Why have science when you can have John Gormely.
Writes simon on March 23rd, 2007
Read More: Uncategorized
Science and politics don’t mix. Because science is not political. Take for instance the Green Party the UN and top scientists comes out with a report about Global warming and they herald it , the UN and top scientists come out with a report about Chernobyl and they say it was adding insult to injury. Why? Is it because they are all experts on radiation? No because it does not fit into their political agenda. So really should I be surprised when John Gormley goes on about the evils of fluoridation of water.
Now I too have been guilty of this (I actually regret that post). Political opinion is often clouded by emotion something that should not come into science. Also getting a rise out of the environmentalists is just too much fun. (if you want to know my opinion on climate change it is a mixture of man made and nature, it is going to be stopped by little measures rather then draconian measures. And the economy has to be protected as people are more willing to take the steps when it does not damage them that much ). But I have no power I am just a blogger doing all this for shits and giggles. And what I say here would be far from what I would actually do if I had power. But when you are in a position of power you no longer can go off on random rantings, you have to produce sensible policy based on fact.
But John Gormley campaigning against Fluoridation of water caught me on the hop. I mean what is the deal with that.
In the debate on Prime Time we had. In favour of fluoridation Dr Jacinta McLoughlin a member of the Monitoring Group on the Expert Body on Fluoridation who works at the Dublin Dental School & Hospital.
Well actually no. Here are one or two or about 100 organisations that approve of fluoridation of water supplies.
Academy of Dentistry International
Academy of General Dentistry
Academy of Sports Dentistry
Alzheimer’s Associatio American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
American Academy of Periodontology
American Association for the Advancement Science
American Association for Dental Research
American Association of Community Dental Programs
American Association of Dental Schools
American Association of Endodontists
American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
American Association of Orthodontists
American Association of Public Health Dentistry
American Cancer Society
American College of Dentists
American College of Physicians - American Society of Internal Medicine
American College of Prosthodontists
American Council on Science and Health
American Dental Assistants Association
American Dental Association
American Dental Hygienists’ Association
American Dietetic Association
American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations
American Hospital Association
American Medical Association
American Nurse Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Pharmaceutical Association
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American Society of Clinical Nutrition
American Society of Dentistry for Children
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
American Student Dental Association
American Veterinary Medical Association
American Water Works Association
Association for Academic Health Centers
Association of Material and Child Health Programs
Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
British Dental Association
British Fluoridation Society
British Medical Association
Canadian Dental Association
Canadian Dental Hygienists Association
Canadian Medical Association
Canadian Nurses Association
Canadian Pediatric Society
Canadian Public Health Association
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
Consumer Federation of American
Delta Dental Plan Association
European Organization for Caries Research
FDI World Dental Federation
Federation of Special Care Organizations in Dentistry
Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities
American Association of Hospital Dentists
American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
Health Insurance Association of America
Hispanic Dental Association
International Association for Dental Research
International Association for Orthodontics
International College of Dentists
Institute of Medicine
Massachusetts Coalition of Oral Health
National Academy of Sciences
National Alliance for Oral Health
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Dental Assistants
National Confectioners Association
National Council Against Health Fraud
National Dental Assistants Association
National Dental Association
National Dental Hygienists’ Association
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
National Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
National Kidney Foundation
National PTA
National Research Council
Society of American Indian Dentists
The Dental Health Foundation (of California)
US Department of Defense
US Department of Veterans Affairs
US Public Health Service
Centers for Disease and Prevention (CDC)
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Indian Health Service (HIS)
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
World Federation of Orthodontists
World Health Organization
But of course John Gormley knows far more about dental hygiene then any of these organisations. I mean he is John Gormley after all. And sure don’t we all have toothpaste now. Well I am sure the above organisations have heard of toothpaste and have taken into account of toothpaste in their studies. And I am sure Jack Cottrell, D.D.S., president of the Canadian Dental Association (CDA) was wrong when he said that people drinking bottled water instead of fluoridated water was a cause of the massive rise on tooth decay does not know what he is taking about.
So what does John Gormley base his thinking on. The main thing he seems to base his argument is that a recent study stated that excess fluoride can damage infants teeth. Note the word excess. Not fluoridation causes this the word excess causes this. And considering that we have lower levels of flurodation then America and many other countries we are far from teh excess.
The most recent evidence shows clearly that fluoridated water should not be given to babies as it will cause fluorosis and God knows what else.
Anyway many experts recommend purifying the water given to infants anyway because of contaminants in the water that are not just fluoride. So really I don’t know what he is on about.
His other point is about mass medication that it is bad. I thought this guy would be in favour of preventative medicine which would prevent the dentistry services being clogged up with kids with far more cavities then normal. But I guess not.
I wonder does John Gormley must feel a certain kinship with the General in Dr Strangelove who sends the American Nuclear Bombers to blow up Russia thinking that fluoridation of water (the commies all drink vodka you see) is a communist conspiracy to steel our precious bodily of which he was made aware when his “loss of essence” during sexual intercourse greatly fatigued him.
Thank good we have no button to give to John Gormley.
