Health Commissioner Bharel passes buck on correction of fluoridation’s cost savings

Massachusetts Fluoridation News
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Vol. 2 No. 7 Belchertown, Massachusetts January 11, 2016 

Health Commissioner Bharel passes buck on correction of fluoridation’s cost savings 

Despite a peer-reviewed analysis that found no cost savings from water fluoridation when the cost of repairing dental fluorosis is factored in, state health officials maintain the practice saves money.
In a letter to Health Commissioner Monica Bharel last year we wrote: 

  “In your April 28, 2015 letter to Massachusetts Boards of Health you assert that, “...for every dollar spent on community water fluoridation, up to $38 is saved in treatment costs for tooth decay.” While this has long been claimed by the public health bureaucracy, you should know that recent research does not support this assertion, and has found that there is no savings from water fluoridation when the cost of repairing the dental fluorosis caused by the water fluoridation is taken into account. 

  “This research by Ko and Thiessen, published in the peer-reviewed International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, refutes the claims of this $38 savings per dollar spent. I would respectfully request that you stop making this claim, and that you send a letter to the Boards of Health making the correction. I would also invite you to comment on the record on this matter for my weekly newsletter the Massachusetts Fluoridation News.” 

  In response, Director of the state Office of Oral Health, Craig S. Andrade, writes, “The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) supports community water fluoridation and the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention’s affirmation that fluoridation saves money in dental treatment costs for tooth decay.” 

  He makes no reference to the Ko and Thiessen study, and concludes, “For any further concerns about this study (sic), please contact the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.” 

Michigan, EPA faulted for not protecting Flint from lead in water

State officials mislead Flint, Michigan residents about the hazardous chemicals in their drinking water while the regional Environmental Protection Agency allowed the City of Flint to continue to operate its water supply in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to a report in the Jan. 16 issue of The Guardian.
Last fall “tests revealed elevated levels of chemical compounds in the water supply that can lead to liver or kidney issues. Nonetheless, officials downplayed residents’ concerns, saying – confidently – that the water was safe to drink,” reported the newspaper. 

  The head of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Dan Wyant, has resigned in disgrace because of his office’s mishandling of the matter. 

  Democractic Senator and presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has called for Michigan governor Rick Snyder to resign over the matter, calling the Flint water crisis, “one of the worst public health crises in the modern history of this country.” 

  According to press reports the City of Flint did not implement proper corrosion control measures, so the untreated water eroded lead from the city’s plumbing.

Virginia Tech engineering professor Marc Edwards, who found half of Flint’s homes had water with lead concentrations above the 15 ppb maximum contaminant level said, "It was the injustice of it all that the very agencies that are paid to protect these residents from lead in water, knew or should've known after June at the very latest of this year, that federal law was not being followed in Flint, and that these children and residents were not being protected. And the extent to which they went to cover this up exposes a new level of arrogance and uncaring that I have never encountered." 

  The late Massachusetts engineer Myron Coplan of Natick and Roger Masters, professor of government at Dartmouth College, have reported similar leaching of lead from plumbing due to fluoridated water. 

Carstairs petty swipes at Exner and Waldbott 

We reported two weeks ago that University of Guelph historian Catherine Carstairs adopted the propagandistic characterization of the International Society for Fluoride Research and its scholarly journal Fluoride in her recent paper on the early history of fluoridation. 

  Last week we revealed that she was apparently unaware of a transcript of a 1951 meeting of state dental directors in which the public health dentists conspired to “knock down” or suppress research findings that fluoride was carcinogenic. 

  A further examination of her paper, “Debating water fluoridation before Dr. Strangelove,” that appeared in the August issue of the American Journal of Public Health, and which is largely an “argument from authority” approach to the history of water fluoridation, revealed that it contains highly opinionated and inaccurate commentary on the career of the late Frederick Exner as well as a gratuitous swipe at the late George Waldbott. 

  Exner and Waldbott, both physicians, were among the leaders of the movement to stop water fluoridation, and co-authored the 1957 book, The American Fluoridation Experiment. 

  Of Exner, Carstairs writes, “...his passionate opposition to fluoridation, his attacks on the honesty and professionalism of fluoride scientists, and his scattered use of evidence diminished the quality of his testimony. It was clear he had an axe to grind, and it was easy for people sympathetic to fluoridation to dismiss his views.” 

  She goes on to ridicule Exner because he “asserted that the Sugar Research Foundation was a leading force behind fluoride promotion.” 

  Ironically, at the same time Carstairs article was in press, an article in the journal PLOS Medicine that examined historical documents from the sugar industry to investigate the industry’s role in shaping national dental policy found that, “The sugar industry could not deny the role of sucrose in dental caries given the scientific evidence. They therefore adopted a strategy to deflect attention to public health interventions that would reduce the harms of sugar consumption rather than restricting intake.” 

  The authors of this study concluded, “The [National Caries Program] was a missed opportunity to develop a scientific understanding of how to restrict sugar consumption to prevent tooth decay. A key factor was the alignment of research agendas between the [National Institute of Dental Research] and the sugar industry. “ In her effort to downplay Waldbott’s stature she includes a footnote that reads, “Waldbott is not mentioned in a hagiographic history of the American College of Allergists.” 

 
In response to his work to end fluoridation Waldbott was the subject of continuous efforts to discredit him using a dossier compiled by the public health bureaucracy. It appears such efforts to discredit him continue– 35 years after his death.

Massachusetts Fluoridation News January 11, 2016  

3

Editorial
No need for a rubber stamp Health Department 

When the American Dental Association and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) first made recommendations that parents consider not giving infant formula made with fluoridated water to their children, we thought it was an important development. 
  We contacted the Amherst Board of Health to ask if they would warn the public of this risk. They said that they deferred to the State Department of Public Health. 
  When we contacted the State Department of Public Health, they said they defer to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
  When we contacted the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, they said it was up to the manufacturers of infant formula to notify customers of the new warning on fluoridated water. Now we see that the State Health Commissioner is again passing the buck. Director Andrade’s response to a query (see accompanying news report) essentially says, “We don’t think for ourselves. We just follow what the CDC says.” 
 
If the Massachusetts Department of Public Health is going to be such a rubber stamp that it cannot respond on its own to a simple request, then these bureaucratic positions should be eliminated, and all phone calls should be forwarded to Atlanta.

Editorial
Don’t settle for low quality reporting 

A newspaper is a product that is manufactured and sold. Readers have a right to expect that the product meets a certain standard of quality, yet we as a society have come to accept low quality reporting in our newspapers. This is particularly true regarding fluoridation. It is a rare occasion to see a report that is fully informed, and presents the whole story of water fluoridation. 
  For example, in the January 10 Santa Rosa Press Democract of California, reporter Clark Mason writes of a new ballot initiative to end fluoridation in Healdsburg. 
  “But critics view the chemical compound as an unsafe form of mass medication and say it may not work in reducing tooth decay. They claim recent studies show it may cause lower IQs in children, hypothyroidism and some cancers,” he reports. 
  People claim recent studies show these things because recent studies actually do show these things. It’s not an assertion. The studies are published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. But the reporter is too disciplined or too lazy to confirm that what the people are claiming is true, as if the reporter’s job is to simply wander around recording what people claim. 
  We should insist on higher quality reporting before we give our money to these papers. In contrast Beau Evans, reporting in the Point Reyes Light about an initiative there to require that the Marin Municipal Water District certify the fluoride products used there as safe, reports that critics of fluoridation “cite recent studies...that show a potential link between fluoridated water and hypothyroid conditions.” People cite the studies. The studies exist. They show what they show. Higher quality reporting.