Support Community Water Fluoridation – Trust the Experts Instead of Accepting the Arguments of Fluoridation Opponents (Summary)
I wish it were as easy to counter anti-fluoridation arguments as simply stating that virtually all claims made by fluoridation opponents (FOs) were flawed and erroneous (which they are). Unfortunately, those anti-F arguments are often presented using effective strategies that make them appear believable to many voters and elected officials. To effectively counter very simple anti-fluoridation arguments like “Fluoride is a poison that should never be put in drinking water” requires paragraphs of detailed explanations and supporting evidence to even have a chance at refuting the claim. This letter only provides an outline of reasons to distrust anti-fluoridation propaganda, but it is still 6 pages long. My detailed explanation (web link, pdf), complete with specific supporting evidence, is over four times longer. If you are considering the possibility that anti-fluoridation arguments might have some validity, I hope you will at least read this outline of reasons to reconsider your position.
Community water fluoridation (CWF) has
been an important public health measure since the early 1950s after it was first
tested successfully in
Grand Rapids,
Michigan in 1945.
That initial test was the result of nearly
20 years of scientific investigation which
provided evidence that exposure to fluoride ions (F–) in drinking
water at about 1 ppm appeared to significantly reduce the risk of tooth decay –
while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis. Since
that discovery and the effectiveness of the Grand Rapids experiment, a number of
countries have implemented CWF programs.
Based on the success of CWF, other F– based dental health
measures have been developed and successfully employed like fluoridated
toothpaste, fluoride rinses and varnishes and, in some countries, fluoridated
salt and milk.
However, there has been opposition to CWF since the beginning, and decisions on
whether to fluoridate drinking water (or not) have usually been made in the U.S.
and other countries by a majority of voters or government officials elected by
the voters, not by a majority of science or health experts.
An important dilemma is that most of those voters and elected officials
are not trained scientists &/or health professionals.
Consequently, the decisions of most voters and elected policy-makers
concerning CWF are not (and cannot be) based on their personal evaluation of the
relevant body of complex scientific evidence.
My contention in the following discussion is that the democratic process (if it
is to produce legitimate science-based results beneficial to the population it
is supposed to protect) requires an accurate, impartial consideration of topics
by fair-minded, well-informed voters and elected officials.
The question I attempt to address in the discussion is:
If political decisions that impact
public health issues based on complex scientific evidence are made by the
majority of voters and elected officials who don’t have the training and
experience necessary to personally evaluate the evidence, how can these
individuals determine what the best decisions are regarding CWF – particularly
when they encounter diametrically opposed, mutually exclusive arguments for and
against CWF? The same question
and concerns are relevant to vaccination policies, climate-related decisions,
education policies regarding young-earth creationism, implementing & following
pandemic safety measures (wearing masks, social distancing, appropriate
isolation, etc.), and other science-based issues that impact public policies and
public health measures.
I am a scientist, and I have studied fluoridation issues for over 25 years.
I believe that anti-fluoridation arguments, tactics and the consequences
to public health are dangerous, as are anti-vaccination arguments, ignoring
science-based methods to limit the spread of a pandemic and the rejection of
other science-based policies.
I have actively and publicly engaged in countering
anti-F– arguments since 2015 when FOs launched a serious effort to stop
fluoridation of Denver Water.
Fortunately, the Denver Water Board members carefully researched the issue,
trusted the overwhelming majority of experts and the scientific consensus, and
they voted to continue fluoridation.
Even after hearing a presentation by Paul Connett, one of the top
anti-fluoridation activists, the Board concluded “Nothing
has been presented to the Board or learned in our research that would justify
ignoring the advice of these public health agencies and medical and community
organizations, or deviating from the thoroughly researched and documented
recommendation of the U.S. Public Health Service.”
https://www.denverwater.org/sites/default/files/fluoride-board-resolution-august-2015.pdf
12 years earlier, the Fort Collins, CO City Council had to make a similar
decision. A ‘fluoride technical
study group’ responsible for reviewing all evidence for/against CWF was created,
The study group was presented with arguments from fluoridation opponents, yet
the findings on CWF effectiveness, health risks, costs and other risks were all
in favor of CWF – resulting in one of the more detailed CWF evaluations
available.
https://www.fcgov.com/utilities/img/site_specific/uploads/fluoride-report030903.pdf
I am fully aware that there has been recent research
since the Fort Collins decision and Denver fluoridation battle which FOs have
presented to the public, allegedly as sufficient proof that CWF can reduce IQ
and cause ADHD and other neurological problems – not to mention ongoing claims
CWF causes arthritis, bone fracture, cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes,
GI effects, hypersensitivity, kidney disease, male fertility and pineal gland
issues, skeletal fluorosis and thyroid disease. (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/)
Anyone who is responsible for making decisions about
CWF will probably have been sent hundreds of letters from FOs that provide reams
of “conclusive evidence” that allegedly proves CWF is responsible for all the
damaging health issues listed above in addition to claims that CWF amounts to
the illegal addition of medication to the water supply that forces everyone to
drink a poison.
