Understanding the Scientific Consensus that
Community Water Fluoridation is a Safe and Effective Public Health
Measure
Because the scientific evidence –– as evaluated by relevant experts worldwide –– overwhelmingly supports fluoridation, the World Health Organization and over 100 other major science and health organizations worldwide (and their hundreds of thousands of members) continue to publicly support fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure to reduce dental decay –– and NO major science/health organizations support the opinions of fluoridation opponents. In fact, fluoridation opposition only comes from: a very small minority of those with relevant science/health training/experience, a handful of alternative 'health' organizations like the IAOMT, alternative-health marketing proponents like Joseph Mercola, vocal activist groups like FAN and the CHD (with an anti-vax agenda) and a number of conspiracy theory proponents like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WHOSupportsCWF.html
https://www.cyber-nook.com/water/CWF-Opposition.html
Fluoridation opponents (FOs) and other anti-science
activists frequently state that there is no consensus
among relevant scientists and health professionals that
community water fluoridation (CWF) is a safe and
effective public health measure. They provide
references to studies they claim prove fluoridation
causes a number of serious health effects or quote
opinions from individual scientists or health professionals who
disagree with the consensus. They claim their
selection of alleged "evidence" they believe
demonstrates
ineffectiveness or harm from drinking optimally
fluoridated water is proof the scientific consensus does
not support fluoridation.
One of the most important characteristics of any scientific consensus
is
that it is provisional - always open to change if new,
legitimate, relevant, reproducible evidence is presented
that challenges a given consensus. In fact,
scientific knowledge can't progress unless current
conclusions are challenged by those who disagree with a
given consensus and are able to present strong
supporting evidence.
It is critical for non-scientists trying to understand how
to sort out facts from fiction in the fluoridation
discussion (and in other science-based controversial
issues) to understand the concept of
scientific consensus. For any complex scientific
issue, whether it is related to health, geology,
chemistry, physics, astronomy, electronics, climate, or
any other scientific topic, there are hundreds to
thousands of potentially relevant scientific studies
which have been conducted over years to decades.
Those studies have been performed in an effort to
understand specific aspects
(the cause and effect relationships) found in the natural world.
Like all human endeavors, the studies will have various
limitations that can impact the significance and quality
of the studies and any conclusions presented. The scientific consensus " is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in
a particular
field of
study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not
necessarily unanimity."
wikipedia
The scientific consensus is the best interpretation of
all available scientific evidence at any given period of
time, and it is subject to constant review and revision
as new legitimate scientific evidence is discovered and
presented. The fact that no scientific consensus
is fixed, and every scientific consensus can be
challenged at any time, is the only reason scientists
have formulated any any new theories about how the natural
universe behaves. That process of expert
evaluation is the only reason any scientific conclusions
(consensus, theories or laws) can be trusted as they relate to specific
health issues or any other human endeavor based on
natural cause and effect relationships –
which can be tested and understood as based on
scientific processes.
It can be very difficult for non-scientists to understand the concept of a scientific consensus since
there is nothing remotely like it outside of the
sciences. In all other NotScience fields of human
endeavor (philosophy, arts, religion, law, ethics, etc)
a consensus of opinions is determined by, and justified entirely on,
personal beliefs. There is no way to prove a belief or moral position is
true in the same way scientists can demonstrate a cause
and effect relationship in the natural world.
A personal opinion on whether Beethoven was a better (or
worse)
composer than
Rachmaninoff, or whether birth control methods are moral
or immoral, for example, can't be proven true or false
– by science. Personal beliefs in natural, physical
phenomena, however like "the earth is flat", "the earth
and universe are about 6,000 years old", "ingesting fluoridated drinking water causes
cancer (or other harm)", "vaccination causes more harm
than good" etc. are, in fact, natural claims that can be (and have
been) tested
and evaluated
by the scientific method.
http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/WhatIsScience.html
When any new potential scientific evidence is presented to
the scientific community, the design, protocols
and conclusions of the study are
carefully evaluated by relevant experts for
significance, validity and any
potential bias. Those studies determined to be
relevant, valid and reasonably unbiased are compared with the entire body of
previous evidence that supports the current scientific
consensus. An established consensus is only
modified when
the majority of experts determine the new evidence is of
sufficient quality to consider a reevaluation of the
consensus, and before any final decisions are made, the
new conclusions must be replicated by additional
independent studies. This process of rigorous,
continual evaluation based on multiple lines of
verifiable, reproducible evidence is the only thing that
keeps any given scientific consensus from the complete
chaos which would result from accepting all conclusions
from all sources as equally relevant and legitimate.
To date, despite alleged "evidence" presented
by vocal opponents,
the current scientific consensus in the
topics listed above would be "the earth is not flat, but an irregularly shaped ellipsoid",
"the universe is about 13.8 billion years old and the
earth is much younger at about 4.5 billion years",
"fluoridated drinking water has not been shown to cause
cancer
(or other harm)" and "the benefits of vaccination far
outweigh any alleged harm".
