Information About The Fluoride Issue
Dr Paul Connett speaks during fluoride debate with Dr Todd Whitcombe. Photo 250News
Prince George, B.C. – On November 15th the voters of Prince George will decide in a referendum whether the city should continue or halt the practice of adding fluoride to the public water supply.
A debate on the issue was held Saturday afternoon between Cambridge University graduate Dr. Paul Connett, who holds a Ph.D in chemistry and is a noted toxicologist and strong opponent of fluoridation, and Dr. Todd Whitcombe, Chemistry professor and scientist at UNBC who holds a Ph.D in bio-inorganic chemistry from the University of Victoria. It was noted by the moderator that Northern Health was invited to the debate but declined. The debate was held in an attempt to provide information that would help people decide which way they want to vote in the referendum.
Dr. Connett argues that fluoridation is unusual, unnatural, unethical, unnecessary, unsafe and ineffective. He says the argument that fluoridation reduces dental costs is not legitimate and says “the only reason that it looks relatively cheap is because you’re using a hazardous waste product from the phosphate fertilizing industry as your fluoridating chemical. If you use the same quality of fluoride that they use in dental products, it would be cost prohibitive.” Dr. Connett says the promoters of fluoridation invoke the names of organizations such as Health Canada, World Health Organization and the American Dental Association, which he calls “the use of authority and the use of endorsements and not the use of primary science.”
Dr Whitcombe told the sizeable audience that he is not an environmental toxicologist but rather studies how metals and other compounds interact with your body. He asked the audience for a show of hands on how many were undecided and received a response from about one-quarter of those in the room. He said this event was not really a debate but an exchange of information.
Three questions were posed. First, is fluoridation a sound ethical medical practice or not? “Absolutely not” said Dr. Connett, “in fact it’s the only time that we’ve used the public water supply to deliver medicine for human treatment.” He said everybody gets it, “including bottle-fed infants who are getting about 250 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant, more than what mother nature intended.”
He calls the practice “indiscriminate, it goes to young people, old people, sick people, people with poor kidney function who can’t get rid of the fluoride so it accumulates in their bones faster. But most importantly the reason it is unsound and unethical is you are forcing medication on people without their informed consent.” He says some use the argument that you can get bottled water or a water purifier but “that does not apply to families of low incomes. So it is unethical to force fluoride on a sub-community, if you like, that can’t afford bottled water. So they’re forced to drink it and those families are more likely to have poor nutrition.”
Dr. Whitcombe’s response was that we are living longer than at any time in history and that is due, in part, to certain health measures, “the first of which is clean water, and that’s really important. But the other health measures are things like putting fluoride in water, or chlorine in water.” He says “if you’re going to argue that people shouldn’t be subjected fluoride because we’re doing so without their consent, you have to also argue they shouldn’t be subjected to chlorine.” He noted we also put Vitamin D in milk to prevent rickets as “a public health measure” and put Folic acid in bread “to help peoples’ health. We do a number of these sort of things so if you’re going to argue that we have to get rid of one public health measure, you’d better be willing to argue that we should get rid of all public health measures.”
Dr. Whitcombe argues that if the point against fluoridation is that it is being done without the public’s consent, “I ask you what is the point of this referendum then? Because about 14-thousand people in this city are below the age of 18 and they’re not allowed to vote in this referendum. They have no say in the decisions made by the majority of people who are adults over the age of 18. The majority gets to decide their fate with regard to fluoride. So if it’s unethical to do something to people without their informed consent, what are you going to do with all those kids?”
On question 2, Is Fluoridization Effective, Dr Connett says there is no margin of safety, that evidence that fluoride lowers I.Q. is stronger than evidence that it lowers tooth decay and that the benefits don’t even come close in comparison to the risks as spelled out in studies of groups of children in the United States. Dr. Whitcombe says fluoride is effective and counts about 25% in the health of teeth. He says it is only one part of a dental care package but it is effective and helps all social levels of the population. Dr. Connett says his counterpart should back up his claims with scientific literature instead of blanket statements.
The final question was, Is Fluoridation Safe? Dr. Connett cited studies which raise concerns about fluoride’s effects on the brain, on IQ and challenged Dr. Whitcombe to name one study that show fluoridization is safe. He says “I’m trying to stop this in science and ugly fact, but you want to continue to do this even though a lot of people are saying they don’t want to be fluoridated. The onus is on you to demonstrate, using the scientific literature, that a) it’s working and b) it’s safe. You’ve done neither.”
