If it’s genuinely a serious debate you are after, you’re in the wrong forum. I urge you to open a new thread in the Great Debates forum, which is specifically set aside for just this purpose and gets easily ten times the traffic that the Comments on Cecil’s Columns forum does. I must warn you, however, that unless you bring a broader range of cites for your position from sources other than the one you apparently shilling for, you’ll have a rough time of it.
I think it’s more likely that anti-fluoridationists created the .org site in response to the ADA’s education efforts. Some militant fringe health “activists” use the tactic of registering domain names that are similar to those of respected organizations, hoping to trick people into being exposed to their propaganda.
Since haysboy4 identifies himself as a “science writer” of long standing, I wonder if he could identifiy some of the publications for which he’s written (a link to any articles he may have composed on the Deathly Threat of Fluoridation may be too much to ask, but would be appreciated as well).
haysboy4, science doesn’t progress by “polling”, but it does progress by scientists looking at the data and eventually reaching a scholarly concensus. Those “faceless organizations” you deride are made up of actual scientists and doctors, who have no doubt read many studies on the effects of fluoride. They clearly outnumber the anti-fluoride crowd by a sizeable margin, and yet you seem to give their opinions far less weight. What makes you think you know better than them? Are you more qualified to judge the merits of fluoride than the Amerian Dental Association? Are you more qualified to judge its risks than the Center for Disease Control?
It’s not so much your dislike of fluoride that bothers me, it’s the fact that you seem overly willing to conclude that a large number of scientists and doctors are either liars or incompetant. Even if in your personal analysis you think that fluoride poses an unrecognized danger, a humble person would be able to say, “Wow, a lot of people who are in a better position than me to know don’t agree.” Even if all those doctors are wrong, your apparent sense of certainty suggests that you have very little respect for the scientific community.
To respond in brief to a few specifics:
-
You argue that if fluoride affects the teeth, then it must affect other parts of the body. Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean the effect is damaging. As I understand it, the spots that excessive fluoride produces on the teeth aren’t any weaker than the rest of the teeth, they’re just a different color. If you have different colored spots on your bones as well (but they continue to be just as strong), then who cares? (Besides, my point was that they deliberately limit the amount of fluoride to avoid producing these spots in the first place.)
-
You cite the many countries that don’t put fluroide in water as evidence against consensus. That’s comparing apples and oranges. I’m saying there’s a scientific concensus that low levels of fluoride (like there are in the U.S. water supply) aren’t dangerous. Just because another country chooses not to fluoridate their water supply, that doesn’t mean they consider it dangerous. They could just as well consider it simply unnecessary, or too costly, or they’re providing fluoride through different means (e.g., fluoridated salt). If you want to argue that most of the world thinks fluoride is dangerous, find me a statement from a prominent, say, French medical association saying you should avoid even small amounts of fluoride. Don’t just leap from “The French don’t fluoridate” to “The French think fluoride (at the level found in the U.S. water supply) is unsafe.”
No, those are not the only possible conclusions. Another one is that they have found no link between fluoride and thyroid function. But it seems clear that they are the only possible conlusions you allow yourself to consider.
tim314,
Thanks for making the debate a little juicier again. I’ll respond to your post and a couple others in a few days when I have more time. Stay tuned.
Here are a couple of good links on fluoridation benefits and the tactics of the scaremongers. From the American Council on Science and Health:
**People who drink fluoridated water for a lifetime will develop up to 70 percent fewer cavities (occurrences of tooth decay) than they would have without fluoridation.
- Because the technology is so simple and the fluoride supplement so inexpensive, fluoridation is extremely cost-effective. Studies indicate that a $100,000 investment in water fluoridation prevents 500,000 cavities.
- Each dollar invested in fluoridation prevents over $80 of dental treatment. Few disease-prevention efforts, and even fewer government-sponsored programs, achieve that level of return on investment.
- The average per capita cost of fluoridating America’s public water supplies is 54 cents per year (or $40.50 over a lifetime). The cost of an average single-surface dental restoration is $55. Thus, provision of fluoride in water for a lifetime costs less than one small dental filling. *
An example of how anti-fluoridationists misrepresent the facts.
