Bulletin #702
November 3, 2006
Dear All,
Some of you were as shocked as I was with the insulting editorial that ran in the October 31 issue of the Arcata Eye. Clearly, the Editor felt on pretty secure ground because he responded to my letter commenting on his editorial. Then ensued a lively exchange which some readers may have the stamina to read through to the bitter end.
One thing I must say for Kevin: at least he made an attempt to respond, at least up to a point. So often these editors hurl their abuse and then refuse to engage.
This exercise was probably a complete waste of time as far as getting Kevin to admit there is a problem. However, it might be useful for those who have seen these arguments before and were wondering a) how to address them and b) what arguments proponents bring to the table to back up their confident claims, when challenged.
I have tried to outline response and counter-response below so that it doesn’t get too confusing - using color and font size - apologies to those who don’t get color. I have taken the liberty of cleaning up some of the original typos.
Even though both of us got a little aggressive at the end of this exchange, may I encourage those who send in a letter to Kevin at to remain polite and dignified. Try if possible to take one specific point he makes and provide the most convincing piece of evidence to counteract it.
Paul Connett
——————————————————
1) My opening letter to Kevin in response to his editorial (October 31)
Dear Kevin,
I was forwarded the letters and editorial in your last issue. I am intrigued. Did you write this editorial? If so, how can you possibly rationalize your intense and sarcastic disdain for the scientific and rational basis of those who oppose fluoridation with the information contained in my letter? You can hardly pretend that you didn’t read it, based upon your communication below.
Why instead of insulting the intelligence of those who have the temerity to want the most prescribed medication in the US approved by the FDA, could you not have engaged the rational arguments I presented in my letter and others presented in theirs? Certainly the FDA does not regulate water - but it does (or should) regulate medicines. The delivery system does not make it any less of a medicine, and because of the inability to control dose, and because those who generally give the go ahead to dose the community, are not medically quualified, tight regulation is even more necessary than for a prescribed tablet to an individual.
You say: show us the dead bodies if it is as bad as you say. Well have those who push this (remember the US Public Health Service endorsed this in 1950 before any health trial had been completed) looked in a scientifc manner? Have they, for example, ever tracked the level of fluoride in the bones of the American people (we know that 50% of each daily dose accumulates there)? No. Have they looked to see if any of the 63 million Americans who suffer from arthritis have had this condition caused by fluoride exposure (afterall we know that the first signs of fluoride’s poisoning of bone - skeletal fluorosis - is identical to arthritis). No. Have they looked to see if any of the over 20,000 Americans with hypothyroidism have had this condition caused or exacerbated by fluoride (after all European doctors from the 1930s to the 1950s used sodium fluoride tablets at low doses to treat the symptoms of HYPERthyroism)? No. Have they used the severity of dental fluorosis in children (a known biomarker of fluoride exposure) to see if there is any correlation with various childhood concerns: lowered IQ, behavoral problems, onset of puberty or bone fractures? No. WHY NOT?
If you don’t look, you don’t find. When people do look in other countries (e.g. India and China) they are finding some of these relationships. The National Research Council did a masterful job of revewing the worldwide literature on this. it took them 3 and half years and their 450 page report has over 1000 references. Hardly people with ‘tin-foil” hats. On waht basis do proponents ignore this scientific review? They say that the recommendation to lower the drinking standard from 4 ppm has no relevance to water fluoridation at 1ppm. Give me a break! You can use one liners to dismiss issues in editorials, but it doesn’t work that way in science.
It is easy to take pot shots at websites in general - we know there is a lot of crazy stuff out there - however, go to our website http://www.FluorideAction.net, which my son has spent many patient years building, and tell me that your characertization of this source of information is fair. I challenge you to pull out anything which fits into your notions of pseudo-science.
I didn’t want this issue. At the time, I thought anti-fluoridationists - like you now, I assume - were a little crazy, but my wife forced me to look at the issue. I reviewed the literature with an open mind and was appalled - and for the last 10 and half years I have tried to right a great wrong.
Now I may have wasted the last ten years - and perhaps despite my career in science - I might have got this all wrong, but I think those of us who have spent so much time studying the literature, deserve just wee bit more respect.
Here is a very interesting exercise for you, since you are so clearly confident that the mighty columns of white coats who support this practice are right, and I am wrong: find any single person in their ranks to provide a documented writen response to the “50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation” which you will find on our home page. If the arguments are as clear cut as you indicate it should be easy for one of these people to do this. You should certainly try the CDC. Afterall this agency supports mandatory statewide fluoridation, and says that fluroidation is one fo the top ten public health achievements of the Twentieth Century. It should be as easy for them to find scientific arguments and citations to dismiss these “ravings” of mine as swatting a fly off a wall. Please let me know when you have found someone willing to do this.
