Moms Response to the CDC
Hello American Citizens,
On April 2, 2015 the Director of the Division of Oral Health of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrote this STATEMENT about the safety of fluoridation.
The Moms Team has taken each of their safety references and analyzed them for you. This is about safety for all Americans. Is it 'safe' to drink, this artificial drug, day-in and day-out for years and decades? The foundation of the CDC policy is from an era when we touted smoking as beneficial; the era that used x-rays for acne, and the era when people would picnic to watch above ground nuclear testing!. Our dentists of the time had not been bothered that swallowing this drug would expose every cell in the body to its effects; they assumed that the only effect would be a beneficial one on tooth enamel to make it stronger... just short of mottling it. How naive. How simplistic. How wrong.
Our Moms' response to the "STATEMENT ON THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION" by Dr. Weno.
Wonderful, on April 2, 2015 Katherine Weno, DDS, Esq., Director of the Division of Oral Health of the CDC, released, on behalf of the CDC, a “statement on the evidence regarding the safety and benefits of community water fluoridation."
Our regulatory bodies taking action and looking out for our benefit should be a welcome event. Let’s look under the hood of some of Dr. Weno’s statements:
“Community water fluoridation is the ‘controlled addition of a fluoride compound.…’ “ “Controlled”? We’ve never received notice of how much water we’re supposed to drink daily to “control” the amount of fluoride we ingest. Have you? Are three glasses of fluoridated water, for instance, the right amount fluoride for you or is it right for a 40 pound child? How about the diabetic or the person with kidney disease? How about the fetus? Dr. Weno could at least acknowledge and explain how she disregards what is known as the Iowa Study (Levy, Journal of Dental Research, 1995). It concludes that 25% of babies received more than the maximum recommended dose of fluoride. “Controlled” seems wishful thinking at best; misleading, at the not-so-best.
“The safety and benefits of fluoride are well documented and have been reviewed comprehensively by several scientific and public health organizations.” Her references supporting this are:
US Public Health Service from 1991. That’s almost 25 years ago! Have there been no other reviews? How about the National Research Council’s 3 year review published in 2006 which states that many areas of research are necessary before concluding that fluoride is safe to drink? More on that in a later blog.
University of York from 2002. Actually, the authors were critical of the quality of almost all of the research done on this topic and note that the statistical tools that are standard in science today weren’t employed back in the 40s and 50s, i.e., the time of Dr. Weno’s foundation for her fluoridation policy, the Grand Rapids study. The University of York in 2015 published a study also in the British Medical Journals showing an association of hypothyroidism with water fluoridation. I wish Dr. Weno would have been aware of that study or at least acknowledged it before reaching her conclusions about fluoride’s safety.
The 2006 Australian Guidelines. A review of those guidelines published in the Australian Dental Journal mentions safety only as it relates to dental fluorosis: “However, all fluoride vehicles need to be viewed in terms of their potential benefits (caries protection) and risk (causing dental fluorosis).” That’s it?! What about fluoride as a possible endocrine disruptor or neurotoxin?!
The last reference Dr. Weno cites to assure safety is the Community Preventive Services Task Force that in 2013 updated a 2000 report on water fluoridation.
It states, “Research evidence, however, does not demonstrate that CWF results in any unwanted health effects other than dental fluorosis. While harms have been proposed, most have no biological plausibility or insufficient evidence to draw conclusions.” Does absence of research evidence mean fluoridation is safe, or could it be that, as the National Research Council states, more research is therefore necessary? This is 75% of Americans that are being exposed to this drug that everybody agrees at certain doses is a neurotoxin and endocrine disruptor.
The Task Force doesn’t acknowledge the conclusions of the 2000 report that it is updating. That report states, “Given the level of interest surrounding the issue of public water fluoridation, it is surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken.... This evidence on positive and negative effects needs to be considered along with the ethical, environmental, ecological, financial, and legal issues that surround any decisions about water fluoridation. Any future research into the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation should be carried out with appropriate methodology to improve the quality of the existing evidence base.” So even the authors of studies that Dr. Weno's safety and benefit reassurances are based upon find it "surprising to find that little high quality research has been undertaken." And where is her ethical consideration of inflicting at least dental fluorosis upon non-consenting individuals?
The Task Force cites the studies it used in making its recommendations: (http://www.thecommunityguide.org/oral/supportingmaterials/is-waterfluori...). It is striking that in the Task Force's list there are no studies that address harmful effects of fluoride other than dental fluorosis and it is also striking that it did not take into account the National Research Council’s lengthy review of the literature that was published during the period the Task Force was reviewing and that concluded many studies are needed to assure fluoride’s safety.
In addition to ignoring the National Research Council’s call for more safety studies and the University of York study published in 2015 showing correlation with hypothyroidism, Dr. Weno also ignores, in making her CDC sanctioned policy statement, the study from Canada that used the CDC’s own data to reveal a correlation between fluoridation and ADHD.
As the Public becomes more sophisticated regarding water fluoridation, the CDC needs to become more transparent regarding how it arrives at its policies and recommendations. Dr. Weno states, “On behalf of the … CDC, I am pleased to provide a statement on … the safety and benefits of community water fluoridation.” Does this mean that the CDC’s Divisions of Endocrinology and Toxicology have weighed in on this statement? It’s hard to believe that such is the case when we dig into the quality and topics of Dr. Weno’s references underlying the CDC’s policy on fluoridation. Was there a committee at the level of the Division of Oral Health that generated this report? Or was this just a report generated by Dr. Weno? With all due respect, Dr. Weno is a dentist and an attorney and the report reflects that in its lack of awareness of the significance of medical issues and the uncertainties regarding fluoridation safety. In any case, were we supervising this project, we would give poor marks for both the quality of the cited references and the one-sided conclusions drawn from them. The pro-fluoridation bias of this CDC report is starkly evident. We deserve better from our regulatory agencies that are supposed to advocate for our health.
The National Moms' Team
FIND IT HERE:: CDC issues new fluoridation statement April 2015
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Atlanta, GA 30341-3724
April 2, 2015
STATEMENT ON THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION
Katherine Weno, DDS, JD
Director, Division of Oral Health
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention