|
DONATIONS If our site or organization has been helpful to you, please consider donating to us, if you can afford to do so. This is a free website, no one is paid by our totally volunteer organization and we have no office to support. Most money raised goes to the dissemination of information either electronically or via snail mail. Checks should be written to: New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation PO Box 263 Old Bethpage, NY 11804 Thank You |
Links Section
Fluoridation and Censorship
|
|
WHAT DENTISTS DON’T WANT YOU TO KNOW
This is a news release that a public health dentist stopped from being published. Dr. A. K. Mascarenhas authored published research, probably using our tax dollars, about one of fluoride’s adverse effects, dental fluorosis. Often studies critical to fluoride don’t make it into journals, or information detrimental to fluoridation is edited from abstracts. So we applaud Dr. Mascarenhas for publishing her work. However, Dr. Mascarenhas successfully caused the following news release from being published, as her e-mail in a public forum indicates, which was forwarded to us and is pasted at the end of the release. Why are dentists so protective about fluoride? And why don’t they put out this vital information themselves? Why don’t they encourage rather than discourage the dissemination of this information. This is our organization’s release and our information is accurate.
Fluoride Risks Every Parent Should Know About from Dental Research
“There is substantial evidence that fluoridated water, fluoride supplements, infant formulas, and fluoride toothpastes are risk factors for fluorosis,” alone and together, reports Ohio State University researcher, Dr. Ana K. Mascarenhas. And, too often, dentists and physicians misprescribe fluoride, she writes in “Risk factors for Dental Fluorosis: A review of the recent literature,” in Pediatric Dentistry, 4/22/2000.
In small amounts, fluoride, added to water supplies and dental products, is hailed as a cavity fighter. Slightly more ingested fluoride can spot children’s teeth white, yellow or brown, forever. It’s called dental fluorosis and it is increasing at alarming rates. Only expensive cosmetic dentistry covers it up.
“Dentists don’t know where fluoride’s alleged benefits turn into risks,” says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. “Dentists advise parents to monitor their children’s total fluoride intake. But how? What foods contain fluoride and how much? How much is absorbed or swallowed from fluoridated dental products? And what’s enough,” said Beeber.
Lesser known fluoride sources are tea, ocean fish, mechanically de-boned meat products (like chicken nuggets and baby foods), air pollution, ocean and shower mist, medicines, foods and beverages produced in fluoridated communities, fluoride containing pesticide residues on produce and grains and some bottled water without fluoride listed on the label.
Dentists and physicians are taught to never prescribe fluoride supplements to children who live in fluoridated communities but many still do, reports Mascarenhas. Besides, “there is substantial evidence for the risk of fluorosis from the use of supplements in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas,” she writes.
That’s why the Canadian Dental Association and the Western Australia Dental Service no longer recommend routine fluoride supplementation.
Mascarenhas writes: “Dental fluorosis is a condition in which an excess of fluoride is incorporated in the developing tooth enamel (before age 9)...Microscopically, fluoride affects the forming enamel by making it more porous….fluorosis is seen as white spots, or white opaque lines or striations, or a white parchment-like appearance of the tooth surface. The brown stains sometimes seen in moderate to severe fluorosis are due to the uptake of extrinsic stains mainly from the diet.” Enamel pitting occurs at times, she reports.
Mascarenhas advises:
· Parents should use ready-to-feed formulas or mix non-fluoridated bottled water into formula concentrate.
· Fluoride rinses should not be prescribed to children below the age of six years
· Low fluoride or no fluoride toothpaste, if available, should be recommended for use in very small or pre-school children.
· Care should be taken when recommending the use of these (fluoride) products in children below the age of six years (when their permanent front teeth are forming).
To avoid fluorosis, the National Academy of Sciences advises the following daily fluoride intake from all sources (food, air, water, medicines, and supplements):
· infants up to 6 months old - less than 0.01 mg · babies from 7 - 12 months - less than 0.5 mg · children from 1 to 3 years old - less than 0.7 mg · children from 4 to 8 years old - less than 1 mg · children from 9 - 15 years old - less than 2 mg
“We know fluoride is damaging children’s teeth but we don’t know how far fluoride is damaging their bones,” says Beeber. “It’s time to stop fluoridation and shut down the unrestricted flow of fluoride into our children’s bodies.”