0 billy Mar 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
You forgot to add Stalin, Hitler, Lee Kum Yew, IFI, Albatros and all the fertiliser companies to the fanlist for flouridation.
If flouridating water was scientific it would have a recommended dosage. It does not. Your argument is invalid.
0 Simon Mar 23rd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
ADA Recommended dosages
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride_article01.asp#dosage
0 A Random Walk Mar 24th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
I think this sort of thing is due to media organisations feeling they have to have “balance” as part of their duty. So you see on for example MMR jabs it will be presented as a debate and needlessly scaring people, just because 1 doctor out of a million disagrees with it.
0 phdbird Mar 25th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Timely article Simon - here in Galway we’ve our own water quality issues. I don’t know if you’ve heard but our water supply has been contaminated with the parasite cryptosporidium. We won’t be able use our water for a few months. In the weeks before the contamination was announced, our water supply was stinking of chlorine and whole offices were struck with a nasty gastric bug. Turns out the parasite is not affected by chlorine and attempts to kill it off quietly were futile.
Anyways, water fluoridation. This debate is interesting - there has been research done on the fluorosis of teeth, the skelton and hypersensitive reactions of individuals to fluoride, but as I understand it, it depends on many factors such as personal nutrition etc. I don’t mind having fluoride in my water supply, but it could be argued that ‘mass medication’ is a moral issue.
Maybe the area of public health and science in general needs better PR? I have friends who zone out when scientists are invited to panels because they feel that they are not ‘people orientated’ or practical. Ouch! Scientists have the reputation of thinking of the broader picture, but ignoring the individuals who are the small percentage that are negatively affected by such decisions.
0 EUES Ireland Mar 27th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Constant referencing by supporters of fluoridation of the WHO and the Irish Forum on Fluoridation would do well to note that Dr Seamus O’Hickey and Dr Dennis O’Mullane of the Forum are the same two experts that acted as consultants to the South African government and advised them to mass fluoridate. Impartial? I don’t think so. Dr O’Mullane is also one of the foremost advisors to the WHO, surprise, surprise. It doesn’t stop him referencing the WHO constantly as being the major world-wide organisation (supposedly also impartial) that supports fluoridation. He just forgets to mention that he formulates a lot of their policy!! For my money, I would rather listen to the voice of the York Report 2000. A review, which started as an effort by the UK government to find support for their fluoridation plans. They examined ALL the fluoride research and literature available worldwide for nearly two years. The Report found, and I quote:”
We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight dis-benefit to children’s teeth.
This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor.”
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm
The American Dental Association publishes an impressive list of supporting organisations, but it’s a list that has shrunk over the years for two reasons: Some organisations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union42, were erroneously listed as supporters and thus had to ask to be removed from the list; other organisations have withdrawn support they once gave for fluoridation in light of the growing evidence of the dangers it poses. Those who have withdrawn support (and WITHDRAWING support is more proactive) for fluoridation since 1990 (or who never supported it to begin with but were none-the-less listed as supporters) include, among many others:
American Academy of Allergy and Immunology
American Academy of Diabetes
American Cancer Society
American Chiropractic Association
American Civil Liberties Union
American Diabetes Association
American Nurses Association
American Parent-Teachers Association
American Psychiatric Association
Child Study Association of America
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Activation Network
Commission on Chronic Illness
Environmental Protection Agency
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Joint Committee on Health Problems in Education
National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
Society of Toxicology
In May 1999, a union made up of approximately 1500 Environmental Protection Agency scientists and other professionals issued a statement of their opposition to water fluoridation. The following year, they also called for a moratorium on fluoridation based on prolific scientific evidence of the dangers it poses.
Now, this list is not any bigger than the one mentioned above, but if you take out the word dental from the above list, how many “independent” organisations does that leave?
Finally, this is not just about fluorosis. Fluorosis is an indicator of system toxicity. It affects all the bones, not just the ones we can see. There are many other health related actions of fluoride. Before I go, just a question. Do you know how fluoride actually “works”? Well, I’ll tell you anyway. Fluoride kills the enzymes in the mouth. When we ingest sugars and starches, the enzymes start beavering away at them, excreting acid as they go. This acid eats into the enamel causing caries. The fluoride comes into contact with them and kills them. Dead. Unfortunately, enzymes are basic neuro-transmitters essential throughout the body, and the fluoride doesn’t know the white hats from the black hats. It just kills them. Everywhere it finds them. Talk about a blunt instrument! That is why it is important to realise it should only be applied topically, which is something then ADA only admitted ten or so years ago. And even why it would make more sense to brush teeth before eating, not that we will ever get into that habit. BTW, fluoride’s action on caries reduction was discovered in 1920 through an investigation of bad fluorosis in naturally occurring fluoride areas in the US. From 1920 to 1952 the ADA and AMA were AGAINST fluoride in the water. Then the money arrived. GL JG!
Anyone interested in tracking the WHO connection should have a look at this article:
http://www.thenhf.com/fluoridation_33.htm
National Confectioners Association
supports fluoridation, lol