The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama

5 Responses to “The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama”

1. Russell Jackson, Holyoke Bookstore & Morgue says:

   October 25, 2010 at 3:08 am

   The Fluoride Wars is a slick attempt to paint challenger to fluoridation in a negative light even as at the same time leaving not so subtle hints that no self-respecting person would become caught up in this cause. Each page is crafted to undermine the case for non-fluoridated water by selective citation and half-truths. The writers disperse the evidence that supports an end to fluoridation over scattered pages so that only the most intrepid reader would be able to place it back together. It is a piece of propaganda masquerading as a scholarly work. The pseudo-journalistic style, with flippant references to pop culture, tries to hide the steep slant to the tale in which the opponents to fluoridation are “a few local cranks”, “kooky antifluoridationists”, “unfashionable Don Quixotes”, people who have “a creed”, or are “tilting at windmills”. The book is liberally dotted with words like “kooks” and “cranks”, “circus” “secret handshakes”, “subculture”, “fluorophobia” and “quack”. The intent is clear: if you have any standing in society, you do not want to be associated with these people.
   
   By page five it is clear the book is not a well-rounded scholarly work, but the latest spin from the pro-fluoridation side:

   “Look, Ma. No cavities”, say the smiling children in the ancient Crest ads, as they run toward their mother’s outstretched arms. Who may possibly argue hostile to no cavities and a mother’s like? Certainly not the American Dental Association, or the General practitioner General, or anyone else that matters, all of whom say that fluoride is excellent for you. That ought to be enough for most of us.
   
   And so it is for most of us, but not all of us.” [Note the confusion over topical vs. systemic application, also the argument from authority logical fallacy.]

   The book contains no preface or introduction, so the authors do not tell us what motivated them to write it. Jay H. Lehr is a businessman and motivational speaker, who is said to have written hundreds of journal and magazine articles. A Web of Science database search below his name lists 104 articles, but they are nearly all editorials and commentaries from the journals Ground Water and Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation, the most recent being fifteen years ago. Eighty-two of them have never been cited by anyone and so, from an academic perspective, are considered quite literally useless. He is listed as Senior Scientist at The Heartland Institute, the Chicago-based “libertarian”/conservative reckon tank that opposes the thought that human civilization is making climate exchange and opposes regulation of cigarette smoking. He is also Chief Scientist for EarthWater Global, a company that “locates, develops and manages” “megawatersheds”. It was recently in the news for entering into an MOU with the government of Kenya, whose water sector is riddled with corruption, according to Transparency International. R. Allan Freeze is a former college professor who now runs his own engineering company. He has published many widely cited papers, again on the topic of ground water. According to the same database neither author has ever previously published anything on water fluoridation, which would clarify the lack of preface or introduction. So it appears Freeze is the scientist and Lehr is the popularizer who was brought in – why? The role of the two authors is mysterious in that the text is written sometimes in the plural “we”, sometimes in the singular “I”, and the acknowledgments are only signed by Freeze. A scholarly book would place no mystery over the role of the authors. The author(s) acknowledge no research help in preparing the book, yet neither has ever published anything on the topic previously. Since neither author has any background in this area, and since neither has written this type of journalistic investigation before, one has to wonder if the book was ghost written. In any event we have two businessmen-scientists who make a living developing water resources. They appear to be not the “give people the liberty to choose for themselves”-type of libertarians, but rather the “give industry or property owners the liberty to do as they want without government set of laws that protect people from toxic exposures”-type of libertarians.
   
   The book is certainly packaged as a scholarly work proposed for the academic library, not a trade book for the masses. It has the higher price, the lack of dust jacket (that libraries discard). There are the small, full bibliographic footnotes on the first page of each chapter as in certain scholarly books. It is clearly written to discourage students or other professionals from the thought that there might really be something to this challenger to fluoridation. Besides, why risk your career getting caught up?
   