References: National Academy of Sciences “Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D, and Fluoride (1999)” http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063507/html/301.html#pagetop
“Risk factors for dental fluorosis: a review of the recent literature” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10969430&dopt=Abstract
Contact: Paul S. Beeber, President and General Counsel, NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, PO Box 263, Old Bethpage, New York 11804 nyscof@aol.com Paul Connett, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y., ggvideo@northnet.org Fluoride Action Network
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
http://www.fluoridealert.org
END
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ana Karina Mascarenhas" To: "Howard Pollick" ; "Stuart Gansky" ; Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 4:40 PM Subject: Re: Fwd: Canadian study: Stop fluoridation in water (E-Dental.com Newsletter)
> I've had a recent entanglement with the New York State Coalition Opposed to > Fluoridation. They were putting out a news release quoting me and the > review I did on Risk Factors for Fluorosis, published in Pediatric > Dentistry. Fortunately for me, the news service they were going to use - > AScribe contacted me, and I indicated that the article was out of context, > and did not appreciate being used by the anti-fluoridationists. The news > service decided not to send the release out, and I'm told that the > Coalition was not happy.
> > Ana Karina
>*************************** > > > > Above Message Sent By: Ana Karina Mascarenhas > >*************************** > dental-public-health listerv >
> > At 07:11 AM 5/3/01 -0700, Howard Pollick wrote: > >I have contacted the content manager of E-dental.com to complain > >about the story on fluoridation because it was a press release from > >the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, without the > >source mentioned. I am in the process of submitting, at the content > >manager's request, a rebuttal. I have already contacted David Locker > >who never has claimed that fluoridation should be stopped. > > > > > >At 10:03 PM -0700 5/2/01, Stuart Gansky wrote: > >>fyi... > >>haven't read it yet after returning from NOHC/AAPHD, but I'm sure > >>it'll be of interest. > >> > >>-Stuart > >> > >>>From: "E-Dental.com" > >>>Subject: E-Dental.com Newsletter > >>>------------------------------------------------------------ > > Above Message Sent By: Ana Karina Mascarenhas > *************************** > dental-public-health listerv -----------------------------------------------------------------
MORE EVIDENCE OF CENSORSHIP FROM THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
Ms. Linda Orgain, MPH (In.the.News@cdc.gov) Centers for Disease Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Office of Communications Media Relations 1600 Clifton Road MS D25 Atlanta, Georgia 30333
Dear Ms. Orgain:
We were made aware by PR Newswire that you complained to them about our October 2001 News Release ( http://sierraactivist.org/article.php?sid=1363 ) concerning information contained in the Centers for Disease Control's (CDC) new fluoride recommendations report.
We find this complaint by the CDC very troubling. Unlike many media outlets, we seek new information found within the body of a study or report, not the spin provided to or by media specialists. Although our release is accurate, we regret to see that you have used the clout of the CDC to try to censor our information from reaching the public.
In effect, the CDC forced PR Newswire to add more words to a news release that we wrote and paid for and, maybe, CDC really hoped PR Newswire would remove our release from the internet (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/011003/nytu011x_1.html).
It is noteworthy that you criticized our news release that accurately reflects the CDC report. You have proven your power to censor and pressure a media outlet, but you have not proven where our news release is wrong.
We are, therefore, posing a number of pertinent questions in the separate addendum that follows. If you can prove, with valid scientific references, where we are wrong, we’d like to know.
For too long, the public has been kept in the dark about fluoride’s/fluoridation’s hazards. Since the authorities have created a serious void in information reaching the public, in the interest of Freedom of Speech and Press and the public’s right-to-know, it remains for organizations, like ours, to fill the void. Therefore, we will not be deterred or diverted from continuing our efforts to enlighten the public in a matter that is valid, serious, timely, and which affects them directly.
We hope you are as vigilant in rooting out misinformation on the internet as you are in censoring us. And we’d like to help. Enclosed also is, “Exhibit A,” a list of internet sites, some government, some from medical professionals, that disseminate incorrect or extremely misleading information about fluoridation, even by your standards, that will be obvious to you. Included are false statements by two prominent promoters of fluoridation, several excerpts from the the Director and one from a Member of the Board of Science, Technology, and Policy Advisors, for the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, State University of New York at Buffalo.