Dr Whitcombe says “safe is one of those funny terms, it’s like toxic.” He says the levels we’re dealing with in fluoridization have safety margins built in. He says there are about 1.2 grams of fluoride in the body of an average adult and asks, if fluoride in water lowers I.Q., then fluoride in blood would do the same. He says the lowering I.Q. issue is a false pretext.
Dr. Connett says Health Canada backs fluoridation because “they’re more interested in protecting this policy than protecting the health of the Canadian people. I think they feel that if they lose fluoridation after promoting it for fourty or fifty years, then it will affect their credibility, they’re going to lose the public’s trust, and that will impact other public health policies that they are promoting, including vaccinations, which is a multi-billion-dollar interest. Whatever the reason it’s politics that are operating now and not science. It is not healthy in our country to have driven a wedge between honest science and public health policy. We will rue the day in the future that we did that. We’ve got to be able to trust our public health agencies and the only way they can regain our trust is to come out and admit that this fluoridation was a huge mistake, and to stop it now.”
Dr. Whitcombe asks, what is the motive for removing fluoride?
Comments
Whitcombe: “We do a number of these sort of things so if you’re going to argue that we have to get rid of one public health measure, you’d better be willing to argue that we should get rid of all public health measures.”
Of course not! That would be silly.
Hard to find words to express one’s consternation and frustration when Todd is comparing vitamin D (the sunshine vitamin, essential to life) and folic acid (found in green vegetables, essential to life) to hexafluorosiiicic acid fluoride added to our tap water! Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor is it essential to life!
Blood tests show deficiencies of vitamin D and B and doctors regularly advise patients to get more exposure to sun (or a supplement) and to eat more spinach and other green vegetables.
My doctor has never told me that I need to supplement with fluoride or that I should avoid tap water because my fluoride blood levels are out of limits! Why? I do not think that fluoride is ever tested for!
It is the only medication delivered in drinking water and it is neither dosage controlled nor followed up on. It is also the only one patients must take without having given informed individual consent!
Enough said! Dr. Connett had all the scientific evidence and Dr. Whitcombe did not have any.
The time spent attending this event was well worth it!
Why would Northern Health decline to be a part of the debate? Surely they must have somebody that can argue for them?
Hard to believe that Dr. Connett is repeating the same tired old misinformation and repeating myths found on dedicated anti-fluoride websites. No wonder he shows up on QuackWatch.
Sounds like the ‘debate’ was mostly Dr. Connett preaching to his choir.
Scientific studies my arse. The IQ thing he keeps referring to is for dangerously high doses of fluoride, he fails to mention the recent study out of New Zealand that found no IQ difference in theirs, they took kids 7-13 and tested them again at 38. They found fluoride had no bearing on IQ but rather breast feeding increased the IQ. Go figure. It will take another 30 years for a study like this.
@princegeorge why not mention the results if too much vitamin D? Drink or eat too much supplemented items and you can get calcification of the bones and soft tissues like the heart can you not? Also vitamin D added to products does not come from collecting sun rays, it comes from a lab somewhere. This will be the next spin doctor target fir those now unemployed by fluoride votes and misinformation.
If even one of Dr. Connett’s health claims were valid scientifically and backed by peer reviewed study, fluoridation would be stopped worldwide immediately.
thanky, I read all the labels on the food I buy. I get regular blood tests (because of an illness which is in remission) and the levels of vitamins in my blood are within accepted medical guidelines. So you are saying that the vitamin D added to milk is unacceptable because it comes from a lab?
Allow me to re-state that the fluorosilicic acid fluoride is NOT the natural calcium fluoride which dissolves from ancient rocks into water.
If you oppose things that come from a lab you should join us and fight against having our tap water intentionally poisoned with fluoride from the phosphate fertilizer industry – a wood preservative and rat poison.
If the city would use the same fluoride used by dentists and found in toothpaste the cost to the city would increase by a factor of 8 to 10 and water fluoridation would be history!
Just brush your regularly teeth, don’t swallow (the stuff is bad when ingested. Floss, there is dental floss that has been fluoridated.