Still waiting to hear haysboy4 explain more about his science background and how it trumps the qualifications of the vast majority of scientists and health professionals who have weighed in on fluoridation’s benefits.
Ladies and Germs, the fly in the fluoridation ointment is back. (Sorry, for the delay, but my working hours can be unpredictable.) Rather than post one long, yawn inducing post, your resident crackpot anti-fluoridationist haysboy4 will break things up and respond to each poster individually.
Q.E.D
Thanks for the tips. I’ll probably post a few more times here then call it quits, based on your advice. I assumed that a message board devoted to the Straight Dope, which is concerned with separating fact from mythology, would be more science oriented. Obviously, I was incorrect on that score.
Regarding the “shilling” comment, I don’t really care where I find my scientific references, as long as they are from reputable sources, include good data than can be replicated in other peer-reviewed sources, and its authors use sound reasoning–unlike a lot of pro-fluoride “scientists” who jump to unfounded conclusions based on dubiously gathered statistics. (See the aforementioned Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation for examples of faulty statistical methodology.)
So, in other words, I don’t have any special loyalty to the folks at fluoridealert.org. In fact, I don’t particularly care for some aspects of their website, and I also agree with some of the criticisms against it. For instance, they do support and cite studies from the journal Fluoride, which is not a peer reviewed journal and publishes many studies of negligible value. Also, their homepage does have a slight “militant” flavor, now that I think about it. I would rather they led with an article spelling out how and why sound science debunks the ADA’s “safe and effective” claims, and perhaps one with an overview of scientific history demonstrating how “consensus science” has been wrong many times before.
However, they still seem to be the best repository of links to peer-reviewed scientific references and articles that support their position. For the record, I’ve been looking at both pro- and anti fluoridation information for close to ten years and fluoridealert.org is just one of hundreds of websites, journals and books I’ve looked at.
Askance,
Here’s your quote and my reply:
For the record my original quote was as follows:
Good for you for pointing out how dogmatic my statement really was. I’ll try to do better in future posts. What I SHOULD have said was something more like the following:
One POSSIBLE conclusion is that they are not looking far enough back into the annals of pharmalogical history or they don’t want to seem like crackpots, etc…
I did another look at the primary literature on fluorine compounds and thyroid function and came up with a few more tidbits:
-
Andreas Schuld, who is involved with a website called Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children, has a link to all of the fluorine-thyroid antagonism studies here
-
Schuld had to dig deep into the archives, mostly from Germany, to find a lot of these studies; so perhaps our most of our American thyroid experts can be forgiven for not being aware of them–although it would be nice if they would at least look at Schuld’s site and make some kind of analysis and/or rebuttal of the data, especially given the statements from the National Research Council that I’m posting below.
-
I posted a link earlier to a history of fluorine-thyroid antagonism earlier. Perhaps it would be better to provide a choice quote, rather than force everyone to scour through the web page and try to make sense of it, so here it is:
Perhaps the most damning statements I’ve seen regarding fluoride and thyroid function comes from the 2006 National Research Council report entitled, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” For those of you not familiar with the NRC, they are made up of scientists from the National Academy of Sciences, one of the most respected–if not THE most respected–collection of scientists in the United States. Their earlier findings back in the 80’s and 90’s regarding fluoridation were used to guide the CDC’s policies on this public health measure. Here is a quote from the NRC’s report :
So where is the epidemic of goitre that should now have been rife in most of the Western world for the last 50 years? A bit of quick research shows goitre is hugely more common in the developing world, precisely where there is less artificial fluoridation going on.
If there was “damning” evidence that fluoridated water was bad for public health, the National Academy of Sciences could have been expected to denounce it.
Instead, the NAS’s press release (which does not even mention the thyroid) only warns that high fluoride levels (the maximum allowed by the EPA) can cause tooth discoloration and pitting in children (something we already knew) and that a lifetime of drinking water with this high level could predispose to bone fractures. The amount they’re talking about is associated with natural fluoride levels in some communities and is approximately four times higher than the amount in places that add fluoride to water to prevent tooth decay.