We’ve listed quotes from the sites and their URLs. We’d be happy to ask our colleagues around the world to send updates whenever misinformation about fluoride and fluoridation is posted to internet sites so the CDC can correct them, too.
We look forward to an early reply.
Sincerely,
Paul S. Beeber, J.D.
President and General Counsel
New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
PO Box 263
Old Bethpage, NY 11804
nyscof@aol.com
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
Copy to: Media outlets Public Health Dentists Children’s, Environmental and Journalism Groups Senator Hillary Clinton Senator Charles Schumer Congressman Peter King
Since the addendum is very long, we've put this on our website for those interested under "Fluoridation and Censorship":
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3
EXHIBIT A
The U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Oral Health says: "Caries reductions ranged between 15 and 40 percent in fluoridated as compared with fluoride deficient (USDHHS 1991)" page 169.
"Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…, " according to the CDC report, "Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States," August 17, 2001.
"Although the predominant beneficial effect of fluoride occurs locally in the mouth, the adverse effect, dental fluorosis, occurs by the systemic route," Journal of Public Health Dentistry, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11109209&dopt=Abstract.
Fluoride is NOT a nutrient according to "Dentistry, Dental Practice and the Community."
Examples of Misinformation by Proponents of Fluoridation
-----Written by the Director, National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Dental School, Dr. Michael W. Easley http://www.acsh.org/publications/priorities/0804/fluoridation.html "The fluoride in the water is incorporated into the enamel of developing teeth in children below the age of 16, making their teeth more resistant to decay for a lifetime."
"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"
-----Another document written by Dr. Easley http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/pdf/calprojt.pdf "Those fortunate enough to have had access to community water fluoridation experience 40-60% fewer dental cavities."
"Antifluoridationists make a number of bogus claims about total fluoride intake in children and adults. Those few individuals opposed to fluoridation often try to claim that children and adults in the United States routinely get too much fluoride or that fluoride intake for children and adults is somehow increasing. Nothing could be further from the truth."
(Note this quote from the Journal of Public Health Dentistry Spring 2001 that contradicts him: " Dental fluorosis prevalence has increased in the United States, Canada, and other nations due to the widespread availability of fluoride in many forms, with fluoride ingestion during the first three years of life appearing most critical in fluorosis etiology." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11474917&dopt=Abstract)
-----From the National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research University at Buffalo, State University of New York, Dental School Links: "Inexpensive and extremely effective, sufficient fluoride has been shown to safely prevent up to 70 percent of dental cavities." http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/1999/acshprfluoridation.html
"The BENEFITS OF FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER include a 60-65 PERCENT REDUCTION IN TOOTHDECAY." http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/pdf/cwffactsheet.pdf "Fluoride -- found naturally in water but at levels too small to benefit people -- only helps teeth when they're forming, she said." http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/2001/erietimesnews032401.htm
-----Hawaii Coalition for Better Health - Press Release http://fluoride.oralhealth.org/papers/pdf/hicbdhpr021400.pdf "Inexpensive and extremely effective, optimal fluoride exposure has been shown to safely prevent up to 70 percent of dental cavities."
"there is no link between fluoride and any adverse health problems."
"The health concerns raised by opponents of fluoridation are based either on misinformation or pseudo-science that does not stand up to genuine scientific methods." (Even the American Dental Association indicates there are credible studies linking fluoridation to hip fractures http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/facts-saf13-22.html#18 so does the University of Texas http://dental.uthscsa.edu/Fluoridation/content/fl-hipfracture.html and a medline search will find even more)
-----Hawaii Government Site http://www.state.hi.us/doh/resource/dental/fluoridation/facts.html "The BENEFITS OF FLUORIDATED DRINKING WATER include a 60-65 PERCENT REDUCTION IN TOOTH DECAY"
-----Nevada Government Site http://health2k.state.nv.us/oral/Facts.htm "At the optimal concentration in potable water, fluoride will reduce dental caries from 50 to 67 percent among children who ingest this water from birth."
-----Newspaper http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/2001/1012/story2.html "It will reduce dental (cavities) in children 65 percent," said Kennewick pediatric dentist Larry Loveridge. " "Contrary to what opponents claim, "fluoride is fluoride," and there is no difference chemically between fluoride that occurs naturally in water and that which would be added, he said." (Natural fluoride is calcium fluoride; Added fluoride is industrial waste products, silicofluorides and sodium fluoride.)