Obey the dental hygienist and spit out all fluoride after the fluoride has been applied to your teeth! Years ago I swallowed some and had a stomach pain for two days!
Nobody will be unemployed! How many people became unemployed when lead was eliminated in paint and gasoline?
BTW, breast milk has a fluoride concentration which is 300 times SMALLER than Prince George tap water.
“Pylot Project. Why would Northern Health decline to be a part of the debate? Surely they must have somebody that can argue for them?”
Good Question! I would love to hear Northern Health’s public answer. Don’t hold your breath waiting for an honest answer from them!
I have asked NH through FOI Legislation for reasons they support fluoridation including providing their documentation. They tell me; they don’t have to respond to questions! Their response; NH does not “own” any fluoridation information. They won’t provide me with any fluoridation information they might use, because they don’t “own” it!
Dr. Oise did provide me with an opinion and I respect him for that. However, there was no mention of any of the identified, scientifically researched precautions.
NH has no expertise on fluoridation. So why does NH publicly endorse and support fluoridation when they “own” no information and have no expertise supporting their arguments? The Northern Health Authority is expected to be the authority on fluoridation, providing balanced public information (benefits and harms) to caring individuals supporting them making an individual and informed choice regarding personal medical treatments.
NH is also a corporation. If taxpayers are the shareholders, why is NH afraid to provide us with honest and balanced fluoridation facts they use, including the identified harms? NH expects people to trust their well-considered advice. Don’t they trust people to make good decisions if provided most of the balanced fluoridation information?
If NH does not provide us with both sides of the documentation we pay them to find regardless if they “own” the documentation or not, how can people make an informed choice? NH does not own vaccination information or medication information, yet that information must be provided by Doctors who want to treat us, if we ask for it. If NH won’t provide us with the facts we pay them to provide, maybe it’s time to find a new Health Authority!
If NH thought fluoridation was safe, why would they be afraid to provide the supporting documentation they use including both sides of the documentation? Good luck to all of us getting an honest answer from HN. Can they be trusted regarding other advice they offer? That is their and our dilemma!
Get rid of it. Waste of money. Why do I need fluoride when I water the lawn, wash my clothes, wash the vehicle, wash dishes, showering. All consume way more water than I drink.
It makes me feel sick that if I want a drink of water, I have to drink Fluoride too! Yuck.
Fluoridation has been stopped in most of B.C. We are only one of three communities that still have it in our water. Why???
Both sides have there share of BS, they are polar oposites. From my experience the truth lies in the middle.
What is clear is that floride is not a need in the Canadian population and there are better ways to improve public dental health.
The pro side keeps telling us when they have nothing left to argue is that floride is primarily focussed on the less fortunate population. Then educate and provide free dental care suplies dont dump a chemical in water to treat 10-20% of the population. Do you know how little of our public water actually makes it to our mouths. Very very very little. The rest goes down our plumbing on our lawn and wash’s our car’s. So floride targeted in the apropriate mouth with this delivery method must be somewhere in the lines of 1liter to every 100,000liters treated or less. Look at the reality it just does not make sense.
This whole debate is a tempest in a teapot. I cant believe that people actually think this issue deserves the amount of time and effort spent on it.
Forget all the so called scientific BS on this subject and go talk to all the people in Prince George who have been drinking this water, are alive to-day and healthy. Have some of them discuss their health over the years, and see if you can determine if they have been harmed by the water.
We have plenty of people who are here, alive, and willing to discuss this issue, and if need be, stack their present health against those who have avoided PG water .
Of all the arguments for and against all the pollution, water contamination, etc; etc; fluoride in water is at the bottom of the list, and is the most boring, subject that I can imagine.
The anti-fluoride camp always reverts back to the same misinformation and talking points, because the science can’t be debated.
Even Dr. Connett did that, and I was hoping he would at least bring a fresh perspective, but it turns out he didn’t do that.
Fluoride is not needed in the PG water system- monkeyboots has made a very good point.
“Even Dr. Connett did that, and I was hoping he would at least bring a fresh perspective, but it turns out he didn’t do that.”
If you had been at the “debate” you would not be saying that. Well, perhaps you would…..NH did not have the guts to show up either.
Slinky:”They found fluoride had no bearing on IQ but rather breast feeding increased the IQ.”
