Friday, March 23, 2007

Why have science when you can have John Gormely.

Here is something I posted on Irish Election about John Gormley

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. Trinity College Dublin. While against was John Gormley is well I have no idea what his qualifications are but I guess they are not in dentistry. But maybe he is right maybe fluoridation is wrong and she is some kind of evil sceptic financed by the big fluoride corporations. Maybe all the scientist disagree with fluoridation maybe the scientific consensuses is undeniable maybe there is no denying that climate change sorry I mean Fluoridation of water is wrong.

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.

5 comments:

billy said...

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.

Simon said...

ADA Recommended dosages
http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoride_article01.asp#dosage

A Random Walk said...

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.

phdbird said...

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.

EUES Ireland said...

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