-----Newspaper http://www.nj.com/news/expresstimes/index.ssf?/news/expresstimes/front/rotting_.html
(CDC’s National Fluoridation Engineer Tom) "Reeves says the CDC believes fluoride has to be absorbed into the body to be effective."
"Reeves said current intake is approaching eight milligrams per day - not just from tap water, but toothpaste and other dental products, beverages, processed foods, fresh fruits and vegetables, pharmaceuticals, Teflon coated cookware, vitamins and mineral supplements and tea." (If this is correct, why are we fluoridating water?)
-----Dentist Website http://www.glickdental.com/water%20fluoridation.htm "The Fluoride ion incorporates itself into bones and teeth by substituting itself for Calcium ions Being a smaller ion, Fluoride is able to pack itself more closely together than Calcium and thereby builds a more impenetrable and stronger surface than the same structure made up entirely of calcium." (This is misinterpreted science.)
"Statistically, fluoridation alone is responsible for reducing decayed, missing and filled teeth by over 75% when it is introduced into community water supplies."
-----Utah Government site http://www.health.state.ut.us/lhd/tooele/html/fluoridation.html " fluoride is a natural occurring nutrient,"
-----Washington Government site http://www.swwhd.wa.gov/CHW/HealthProm/Oral%20Health/fluoridation.htm "Children have up to 65% fewer cavities"
-----Website of Member of the Board of Science, Technology, and Policy Advisors, National Center for Fluoridation Policy and Research, State University of New York at Buffalo, Dr. Stephen Barrett http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html "dental fluorosis is not caused by artificial fluoridation, because the levels are kept low enough to avoid this effect."
(Note: "A dose-dependent increase in dental fluorosis was found. At a fluoride level of 1 ppm an estimated 12.5% (95% confidence interval 7.0% to 21.5%) of exposed people would have fluorosis that they would find aesthetically concerning," according to Systematic review of water fluoridation in the British Medical Journal http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11021861&dopt=Abstract)
-----California Government site: http://www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/cdcb/Medicine/OralHealth/fluoride/html/FluoFacFic.htm
"Are there harmful contaminants in the fluorides used for water fluoridation? No"
(As you know silicofluorides are contaminated with lead, arsenic, mercury and more.)
-----A Statement of the American Dietetic Association: http://www.eatright.org/fluoride.html
"Fluoride is a natural element found at varying concentrations in all drinking water and in soil. It is considered a beneficial nutrient"
-----Washington State Dental Association http://www.wsda.org/public/consumers/factsheets2.cfm?id=34
"Studies show that water fluoridation reduces the amount of cavities in a child's baby teeth by as much as 60 percent" -----Washington State Public Health Association http://www.wspha.org/Resolution_99-04.htm
"WHEREAS, fluoride has been shown to reduce cavities in children by 50-60%;"
-----Dental Health Foundation of California http://www.dentalhealthfoundation.org/topics/fluoridation/2000/Jun/
"The Sacramento Bee stated, "Children living in communities with fluoridated water have 30 percent to 60 percent less tooth decay"
"SAB concluded that the most recent research summaries indicated 30 to 60 percent fewer cavities in baby teeth"
-----And there are many more examples using different statistics and information.
End of Exhibit A
*********************************************************
June 8, 2001 Dr. Pollick, Co-chairman, California Fluoridation Task Force c/o Dental Health Foundation 520 Third Street, No. 205 Oakland, CA 94607 Dear Dr. Pollick
Re: Your 6/4/2001 News Release, “California Fluoridation Task Force Takes Anti-fluoride Group to Task Over Alleged Mischaracterization of Canadian Fluoridation Study”(2)
Your above-referenced news release was brought to our attention. We value your right to disagree with us. But you have put out serious misinformation that wrongly denigrates the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. This needs to be retracted. Perhaps you didn’t fact-check what your hired public relations firm got wrong. However, in the interest of truth and accuracy, you should want to correct your mistakes.
These are your errors:
1) Our release (dated 4/23/2001) was entitled “Canadian Government Report Questions Value of Fluoridation” (1) not “Canadian study: Stop fluoridation in water” as your news release stated.
2) Our lead read “Fluoridation probably does more damage than good, says a Canadian government report.” You said it was “Big news out of Canada: a new report from the Canadian government claims that fluoridation in water probably does more harm than good.”