Anyone who is responsible for making decisions about
CWF will also have received letters from scientists and health professionals who
claim that, despite the strongly held opinions and claims of FOs, the overall
body of scientific evidence has continued to support the safety and
effectiveness of fluoridation since 1945 when fluoridation was first tested.
Anyone who has encountered anti-fluoridation claims
will understand that a significant proportion of the arguments consist of
presenting evidence based on published studies that allegedly prove the claims
that CWF is ineffective and actually causes serious damage to the health of
those who drink it. However, to
personally understand and evaluate the validity of evidence provided by FOs
requires significant science or health-care training and experience.
As noted earlier, most members of the public who are elected community
decision makers and/or voters responsible for making choices on CWF and other
science-based public health measures (like vaccination and how to cope during a
pandemic) are not trained scientists or health care professionals.
My goal is to provide accurate facts, a description
of anti-F– tactics and convincing
evidence in favor of accepting the conclusions of most relevant science and
health experts (and the organizations that represent them) that CWF is a safe,
effective, ethical science-based public health measure (like drinking water
disinfection, vaccination programs and science-based methods for handling a
pandemic) for reducing the risk of dental decay and protecting the health of
citizens –– without having to present a detailed evaluation of the specific
scientific evidence that has led to those science-based conclusions.
If you believe that most scientists and health care professionals responsible
for public health care practices actually care about others, have relevant
training and experience and try their best to make and promote effective,
science-based decisions that will benefit their fellow citizens, I encourage you
to read the following information.
An
important fact:
There are two completely contradictory and mutually exclusive
interpretations and presentation of the evidence regarding the safety and
effectiveness of CWF:
1.
Pro-CWF:
An important and ethical public health measure that significantly lowers
risk of tooth decay and related health problems with no proven health risks that
cause concerns.
2.
Anti-CWF:
An unethical method of forced medication that does not significantly
reduce tooth decay
rates and significantly contributes to an increased risk of lower IQ, ADHD,
cancer, thyroid problems, etc. – as referenced earlier.
·
The Pro-CWF and Anti-CWF conclusions are based on
exactly the same scientific evidence
which is available to those on both sides of the argument.
That creates a serious dilemma for non-scientists.
A Critical Question:
How can someone who is not a fully
trained and experienced scientist &/or health professional specializing in
fluoridation-related health issues (particularly those who are responsible for
making decisions that impact the health and safety of members of their
community) evaluate the accuracy and relevance of complex scientific evidence?
How can they determine which of the completely contradictory pro-CWF and
anti-CFW claims are legitimate and should be followed for the benefit of their
constituents &/or fellow citizens?
My
answer: Most people can’t – they must, at some level, depend on the evaluation and
conclusions of someone they accept as a trustworthy expert; and that would
either be a CWF supporter or opponent.
That
leads to another important question to consider: How can someone who
is not a fully trained and experienced scientist &/or health professional
determine who they should trust to present an accurate evaluation of the
evidence – Pro-CWF or Anti-CWF representatives?
Do they toss a coin? Do they
immediately trust an expert whose conclusions align with their beliefs?
Or do they try to be as diligent and impartial as possible and carefully
consider not only the conclusions presented, but who is presenting the
conclusions, how the evidence is presented and the tactics used to present and
support the conclusions.
This decision of who to trust for guidance on
important, science-based issues is critical, not only for CWF and other health
related issues like vaccination, other water treatment processes and how to deal
with a pandemic, but all other science-based issues and controversies like
evolutionary theory, GMO crops, fears of electromagnetic radiation, etc.
Hopefully a considered evaluation
of important facts that apply to the proponents of both sides of the conflicting
views will be undertaken before a decision is made about who should be
considered a trusted scientific expert on CWF and on all other important
science-based issues.
More information
here
Below are some important facts and questions to encourage your trust and acceptance of Pro-CWF representatives of the well-established, 75-year scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure –– regardless of political persuasion and without resorting (initially anyway) to a detailed evaluation of the evidence –– over the Anti-CWF claims by that fluoridation is harmful and ineffective:
1.
