of dental decay and protect the health of citizens is no more a form of medication than drinking water disinfection to reduce other diseases and protect the health of citizens.

Fact: In order to change the scientific consensus, legitimate scientific evidence must be presented. For over 70 years, FOs have been completely unable to provide a single confirmed, convincing, legitimate, reproducible, scientific study to support their claims that drinking optimally fluoridated water is ineffective or harmful to health. The scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective has not changed.

Fact: Because there is no anti-F evidence sufficient to influence conclusions of relevant scientific and health experts, FOs must hijack the democratic process by fabricating “evidence” to try and convince the public that fluoridation is dangerous, unethical and ineffective.

Facts: Relevant details in any complex scientific topic are often extremely complicated. Fear is an exceptionally powerful marketing tool.

Fact: FOs exploit the complexity of fluoridation science and the power of fear to drive their anti-science, fear-mongering campaign. FOs try and convince concerned citizens that a beneficial public health measure is actually evil incarnate. A primary argument is that representatives of all supporting science/health organizations are either too stupid or incompetent to understand and recognize what FOs claim are obvious dangers of fluoridation or all these professionals actually understand the issue but simply don’t care about the alleged havoc fluoridation is causing to the health of their families and fellow citizens.

Fact: All alleged “evidence” presented by FOs which is used in their attempts to influence public opinions has been carefully evaluated and dismissed by mainstream scientific & health communities. When presented to the public this “evidence” will have one or more of the following characteristics: 1) The study will have nothing to do with drinking optimally fluoridated water (OFW); 2) The study will deal with exposure to fluoride ions at far higher levels than found in OFW; 3) Actual conclusions have been deliberately distorted/misused/misstated to fit anti-F propaganda; 4) Conclusions will only be suggestion of a possible correlation without proper adjustment for other potential causes, and they are proof of nothing; 5) The study will be unrepeatable; 6) the study will be demonstrably flawed &/or 7) The claim will be a complete fabrication.

Fact: Fluoridation is not medication. The FDA regulates bottled water, which can contain the same levels of fluoride ions as optimally fluoridated water, as a “Food for Human Consumption” not a medication. Optimally fluoridated water (OFW) contains fluoride ions 1,500 times less concentrated than found in most fluoridated toothpaste.

Fact: There are dozens of factors that can increase or decrease the risk of dental decay. All methods known to increase risk should be minimized and all methods, including fluoridation, that reduce risk should be implemented. Only those who care nothing about improving public health would insist that an effective method of reducing the risk of dental decay and related health issues not be implemented.

Bottom line: What makes more sense when trying to understand a complex scientific subject with over 70 years of scientific evidence and thousands of studies?
1) Believe the conclusions of the majority of relevant science and health experts that fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure.
2) Believe claims from an extremely vocal group of activists who represent a small fraction of a percent of health and science professionals and employ unsupportable, fear-laced propaganda to scare the public into opposing a safe and effective public health measure.

Instead of going to anti-F propaganda for an edited/fabricated version of "evidence" regarding fluoridation try to understand why nearly all scientists and health professionals continue to support fluoridation.
~> http://www.who.int/oral_health/publications/fluroide-oral-health/en/
~> https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.html
~> https://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/fluoride-myths-facts/
~> https://www.ada.org/en/public-programs/advocating-for-the-public/fluoride-and-fluoridation
~> https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/
~> http://americanfluoridationsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/b-Fluoridation-Claims-by-the-Opposition-Refuted-Johnny-Johnson-DMD-2014.pdf
by no way
The pro-fluoride contamination and unethical forced medication shills don't waste any time jumping in, do they? Wonder how much they get paid to advocate for unethical forced medication with a chemical that damages teeth and bones?
by Randy Johnson
bynoway – Fluoridation opponents (FOs) have no legitimate scientific evidence to support their paranoid opinions, so they manufacture more falsehoods to counter scientific reality. The only unethical component of the fluoridation discussion is the complete disregard for the dental health of citizens by FOs who are unwilling to employ ALL effective health measures available to reduce dental decay and related health problems in communities around the world.

FOs are completely unable to understand there is no evidence whatever that fluoridation is a form of medication, and no one is "forced" to drink fluoridated water any more than they are "forced" to ingest residual disinfectants, disinfectant byproducts or other chemicals in their tap water.

If FOs had any understanding of science &/or health care, or if they actually cared about the dental health of their fellow citizens, they would stop making ridiculous accusations and make an effort to comprehend why nearly all science and health professionals accept fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure and dismiss their anti-F claims as biased-driven, unsupportable opinions.

You "wonder how much [I] get paid to advocate for" a safe and effective public health measure and expose the anti-F lies? Answer – Nothing.

This is just one recent pieces of evidence that demonstrates the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/water-fluoridation-health-monitoring-report-for-england-2018
Water fluoridation results:
The chances of having teeth removed in hospital because of decay were much lower in areas with water fluoridation schemes.
The report also found that:
• Five-year-olds in areas with water fluoridation schemes were much less likely to experience tooth decay, and less likely to experience more severe decay than in areas without schemes
• Children from all areas benefited from fluoridation, but children from relatively deprived areas benefited the most
• Dental fluorosis, at a level that may affect the appearance of teeth, was observed in 10% of children/young people examined in two fluoridated cities; however, there was no difference between children and young people surveyed in fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities when asked about their opinion on the appearance of their teeth, taking into account concerns that have resulted from any cause (for example, poor alignment, decay, trauma or fluorosis)
• Taken alongside the existing wider research, PHE results do not provide convincing evidence of higher rates of hip fracture, Down’s syndrome, kidney stones, bladder cancer, or osteosarcoma (a cancer of the bone) due to fluoridation schemes.
by no way
blah blah blah says the shill.

I DO NOT CONSENT.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network