   But this is a very slovenly piece of scholarship. For example, the authors like to use tables, and in Table 2.5 – Fluoridation Status of Developed Countries of the World, the authors list the Czech Republic and Russia as two countries that have some populace using fluoridated water, but then add the footnote “Before the fall of the iron curtain in 1989. Current situation unknown.” Really? Why is that? Are these two countries on some outer earth with which we have no communication? Why didn’t the authors investigate? Or at least pay someone to find out?
   
   There are near 20 tables in the book. But they use them in a amusing way. Instead of being a clear way to make a list of facts, the tables often control highly subjective statements as in Table 6.1 “An Assessment of Anti-Fluoridation Conspiracy Claims” which lists the question, “Is there any reason to question Hodge’s motivations in supporting fluoridation” and the resolution “not really”. This is attitude not scholarship.
   
   The book is titled The Fluoride Wars to go by the side of with the Culture Wars and the Science Wars, to give the reader the impression that challenger to water fluoridation is not based on principle or evidence, but on mere ideology.
   
   The authors call the struggle a melodrama, which the dictionary defines as a sensational, excessively emotional action or utterance. In this case the authors are clearly mistaken. “America’s (sic) highest running political melodrama” is the United States Congress. The use of the term melodrama, which can surely be applied to most contentious issues (freedom fries, anyone?), is an suggestion that the authors want to play up the sensational aspects of the history. The title also suggests that the whole affair is much ado about nothing, so you needn’t have any concerns about fluoride. Ditto the chapter subheadings
   
   The chapter subheadings also have this ironic, pop culture language that tries to make the book appear hip and postmodern. The term informed consent does not appear in the book, and it is clear that the authors are oblivious to the fact that this concept motivates much of the challenger to fluoridation. The Heartland Institute should be stripped of any association with libertarianism.
   
   One brief mention of the ethical challenger in Table 2.6 questions “How does fluoridation compare with other forward but report has it that widely accepted governmental programs, such as tax collection or the setting of speed limits.” Dudes, are you kidding me? Tax collection accepted? No way. Everyone tries to get out of paying taxes.
   
   The Fluoride Wars is an example of propaganda in the guise of a scholarly work. Readers who do not know the theme are likely to be misled, and perhaps mad when they realize how far they have been misled.
   
   This book was published in 2009, three years after the National Research Assembly’s report on EPA’s fluoridation level, a report the ADA refused to recognize, as do these authors.
   
   To see how densely packed is the deceit by omission, consider the author’s treatment of the Chester Douglass scandal. They don’t call it that, but we can because it is very rare for a professor to be charged with misconduct. Instead the section is headed “The Osteosarcoma Controversy”. In contrast, the authors use the heading the “The Marcus Affair” to focus on the isolated individual
   
   Here is the text with my numbered annotations:

   “In an attempt to lay these worries to rest (1), the National Institute of Environmental Health Services (a branch of the National Institutes of Health) resolute to fund a 15-year epidemiological study on the possible role of fluoride intake on the incidence of osteosarcoma. The grant was awarded to the Harvard School of Dental Medicine, with Chester W. Douglass as principal investigator (2). Much to the chagrin of the project’s leaders (3), the first consequences, contained in the 2001 doctoral thesis of a graduate student, Elise Bassin, indicated a “robust” relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma in young males (5 to 10 years ancient) (4). Douglass, for his part, considered this work preliminary (5). He did not encourage early publication of the consequences in a technical publication, nor did he report them to NIEHS in a 2004 overview report to the agency (6). It is his contention that Bassin’s consequences have not been replicated in later stages of the overall study (7)
   
   “In June 2005, the Environmental Working Group (EWG), an promotion group whose primary goal is “to protect the most vulnerable segments of the human populace from toxic contaminants,” found out about Bassin’s thesis and demanded that NIEHS carry out an investigation to determine whether Douglass’ actions constituted a cover-up of facts that may possibly pose a risk to society (and to the fluoridation movement) (8). Learning of the EWG charges, Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network called for Douglass’s immediate removal (9). William Hirzy (a strong anti-fluoride chief whom we meet in Chapter 9) called for a nationwide moratorium on fluoridation until the come forth is resolved. (10)
   
   At the order of NIEHS, Harvard University set up an inquiry panel to review Douglass’ actions. One year later, in August 2006, the panel reported the consequences of their deliberations. They exonerated Douglass, finding that he did not “intentionally omit, misrepresent, or suppress the findings” of his graduate student. Anti-fluoridation web sites have honed in not on the exoneration, but on the word “intentionally”. In the same year, Bassin’s consequences were finally published in the journal Cancer Causes and Control (11). Douglass was not a co-author on the paper. In fact, he submitted a letter to the editor that was published in the same journal urging caution and warning hostile to “overinterpretation or generalization” of these early consequences of the plotted long-term study at Harvard.

