June 3, 2015
To people of integrity:
On April
30th, three days after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(USHHS) lowered the upper limit of the recommended fluoride level from
1.2 ppm to 0.7 ppm in fluoridated communities, the first change in over
50 years, the Rockport BOH held what they euphemistically called a
‘forum to discuss the myths, misinformation and meaningful use of
fluoride.’ The school nurse sent an email to parents inviting them to
attend in order to learn the ‘benefits of
fluoridation.’ According to
the forum rules, only the panelists selected by the BOH would be allowed
to speak. All the panelists were supporters of fluoridation and
included two proponents from off the island. Attendees were encouraged
to write questions on index cards to submit to the panel, but those
questions were neither read nor answered. Instead, the moderator simply
asked the panelists to address a category that was mentioned on several
of the cards in the last few minutes of the allotted time.
Aptly
named, the event was indeed full of myths and misinformation. It also
featured verbal sleights of hand as well as war stories. Dentist Myron
Allukian, an avid fluoridationist, spoke the longest. He described
volunteering his dental services in war torn Vietnamese orphanages
during the 1960s. He and other panelists also told vivid stories of the
pus-filled gums of children living in poor communities in the U.S. “who
didn’t even own a toothbrush” and of the pain of toothaches. Another
vivid image was of pre-WWII dental health conditions. The panelists
promised the attendees, literally promised them, that those days of
pain, suffering and toothlessness would be revisited on Rockport if they
stopped fluoridation. Talk about fear mongering.
Records
from a Rockport schools dental program begun in 1925 paint a different
picture. In 1933, 40% of the children in grades 1 thorough 6 had perfect
permanent teeth, despite concerns about lack of milk for these
Depression era children. Moreover, in 1934 the Rockport dental hygienist
noted a dramatic drop in extractions and general improvement in dental
health over a period of several years that was attributed to passing out
toothbrushes, instruction on tooth brushing and annual cleanings. More
modern studies of children living in communities that stopped
fluoridation prove that the level of decay continues to drop after
cessation, consistent with world-wide declining decay rates in both
fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions also attributed to better oral
hygiene, regular dental visits, and improved diet. None of this more
relevant or modern dental detail was mentioned by panelists.
However,
at one point in the midst of a number of intensive monologues, one of
the panelists mentioned in passing that the “optimal” fluoridation
standard had recently been changed to 0.7 ppm. He did not explain that
this meant a 30% reduction in fluoridation for Rockport, but rather
quickly emphasized the higher EPA contaminant levels as guarantees of
safety. Predictably, the panelist also failed to mention that in 2006
the report by the National Research Council of the National Academies
(NRC) on the toxicology of fluoride found those same “safe” EPA levels
to be decidedly unsafe, but that is another story.
Indeed
at no time before Rockport’s non-binding referendum on May 5th, did the
BOH truly inform the town of the USHHS’ April 27th announcement or the
April 28th Massachusetts Department of Public Health bulletin to
municipal Boards of Health that advised towns to reduce their
fluoridation level ostensibly for the purpose of reducing dental
fluorosis which disproportionately affects non-white and low-income
populations and results in more brittle teeth. Or if they did, like
during the forum, it was artfully obscured.
Instead,
the local paper ran a full-page advertisement several times in the week
leading up to the election. Paid for by dentists, this ad declared in
all caps that those opposing fluoridation are “ANTI-PUBLIC HEALTH FEAR
MONGERS” making “bogus attacks.”
The
panelists put on an excellent performance, getting laughs for
their disparaging jokes about the naivety of those opposing
fluoridation, derisively dismissing peer-reviewed studies documenting
adverse effects, and expressing barely contained rage at opponents ‘who
want to harm our poor children who can’t vote for themselves.’ Pep Rally
or Kangaroo Court are more apt descriptions than panel or forum for
this event.
As
a matter of fact, the fluoridationists did try to get the opponents
arrested. Members of the Cape Ann Fluoride Action Network (CAFAN) were
handing out information opposing fluoridation at the door. Someone
called the police to say the group was barring access. No one was barred
access, no one was arrested, and there were a hundred residents in
attendance.
Myths and misinformation, indeed. Also, manipulation and censorship.
One
letter from a Gloucester resident opposing fluoridation submitted
almost three weeks earlier was published the day after the election with
substantial edits. Another, from Dr. Hardy Limeback, a panelist on the
2006 NRC report, Fluoride in Drinking Water, was published online only while
letters supporting fluoridation filled the papers the week before the
election, along with a pro-fluoride editorial. Those pro-fluoride
letters, largely from the dental community, contained outrageous
statements allowed to stand as fact, such as an anecdote from a member
of the Rockport BOH about a neighbor’s child she had seen decades
earlier who had small pegs of chalky flaking teeth. Without any medical
or dental examination, the Rockport doctor attributed that condition as
due to lack of dietary fluoride and blamed the mother for not providing
her child with fluoridated water in what we can only describe as the
epitome of scare-mongering.
We
are hard pressed to choose the most egregious demonstration of lack of
scientific or personal integrity during what should have been a civil
community dialogue. However, we have to say the deft suppression of the
national news concerning the lowering the upper level of fluoridation by
40% prior to the election can’t be explained away as ignorance of the
facts or arrogance. This was a dereliction of duty for the purpose of
influencing an election. With approximately one third of the registered
voters casting a ballot, Rockport voted 3:2 to keep fluoridation. Well
done, Rockport BOH and Cape Ann dentists - your myths, misinformation
and machinations won you the election.
Signed,
Karen Spencer, Gloucester MA
Zenas Seppala, Rockport MA
Rose Ciulla, Gloucester MA
Terry Collins, Rockport MA
No comments:
Post a Comment