The concept that something that is beneficial at a low dose may be detrimental at a higher one, seems alien to anti-fluoridationists, as well as to crackpots in other health spheres.
As to researchers not digging far enough “back into the annals of pharmalogical history” - if you go rooting deeply enough into medical/scientific journals, you can find all sorts of mistaken ideas. If fluoride’s opponents are reduced to skimming 1944 dental journals (and ignoring the American Dental Association’s long-term support for water fluoridation), that speaks strongly to the weakness of their arguments.
Except, of course, for the psycho^H^H^H^H^H^Hhomeopaths.
Fluoride! Apply directly to the teeth! Fluoride! Apply directly to the teeth!
Jackmannii,
My ground breaking book, “Fluoride: The Great Evil” is due out from Random House next month. The subtitle is, “How water fluoridation is responsible for every human ill from hangnails to global warming.” Anyone reading it will be forced to bow down and genuflect before my unparalleled scientific expertise, since I have multiple PhDs in cellular biology, toxicology, orthomolecular ichthyology, bedbug entomology and bullshitology. 
Demented humor aside, what you are essentially asking is “What is so great about hayboy4’s qualifications that his opinions matter more than the entire staff of scientists at the American Dental Association and all of those other fifty or so organizations that support fluoridation?”
This question is largely a red herring, and by the tone of your post, I think you know that. First of all, as you’ll see in most of my posts, I’ve provided links to the opinions of other scientists–including dentists, chemistry professors, former fluoridation advocates and in at least one case, a Nobel Prize winning pharmacologist. If necessary, I can provide links to the statements of hundreds of other reputable scientists with credentials in medicine and/or dentistry, all of whom disagree with the ADA and CDC’s support of water fluoridation in this country. To say that all of these people are “crackpots” is a bit of a stretch. But, in any case, my qualifications are largely irrelevant. I’m just the messenger here.
More to the point, I suspect your question was probably provoked by my blustering onto this message board with my “science writer” announcement, like my opinions should mean more than anyone else’s here. If I could go back and edit out that statement, I would. I think my original motive was simply to emphasize the water fluoridation is a subject I’ve studied in great detail, both from a pro- and anti- perspective. It’s easier just to say “science writer.”
For the record, in case anyone gives a hoot, my background can be summed up as follows: I’ve been a science junkie since grade school, participating in science fairs, taking extra science classes, reading hundreds of non-fiction science books, and immersing myself in scientific topics from astronomy to cellular biology. I majored first in nuclear engineering at the University of Illinois, then switched to a double major in clinical psychology and biology, as a pre-med student, with the aim of becoming a psychiatrist. Later I dropped that goal and received a graduate degree in technical communication. Since then I’ve worked professionally as a technical writer, a lab technician and an IT professional for assorted companies, including stints at Bellcorp (now Lucent) the University of Chicago, Northwestern University and the Aon Corporation. Most of the professional writing I’ve done is proprietary and can’t be accessed online (there are many kinds of “science writing”, by the way). While I’ve had a few articles published a while ago in small press, currently, the only science writing, so to speak, that I’ve been doing for public consumption is for Booklist magazine (see this review of “The Hype About Hydrogen” at amazon.com for an example.) I am, however, working on a book tentatively titled, “The Truth Robbers” (a poor title, I admit; I’m just waiting for the inspiration for something better to pop in my head) criticizing science journalism in the mainstream press. My basic thesis is that, unlike political reporting, investigative reporting is basically nonexistent when it comes to science journalism. Science journalists simply lap up the crumbs provided by health and other scientific “authorities” and report it as fact. Any dissenting opinions are either ignored or spun in such a way that their mouthpieces are seen as unreliable.
