We'll help you out. This is how the American Dental Association (ADA)
instructs it's obedient foot soldiers to respond.  This is from an
e-mail that was sent 7/22/05 to their members and sympathizers in a
knee-jerk attempt to dismiss this well-researched news report showing a
cover up of science linking fluoride to bone cancer probably more to to
retain the ADA's  political viability with legislators, whom should be
very embarrassed that fluoridation is supported with these weak and
non-scientific talking points. (Our talking points are in parentheses)

July 22, 2005

A forum for breaking news and
timely information from the ADA

 Water Fluoridation and Alleged Risk of Rare Bone Cancer

The Wall Street Journal (July 22, Section B-Market Place, page 1) and
other news outlets are reporting that a Harvard University doctor was
charged with misrepresenting the findings of a doctoral student's
thesis that reportedly found that fluoridated water increases the risk
of osteosarcoma (a rare bone cancer). Harvard University is conducting
an investigation into the matter. Your local media may report on this
story, and your patients may ask you about it. We will post a brief
media statement about this issue on ADA.org.

To help you respond to patient inquiries, the ADA provides the
following points:

Recent news reports may be alarming people unnecessarily about the
safety of water fluoridation.

(How is it "alarming people unnecessarily" to tell people about studies
showing their  drinking water caused bone cancer and worse that the
findings are being cover-up.. This is just one of many studies  linking
fluoride to cancer in general and fluoride to bone cancer,
specifically. We think its just alarming the ADA whose political
viability is being diminished.)

We're talking about one doctoral student's paper, a paper that has not
been published in a scientific journal and therefore has not been
available for peer review. Peer review is a process where a group of
experts review studies prior to publication to determine if the study
is designed well and if the conclusions are valid.

(What the ADA isn't telling you is that  PhD theses (actually
dissertations) usually go through extensive review by the faculty
readers before they are approved. Thus the ADA is implying that the
Harvard professors who signed off on the dissertation may not have been
on the ball.  Elise Bassin received her PhD based on this dissertation.
If it didn't have merit, she wouldn't have received her degree.  Also
the Wall Street Journal reporter has a science degree, knows science
very well and taught at New York University's Science and Environmental
Reporting Program for a stint. She already checked the viability of
Bassin's dissertation with objective outside sources w ho said the
paper is publishable. And, I guess, the ADA also wants you to ignore
this quote,  "She did great shoe-leather epidemiology,"
says William Maas, head of oral health at the CDC and a supporter of
fluoridation)

The student notes in her thesis that there are several limitations to
her study and recommends that the findings be confirmed using data from
other studies. For example, she notes that the study may not accurately
reflect the actual amount of fluoride consumed by study subjects.

(Show us any studies that support water fluoridation which reflect the
amount of fluoride consumed by study subjects. This is a huge flaw, we
always point out,  in the studies the ADA uses to support its theory
that fluoridation safety reduces tooth decay. Interesting the ADA uses
the argument when they think it works for them)

The vast majority of studies by nationally recognized researchers in
widely-published, respected and peer-reviewed scientific journals
conclude that water fluoridation has not shown any ill effects on
health.

(The truth is that both a U.S. government panel and British scientists
found fluoridation proponent studies flawed and scientifically invalid)

Studies show that water fluoridation can prevent between 15-40 percent
of tooth decay, and that there is no association between cancer rates
in humans and optimal levels of fluoride in drinking water.

(Also not true - the New Jersey Department of Health reports higher
rate of osteosarcoma in fluoridated portions of New Jersey.  The
National Toxicology Program found more osteosarcoma in fluoridated
rats. Procter & Gamble reports a link between fluoride and cancer.
Drs. Burk and Yiamouyiannis found a higher rate of cancer in
fluoridated communities, even after adjusting for age, sex and race.
When fluoridation proponents were put on the witness stand in courts of
law, Drs. Burk and Yiamouyianns's cancer studies could not be refuted
scientifically. But cancer isn't the only health problem laid at
fluoridation's door)

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has proclaimed community
water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of
the 20th century.

(Notice they didn't say tooth decay reduction was the achievement. Yes
organized dentistry has been very successful in spreading around
fluoridation for the last 60 years to 2/3 of Americans via their water
supply and 100% via the food supply; but the U.S. Surgeon General
reports tooth decay is a national epidemic.)

According to our current Surgeon General, fluoridation is the single
most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay and to
improve oral health for a lifetime, for both children and adults.

(Tooth decay has gone down over the years equally in fluoridated and
non-fluoridated countires.  There's no evidence that proves fluoride in
any form is responsible for the drop in tooth decay. Health generally
has improved markedly during the same time that decay rates declined)

Unless and until the weight of scientific evidence shifts to the
contrary, the American Dental Association continues to recommend that
community water supplies be fluoridated to reduce the risk of tooth
decay.

(This is sad because scientists are denied federal grant money to study
the ill health effects of fluoride.  Those that do manage to get grants
and show ill effects get fired and see no more research money, such as
Phyllis Mullenix who found and published a study showing fluoride
enters the brain and adversely affects behavior. Self survival steers
scientists away from even looking into this subject.   What the ADA is
telling you is  that the ADA's stack of invalid science is still higher
than the valid science showing fluoridations' harm - so the ADA wins.
That's not scientific.)

As a dentist, my goal is to help protect and improve your oral health.
I believe that water fluoridation is important in preventing tooth
decay.

(Yes they "believe." The science doesn't support this belief.)

As a member of the American Dental Association, I will be kept up to
date on the latest dental research, so if the science on this issue
changes, I will certainly let you know immediately.

(I've already shown you that the ADA will lie to it's members. The only
reason, dentists now were made aware of the bone cancer link is because
the media has picked up on it. So the ADA's number one goal is to
protect the image of  fluoridation and, therefore, their own image)

As the leader of a science-based profession, the ADA is open to new
scientific information and welcomes the opportunity to address it
according to the standards that prevail in the scientific community.

(The ADA is just a union that represents the best interest of dentists
- not the American public.  We would like a discussion not only on the
merits of the Bassin dissertation; but the merits of the studies which
show fluoridation is safe and effective and saves money, because
actually it's does none of those things)

New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation
http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof
www.FluorideAction.Net