Nexus - 0203 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

CHANGED OPINION WHY FLUORIDATION A PUBLIC HEALTH OFFICIAL CHANGES HIS STAND ON ARTIFICIAL FLUORIDATION - AFTER CHECKING THE EVIDENCE FOR HIMSELF! other countries (Diesendorf 1986a, Bille et al 1986, Gray 1987, Thylstrup et al 1979). In general, population data do not support sample studies which claim to show a benefit from one part per million fluoridated water. Ihave since researched the history of the fluoridation campaign in my own and other countries. Documents, obtained under the new law which requires government departments to make their files available for public perusal, showed that the results of my country’s first fluoridation trial were contrived, by changing the method of diagnosing for caries in the area of the experiment after the trial commenced. This information was published in the inter- national environment journal “The Ecologist”, 18 months ago (Colquhoun & Mann 1986, 1987). No attempt at refutation has yet been published. Critical re-examination of early fluoridation research, on which the fluoridation theory is based, as well as of recent fluoridation research, shows that the effectiveness and safety of systemic uses of fluoride, for reducing tooth decay, have not been proven (Diesendorf 1986a,b, 1987, Colquhoun 1986, Sutton 1960). At best, the claims made were exaggerated. On the other hand sub- stantial bodies of evidence pointed to toxic side effects (e.g. Grimbergen 1974, Schatz 1976, Waldbott et al 1978, Diesendorf & Sutton 1986, Sutton 1987) have been published, but overlooked by fluoridationists. Indian scientists experienced in the study of fluorosis now believe that the maximum safe concentration of fluoride in drink- ing water is half a part per million (Susheela 1984, Srikantia 1984). While most dentists and many medical authorities continue to adhere to the fluoridation theory, scientists in other disciplines are increasingly questioning the wisdom of drinking water fluori- dation. Extracts from: Summary of address by John Colquhoun BDS Ph.D, to International Symposium on Fluoridation: Risks and Benefits. Porto Alegre, Brazil, May 18, 1988. Continued on page 31 ~ A PUBLIC HEALTH STAND ON ARTIFICIAL FOR HIMSELF! My opinion on fluoridation was changed, after being an advo- cate of the procedure, because of evidence that fluoridation cause more harm than good to children and adults in my country. Data which became available to me when I was a public health official revealed that, when similar populations were compared, more children were free of dental decay in the non-fluoridated area than in the fluoridated area. These data were collected for 98% o! the child population of 12-13 year old children receiving their final treatment in the School Dental Service (Colquhoun 1984a, 1985, 1987). Data collected over a 50-year period on the entire population of new 5 year old School Dental Service patients, together with ear- ier and recent published data, show that the decline in dental decay started well before the introduction of water fluoridation (Colquhoun 1988). Research in New Zealand (Hamilton & Birkbeck 1985) reports a great improvement in diet over that peri- od, suggesting that better nutrition, rather than the introduction of uorides, was more probably responsible for the decline in tooth decay. On the other hand the prevalence of dental fluorosis, the distur- ance of tooth formation which is an undeniable side effect of flu- oridation, is much higher in fluoridation areas than had been pre- dicted, and is significantly higher than in non- fluoridated areas (Colquhoun 1984b, Cutress et al 1985). Severity of dental fluoro- sis was also greater in fluoridated areas and among children given fluoride tablets (Colquhoun 1984b). All this information has been published in peer-reviewed jour- nals. The findings are supported by published data collected in = = a ) MIRAGES i 103 Mls NEXUS - 9 by John Colquhoun BDS Ph.D Seman the MAY/JUNE 1991 *- YEAR BOOK