But as I said, most of that background is largely irrelevant. Anyone can surf the Internet and come up with the same references to the fluoridation foes that I’ve found. What’s more important here, I think is the amount of research I’ve put into this. Since I’m pretty a hardcore skeptic about a lot things (just a few of my favorite science oriented magazines are Skeptic and Skeptical Inquirer, which I’ve been reading for a good ten years now), I was initially very skeptical about the anti-fluoridationist position. When sites like fluoridealert.org and others began appearing on the Internet about five years ago, I began a pet project of debunking them. If you look hard enough on the Internet you can find websites supporting just about any kind of nonsense, from holocaust deniers to people believing in secret cabals that control the world’s banking interests. I just assumed, like most people on this board, that the anti-fluoridationists were misinformed nut cases. In fact, if I had been posting here five years ago, I would have posted pretty much the same kind of arguments as everyone else here who criticizes my conclusions. Who are they to argue with the CDC, the ADA, the World Health Organization, and 35,000 studies on fluoride’s safety and effectiveness?
The more I researched the issue, however, the more I realized how much the ADA, et al.'s stance rests on shoddy science, dogma, politics, groupthink and unfounded, uninvestigated assumptions. Apart from the effectiveness question, the idea that there are really thousands of studies out there proving fluoridation is safe and effective is simply bogus. What they are really referring to in these kinds of statements are thousands of studies using the same faulty methodology to prove fluoridation’s effectiveness (none of which include a randomized controlled double blind study using either animals or humans) along with countless letters and reviews (none of which qualify as an original study). As far as “safety” studies go, if you don’t look for toxic effects, you won’t find them. As the saying goes, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” But there are still enough valid peer-reviewed, replicated studies out there demonstrating fluoridation’s toxicity, even in small “therapeutic” doses, to nullify water fluoridation’s value as a public health measure.
As I wrote in my letter to Cecil, “I’ve come to the conclusion that fluoridation is based less on sound science than a kind of quasi-religious faith in fluoride as a panacea for bad oral hygiene.”
But more on that in a later post. This one is already too long winded, and Czarcasm won’t be happy.
Askance,
Sorry for not being more selective with my quotes, Askance, or I would have spelled it out for you a little more clearly.
Goiter is just one of several thyroid disorders, which include Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, hypothyroidism, nodules, etc. Goiter is, indeed, more closely correlated with iodine deficiency than anything else (here’s a good summary from the NIH: Goiter)
However, in the link to Andreas Schuld’s site, the scientific references highlight the suppressive effects of fluorine compounds on thyroid hormone more than anything else.
In my current day job working for a Chicago suburban hospital (the science writing has now been relegated to my “free” time), part of my responsibilities involve screening patients for assorted lab and radiology exams. Since I, personally suffer from thyroid dysfunction myself (okay no jokes implying that explains my crackpot opinions!!!), I take note when someone comes in with a thyroid related issues. Although my perspective is admiittedly biased, the amount of thyroid problems I’m seeing in the form of nodules, hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidsim and, yes, goiter, is curious if not downright disturbing.
Granted, there is no “epidemic” of goiter, but it definitely exists in this well developed country where, I should add, no shortage of iodized salt remains at hand.
What may be at epidemic proportions in this country, however, is hypothryoidism, i.e. suppressed thyroid hormone activity. According to RxList, a site ranking the top selling pharmaceuticals, synthroid and levothyroxine (both prescribed for hypothyroidism) added together come in third place. I don’t know how other people on this board define “epidemic” but this number at least provides food for thought.