3) Your claim that Locker (author of the Canadian fluoridation study) didn’t suggest water fluoridation cease is disputed on Page 42 of Locker’s own report which states, "Clearly, the simplest way of reducing the prevalence of fluorosis in child populations is to cease to fluoridate community water supplies. Whether or not this is an acceptable option depends on the balance of benefits and risks with respect to dental caries and fluorosis. This balance is difficult to assess when the discussion takes place at the level of disease. The ultimate concern here should be to maximize quality of life outcomes. However, data on the effects on health and well-being of the relatively small decreases in caries rates in children and adolescents currently achieved by water fluoridation is non-existent. Similarly, data on the negative health consequences of current levels of fluorosis in child and adolescent populations is scant. Such data are urgently needed in order to facilitate decisions about the benefits and risks for dental health of changing exposures to various sources of fluoride. Without such data the ‘value’ to individuals and communities of decreases in the prevalence and severity of dental decay and increases in the prevalence and severity of fluorosis cannot be determined." We merely quoted Dr. Locker’s written words from his own report.
4) This report was only made public in January 2001 (6) so it would have been impossible for us to report on it in 1999 as your release suggests. We became aware of it from a Canadian newspaper (The Ottawa Citizen, “Report questions value, risk of water fluoridation,” (4)) This was their lead on January 17, 2001, “Cities should think twice about putting fluoride in their water because the practice has minimal benefits and some risk, suggests a newly released government report.” If you believe we misled the public via the internet, please be aware that this news article in a legitimate newspaper alerted us to read the study. Have you written to them, also? Did the Ottawa Citizen mislead the public? Please put this information into your corrected news release and disseminate it to all recipients of your 6/4/2001 news release.
We think your time and money would have been better spent telling young parents not to use fluoridated water when preparing infant formulas like dental research shows.
Beech-Nut sells a fluoride-added spring water (9) that instructs parents, wrongly, to use their product reconstituting formula from the day a child is born. The top-selling bottled water in United States health-food stores, Trinity Springs, contains 3.6 mg/L fluoride (10) yet there is no warning on the label that young children, especially, shouldn’t consume it. Instead of directing news releases towards us, we suggest you take the responsible approach, and educate people about the benefits AND RISKS of fluoride use.
Or maybe you should inform the public that drinking soda increases decay regardless of fluoride use, as the Academy of General Dentistry recently did (13). Ironically, as you know, many sodas have fluoride content up to “optimal” doses as reported in the Journal of the American Dental Association (12).
It cost our organization $157.50 (500 words) and volunteered time to produce our accurate news release. In contrast the Dental Health Foundation, with a paid director making $70,832, according to tax forms filed in January 2000 (8), appears to have hired an outside firm to use over 1,000 words to produce your incorrect news release. However, we thank you for proving our point - that you can get reliable fluoridation information on the internet, and that the consumer doesn’t always get accuracy from organized dental groups and individual dentists.
News organizations who fact-check both of our news releases (yours of 6/4/01 and ours of 4/23/01) will see who comes up short.
We didn’t check to see if your quoted material is accurate. Our efforts are spent fact-checking our own releases. You accused us of deceiving the public; but, it appears that, the mistakes are yours and not ours.
Additionally, we have learned that this is not the first time you have reported inaccurately, according to a report in the journal, Fluoride(7).
