Fluoridation Articles Contained Egregious Errors and Malicious Misstatements

Thomas C. Hall, M.D., graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard Medical School. He is an Emeritus Life Research Professor of the American Cancer Society. He has edited eight books and authored 217 peer-reviewed scientific articles. He and his wife have two children and have lived in Bellingham for 14 years.

The recent series against reparative fluoridation in the Whatcom Watch (January 2006, front page; February 2006, page 6 and March 2006, page 4) demonstrated its inherent fallacies in its first headline, “The Fluoride Debate: From Poision to Panacea.” “Poison” and “Panacea” were both untrue. The series displayed a number of illogical and untrue statements, made worse by omission of most of the scientific data relevant to the recent Bellingham fluoridation initiative.

The first logical fallacy has been called “Ronny’s Error,” after Ronald Reagan’s famous but false statement “Seen one tree, seen ‘em all.” Ronny’s Error states that concentration doesn’t matter: one tree is the same as a forest, and that concentration is unimportant in the activity or importance of things. The article states that the poisonous attributes of chemicals are the same for the high concentrations of fluoride (used in rat poison), as in the low concentrations observed in the groundwater of Deaf Smith County, where first the anti-tooth decay properties of one part per million in groundwater were observed.

It’s easily apparent that almost all substances can be toxic at high concentrations, beneficially active at appropriate lower levels and inactive at still lower levels. Also, that the ranges need to be determined specifically for the substance and the biomedical situation encountered. Sodium chloride is a basis for most life on this planet. Inability to retain it at normal serum concentrations, as in Addison’s disease, is fatal. However, ingestion of a slight excess of sodium chloride may also be fatal in heart failure. Chlorine, a relative of fluorine, is useful for its antibacterial qualities when added to drinking water supplies, as in Bellingham; the concentrations used are controlled to stay at a level nontoxic to humans. At higher concentrations, chloride is part of human stomach digestion, and at higher concentrations can be corrosive and harmful to humans. To call any substance a “poison” because it may be at high concentrations is untrue and misleading.

Another fallacy used in the series has been called “The Adolph Error,” based upon Hitler’s rejection of quantum theory as “Jewish science” because it was authored by Albert Einstein. The series’ author informs the readers that, because the actions of fluoride were important in the Manhattan Project’s atom bomb-making, fluoride cannot act chemically ever thereafter for human benefit. The ionization and other chemical reactivity of any element is determined by its atomic structure, and is independent of the religion, corporate origin, political orientation, race or gender of its discoverers.

A third fallacy in the series is guilt by association. We are asked to forget the scientific data on fluoride prevention of dental caries in poor children because fluoride had been permanently tainted by its association with the smelting industry. The author’s claim that association with a distasteful past should make us ignore future usefulness is at least fallacious. Vitamin B12 was discovered in disgusting chicken feces, sulfonamides were discovered by the Nazi Domagk—are we to follow the author’s advice and not use them because of their guilt-by-association with unsavory people/places of origins?

Misstatements are numerous. There was no evidence of big or little government pressure in the recent initiative. Rather, it was a great demonstration of the best democratic process—a well thought-out presentation by competent health care professional advocates for the dental health of poor children. The initiative was supported by the legally required number of voters (not recruited by a paid-for pusher), was put before the voters and not accepted. Any insinuation of force or government pressure is totally false.

The insinuation that the dental profession stood to make personal financial gain from reparative fluoridation is untrue. Any one can see that, when the incidence of dental caries goes down, the income of dentists from the treatment of tooth decay will also drop. Many self-serving initiatives for roads and car sales are known to us in Washington state, but this initiative would provide dentists and others only with the satisfaction that they had worked hard to benefit a needy group of children.

The term “panacea” means universal remedy. To imply in any way that any proponent of reparative fluoridation has suggested in any way that it is useful as a panacea is totally false. It is noteworthy that the author did not cite a single reference to justify his misuse of the term.

The statement that the Newburgh-Kingston trials did not follow scientific custom is untrue. They were well-designed clinical trials and later published in peer-reviewed journals; even though they were conducted at a time when modern clinical trials were in their infancy.

The author demeans the National Research Council (NRC) because they state the truth: scientific reports show that carefully repairing natural low levels of fluoride in groundwater in selected regions results in reduced dental caries and no toxicity. He neglects to point out that the NRC impeccably points out the multiple attempts by the present federal administration to obscure, delete, falsify and misrepresent recorded scientific data. This same NRC is in the forefront recently to point out the dangers and suggest amelioration of toxic high levels of ground-waters in some geographic areas.

Most of the series’ author’s few scientific citations are from secondary sources and stop around the 1950s. The position of scientists is based on a corpus of more than 300 articles in peer-reviewed science and medical journals. Copies can be provided free to interested readers. To have included the science would have further eroded the shaky logical basis of the series.

The overall approach to the scientific question of dental health reparative fluoridation of selective locations measured to be low in natural fluoride is a scientific question. It is not helped by an approach, described by the author, as emotional and based upon “stark raving fear—bordering on terror.” Why this extreme emotionalism in the author, and in others, who put a dead rat into a dentist’s mailbox, and left physically threatening notes against those trying to provide a helpful service to needy children seems inexplicable.

The emotional, demeaning, adversarial writing employed in the Whatcom Watch series would better be called “From Egregious Errors to Malicious Misstatements,” considering the high standards and integrity in reporting we have come to expect. §