If you didn’t write this editorial perhaps you would be kind enough to pass these thoughts onto the person who did.
Paul Connett
———————————————————–
2) Kevan’s First response (in red)
Paul,
All I’d like to see is a corpus delicti. Until then, the whole thing is an abstraction.
I’m just trying to be logical here. You allege serious danger from this substance, but after 43 years of use in our water supply, we have no one stepping forward as a victim.
Doesn’t that strike you as odd?
Kevin
———————————————————-
3) My Response to Kevan - inserted in a larger font and blue
All I’d like to see is a corpus delicti. Until then, the whole thing is an abstraction.
RUBBISH
I’m just trying to be logical here.
Logic is good but try butressing it with examinination of the evidence.
You allege serious danger from this substance, but after 43 years of use in our water supply, we have no one stepping forward as a victim.
How many kids in Arcata have dental fluorosis? - not an abstraction and highly embarassing for some. Do they get free treatment for this from the Arcarta authorities?
Are you saying that you have no people in Arcata with arthritis, hypothyroidism, hip fractures, etc - how do YOU know that these complaints have not been caused by fluoride?????? This is not an abstraction for them.
If you actually read something on this, instead of engaging the issue rhetorially, there are many people who may well be victims. For exmple at least one per cent of the population according to controlled drug/placebo studies are supersensitive to fluoride at 1 mg per day. Their symptoms - not earth shattering (and thus not noticeable to the average GP as to cause) - were reversible with the removal of the drug.
We know millions of people are accumulating fluoride in their bones at levels where the symptoms of skeletal fluorosis occur. Do you know the levels of fluoride in the bones of the people in Arcata? Again what does a doctor tell a patient (you know one of those 63 million people who have arthritis) when they ask “What is causing this doc?” - “We don’t know, we think it has something to do with aging.” the vast majority of doctors in this country are not trained to get a urine test for fluoride.
Hip fractures are doubled in China at 1.5 ppm - that is not an abstraction - are hip fractures a problem in the US? In Arcata?
IQ is lowered in China at levels as low as 1.8 ppm (last January I visited the villages where that study was done - that was not an abstraction)
Why don’t you actually read the NRC review? Read the chapter on endocrine disruption; read the chapter on the central nervous system.
How about if I turn the tables on you and say SHOW ME the grade A study that proves fluoride in water actually lowers tooth decay. You won’t be able to do it because there has NEVER been a double blind random control study. Meanwhil,e the national surveys show very little if any difference for kids who have lived all their lives in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities.
Why would you take ANY risk for such weak scientific evidence of benefit?
What do you make of the notion that even the CDC (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) says that the major benefit of fluoride is TOPICAL - so why would you swallow it? This is utter madness but it is also the “sacred cow” of organized denistry and the US Public Health Service so they can march out their white coats and dazzle people like you who don’t do their homework and use their wittiicisms to beguile their audience.
Paul Connett
PS Do you know why the FDA hasn’t regulated fluoride for ingestion ( I am sure as a journalist this was the first thing you followed up). The answer, just in case you didn’t: it is not regulated because it was in use before 1938, and thus it was grandfathered in! Do you know what its use was before 1938 - nothing to do with teeth - it was used as a rat poison, some basis for the FDA not to check it out for side effects!!!!!!!!!! Check it out. ————————————–
4) Kevin’s next response (given in larger font and in red)
How many kids in Arcata have dental fluorosis? - not an abstraction and highly embarassing for some. Do they get free treatment for this from the Arcarta authorities?
Are you saying that you have no people in Arcata with arthitis, hypothyroidism, hip fractures, etc - how do YOU know that these complaints have not been caused by fluoride?????? This is not an abstraction for them
I wonder why the Safe Water people didn’t present these victims. Testimonials are very persuasive.
If you actually read something on this, instead of engaging the issue rhetorially, there are many people who may well be victims. For exmple at least one per cent of the population according to controlled drug/placebo studies are supersensitve to fluoride at 1 mg per day. Their symptoms - not earth shattering (and thus not noticeable to the average GP as to cause) - were reversible with the removal of the drug.
I’ve read lots on this - that NAS study included. Nothing was conclusive.