Is there concrete, unassailable proof that fluoride is causing this incidence of hypothyroidism? No. But neither is there any proof that the pro-fluoride camp has eliminated this as a possibility. The much touted “safety” studies simply aren’t there. Given that the NAS mentions fluoride-thyroid effects in their recent report, it should at least be a cause for concern. (And notice I said “concern”, not “alarmism” or “scaremongering”)
Jackmannii,
Uh, no. The report is an evaluation of the EPA’s maximum contaminant level, not a report evaluating fluoridation as a public health policy. According to Dr. Hardy Limeback, one of the members of the committee, “We were clearly instructed to avoid trying to figure out a new MCLG (maximum contaminant level).” The committee had a specific mandate to follow, and as objective scientists, they stayed within the limits of the study. Their conclusions are guided by science, not political grandstanding. In other words, “denouncements” would have been outside their guidelines. Here’s an interesting review of the NAS report by Robert J. Carton, a former risk assessment scientist for the EPA: NAS Review
Yeah, right. All those crackpot anti-fluoridationist dimwits, many of whom have advanced degrees in chemistry, toxicology and pharmacology, don’t know the difference between a therapeutic dose and a toxic dose. The evidence suggests otherwise. Here’s a quote straight from Professor Connett at fluoridealert.org:
Everyone who knows how to read a scientific report here needs to spend some time with the following article, which discusses in detail the overlap between therapeutic dose and toxic dose (and by toxic, I mean that which can have damaging effects on the body over time; not that which immediately causes death):
A Critique of the EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for Fluoride
Here are just a few of the flawed assumptions he critiques—including your own flawed assumption, Jackmannii, that somehow 4mg/day is dramatically greater than 1mg/day and therefore safe:
- People only drink 2 liters of water per day
- People get no exposure to fluoride other than water.
So those who drink four liters or more a day of water are chopped liver? What about construction workers, athletes, anyone working outside in the heat, diabetics, people suffering from hypothyroidism (I drink an average of two liters a day, myself—distilled, of course. 
) ???
I see the interest in this thread dried up pretty quickly. Either people moved on to much hotter topics or they quickly realized that posting here would just encourage that windbag, haysboy4. The best way to get rid of a lunatic, after all, is to simply ignore him.
Of course, another possibility is that the pro-fluoride camp proved their case once and for all, so no sense reading the posts of someone who’s delusional!!! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Either way, there are a lot more pressing issues besides the real or imagined dangers of something that’s added to the water in miniscule amounts. Compared to global warming and terrorism, for instance, this issue shrivels to the size of a nanobot.
I’m not complaining, however, since that just means I get the last word. . This is my last post here, anyway, and I’m only writing it as a rebuttal to Cecil’s recent answer to my published letter to the editor, which can be read here .
**Cecil,
**
I stand by the “lazily researched dope” wisecrack in my original letter. All you did was find excuses not to examine the existing scientific literature that undermines the pro-fluoridation position. Unfortunately, this is the same attitude taken by everyone who represents the “consensus opinion” on fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness. Everyone “assumes” fluoridation must be “safe and effective” because it has the weight of authorities such as the ADA and CDC behind this proclamation. Everyone also “assumes” that thousands of scientists have reviewed ALL the evidence both pro and con to reach this conclusion. But there are good reasons to believe those assumptions are FALSE. You’ll find my analysis of those assumptions, along with my critique of “consensus science” below.
With respect to the scientific literature, I’ll go out on a limb here and make a bold statement: **anyone–and I mean anyone–including current members of the pro-fluoride camp–who objectively researches ALL the scientific literature, both favoring and undermining fluoridation, will come to the same conclusion hundreds, if not thousands, of reputable doctors, dentists and toxicologists have: fluoridation is neither particularly effective, nor particularly safe, contrary to claims by the CDC, ADA, and other health authorities. **While research proving beyond a shadow of doubt that fluoride is toxic in the dosages to which we are daily exposed may not yet be as overwhelming as the evidence condemning cigarettes, there are enough waving, bright red flags to end water fluoridation for good.
I’m well aware of Featherstone’s conclusions in the published journal article. In fact, I literally have an entire file drawer devoted to pro-fluoridation literature, most of which I’ve read at least two or three times. As I mentioned in an earlier post, my original stance toward the anti-fluoridation people was to debunk them, based on the abundance of literature supposedly “proving” that fluoridation is safe and effective in the small daily doses that we are exposed to over a lifetime. Instead of just “trusting authority”, however, I actually read the anti-fluoridation literature–something most head-in-the-sand pro-fluoridation advocates refuse to do–and found that, contrary to my errant assumptions, virtually all the of qualified scientists and health professionals who do not support fluoridation are thoroughly well informed about BOTH sides of the argument. Furthermore, their arguments stand on a foundation of sound logic and a careful review of ALL the science involved with this issue. Most of the posters on the board, as well as most pro-fluoridation health officials assume that the “anti-fluoride crackpots” are misinformed, or twist the science in ways that support a militant and alarmist viewpoint. This is assumption is utterly false.