Precisely! Thanks for agreeing with the evidence presented by Dr. Connett! Breast milk has hundreds of times less fluoride in it than fluoridated tap water! That is how the brain of the infant is protected by from the neurotoxin fluoride while it is still developing.
The Gerber company in the USA markets a baby formula kit which includes the formula and a bottle of non fluoridated water !!!
They know what we already know. Fluoride free tooth paste is on the shelves in many stores, including grocery stores. Ever wonder why?
Oh please johnybelt Im telling you your both full of it. I did your searches and did not find one simular first world population study on floride dilution in the water system that prove 38 to 1 or anything else you have said. Both polar sides are relying on bending the truth. That being the case I will read it all and it becomes obvious it is a waste of money.
Wait a second, PG, you’re on one hand chiding Northern Health for not showing up to the ‘debate’, but you don’t seem to mind that Dr. Connett makes his living flying around the world speaking on the subject, because nobody from the local scientific communities that he flies to will speak out against the practice. Sounds like an awfully harsh double standard to me.
Is Gerber some sort of scientific medical association that I should know about? They are a baby food company which has ideologies just like you — and are not necessarily based in science.
I keep asking you to provide scientific proof of your claims but you constantly dodge the issue. Ever wonder why?
It’s not my fault you can’t Google, monkeyboots.
Toothpaste for Children! Great packaging with Happy Faces! Guess what? Fluoride Free!
For people who have their digestive health impaired by this stuff or have their teeth damaged by dental fluorosis nothing about this issue is a tempest in a teapot! There is no such a thing as an anti-fluoride “camp” (an intentional insult) just like their is no pro fluoride “camp” ! Let’s ignore the fact that B.C. is 97% free from this disrespectful method either by the fact that they never gave this stuff any credibility or by voting it out once they got enough information about it!
BTW, Todd trying to justify water fluoridation by saying that all those under 18 years of age have no vote in this referendum was another red herring! Those under age have no vote in municipal, provincial and federal elections either so what is the point except trying to steer the discussion away from the agenda.
Gotta go and rake the lawn! Enjoy the sunny day!
@princegeorge way to slew the topic to try and make a point. Your doc has no evidence of fluoride deterring IQ development from drinking water sources. He does have evidence that drinking water with hundreds of times higher rates of fluoride than that is considered safe by the WHO, NH and others MAY affect IQ. But those studies did not compare the IQ of the same people over time as the New Zealand study did which found no affect on IQ. The studies your doc refers to are data crunching of other studies performed. Could have been a bunch of people from a hillside town drinking high concentrated fluoride from wells without book learning compared to inner city university kids in China – you don’t know, and I don’t know because that info wasn’t collected in the original studies.
Your argument about calcium fluoride from rocks in wells is moot same as vitamin D cannot be collected from the sun ‘naturally’ to put into your milk and pop either. It has to come from other sources that can dissolve properly into the items they will be mixing with. You don’t want pockets of high dose which will be detrimental to health.
PG: “They know what we already know. Fluoride free tooth paste is on the shelves in many stores, including grocery stores. Ever wonder why?”
Sure, they market it to people who have an irrational fear of fluoride. It doesn’t matter why they’re afraid, as long as they can sell some toothpaste.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that Gerber isn’t just a baby food manufacturer any more, but is now heavily involved in life insurance too, getting parents to insure their youngsters at an early age with them. If that’s so, maybe they have a very good reason for coming in for non-fluoridated water for infants. If I lived in Prince George, I’d vote to get that stuff out of my drinking water.
Posted on Sunday, October 19, 2014 @ 9:29 AM by PrinceGeorge
thanky, I read all the labels on the food I buy. I get regular blood tests (because of an illness which is in remission) and the levels of vitamins in my blood are within accepted medical guidelines. So you are saying that the vitamin D added to milk is unacceptable because it comes from a lab?
If you oppose things that come from a lab you should join us and fight against having our tap water intentionally poisoned with fluoride from the phosphate fertilizer industry – a wood preservative and rat poison.
————
No I am saying this is your natural target after fluoride as Vitamin D can contain mercury or methylmercury which is harmful for children (and pretty much every human) and Vitamin A which is dangerous to pregnant women. The other type of vitamin D is also a rat poison (cholecalciferol)
Gerber-Insurance-Health Importance-Irrational fluoride fear – Whole corporations now on board!!! Soon others! Why sell life insurance to people who have their health impaired with a toxic substance!