Please distribute your corrected news release as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Paul S. Beeber, Esq. President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation PO Box 263 Old Bethpage, NY 11804 nyscof@aol.com
Copy to: Public Health Dentistry listserv sci.med.dentistry Delta Dental Plan of California The California Endowment U.S. Public Health Service California Dental Association California Department of Health Services California Public Health Association-North Southern California Public Health Association California Dental Hygienists’ Association Ottawa-Citizen internet news outlets
References:
1) New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation News Release, “Canadian Government Report Questions Value of Fluoridation” http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg8.php3
2) California Fluoridation Task Force News Release “California Fluoridation Task Force Takes Anti-fluoride Group to Task Over Alleged Mischaracterization of Canadian Fluoridation Study” http://www.deltadentalca.org/news/fluor0601.html
3) “Fluoridation and Censorship,” NYS State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation news release warning parents not to overdose their children on fluoride that a public health dentist caused to be unpublished via a news service. http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/_pgg10.php3
4) Ottawa Citizen, January 17, 2001, “Report questions value, risk of water fluoridation” http://www.nofluoride.com/ottawa_gov_report.htm
5) Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation Executive Summary: http://www.gov.on.ca/MOH/english/pub/ministry/fluoridation/fluoridation.html
Full Report: http://www.gov.on.ca/MOH/english/pub/ministry/fluoridation/fluor.pdf
6) A search on the ontario government site produces evidence that the “Canadian Fluoridation Report” was posted on January 8, 2001 http://www.search.gov.on.ca/compass?scope=fluoridation&ui=sr&x=16&y=13
7) Pollick has a history of presenting misinformation. See: http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312127.htm published in the journal Fluoride “RESPONSE TO CRITIQUE OF HOWARD POLLICK,” by John Colquhoun
8) Tax Exempt Form 990 for California Fluoridation Task Force (Dental Health Foundation) Search “fluoridation” at: http://www.guidestar.org/search
9) Beech-Nut Spring Water with Fluoride http://www.beech-nut.com/products/juices_waters.htm#naturals
10) Trinity Springs Bottled Water http://www.trinitysprings.com/science-wateranalysis.htm
11) List of bottled waters fluoride content available world-wide have shockingly high fluoride content http://www.pmgeiser.ch/cgi-bin/mineral?sort=f
12) Journal of the American Dental Association, “Assessing fluoride levels of carbonated soft drinks,” Heilman et al., Nov 1999 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10573939&dopt=Abstract
13) “Carbonated Cash. Are kids' oral-health needs up for sale?” Academy of General Dentistry June 7, 2001 http://www.agd.org/publications/linkedarticles/june01.carbcash.html Sorry, this link has disappeared but a study in the Journal of “Contemporary Dental Practice” shows that, among people who drink fluoridated water and use fluoride toothpaste, tooth decay still progresses after snacking on cola, apple juice or sweetened yogurt between meals.
As of Janury 30, 2002, Dr. Pollick has offered no apology. In fact, he has never even answered our letter.
Dr. Pollick says this was his answer:
6/22/02
Paul,
It has been over a year since I responded to your "Open Letter to Dr. Howard Pollick", yet you continue to state in your web page http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof/ (bottom line): "As of Janury 30, 2002, Dr. Pollick has offered no apology. In fact, he has never even answered our letter."
Please acknowledge that you did receive a response from me to your "Open Letter" to me, and that I did send it to you dated June 10th, 2001 (over a year ago and just 2 days after your "Open Letter"). You may not have considered my response as an 'answer', but then you didn't pose your comments as questions. I repeat my response from 6/10/01 below.
I think that it is time for you to update your web page. Note that currently E-dental.com and Verticalnet Inc.'s other URL: http://www.safetyonline.com no longer have any searchable articles on fluoridation.
Howard
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:49:33 -0700 To: NYSCOF@aol.com, Dental-Public-Health@list.pitt.edu From: Howard Pollick
Dear Mr. Beeber,
Thank you for the opportunity to respond further to your prior press release. The following is a what E-dental.com put out on 4/25/2001 from your press release:
1) Canadian study: Stop fluoridation in water Big news out of Canada: a new report from the Canadian government claims that fluoridation in water probably does more harm than good. Report author Dr. David Locker, a professor of dentistry at the University of Toronto, suggests that the best solution is to cease fluoridation. For more, visit here... http://www.e-dental.com/read/nl20010426/423007
Fortunately, the content manager at E-dental.com has taken your press release off the internet. I have the original if you would like it.
The same story (which is still available as of 6/10/01) was also on Verticalnet Inc.'s other URL: http://www.safetyonline.com (search for fluoridation) http://www.safetyonline.com/content/news/article.asp?DocID={2F4424BE-37D6-11D5-A770-00D0B7694F32}
The issue is that your press release was taken as fact by the content manager at Verticalnet Inc., who at that time was Sandy Smith, and distributed as a legitimate news story.
I agree that yahoo.com released the press release as you have indicated: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/010423/nym003_2.html (which is still available)
However, my colleagues and I at the California Fluoridation Task Force feel that your review of the Locker report was biased against the findings on fluoridation in that report.
I will continue to inform my colleagues and others on what the scientific and the anti-fluoridation communities publish with regard to fluoridation.
- Howard Pollick
ENDIT