In any case, Featherstone’s remarks are mostly just face-saving rhetoric. Think about it. Here you have a study that basically demolishes the ADA’s previously set-in stone scientific evidence that fluoride protects the teeth not only by topical application but by incorporating fluoride into the tooth enamel. Literally hundreds of journal articles, reviews and official ADA literature before 2000 repeats the dogma that " fluoride is incorporated into the hydroxyapatite in tooth enamel to increase the proportion of fluoroapatite", thereby making tooth enamel more resistance to decay (see, for instance, the discussion under “Caries Prevention” at the following link, which was cited in an earlier post on this board: http://www.uwf.edu/rsnyder/reports/fluoride.html ). Do you honestly think the ADA—which is a trade organization for dentists and not a research organization—is suddenly going to say they’ve been wrong all this time and that water fluoridation is a waste of money? And if they’ve been wrong all this time about one of the key anti-decay mechanisms of fluoride, what else have they been wrong about?
Cecil, if you sat down to think about this for more than a few minutes in your rush to get a rebuttal out ahead of the deadline, you’d realize how lame this argument is. What in the name of Galileo do the opinions of Stephen Barrett have to do with anything? (I mention Galileo because, like the Church authorities of the time who refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, many fluoride advocates refuse to look at any evidence that undermines their own “faith” in fluoridation.) Did you actually try to read anything at the fluoridealert.org site instead of just adopting Barrett’s own distorted opinion of it? This is nothing more than a thinly disguised version of the argument from authority. You, and the rest of the posters on this board would greatly benefit from perusing the following website on logical fallacies: Fallacy Files
Since two can play the reputation smearing game, however, it needs to be pointed out that, according to Barrett’s biography on answers.com , Barrett is an advisor to the American Council on Science and Health.
Here’s what prwatch.org–the organization behind such muckraking books as Trust Us, We’re Experts–has to say about the ACSH (from http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q4/dogs.html):
I’ve also been a frequent visitor at the quackwatch.com website, myself, since I’m a big aficionado of publications such Skeptic and the Skeptical Inquirer. Quackwatch was a major help to me several years ago when my wife was diagnosed with breast cancer. Since I didn’t want to rule out any form of cancer treatment, including alternative therapies, quackwatch was invaluable in pointing out why most of the alternative cancer treatments failed to prove themselves in scientific studies. I found the analysis of those studies to be thorough, rigorous and relatively free of ad hominem attacks.
In jarring contrast to these objective and thoughtful reviews, however, the site still includes an embarrassingly feeble rant against anti-fluoridationists entitled, “Fluoridation: Don’t Let the Poisonmongers Scare You!” (see: http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html)
The article is chock full of scientific errors, glaring omissions and fallacious reasoning. For instance the first two sentences reads as follows: “Fluoride is a mineral that occurs naturally in most water supplies. Fluoridation is the adjustment of the natural fluoride concentration to about one part of fluoride to one million parts of water.”
Setting aside the manipulative use of the word “natural” (which almost every food company stamps on their products these days to give them a wholesome image), the chemical found naturally in water is calcium fluoride, and not hydrofluorosilicic acid, the chemical actually used to fluoridate the water in over 90% of fluoridated communities in the United States. Fluorine compounds vary widely in toxicity, from calcium fluoride to hydrogen fluoride. No safety studies have ever been performed on hydrofluorosilicic acid, which usually includes trace amounts of radium, lead, and arsenic.
The rest of the article is a hodgepodge out of date science, and ad hominem attacks. Not a single study cited by the anti-fluoridationists supporting their position is analyzed for flaws. While I won’t go through all the errors in this article line by line, there is good debunking of the standard pro-fluoridation rhetoric at Deconstructing Michael Easley.