Fact – It is Important to Understand How Science-Based Conclusions
are Made
–
and how they differ from conclusions based on
NotScience beliefs (morals, religion, philosophy, laws, arts and
politics). I present an argument
that it is critical to understand the difference between:
a.
scientists who
dispute an established scientific consensus and use legitimate, relevant,
accurately presented, reproducible scientific evidence to convince relevant
experts the consensus needs changing, and
b.
those who
don’t have the evidence to change the scientific consensus, abandon the
scientific communities and try to change public opinion instead.
2. Fact – CWF is recognized a safe and effective public health measure by the World Health Organization and over 120 other major and respected science and health organizations worldwide, including in the U.S., Canada, Britain, Europe, Australia, New Zealand and other countries.
3.
Fact –
Even
mainstream science and health organizations that don’t publicly endorse CWF do
not post warnings against CWF or publicly state that CWF causes any of the
health issues claimed by FOs.
a. FOs resort to threats of legal action against organizations that have publicly supported CWF instead of working within the constraints of scientific protocol to present legitimate evidence (if available) that could change the scientific consensus that CWF is a safe and effective public health measure.
4.
Fact –
In stark contrast to the widespread
support for CWF by respected science and health organizations worldwide
–– and the hundreds of thousands of scientists and health professionals they
represent –– I am aware of no
major, recognized science or health organizations that have publicly stated CWF
is harmful or ineffective, and there are relatively few scientists and/or
health care providers that support the anti-fluoridation conclusions.
** In fact, I have only found a few alternative
science/health organizations that accept the anti-fluoridation
opinions as legitimate. The few I have found that
promote a public anti-fluoridation policy are
listed below. These organizations
often also subscribe to other ‘medical’ notions that don’t conform to mainstream
medical practices. Examples in the
full document:
a. Vocal, high-profile fluoridation opponents who aggressively promote the anti-fluoridation agenda frequently will also oppose other science-based practices like vaccination, and they are often prone to promoting various conspiracy theories to support their beliefs. Some vocal FOs (with references to evaluations of their opinions) are described in the full document.
b.
There is absolutely no evidence that most (or even a significant number of)
science and health professionals oppose CWF,
even though opponents of CWF (and others who hold views contrary to a scientific
consensus) are frequently extremely vocal about their beliefs, very eager to
share their opinions with others, and will do whatever they can to promote their
beliefs.
In fact: The heavily promoted
FAN Professionals Statement to End Water Fluoridation,
initiated in 2007 actually confirms the outlier status of FOs.
By December 2018 only 4,804 signatures
had been collected out of the millions of working and retired medical, dental
and scientific professionals in the world.
Broken down by profession, out of those 4,804 signatures, only
0.19% of the
200,000 dentists,
0.06% of the
219,000 dental hygienists,
0.06% of the
950,000 physicians,
0.03 % of the
3 million registered nurses,
0.03% of the
310,000 pharmacists and 0.01%
of the
4.5 million PhD holders
in the United States signed the petition – in over 10 years of actively
promoting the petition.
5.
Two extremely
important questions to consider based on the above facts:
If the arguments and claims of FOs are a scientifically accurate
interpretation of the evidence and are presented correctly, fairly and
truthfully:
a.
Q1 – Why do the major science and health organizations in the world
(and the hundreds of thousands of members they represent) continue to support
CWF and not the anti-fluoridation opinions?
b.
Q2 – Why do only a relatively small number of trained and experienced
scientists &/or medical professionals support the anti-fluoridation agenda and
beliefs?
c.
My Answer: The decision to dismiss the
interpretation of available evidence supporting a scientific consensus that is
accepted by most scientists in the world requires trusting in one’s
strongly-held, inflexible beliefs instead of the relevant scientific consensus.
That conviction demands requiring that the evidence be selected,
interpreted and presented to support those beliefs.
As noted previously, in order to change a scientific
consensus, legitimate new scientific evidence must be presented to experts in the
relevant scientific community sufficient to initiate change.
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 – that includes recent F–/IQ studies aggressively promoted by FOs.. The scientific
consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective has not changed.
The arguments and claims of FOs are not based on an impartial, accurate
&/or truthful representation of the 75-year body of scientific evidence.
6.
Another
critical question to consider: Since there are only a
relatively few scientists and health professionals, virtually no mainstream
scientific organizations, a few alternate health groups and some questionable
supporters of the anti-fluoridation arguments that CWF is dangerous and
ineffective –– and it can be easily demonstrated that the available
ant-fluoridation ‘evidence’ is presented inaccurately –– how is it possible that
FOs are often successful in their efforts to ban or stop community water
fluoridation?
** My Answer:
FOs (and others who oppose widely-accepted science-based conclusions) are
extremely dedicated, vocal and persistent in their mission to end CWF (or
challenge other accepted science-based conclusions).