It is
very important to understand the difference between
legitimate, reputable scientists and health care
providers who legitimately challenge an
accepted scientific consensus and anti-science activists
who irresponsibly challenge an accepted consensus.
Legitimate scientists and health care providers do not morph into anti-science
activists just because they disagree with a scientific
consensus.
As described above, legitimate scientists work within the scientific
community. They present evidence that conflicts
with a consensus and argue their case with relevant
experts in the field. If their evidence is not
sufficient to change the consensus - or is not validated
by other independent studies - they go back to the
drawing board and try to obtain more compelling,
reproducible evidence to support their beliefs - or they
accept the consensus and go on to study something
different.
There is also a minority of scientists (outliers) who
have very strong beliefs, and a strong agenda to try and
overturn a scientific consensus they disagree with.
These scientists can be found constantly challenging the
effectiveness and policies of major science-based
conclusions supported by the overwhelming majority of
relevant experts - like the importance, safety and
effectiveness of vaccines and fluoridation, the reality
and consequences of climate change, even the age of the
universe and the concept of evolution. It is
important to understand that these outlier scientists
have been unable to provide any evidence to change the
scientific consensus on vaccination, fluoridation and
evolution despite decades of trying. Often, these
scientists try a bit of manipulation to try and reach a
study outcome that matches their beliefs (Green
reference below). However, they usually publish
their study conclusions as finding a "possible
association or correlation" which does not even imply a cause and
effect relationship (referenced below). Examine any study published
by fluoridation opponents (Associations reference
below), and you will find every conclusions is only a
"possible association or correlation" between drinking optimally
fluoridated water and any harm they are trying to
establish - the association or correlation is almost
always very small. That fact is precisely why the
outliers have not been able to change the relevant
scientific consensus and why they remain outliers.
Unfortunately, members of the public who have
extremely strong beliefs and are against a science-based
consensus (like vaccination, fluoridation, climate
change, evolution) and are not trained and experienced
scientists or health professionals will reference the
outlier studies as providing conclusive proof that the
studies support their beliefs that vaccines and
fluoridation are harmful, there are no climate change
issues of concern, and the earth is about 6.000 years
old.
https://cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationInformation-Green.html
Correlation does not imply causation - Wikipedia
https://cyber-nook.com/water/Anti-FluorideAssociations.pdf
Some of the scientists
or health care providers morph into Anti-Science Activists when:
-
They have extremely strong, inflexible philosophical, political, ethical &/or spiritual beliefs (or business goals) which conflict with a specific scientific consensus.
-
The evidence they claim to have in support of their beliefs is not of convincing quality, has been misrepresented &/or is not reproducible. Consequently, they are unable to convince other relevant scientists to consider changing the consensus.
-
These scientists then choose to abandon working within the scientific community to produce
additional substantial, high-quality supporting evidence.
-
They choose not to work with other scientists to better explain their evidence and perhaps convince the
scientific community their evidence and interpretations are valid.
-
They choose not to assist other
scientists to successfully reproduce and confirm their experimental or observational results.
-
They then choose to take their beliefs and their interpretation of the evidence directly to the public in a deliberate effort to bypass the science and hijack the democratic process.
-
They adjust and present their “evidence” in a manner (often employing disingenuous, false fear-mongering tactics) that is most likely to sway public opinion and cause well-meaning individuals who don't have relevant scientific training or experience to join their cause.
-
They don't correct members of the public who
further distort the available "evidence" as they
originally presented it – or those who
even completely fabricate claims.
-
They argue to the public that their interpretation of their “evidence” is more legitimate than the interpretation of the vast majority of evidence by the overwhelming majority of scientists who they disagree with.
-
They promote the idea that mainstream scientists
who disagree with their beliefs should not be trusted because they are part of some vaguely defined (and completely unproven) conspiracy.
At that point the scientists or health care providers have
have abandoned the legitimate practices of science and
become anti-science activists. Unfortunately,
since many members of the public hold similar, very strong
beliefs about the same science-based issues, even though they
don't have the training or experience to personally
evaluate decades of complex scientific evidence, the
anti-science activists can frequently find uncritical public
support for their opinions.
Back to the discussion on CWF:
There are four significant
pieces of evidence that confirm the scientific consensus
that CWF is safe and
effective:
-
Major scientific reviews/studies over the past few
years,
described here, conclude that community
water fluoridation is effective and/or safe and confirm
the fact that the scientific consensus on fluoridation
is not under dispute – except by a relative few
professionals and a far greater number of non-professionals who have
believed them.
-
Virtually all major science and
health organizations worldwide publically recommend fluoridation
as a safe and effective public health measure (many
since the 1950s and 60s).