94% of the global population fluoridation free – most of western Europe fluoridation free – Quebec and B.C. 93% and 97% fluoridation free, soon all of Canada, all because of irrational fear, of course!
It is a great trend! Amazing what irrational fear and plain foolishness can do for improvements in health!
Keep it going! I love it!
Doctors’ and specialists’ first question? Do you smoke or have you ever smoked! How things change given enough attention, research and time!
PG: “94% of the global population fluoridation free – most of western Europe fluoridation free – Quebec and B.C. 93% and 97% fluoridation free, soon all of Canada, all because of irrational fear, of course! ”
Why didn’t you mention Alberta, Ontario, or Manitoba which have fluoridation rates in the 70% – 75% range?
Don’t you think it would have been stopped a long time ago if even one of the claims by the anti-fluoride camp was proven to be true?
If you want to see where PG could end up, look at what’s happened in Calgary since they stopped fluoridating.
Thank you slinky for the added information you provided! The Lancet has identified fluoride and manganese as developmental neurotoxins and added them to the growing list of others, like arsenic, mercury and lead. It also urges the global community in view of the ever increasing rate of neurological diseases (autism and Attention Deficit Disorder are mentioned) to identify other neurotoxins of which there are possibly hundreds. Your mentioning of the toxins above is worthwhile, as damage may be caused to the brain of a foetus by pregnant women consuming those and fluoridated tap water.
It is in our collective interest to keep identifying these toxins so they can be avoided as much as possible.
Sure we live longer lives (Dr. Whitcombe) but quantity of life is not nearly as important as quality. How sad if a person lives a longer life but the last few years are lived in the mental darkness of Alzheimers.
Thanks for your information!
“Don’t you think it would have been stopped a long time ago if even one of the claims by the anti-fluoride camp was proven to be true?”
————————————————————————–
I have a beat-up old book here published in England in the mid-1930’s called, “The Boy Electrician”, and loaded up with various electrical experiments and devices that any mechanically inclined teenager could do or contruct.
One chapter describes all the ‘fun’ that can be had with a ‘Roentgen tube’, which could be purchased, according to the book, at ‘any good chemist’s shop’. A Roentgen tube is, of course, the device which generates X-Rays, which, at that time, were thought to be quite harmless to human health.
They were even used to treat tuberculosis patients, as well as in commercial sun-tanning machines, where you could simulate a natural tan.
When people started coming down with cancer from over-exposure to X-Rays the connection wasn’t immediately established. It took quite some time, in fact, before the link was made ~ since the discovery of the X-ray dated back almost a third of a century before that book was published. And they were still being promoted as a ‘fun’ thing to play with when it was. Now we know better. I rather suspect much the same can be said of fluoridating water.
Most if not all of the studies mentioned by the “fluoride camp” only look at the benifits but not the negative side effects of fluoride like the newer research from the Lancet. Is there a safe level for a neurotoxin? I think not.
If you look at a tube of toothpaste there are specific instructions to monitor children under 6 to ensure they do not swallow the toothpaste. Dental offices have a spit sink beside every chair. The reason is that fluoride is meant to be a topical treatment and not ingested because of adverse side effects.
If the city wants a less wasteful and much more effective way to help with the dental care of those less fortunate contact a company like Colgate and spend the $150,000.00 a year on toothpaste that could be handed out in certain schools, old folks homes, on welfare wednesdays and in food banks etc. They could probably get it for a buck or two a tube and 75 or a 100 thousand tubes would do a much better job than flushing most of what they add to the water away.
Digging a little deeper in to the wasteful aspects of adding this industrial grade product to our water I would think that 75% of the people in PG look after their teeth by brushing, flossing and visiting their dentist on a regular basis. So three quarters of the population can get no benefit but are exposed to any potential harm that could be caused by adding this crap to the water.
Of the remaining 25% you would have to think that more than half are at least brushing with a fluoride toothpaste and do make occasional visits to the dentist.
So when all is said and done about 90% of the people can only be harmed by injecting this chemical into the water supply and not helped in any measureable way. Another consideration is that ~95% of the water is used for things other than drinking, I cannot think of a more wasteful program by level of government.