Deconstructing Michael Easley
Now as promised earlier, let’s deconstruct the issue of consensus opinion in science. Many of the posters here have presented a very compelling argument that “consensus science” supports the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation. Jackmaani, and others have provided links to prominent health organizations as well as scientific reviews, like the Escambia County review cited above, which supposedly represents the accumulated weight of thousands of health officials. All of these officials have, one assumes, reviewed the accumulated scientific studies and not only support fluoridation but dismiss the small but vocal fringe of scientists and “poisonmongers” who irrationally, and apparently against all the evidence, claim that fluoridation is neither safe nor effective. Therefore–the logic continues–anyone who disagrees with the consensus viewpoint–whether it’s little ol’ me, haysboy4, or the other sources I’ve quoted, such as professor Connett at fluoridealert.org or the 2000 Nobel Prize winner in medicine, Arvid Carlsson–is more than likely misguided, misinformed or simply a “crackpot.”
More than any other argument that’s been posted here, this is probably the number one reason why most people assume the anti-fluoridationists are wrong.
However, there’s another line of argument most of those in the “pro” camp haven’t been considering. Let’s just say it helps to have a thorough knowledge of scientific history:
The above quotes are from Michael Crichton, physician and best-selling author of Jurassic Park, and come from a speech entitled Aliens Cause Global Warming. While I don’t agree with his conclusions about global warming (in fact, the folks at realclimate.org have a pretty good rebuttal of his scientific views–free of ad hominem attacks, by the way), he has a lot of good points about “consensus science”. He goes on to list many examples where consensus science eventually turned out to be wrong.
Crichton cites several examples. I can cite many more, even from recent scientific history. For a good list of fringe scientists and theories that later turned out to be true, see Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated Mavericks
My last comments in this long winded tirade have to do with the assumption everyone on this board seems to make that CDC officials, dentists and other health professionals have thoroughly examined the anti-fluoridation literature and found nothing in it to undermine fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness. Personally speaking, I have worked closely with medical doctors and scientific researchers for over twenty years and I can tell you categorically most of them simply don’t operate this way. They just don’t have the time to review all the literature. An earlier poster on this board provided a link to a list of dozens of organizations that support fluoridation, under the implication that the scientists and researchers at these organizations are completely familiar with the scientific literature. A much more probable assumption, however, is that they’ve simply looked at one or two reviews or papers provided by health authorities such as the CDC, and put their seal of approval on fluoridation based on those reviews.
Well, here’s an interesting review of the CDC’s position on fluoridation. From my point of view as a longtime skeptic (and by the word “skeptic”, I mean someone who is capable of questioning not only seemingly outlandish ideas, but commonly accepted ones as well), this review rips through the “consensus” support of fluoridation like a chainsaw. I honestly don’t see how any educated person with even a basic understanding of science can get through this paper without at least entertaining serious doubts about fluoridation’s supposed “safety and effectiveness.” **If there’s one link in this entire post that you need to read, it’s this one:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.htm**
Cecil, I want to close with one final observation about the evolution of my own ideas on this topic. During my almost ten year research into the fluoridation controversy, I essentially went through four phases: 1) The anti-fluoridationists are obviously delusional; who hasn’t seen “Dr. Strangelove,” after all? 2) Hmmm. Well, okay, the anti-fluoridationists make some interesting points; but I’m sure all their arguments are sufficiently rebutted somewhere; after all, consensus scientific opinion favors fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness. 3) This can’t be right; the pro-fluoridation people are buttressing their viewpoint with bad science, poor statistical methodology, and shoddy logic. 4) It’s clear as day when you survey all the scientific literature, fluoridation is neither safe nor effective, and the continued support of this policy by health authorities represents a triumph of distorted thinking over scientific reason.
If I had to guess, Cecil, I would say you are still stuck between stage 1 and stage 2. I give you credit at the end of your column for questioning why fluoridation should be forced on U.S. citizens, but it’s obvious when I read it, that I’m much better informed than you on the issue. Sorry to sound arrogant, but it’s true. Mind if I take over your job when you retire?