These organizations include: The World Health
Organization which represents 191 countries, the
British Dental Association (around 22,000 members),
the British Medical Association (over 156,000
members), the Irish Dental Association (over 1,800
members), the American Dental Association (over
114,000 members), the American Medical Association
(over 200,000 members), the American Academy of
Pediatrics (around 64,000 members), the Canadian
Dental Association (over 16,000 members), the
Canadian Medical Association (80,000 members), The
Australian Dental Association (over 11,000 members),
the Australian Medical Association (over 28,000
members), the New Zealand Dental Association (2,026
members), and around 100 other organizations and
their members.
http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/why-fluoride/
-
The hundreds of thousands of members of those
organizations have not rebelled. FOs have provided
no rational explanations for why, if the "evidence"
they claim actually proves CWF is ineffective and harmful, a
significant number of members representing the organizations
have not stepped forward to publically
-
No such reputable science or health organizations
support the anti-F opinions.
Additional
resources for understanding the benefits and risks
of drinking water fluoridation.
FOs apparently have no
idea of what constitutes a scientific consensus, how to
recognize one or even how to try and refute one.
All
FOs would have to do to support their claim that
“there is no consensus fluoridation is safe or
effective. There never has been” (Rick
North, Lund Report Opinion) is to list a majority of reputable
science and health organizations that accept the anti-F
opinions as legitimate.
However the fact is, according
to the most comprehensive list I have seen posted by
FOs, support for their opinions
consists of 6 alternative health organizations and
about 11 advocacy, environmental, marketing, spiritual and
cultural organizations and a number of of conspiracy theory fanatics like Alex Jones [INFOWARS], David Icke [Son of the Godhead] and Mike Adams [Natural News]..
Groups and Organizations Publically Opposed to
Fluoridation include:
-
INFOWARS, Alex Jones
-
Natural News, Mike Adams
-
AAEM: American Academy of Environmental Medicine
-
ICIM: International College of Integrative Medicine
-
IABDM: International Academy of Biological Dentists and
Medicine
-
IAOMT: International Academy of Oral Medicine and
Toxicology
-
ICA: International Chiropractors Association
-
HDA: Holistic Dental Association
-
EWG: Environmental Working Group
-
CHEJ: Center for Health, Environment & Justice
-
Children's Health Defense:
Anti-vaccination organization, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr
-
Sierra Club: Environmentalists
-
OCA: Organic Consumers Association
-
FWW: Food & Water Watch
-
CAAP: Coalition of African American Pastors
-
LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens
-
Mercola.com: "Alternative Health"
products
-
David Icke [Son of the
Godhead]
Below are some critiques of a few high profile anti-fluoridation, anti-science individual supporters and groups. Obviously, if you accept the beliefs and positions of these individuals and organizations you will dismiss these critiques. However, if you have any interest in understanding legitimate scientific and health positions based on an impartial evaluation of scientific evidence, it is worth examining the overall context of anti-science propaganda of all types as described below
Fluoride Action Network &
Paul Connett, New York State Coalition Opposed to
Fluoridation and other ant-F organizations and
activists:
Mike Adams (the “Health
Ranger”) and Natural News:
Alex Jones and Infowars:
Joseph Mercola and his
alternative health empire:
-
https://www.mercola.com/downloads/bonus/chlorine/default.htm
- A classic fear-mongering, anti-water-chlorination report - claims,. "The cancer risk to people who drink chlorinated water is 93 percent higher than those who don't"
and
drinking chlorinated water contributes "to dozens of
everyday ailments including", “Heart attacks, risk of a miscarriage (women), Childhood asthma, Liver problems, A toxic cocktail of indoor pollution in your home, Spontaneous abortion, stillbirths and congenital formations, Kidney problems, increased odds of having a child with spina bifida, A weakened immune system”.
-
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/9-reasons-to-completely-ignore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/
-
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/joseph-mercola-alternative-health-merchant-promotes-quack-cures-funds-organic-anti-gmo-groups/
-
https://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/mercola.html
-
https://www.theringer.com/2017/1/5/16041098/dr-joseph-mercola-natural-health-website-bc1ac5e6ebc
-
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4495
-
https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2016/11/28/the_worst_websites_for_science_in_2016.html
-
http://skepdic.com/mercola.html
-
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola
-
https://badsciencedebunked.com/category/mercola-2/
-
https://badsciencedebunked.com/?s=mercola&submit=Search
-
https://www.alternet.org/personal-health/four-biggest-quacks-plaguing-america-their-bad-claims-about-science
-
This is just one of the more
obvious examples of the false, misleading, anti-science
BS promoted on Mercola’s site.
https://products.mercola.com/himalayan-salt/
- Claim: “This Salt Is Over 250 Million Years
Old - Himalayan Crystal Salt is by far the purest
salt available on earth and is uncontaminated
with toxins or pollutants.”