Whenever visiting the 97% of the province that does not have this chemical jammed down their throat they all seem to have perfectly healthy teeth.
Siting science from the past is a red herring and a common tactic, which has no bearing on whether fluoride is safe.
To summarize, there’s no credible scientific studies that show fluoridation at approved levels causes any harm. Most of the opposition is based on ideology and irrational fear.
Hopefully the residents of PG see through the alarmism and scare tactics, but I’m not so sure.
Johnny your dismissing out of hand the latest research showing that fluoride is a neurotoxin as is some of the tag along chemicals in this industrial by product also has a fishy smell. As with any toxin, poison or even medicine each person has a different threshold to it’s effects. An example is how one person can be a heavy smoker their entire life with little effect when a light smoker can get smoking related lung cancer after only a year or two.
As more research is done on the toxic side effects of ingested fluoride I can see more court challanges to stop the city from adding it to the water. Will not take that many billable hours for lawyer costs to match the chemical costs. I for one will contribute or join a class action to make the city mothball the injection system.
Johnny
Elections are coming and maybe we could get the city to install another water line – one with fluoride and one with just plain old good drinking water. Just think of the savings-money well spent.
Only the cost of the flight, accommodation and such were paid for by the local group. He provided the debate at no cost. He has been making his presentations in 62 countries and was on his way to Dallas when he managed to add Prince George to his extremely busy schedule.
His book which he co-authored with two other renowned scientists has references for every statement made in the many chapters, citing peer reviewed studies made by government and other scientists.
There are 80 pages of references, in tightly spaced paragraphs. There is not a single claim or graph that is not backed up by a reference to its source.
Dismissing all that evidence means dismissing all the sources as bunk as well, including those who are often cited by fluoridation proponents as the ultimate proof of their beliefs.
Watch your sources, PG. From Quackwatch:
“Paul Connett, Ph.D., a retired chemistry professor, is executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and its parent organization, the American Environmental Health Studies Project. His followers are sufficiently organized that any community that considers fluoridating its water supply will hear from them by e-mail and possibly in other ways.
Fluoridation is supported by major health organizations and government agencies throughout the developed world and has been listed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention among the 20th Century’s ten great public health achievements [1]. But Connett would have you believe that fluoridation is ineffective, unsafe, and unethical [2]. In effect, he would like you to believe that he’s smarter than all of them put together.”
In 1985, a team of public health experts from the Ohio Department of Health published a book analyzing his eight-page pamphlet, “A Lifesaver’s Guide to Fluoridation.” [4] This pamphlet, which was invariably distributed wherever community fluoridation was considered, cited 250 references that supposedly backed up Yiamouyiannis’s claims that fluoridation is ineffective and dangerous. However, when the Ohio team traced the references, they found that almost half had no relevance to community water fluoridation and many others actually supported fluoridation but were selectively quoted and misrepresented. Eighty-six citations, for example, referred to studies conducted on plants or animals [5].”
Obviously those who posted this diatribe on Quackwatch had their own motives to do so. What do you think they were? Of course studies were conducted on animals. Would you have preferred it that they had been conducted on human beings instead? You are believing a smear campaign which is in the same vein as your own arrogantly dismissive comments on this website.
I have nothing further to say to you.
“princegeorge” Im with you in terms or arrogant dismissive malarky comming from the pro side. Don’t get me wrong I believe bits of it all but I believe the pro side has more malarky. They are the blind following the mulinational arrows. If you just treat all the information for what it is, biased information the truth is obvious. Canada should not be floridating its municipal water.
The pro side cherry pick statistics. They mix the use of floride in all forms not just diluted in municipal water studies. Johny studies on different populations in different delivery forms are not valid. Thats one thing I noticed, all these studies are old 15+ for the most part. Things change man, like we have crest complete and total care and stuff. Sorry I needed to quote some useless meaningless stuff to. ;-)
It does not surprize me that some keep going back to Calgary for answers as the pros seem to be more political than factual.
Johny the facts are clear. If you dont like BC and our sensibilities maybe Calgary or
Ontario is a better place. I have spend a lot of time in both, and I like it there but would never live in either, their politics suck. Prince George and BC are the best I have seen for lots of good reasons. I just wish in PG we would stop being so polically pig headed and start using our heads more often. That is the main reason this debate bothers me, the correct answer is clear if you drop the politics.