   Annotations:
   
   1. Despite lecturing us on how incorrect it is for scientists to conduct a study with the intent of proving something, the authors accept the do here. Prior to the research it is a defined result that fluoridation doesn’t cause caner.
   
   2. The authors omit a major criticism of this agreement – why is a dental researcher being questioned to study bone cancer? Secondly, why is someone who is paid by Colgate, a fluoridated toothpaste-maker caught up in this research? It is a prima facie case of conflict of interest, but the authors don’t tell the readers.
   
   3. Why should the researchers express chagrin? They have done nothing incorrect. It should be the opposite – they should be pleased they made a discovery that might help save peoples’ lives. The unstated propagandistic reason for the “chagrin” is that they may have made a discovery that may possibly jeopardize their carriers. That is what the authors want the readers to know unconsciously.
   
   4. The authors omit the key top of the Bassin study, that make it superior to other epidemiological studies of this sort, that they really quantified the exposure in years to the fluoride. So it seems like just another study. They also omit that there was a five-fold increased risk in the fluoridated populace.
   
   5. The authors, who like to address us on the working of science, omit the fact that it is everlastingly expected that PhD students publish their work – generally they try to stretch it into three or more papers if possible. Douglass’ action here is the direct opposite of standard academic do, but the authors don’t tell you that.
   
   6. The authors omit the damning fact that Douglass really reported that Bassin’s study found no link to cancer. Black is white to Douglass, but this is omitted.
   
   7. It is his contention, but the authors omit the fact that Douglass has never published these consequences. It is his word with nothing to back it up, but the reader doesn’t know that.
   
   8. The author’s omit the payment that he really lied about the findings.
   
   9. Connett was really the one who uncovered the whole scandal.
   
   10. The authors omit that it was not just Hirzy but EPA union leaders from nearly the people. To suggest, as they do, that it was just Hirzy is quite deceitful.
   
   11. The authors omit the fact that Harvard did not follow the government’s rules in conducting the inquiry in that the party that brought the charges hostile to Douglass, the EWG, was not allowed to bestow its case to the panel. This would have forced the panel to address specific questions, and make a cover-up more trying.
   
   So we have corrections and whole truths that run as long as the original text. This may possibly be done with every page of the book. In this sense, the book is valuable as a study in propaganda.
   
   This book is a piece of propaganda disguised as scholarship written to muddy the water at a time the NRC has released a devastating blow to the pro-fluoride camp.
   
   Ironically these authors clearly see the struggle over fluoridation as essentially a battle between industry and the grassroots over exposure to a toxic industrial pollutant, yet most environmentalists, who profess concern over such matters, remain oblivious to this common cause.
   
   -reprinted (with permission) from a review by Michael F. Dolan, The Non-Fluoridated Consumer, August 2009
   Rating: 1 / 5
2. Jack Cook says:

   October 25, 2010 at 4:22 am

   Having been handed the freedom of continual ignorance by the general broadcast through the last sixty years, the well entrenched industry that supports the addition of a neurotoxin into our drinking water now has another book that supports this ill advised and risky do. The authors have dutifully included many proper references to the sordid history of fluoridation into their narrative even as stealthily administration to discredit those who have strongly different fluoridation with the selectivity of a master novelist. Rather than making an unbiased work of balance supported by primary literature, Freeze and Lehr have relied heavily on tales from the emotional history of fluoride that contribute readability to their work. The fact that their book is published by mega publisher Wiley should allow some room for credibility. Yet, the title lonely should awaken some small quantity of doubt as to the author’s right intentions, that of supporting fluoridation, which is something the authors promise up front will not be the case. Generally speaking, even as promising to “find a middle ground” on the come forth, the authors have observably crafted a work that strongly supports the continuation of “The Highest Running Circus in Town” without really helping to inform the broadcast about the highest running scam in town.

