Re: Another fluoride deception
From: The Webby (nospamattmjiatroepidemicnospam_at_san.rr.com)
Date: 06/18/04
- Next message: Vaughn: "Re: Ping Vaughn, JME"
- Previous message: The Webby: "Re: Using Technology to Increase Patient Loyalty for Dentists - Smile Reminder"
- In reply to: Peter Meiers: "Re: Another fluoride deception"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2004 21:36:12 GMT
Greeting Peter,
Thank you for promptly responding to my post.
Sabra
In article <40D0C277.3B17@yahoo.com>,
Peter Meiers <Tren_Dean@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hello Sabra,
>
> > I've often wondered how you would comment upon the public water in my
> > region. I admit fully to my ignorance on the topic that you have
> > dedicated so much energy. Please take a look at the URL I'm pasting
> > here and add comments if you have time. This URL may not be exactly up
> > to date but it's historically accurate for this sort of discussion, I
> > think. There's plenty more where this info came from (WWW).
> >
> > http://www.ndcsouthwest.med.navy.mil/publichealth/dental%20caries%20and%2
> > 0fluoride.htm
>
> To me this article appears like one of the many propaganda pieces I have
> seen on this topic. Many unreflected statements and half-truths.
>
> The first phrase already is unreflected: "Dental caries became a major
> public health problem when people began eating a refined diet." -
>
> Maybe it became a problem "when people began eating a refined diet", but
> a problem for the individuals. They had to spend money for their
> dentists. So what? It became a "public health problem" only because of
> certain economic consequences, i.e. because of loss of working power,
> absence from working place, and, more so, because the dental problems
> meant a loss of manpower for the army (as the laws required fully
> functioning teeth in certain positions to handle certain weapons). The
> interest of the government in the caries problem rose especially after
> the experiences of World War 1. _This_ interest culminated in the
> organization of a dental research unit in the Public Health Service and
> in several epidemiological studies on caries even before Trendley Dean
> took over (e.g. by Amanda Stoughton and Blanche E. Sterling).
>
> It may be true that damage caused by "this problem" (faulty nutrition?)
> can often be prevented. But, as a result of fluoride? One could perhaps
> think so if fluoride were the only factor that changed over the years.
> But when you read the original literature you´ll find, that in the early
> years there was not only faulty nutrition but also a lack of basic
> dental hygiene. This is what Frederick Sumner McKay (not "John McKay"),
> better known as the mottled enamel researcher, addressed in 1909,
> according to a history book by the Colorado State Dental Association.
> Colorado dentists undertook educational efforts and offered free
> treatment for indigent children. But even after 7 years, still 80% of
> the children needed dental care. Remember, this 80% means children in
> need of dental care, exclusive of those with already filled and missing
> teeth (after treatment) who would be included in the calculation of a
> DMF Index (Decayed, Missing, Filled teeth), and would give a much higher
> number. This high number applies to Colorado Springs, a city with a high
> incidence of mottled teeth and which was claimed to have a remarkably
> low caries incidence. Due to fluoride? Never ever. THis first claim was
> an outright lie, and there were still more lies.
>
> Like the results of the fluoridation trials of the 1940´s and 50´s. Did
> you know that Newburgh, one of the first fluoridated cities, hired
> dental hygienists for their public schools, while the control city,
> Kingston, had just one supervisor to become active only for statistical
> examinations (for the comparison) from time to time? This is what a
> letter in the Trendley Dean papers at the National Library of Medicine
> reveals, among other things. What did the dental hygienists do in
> Newburgh schools what no dental hygienist did in Kingston´s?
>
> Now for the DMF Index: What do you think about a comparison of the
> number of decayed, missing or filled teeth among 100 "children" aged
> 12-14 years between a fluoridated and a non-fluoridated city? A reliable
> index of the dental health? Well, there´s a difference in the number of
> permanent teeth erupted in boys or girls of the same age. You will also
> admit that boys aged 12 years will probably have less teeth than boys
> aged 14 years? And even less than girls aged 14 years? If you examine
> 100 boys aged 12 you will find a wide variance in the number of
> permanent teeth erupted. If you count missing teeth, do you know why
> these teeth are missing? All because of caries? How many because of
> orthodontic reasons? Filled teeth are filled because of former caries?
> McKay himself wrote in a letter to Dean that teeth are often filled as a
> preventive measure (nowadays called sealants) with no caries being
> present before. It is obvious, then, that there are many ways to compose
> your "groups of children", to be compared, in any way to get the desired
> results. Take more boys aged 12 to 13 in a group of 100 "children" to
> show a lower DMF, compared to a group composed of more girls aged 13 to
> 14. The latter will display a higher caries incidence (because there are
> more and older teeth in that group). Now you describe the first group as
> the "fluoride group" and the latter as the "non-fluoride" and- voilà,
> you "prove" a fluoride effect. That´s exactly what Dean did, what Klein
> and Knutson did in some of their studies, and what is done today in a
> "scientific" dental study on fluoride.
>
> I can tell you some more tricks, later.
>
>
> Best,
> Peter
-- -- Sabra Broock <sabrabroock@earthlink.net>
- Next message: Vaughn: "Re: Ping Vaughn, JME"
- Previous message: The Webby: "Re: Using Technology to Increase Patient Loyalty for Dentists - Smile Reminder"
- In reply to: Peter Meiers: "Re: Another fluoride deception"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