Have a good night everyone.
Ps. What a nice day we had.
MB, Good points! We all know that the Harper Government prevents government scientists from making their study results public unless they have been approved first by the government! How do I know that? It was on all the media and being criticized as a muzzling of scientists even though we the taxpayers pay for everything. Is it possible that this controversial issue of forced mass medication has been made a political one many decades ago in order to stifle uncomfortable revelations coming from science?
Another thing is that one has to follow the money trail! This fluoridation matter is big business. Medical ethics are pushed to the back burner. Even in this debate the proponent refused to debate the medical ethics question. Some scientists are not marching in lock step with the accepted mandated main stream. Rather than being applauded for that they are vilified and ridiculed.
‘Government scientists’ are not ELECTED to make government policy, Prince George. Or use their positions to publicly promote their own particular political biases while they still hold those positions. Particularly where they are in a spot to use the ‘findings’ of their ‘studies’ to permanently justify their own employment. This is akin to letting the Chief of the Defense Staff decide who we should make war on. If they want to do that, let them resign from their employment and run for public office. So lets not bring Harper into this particular issue, since, so far as I’m aware, he hasn’t done anything to prevent people from making their own informed choices via the upcoming referendum, the same as he left it entirely up to British Columbians to decide whether or not they wanted to retain the HST. I seriously doubt we’d have had any option on the matter if a Liberal PM had been in his place.
I personally hope the good people of Prince George vote to stop fluoridating their drinking water. Not that it’s any of my business, since I don’t live there. But the fluoridation issue has come up in the past where I do live, and citizens here decided against doing it, and I think that was the right decision then and still, and wouldn’t want to see the issue raised here again if the pro-fluoride side wins in your city.
From reading his posts, it appears that JohnnyBelt has a decided opinion on this issue and I very much envy him.
I know little about it; therefore, I decided to attend the event on Saturday as part of making an informed decision on the Nov. 15 referendum.
My impression was that Dr. Connett was articulate, passionate, and his argument’s showed logic and were seemingly based on sound science. I was particularly influenced by the WHO information that shows that dental issues are declining in countries with and without fluoride treatment. This would imply that the reported positive dental benefits of fluoride might be due to correlation, not causation.
I am not familiar with the “Quack Watch” website; however, I am skeptical if we should immediately disregard scientists that grace the list. First, I do not think it is a good practice to believe everything posted on the Internet. Second, I wonder if Galileo or Copernicus would have made this pejorative grade in their era. After all, it is a common logical fallacy to discredit your opponent, especially if your position is not well fortified or in decline or simply a function of cognitive dissonance.
As per Dr. Whitcome’s arguments, he openly admitted that the specific topic was not in his field of academic research. While he seemed somewhat familiar with the research papers and reports that Connett was quoting, he was mostly making general statements and did not provide specific scientific references or rationale. While his personable style was interesting to listen to, I was craving more meat & logic. However, since Northern Health declined to send a proponent representative, without Whitcome volunteering his time and perspective, the debate would likely not have been possible. And I appreciated his participation since I think the debate format is a better way of conveying dissenting information than a one-sided lecture.
I will strive to do more research on this topic; however, If a suspicion of harm does exist, I think we would be better served by erring on the side of caution. After all, this would not have been mankind’s first mistake if the “Fluoride Alarmists” turn out to be “Truth-sayers.”
This was an information session and the anti-fluoride people wanted to turn it into a debate. Otherwise Dr Whitcombe would have show up with all his party favours
Like when Dr. Connett claimed “evidence that fluoride lowers I.Q. is stronger than evidence that it lowers tooth decay” which is completely false – just because it comes out of his mouth doesn’t make it any truer. Just look up the most recent (may 2014) study from New Zealand on CWF (community water fluoride) and other influences of fluoride and IQ.
Anti-fluoride network claims 39 studies show IQ is affected, they don;t tell you that the strongest study in their book – Zhang didn’t do a study at all but recrunched the numbers from older studies and estimated IQ based on cognitive measures and means – and a Harvard study (that quotes this study by Zhang) is included as another study… The seven studies that actually measured IQ in test subjects are discredited by ‘fluoride alert sites’ because of ‘glaring problems’ but those that estimated IQ based on other factors are somehow the gospel?
Comments for this article are closed.