There are a number of often successful tactics employed by FOs and other
anti-science activists to “adjust” public opinion and encourage members of a
community to actively and vocally oppose an accepted scientific conclusion.
7.
Fact: The
anti-science tactics
employed by FOs (and others
who dismiss an established scientific consensus) to try and convince members of
the public to trust their proclamations that CWF is dangerous, unethical and
ineffective over the conclusions of mainstream science and health professionals
must be exposed so they can be understood
and dismissed by rational, caring members of the public:
a.
As described earlier, FOs completely
ignore the scientific consensus if possible, dismiss it as an irrelevant
farce if confronted with it and avoid working within the scientific community to
provide legitimate scientific evidence (which does not exist) necessary to
change the consensus.
b.
FOs Hijack the
Democratic Process
c.
FOs Employ Fear Mongering
to Try and Change Public Opinion and Spread Discord:
Fear is an
extremely powerful motivator of public opinion, and FOs exploit the complexity
of fluoridation science and the power of fear to drive their anti-science,
fear-mongering campaign.
d.
FOs Employ
Gish Gallop:
Another very common tactic of
anti-science activists is Gish Gallop, “a
technique used during
debating
that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible,
without regard for accuracy or strength of the arguments.
e.
FOs claim accidents with some link to fluorine happen, so CWF
should be banned:
f.
FOs “Create
A Veneer of Science
to enhance the appeal of their claims”:
FOs (like all anti-science
activists) conduct questionable studies, reference (cherry-pick) poor quality
studies, inconclusive studies &/or studies that are irrelevant to CWF as 'proof'
their opinions are valid, and they deliberately distort conclusions of
legitimate scientific evidence before spinning it out to the public.
g.
FOs Blur the Boundary Between Ethics and Science to Fabricate False Moral
Arguments:
For example, FOs portray CWF as a medication that constitutes an immoral
violation of one’s personal freedom by forcing a medication on unwilling members
of the public.
h.
FOs Employ the Freedom of Choice Argument and claim CWF constitutes forced mass
medication
(or intentional poisoning) –– Anyone drinking public water should have a choice
regarding any chemicals they are exposed to.
i.
FOs Claim Most of the World doesn’t Fluoridate their Water & Decay Rates Have
Fallen Both in Countries that use CWF and Those that Don’t.
This is another example of the selective presentation of actual evidence.
j.
FOs Make Public, Libelous Claims
against the scientists and health care professionals who disagree with them,
sowing confusion and encouraging public distrust of the scientific processes and
the science and health communities.
k.
FOs Make Out-Of-context, Irrelevant, Misleading Presentations of
Article/Study Conclusions: Unless one takes the
time to review and understand every claim made by FOs, one will never know what
content has been taken out of context to create a false or misleading claim – it
is wise to consider all ‘evidence’ for anti-F–
claims ‘modified’ in some manner since the overwhelming majority of relevant
experts do not accept the anti-fluoridation interpretations and presentations as
valid.
8.
Bottom Line: If you have read this far, I
appreciate your willingness to examine arguments for trusting the overwhelming
majority of scientists and health professionals and the scientific consensus
over the outlier, anti-fluoridation opinions. I hope I have
provided sufficient evidence, without a detailed examination of hundreds of
studies, to cast serious doubt on the arguments and tactics of FOs.
As previously noted, I began my investigation of the risks and benefits
of CWF because of concerns from reading anti-fluoridation arguments. I had, and
still have, no predisposition either for or against CWF, and I have absolutely
nothing to gain or lose because of my position on CWF.
I am simply concerned about the accurate representation of scientific
evidence, whether it relates to CWF, vaccination, evolution, climate change, and
other topics where extremely strong personal beliefs often dictates what someone
will believe instead of an impartial evaluation of the relevant body of
evidence. During my years of
investigation I found no evidence that even strongly suggested CWF didn’t reduce
the risk of dental decay (particularly in disadvantaged communities) or that it
lowered IQ and/or caused numerous health problems.
If I had, I would not continue to be a CWF supporter – and I would
certainly not try to convince others that support of CWF is an important public
health measure that should be supported.
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
that reduce the risk (including fluoridation) should be implemented. Only those
who care mostly about their personal choices/freedom and 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.
Respectfully, Randy Johnson, MS
Legitimate Science vs. Anti-Science – Additional Fluoridation References:
“Scientists will find the
truth because they are committed to finding it, and they know if they screw up,
other scientists will be more than willing to debunk their shoddy findings.
Lone, “one scientist” discoveries are rare. Most factual conclusions are the
product of many individuals and groups checking and cross-checking each other.”
Dave McMillan