   As mentioned in the book, the fluoride come forth is extremely complex. Most people simply do not have time to learn the many deceptions and cover ups caught up. Many professionals, though they should know better, have essentially failed to go to the primary literature to compare their absolute statements with reality. “Fluoride Wars” seems to gloss over and ignore many of the more vital and damaging aspects of the do of adding fluoride to drinking water.

   Upon hearing that this book was to be published, I immediately contacted some of the nationally recognized experts and health professionals that I know in the anti-fluoridation movement. Report has it that none of them had been contacted or interviewed for “Fluoride Wars.” How can a researcher write a book like this without really interviewing those who represent the “other side” of the come forth? This lonely casts a pall of doubt over the credibility of the authors’ non-position.

   Frankly, I was amazed when I originally interviewed many of those caught up with the anti-fluoridation movement at the genuineness, honesty, and quality of people caught up as activists. This was in direct contrast to the subtle misdirection, ambiguity, and condescending attitude directed at my inquiries by those whose positions in broadcast health were supposed to protect the best interests of those they serve. I was surprised to see so many people trained in science intentionally ignore an alternate viewpoint, whether supported by evidence or not. To those broadcast servants, it seemed to be a game of private power and authority over that of the common excellent. The very titles of chapters contained in “Fluoride Wars” remind me of this same distasteful, condescending attitude despite stating otherwise in the book’s product description. Too many of those in the pro-fluoride camp act as if their very position and title give them immunity from facing the cold hard facts of chemistry.

   The authors have once again unnecessarily brought forward a mention of Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece black comedy, “Dr. Strangelove” and its over the top character, Colonel Jack Ripper. Colonel Ripper is frequently brought forward by pro-fluoridationists to subtly imply some measure of mental shortfall on the part of anyone who works hostile to fluoridation. Though one must agree that there will be crackpots and extremists in every major social movement, the anti-fluoridation initiative is one movement that makes perfect sense for the health of citizens of America and for the world. When excellent science is utilized in broadcast policy, the need for continued debate and carefully calculated research eventually subsides, and a general consensus is reached on the merits of a do. There will be no consensus on the come forth of fluoride because brute advertising and political force has been used in lieu of the normally accepted standards of science. Continuing to force feed a very potent toxin to entire populations cannot be accepted by informed citizens who simply want clean, safe water dispensed from their tap. One positive aspect of “Fluoride Wars” is that in the administer of shooting themselves in the foot, Freeze and Lehr will have brought even more attention to the “come forth that will not go away.”

   For a very painstakingly researched and documented version of why the anti-fluoride movement continues, by the side of with a description of its historical beginnings the reader is directed to Mr. Christopher Bryson’s book, “The Fluoride Deception.” And, much of the current peer reviewed scientific in rank on fluoride’s adverse health effects that are neglectfully gone from “Fluoride Wars” are available through the Fluoride Action Network.
   
   Rating: 1 / 5
3. S. Hinckley says:

   October 25, 2010 at 6:47 am

   This is another bit of fake science which reads like a bit of commissioned PR twaddle to support the fluoride pushers. The science behind why water fluoridation does NOT work was ignored. The moral outrage of those who wish a choice to NOT drink fluoride was ignored as well.
   Rating: 1 / 5
4. C. Kopf says:

   October 25, 2010 at 8:29 am

   The authors of The Fluoride Wars seem stuck in the 1950’s when children played in the spray of DDT trucks, smoking was encouraged by physicians and adding unnecessary fluoride chemicals into broadcast water supplies, as an unproven children’s tooth decay medicine, seemed like a excellent thought. The book is neither objective nor middle ground and limits on plagiarism in parts. It certainly reflects the authors pro-fluoridation beliefs.

