Special to the News: Fluoride Column Is Defended

Dear Readers:

Those of you who read the letters to the editor in the Ojai Valley News on Oct. 12 will recall that the newspaper was criticized and accused of having a lack of responsibility in printing my July 16 article about the use of fluorides.

Furthermore, the letter stated that I was not speaking the truth, nor was my article factual.

Usually I do not answer such letters but prefer to leave the matter to the judgment of the readers. In this case there is more to the question than whether I am right or wrong about the use of fluorides. A couple of the statements the writer made hinge upon some very important issues about the toxicity of this element that involve not only the public but professionals as well.

For this reason I feel the following thoughts are worthy of your consideration.

Being castigated for not taking time to read the scientific literature was a low blow, as had the Dallas dentist paid any attention to my article, he would have noted that I mentioned the extent of my files that were used in formulating the opinions expressed. In addition, my original practice was in Evanston, Ill., one of the two key cities that took part in the original research.

I was much involved in the theory as it developed and initially supported the endeavor.

I love my profession and our great preventive accomplishments for society, but in the instance of the fluoride question the American Dental Association and its supporters have resorted to all sorts of underhanded, unprofessional personal attacks against any who hold opposing views rather than confront the issues presented by those having differing opinions.

In this case I was accused publicly of failure to study the research. Not only is the writer’s statement not true; but the change could very well be reversed. That is, if those who support the fluoridation concept had only studied the voluminous data about the dangers involved in the use of this chemical they would find the purported benefits not worthy of the risks patients must accept in having its use forced upon them.

Readers are astute enough to recognize the bias of critical letters that are written by those who sell or produce products that are involved; in this case, the selfish conflict of interest of the writer needs to be mentioned. The dentist who protested my opinions is the vice-president of a firm that sells fluoride products to dentists and the public.

Naturally, any dentist or person who opposes the use of fluoride will be on his hit list.

It is not my intent to answer each charge leveled. However, I must respond to one key factor involved in his criticism as the fallacy of its thinking even eludes most physicians and dentists.

He stated that when fluoride agents that are designed for ingestion are prescribed by physicians and dentists, they do so by calculating the amount of fluorine supplement the patient needs by the amount of fluorine present in the local water supply.

This means that no effort is encouraged or made to determine how much of this toxic element is present in the patient’s food or the amount they are receiving from other sources.

John Lee, M.D., in conjunction with the Marin County Medical Association, researched and reported that the average amount of fluorine present in the average diet was more than the recommended one part per million.

Lee is not alone in this view. A very complete and comprehensive article about fluoridation appeared in the August 1, 1988, Chemical and Engineering News. It agreed that people were receiving ever-increasing amounts of fluorine from multiple sources.

Dentifrices for one can be a problem because of the amounts that may be swallowed and, in addition, what may be absorbed from the mucous membranes in the floor of the mouth. An even bigger source of fluorine is the amounts now showing up in baby and adult foods due to their being canned in areas whose water supplies are fluoridated. Some of these contain more than the ill-advised one part per million.

In other words, this guesstimate type of prescription writing is a very questionable procedure and is one that can lead to overdosing of patients.

There is no question that the amount of tooth decay has lessened through the use of this element. On the negative side, the public must be made aware that the rate of dental fluorosis–the yellow brown toxic defects that occur to the enamel of teeth from too high a dose of fluorine–now totals twice what it was in 1942.

Science Magazine reporting on this subject concludes that these ugly birth marks in teeth will continue to increase at an alarming rate.

It is my belief that when fluorine is to be prescribed or used, patients should be informed that their use can result in side effects including its enzyme metabolic inhibitor action. The decision as to its use should rest with the patient, not the doctor or some company that is selling the product.

The charges made that the Ojai Valley News was not being responsible in obtaining facts and truths must be left to the publisher to answer. However, the statement, on the surface, is so foolish that I’m sure readers are intelligent enough to know that if newspapers had to check and verify the authenticity of every freelance writer’s material, the news would never be printed.