We know millions of people are accumulating fluoride in their bones at levels where the symptoms of skeletal fluorosis occur. Do you knwo the levels of fluoride in the boens of the peopel in Arcata? Again what does a doctor tell a patient (you know one of those 63 million people who have arthritis) when they ask what is causing this doc - “we don’t know, we think it has something to do with aging.” the vast majority of dcotros in thsi country are not trained to get a urine test for fluoride.
Hip fractures are doubled in china at 1.5 ppm- that is not an abstraction - are hip fractures a problem in the US? In Arcata?
Yes, in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
IQ is lowered in China at level as low as 1.8 ppm ( last january I visited the villages where that study was done - that was not an abstraction)
Why don’t you actually read the NRC review? read the cahpter on endocrinre disruption, read the chapter on the central nervous system.
How about if I turn the tables on you and say SHOW ME the grade A study that proves fluoride in water actually lowers tooth decay. You won’t be able to do it because there has NEVER been a double blind random control study. Meanwhile the national surveys show very little if any difference for kids who have lived all their lives in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated communities.
Why would you take ANY risk for such weak scientific evidence of benefit.
What do you make of the notion that even the CDC (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) says that the major benefit of fluoride is TOPICAL - so why would you swallow it , this is utter madness but it is also the “sacred cow of organized denistry and the US Public Service so they can march out their white coats and dazzle people like you who don’t do their homework and use their witticisms to beguile their audience.
Paul Connett
PS Do you know why the FDA hasn’t regulated fluoride for ingestion ( I am sure as a journalist this was the first thign you followed up). The answer, just in case you didn’t: it is not regulated because it was in use before 1938, and thus it was grandfathered in!. Do you know what its use was before 1938 - nothign to do with teeth - it was used as a rat poison, some basis for the FDA not to check it out for side effects!!!!!!!!!! Check it out -
Well, without victims, I just don’t see any real problem.
Kevin
——————————————-
5) My response to Kevin (in blue and larger font)
I wonder why the Safe Water people didn’t present these victims. Testimonials are very persuasive.
Many of course do not realize that their somewhat general symptoms maybe related to fluoride- no medical authorities are pursuing this - likewise arthritis etc…
If you actually read something on this, instead of engaging the issue rhetorially, there are many people who may well be victims. For exmple at least one per cent of the population according to controlled drug/placebo studies are supersensitve to fluoride at 1 mg per day. Their symptoms - not earth shattering (and thus not noticeable to the average GP as to cause) - were reversible with the removal of the drug.
I’ve read lots on this - that NAS study included. Nothing was conclusive.
Then read their chapter on exposure analysis - and ask yourself if anyone is exceeding doses which THEY say could be harmful. When you say conclusive you are of course referring to effects at 1 ppm, however to use that to say that water fluoridation is perfectly safe is to ignore the KEY difference between dose (mg/day) and concentration (mg/liter). You can control the latter but not the former - people drink different amounts of water and get fluroide from many other sources. But The critical question is what margin of safety do you need - say if you find a doubling of hip fractures at 1.5 ppm? No toxicologist in his or her right mind would countenance the ridiculously low margins of safety (if any at all) for many of the health end points discussed in the NRC review. Did you read the whole report - or just the executive summary?
But bearing in mind that the NRC brief was to look at the safety of fluoride at 4 ppm at the request of the EPA for the purpose of determining a safe drinking water standard, don’t you think there are enough red flags in this to force the FDA to review the use of fluoride as a medicine using the same rigorous clinical trials they use for any other drug on the market? Why such an easy ride for fluoride???
We know millions of people are accumulating fluoride in their bones at levels where the symptoms of skeletal fluorosis occur. Do you knwo the levels of fluoride in the bones of the people in Arcata? Again what does a doctor tells a patient (you know one of those 63 million people who have arthritis) when they ask “What is causing this doc?” - “we don’t know, we think it has something to do with aging.” The vast majority of doctors in this country are not trained to get a urine test for fluoride.
Hip fractures are doubled in China at 1.5 ppm- that is not an abstraction - are hip fractures a problem in the US? In Arcata?
Yes, in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities.
And do you know that some for the largest studies in the US (albeit ecological) showed a significant increase in hip fractures in fluoridated versus non-fluoridatd communities? That is why the study done in China is so important in my view (Li et al, 2001) because the populations in the six villages chosen were as close to homogenuous - on many fronts - as you can imagine, with practically the only difference being the level of fluoride in their well water. The fact that there was a linear increase in hip fracture from 1 - 8 ppm should make one wonder what is happening at 1 ppm when you throw in other sources. Moreover, there were only about 1000 people in each village and that is not enough to tease out the full range of vulnerability in any human population, hence the need for a safety factor for extrapolating to a safe dose..