   It appears the authors did small original research and borrowed many quotes from other published sources. The authors seem to have small interest in, or a poor understanding of, actual fluoride science.

   They use inflammatory quotes and tales from articles available on the Internet and then write how worried they are that the Internet is used as a tool for propaganda.

   Really, the internet is nearly the only place you can read, unfiltered, what those of us different to fluoridation have to say. We judge you are smart enough to sort out the truth.

   As pointed out by Dr. Paul Connett in his review of this book, the authors are aware of the National Research Assembly’s (2006) 500+ page report on the health effects and toxicology of fluoride but the authors of The Fluoride Wars don’t report on what’s in it. Any book on fluoride or fluoridation that doesn’t include the findings and recommendations of this major review of current fluoride science shouldn’t be taken sincerely.

   The authors describe the fluoridation battle in Connersville, Indiana, where a fluoride supporter and magician unwisely eats a whole tube of fluoridated toothpaste to prove it is non-toxic. But, it is toxic. Such a stupid stunt by a small child may possibly be fatal. Instead of explaining the health risks associated with this performance, the author denigrates fluoridation opposers for suggesting this magician used sleight of hand to switch to a tube of non-fluoridated paste. The tale and quotes are lifted from a newspaper article available on the Internet.

   These shenanigans enabled fluoridation to start in Connersville in 2000 despite a 1999 research article published in Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology (1999 Aug;27(4):288-97) which showed that Connersville children already consumed too much fluoride from food and dental products putting them at greater risk of dental fluorosis (discolored teeth). Instead of reducing intake as this research paper advised, local dentists misinformed legislators and residents that children needed more via water fluoridation. The authors of The Fluoride Wars fail to tell readers this vital in rank even though Wiley publishes both this journal and this book. They should all be very embarrassed.

   It’s also revealing that the authors acknowledge Warren Wood as providing supportive reviews of the final manuscript. We wonder if this is the same Warren Wood who is on the Louisiana Fluoridation Advisory Board which is charged with promoting water fluoridation. I don’t see any evidence that the authors consulted any scientist or activist different to fluoridation

   Those interested the history and politics behind the unscientific and risky do of fluoridation can read The Fluoride Deception by award-winning journalist Christopher Bryson. It’s original, clearly referenced and a excellent read.

   Those interested in fluoride science and how, even low doses added to broadcast water supplies, can be harmful to some people – especially babies, high water drinkers, thyroid and kidney patients – read the NRC report (Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards)

   Carol S. Kopf, B.S., M.A.
   
   Rating: 1 / 5
5. Karen Bond says:

   October 25, 2010 at 10:16 am

   Certainly an fascinating read – a unique mix of social history and well loved science. I learned more about fluoride than I plotting there was to know! It’s filled with lots of anecdotal tales and fascinating historical tidbits, vignettes of the principal players on both sides for the fluoride discussion.

   I didn’t reckon that the book chose one side or another – and then I read the first reviews. Fascinatingly, some of the people who gave the book unfavorable reviews are all strong opposers of fluoride who’s organizations and arguments are covered in the book.

   It’s an fascinating conflict – covering the controversy of fluoridation (which I didn’t realize was a controversy until I read this) – including the nearly universal support from the medical-dental establishment, as well as the effective and street-smart strategies of a well-organized challenger.

   Fluoride is a double-edged sword. The authors conclude that broadcast water fluoridation, together with the advent of fluoridated toothpaste, are undoubtedly responsible for the steep drop in the incidence of childhood dental cavities. But they also join the call for reduced fluoride dosages in broadcast supplies to protect hostile to the risk of negative bone health impacts.

   “The Flouride Wars” discusses the heated conflict between the pro-fluoride and anti-fluoride camps. Nothing makes this case more clearly than the first reviews posted on Amazon.com by some of the leaders of the antiflouridation movement in America.

   It’s certainly a “war” that makes for an fascinating read. I don’t want a book to make decisions for me, I want it to bestow both sides honestly. Open-minded readers will find balanced coverage of this long-standing controversy so they can make their own decisions.
   
   Rating: 5 / 5