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pink-himalayan-sea-salt-an-update
- Facts: The pink color is due to impurities.
Pure sodium chloride is white. It is ironic that pink
Himalayan sea salt is advertised as “The purest salt
available on earth.” Its very color belies that claim.
The “84 trace minerals” advertised include many poisons
like mercury, arsenic, lead, and thallium. It includes
radioactive elements: radium, uranium, polonium,
plutonium, and many others.
-
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/joe-mercola-quackery-pays/
-
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/08/03/15-years-of-promoting-quackery/
-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kavinsenapathy/2015/12/03/the-toxic-chemical-hypocrisy-of-food-babe-joseph-mercola-and-mark-hyman
David Icke and his conspiracy theories:
"David Icke is a human singularity of insanity best known for his "reptoid" conspiracy theory. He came to fame as an English footballer and sports commentator and used to be a spokesman for the Green Party of England and Wales, but since 1991 has devoted his life to informing the world that it's actually secretly controlled by evil shape-shifting lizard-people from the 4th dimension."
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/David_Icke
"In 1990 Ickesays, a psychic told him he had
been placed on earth for a purpose and would begin to
receive messages from the spirit world.[9] The following
year he announced that he was a 'Son of the Godhead' and that the world would soon be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes, a prediction he repeated on the BBC's primetime show Wogan. The show turned him from a respected household name into someone who received widespread public ridicule.
... Incidents and issues Icke attributes to the Illuminati, or 'Global Elite', include the Oklahoma City bombing, Dunblane, Columbine, 9/11 (which Icke believes was an 'inside job' to provide an excuse to advance an agenda of regime change across the world), 7/7, global warming, chemtrails,
water fluoridation, the death of Princess Diana, the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Agenda 21"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
Additional References and
highlights of tactics used by fluoridation opponents:
-
https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/fluoride-debate.pdf
- “This is a collection of articles written by Paul
Connett [anti-fluoridation campaigner] and Ken Perrott
[retired chemist who argues against pseudoscience and
the misrepresentation of science] in their exchange of
opinions on the fluoridation of drinking water and
related issues. While loosely titled The Fluoride Debate
this was in no way meant to be a debate in the
gladiatorial sense. It was not about “winners” and
“losers.” Our intention was to discuss the science in a
format encouraging good faith discussion and intelligent
participation from commenters.” (Ken Perrott)
-
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/
- links related to the fluoridation debate – includes
links to the individual presentations which include
reader comments, which can provide an interesting
perspective on the debate. The links include the
Connett/Perrott debate summarized in the link above, an
exchange between fluoridation opponent, Rita
Barnett-Rose and fluoridation supporter Daniel Ryan in
the link below, and several other back-and-forth
exchanges.
-
https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/10/14/fluoride-debate-a-response-to-rita-barnett-rose-daniel-ryan/
-
https://www.acsh.org/news/2005/10/31/time-and-the-anti-fluoride-cause
- “In the words of Carl Sagan: ‘We've arranged a
global civilization in which most critical elements
depend on science and technology. We have also arranged
things so that almost no one understands science and
technology. This is a prescription for disaster.’
The combination of a scientifically unsophisticated
public and the profusion of easily accessible crackpot
information on the Internet is indeed a prescription for
disaster. Bogus issues ignite the paranoia of some
people searching for a "meaningful" cause, and the
results can be medical disaster. (As an example, the
groundless hysteria about mercury in vaccines may put us
all at risk of epidemics: already diseases that had been
long under control are beginning to resurface.)”
-
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/05/portland_fluoride_vote_will_medical_science_trump_fear_and_doubt.html
-
https://skepticalvegan.wordpress.com/2012/07/11/fluoride-cancer-quackery/
-
https://openjurist.org/619/f2d/932/yiamouyiannis-v-consumers-union-of-united-states-inc#fn3
– dismissal of a libel claim against Consumers Union by
anti-F activist, John Yiamouyiannis for articles in
Consumer Report (July & August, 1978) which related how
Dr. Yiamouyiannis's colleague, Dean Burk, Ph.D., an
American biochemist, helped to kill a proposal before
the Dutch Parliament to fluoridate water supplies, by
virtue of a television interview in Holland in 1976 in
which he told the audience that "fluoridation is a
form of public mass murder." The Consumer
Report article concluded, the “simple truth is that
there is no 'scientific controversy' over the safety of
fluoridation," and that the "survival of this fake
controversy represents, in CU's opinion, one of the
major triumphs of quackery over science in our
generation.”
-
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/04/22/march-science-aims-counter-alarming-anti-science-trends/100780684/
-
https://theconversation.com/who-are-you-calling-anti-science-how-science-serves-social-and-political-agendas-74755
-
hhttps://theconversation.com/should-scientists-engage-with-pseudo-science-or-anti-science-54953