Why did you stop anwering my questions????
—————————————————
6) Kevin’s response (in red and larger font)
But bearing in mind that the NRC brief was to look at the safety of luoride at 4 ppm at the request of teh EPA for the purpose of determining a safe drinkign water standard, don’t you think there is enough red flags in this to force the FDA to review the use of fluoride as a medicine usign the same rigorous clinical trials they use for any other drug on the market? Why such an easy ride for fluoride???
Well, when it gets to 1.5 ppm in Arcata they shut down the water system (though that’s never happened). So it seems we have a fat margin of safety.
Why did you stop anwering my questions????
I guess I was temporarily demoralized by the multiplicity of exclamation points and question marks. Either that or fluoride poisoning. The streets are lined with victims.
What do you make of the notion that even the CDC (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) says that the major benefit of fluoride is TOPICAL - so why would you swallow it , this is utter madness but it is also the “sacred cow of organized denistry and the US Public Service so they can march out their white coats and dazzle people like you who don’t do their homework and use their witticisms to beguile their audience.
Paul Connett
PS Do you know why the FDA hasn’t regulated fluoride for ingestion ( I am sure as a journalist this was the first thign you followed up). The answer, just in case you didn’t: it is not regulated because it was in use before 1938, and thus it was grandfathered in!. Do you know what its use was before 1938 - nothign to do with teeth - it was used as a rat poison, some basis for the FDA not to check it out for side effects!!!!!!!!!! Check it out -
It doesn’t mean much to me which acronym regulates fluoride as long as they do due diligence in looking into safety and efficacy, which the EPA seems to be doing with things like the NAS study.
Thanks for your input Paul. I respect your views and respectfully disagree.
Kevin
————————————————
7) Paul’s response (in blue larger font)
Dear Kevin,
I plan to circulate this exchange to our 1500 members. Are there any other responses you care to make?
Paul Connett
But bearing in mind that the NRC brief was to look at the safety of fluoride at 4 ppm at the request of teh EPA for the purpose of determining a safe drinkign water standard, don’t you think there is enough red flags in this to force the FDA to review the use of fluoride as a medicine using the same rigorous clinical trials they use for any other drug on the market? Why such an easy ride for fluoride???
Well, when it gets to 1.5 ppm in Arcata they shut down the water system (though that’s never happened). So it seems we have a fat margin of safety.
NO WAY! You are again confusing concentration (mg/liter) - over which you have some tight control and dose (mg/day) - over which you do not. When the EPA detemined that the MCLG of 4 ppm was safe - they 1) did not consider any other source of fluoride and b) they assumed people only drank 2 liters of water per day. Some people drink MUCH more water than that.
Why did you stop anwering my questions????
I guess I was temporarily demoralized by the multiplicity of exclamation points and question marks. Either that or fluoride poisoning. The streets are lined with victims.
That, if I may so, is an example of sheer unaldulterated rhetorical crap. I would suggest to you that you didn’t answer them - not because I used too many exclamation marks - but because you couldn’t answer them and you didn’t want to admit it.
But I tell you what I will do - I will remove the exclamation marks and you take a shot.
What do you make of the notion that even the CDC says that the major benefit of fluoride is TOPICAL - so why would you swallow it , this is utter madness but it is also the “sacred cow of organized denistry and the US Public Service so they can march out their white coats and dazzle people like you who don’t do their homework and use their witticisms to beguile their audience.
Paul Connett
PS Do you know why the FDA hasn’t regulated fluoride for ingestion ( I am sure as a journalist this was the first thign you followed up). The answer, just in case you didn’t: it is not regulated because it was in use before 1938, and thus it was grandfathered in!. Do you know what its use was before 1938 - nothign to do with teeth - it was used as a rat poison, some basis for the FDA not to check it out for side effects. Check it out -
It doesn’t mean much to me which acronym regulates fluoride as long as they do due diligence in looking into safety and efficacy, which the EPA seems to be doing with things like the NAS study.
Well which agency do you say has done that the EPA, CDC ? They haven’t. When the CDC reported in 1999 that fluoridation was one of the top ten achievements of the Twentieth Century they were SIX years out of date (on health studies, PC) - would you call that due diligence?
Thanks for your input Paul. I respect your views and respectfully disagree.
No that’s too simple a cop out - let’s have some rational responses to the questions I have put to you and the other material in my letter - e.g. how do you explain the level of fluoride in mothers milk being so incredibly low - 0.004 ppm. Did nature screw up? Can we rely on dentists to have superior insights on this matter to evolution (or are you a creationist? If you are then your putting the dentists opinions above those of God!). Seriously, unless the mother has a deficient diet, mothers milk can be assumed to be the best designed combination of nutrients for a baby’s developmental needs (which would include teeth) do you disagree?
I would not be so aggressive in this matter had you not been so darned insulting in your editorial. If you know it all then cough up.
———————————————————-
8) Kevan’s response
Well, you might tell them that they could win more converts with actual evidence than they will with hysterical punctuation.
Thanks,
K
—————————————————————
9) Paul’s response
Well, you might tell them that they could win more converts with actual evidence than they will with hysterical punctuation.
Thanks,
K
That is pathetic Kevan and you know it. It is a pity that you are unable or unwilling to provide any evidence of the benefits (or provide solid responses to the other questions I raised). A glaring double standard don’t you think? Of course, by the time someone provides the evidence that will convince you, many more people will have been unnecessarily and possibly irreversibly damaged.
Those who have come forward and claimed that they have been damaged by fluoride are dismissed as providing only anecdotal evidence. Pro-fluoridation governments refuse to take their claims seriously or investigate the matter scientifically. In 1991, the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) recommended to the Australian health authorities that they do two things: collect fluoride bone levels in the Australain population and investigate scientifically the recurrent claims from some people that they are supersensitive to fluoride. In the 25 years since the NHMRC made this recommendation the Australian authorities have done neither. Australia has been fluoridated since the 1960s and they have done virtually no health studies on any tissue other than the teeth, as if the teeth are the only tissue in the body that they need to be concerned about. But like you they continue to claim that there is “no evidence of harm”. Again if you don’t look you don’t find.
One woman that I met in Australia suffers acute asthmatic-like symptoms when exposed to even small amounts of fluoride. When she offered herself to Victorian authorities to be tested (with a doctor standing by) they refused, saying they didn’t want to put her in a life-threatening situation even though they claimed that her situation could not be triggered by fluoride!
I am printing out a letter below I received this evening. It is one of many that I have seen and I am sure once I have distributed our exchange you will receive several more. Based upon your responses to date I expect it won’t make a blind bit of difference to your blinkered adherence to this ridiculous practice - one which you cannot defend rationally. Something other than rational discourse is operating here, and only you know what that is. It is a real pity the voters of Arcata will not see that until it is too late.
Paul Connett
——————————————————
Bill Buckel of Utah writes:
My STORY:
In 2003, I began experiencing a nagging morning brain fog “a confused, what-am-I-to-do-next?” kind of thing, when I first addressed the mirror for shaving in the morning. Soon, at the suggestion of my wife, a regimen of one grain Armour natural desiccated Thyroid was begun (one grain = 60 mg.). And within a very short time, I had no more low body temperatures, no uncontrolled shivers and another big plus - no more symptoms of asthma! No longer needed are those various inhalers that had become the norm for more than ten years! Additionally, I now had a fuller eyebrow, which had never been more than half there. (With subsequent increases, my dose is now 3 gr.)
At the end of that first year, on October 1, 2003 while using thyroid and feeling GREAT like I hadn’t felt for years, our County began adding “Hydrofluosilicic Acid,” the cheapest (and most dangerous form of) Fluoride available to our water district. Within the next few weeks, both my wife and I discovered a reversal of the good health we had discovered after starting the use of thyroid supplementation. When we visited the Water District Plant and complained of the horrible effects of that fluoridation, the manager said: “Hold it, you are preaching to the choir! We must add it, since it has been mandated by the county, and I need my job.” The manager was actually (privately) very agreeable to our position, admitting knowledge of toxicity and the effects of fluoride on human health.
Inside of those three weeks, both my wife and myself felt that our thyroid supplement was no longer doing anything for us. With much Internet searching and watching the difference in how our health was going downhill, we became aware of many articles written by doctors worldwide that were warning of the very problems and dangers we were currently experiencing. We subsequently bought and installed a 5-stage reverse-osmosis filtration system, which takes out the fluoride by filtering to about .0001 to .0003 microns, and in a very short time we were back to our good health and our thyroid levels were once more at a good level. (But, a diligent awareness tells us that we should increase our daily-dose when those niggling hints of hypothyroidism present themselves.) Since that time we avoid the use of any toothpaste! Rather we use baking soda and filtered water and avoid most juices and soft drinks. We even tote our filtered water along to stores, movies and restaurants.
in FAN
0 comments
