FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1052: Lessons learned in Plattsburgh, NY
March 16, 2009
Last Thursday (March 12) after much hoopla in the local press I finally gave my 45 minute presentation to the Plattsburgh (NY) city council. The dentists had presented their case the week before and tried to persuade the local councilors to rescind their invitation to hear from me, but that effort failed.
It was a very interesting experience to watch the dental lobby's game plan up close. First, attack the messenger; second, muddy the waters and third, ask councilors to put their trust in their local dentists.
Attacking the messenger. Both before and at the meeting, dentists used the true and tried method of those who do not have the arguments or the evidence on their side: attack the messenger as a way of deflecting from the message. Prior to the meeting in media interviews, Dr. Heins, a local dentist, had said that I and other fluoridation opponents were "dishonest" practiced "junk science" and that I, in particular, was a "clown." At the meeting, I made it clear that I resented the first two charges since they were not true - as my presentation should have made abundantly clear. But I did concede the third point and told the audience that when I was at College I played soccer with John Cleese! At the meeting I was told by another dentist that I was a "scientific entertainer." If he meant by this that I was able to present information in a way which not boring, was understandable to the public and was scientifically accurate, again I plead guilty. But I don't think that was what he meant.
Muddying the waters. As far as the message was concerned, Dr. Heins had claimed before the meeting that that there were thousands of papers demonstrating that fluoridation was safe and effective. However, neither he nor the other two dentists who spoke at the meeting cited any specific scientific evidence to support these claims. However, they did manage to cite again the agencies that endorse this practice and done with such aplomb that the uninitiated might have believed that they were actually listening to scientific evidence rather than to its glaring absence! At the meeting I was again charged with using "junk science" even though I cited peer reviewed and published studies to support all my arguments. One even said I was citing studies which had not been replicated - an incredible charge when you consider that there are 23 studies - from four different countries - indicating a possible association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to fluoride. The real "junk science" in this issue, of course, is the failure of governments that promote fluoridation to do ANY studies on some of the health issues of greatest concern.
Who do you trust? Again the game plan was very clear. Essentially, the councilors were asked to choose between: "highly respected" local dentists, supported by prestigious agencies like the CDC and the ADA or a "scaremongering" outsider. Framed like this, it is very difficult for councilors, unless they are very well informed and confident in their own assessment of the arguments, to side with the outsider. It is "safer" to side with the local professionals and let the matter drop. We will have to wait and see if this happens in this case. The good news is that a number of people from the general public attended this meeting and some of them had their eyes and ears well and truly opened. I hope that they will hold the councilors feet to the fire. You can read press accounts of the meeting and a follow-up article.
I have seen these tactics before. Ironically, this was exactly how the first meeting I ever attended on this issue played out. In July of 1996, after having read the literature that my wife had collected, we attended a meeting of the local Village board who were using the need to replace the corroding fluoridation equipment as an opportunity to revisit the issue. On the way to the meeting I had said to my wife, "Well this issue is going to be easy, when they hear what I read this afternoon there is no way they are going to continue this practice!"
When we entered the meeting room we were met with a phalanx of dentists from miles around as well as a local doctor. At the meeting Dr. Elmer Green (NY Department of Health) spoke in favor of the practice, and the late Dr. John Yiamouyiannis spoke against. I added a few words based on what I had read that afternoon and then the dentists provided their enthusiastic chorus of "professional" support for the practice. Then the audience chimed in. Most said things to the effect, that they were not scientists but they trusted their dentist or doctor and if their dentist or doctor said it was OK then it was good enough for them. Needless to say the Village board backed off - and it took us another seven years before we managed to get fluoride out of our water. But I learned something very important that night. After the meeting I went up to the doctor who was there and I asked him to read three of the papers I had read that afternoon and he said, "I don't' have time to do that."
I replied, 'Well, that is not very responsible. You have just heard these people saying that the reason they are going along with this is because you said it was OK."
He responded by saying that he didn't have time to read up on every issue that crossed his desk. I said, "I can quite understand that, but you shouldn't let these people believe that you have read the literature on this and it is your professional judgment that the practice is safe."
Thus, it turned out that on my very first day of involvement in this matter, I was to witness the "microcosm" of what I would see and hear repeatedly over the last 13 years around the world, namely that dentists, doctors, local, state and federal health officials would state categorically in public that fluoridation was safe even though they offered no evidence that they had actually read the literature on the matter. More often than not, like our local doctor, they were simply parroting the opinions of other "authorities."
How do we fight this? The good news from Plattsburgh is that during my presentation I was able to hand out copies of the Professionals' Statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide (the fancy pdf version) as well as copies of the 29 minute DVD "Professional Perspectives on Fluoridation." This I believe will help to define just whose "professional" opinion is viable in this matter. It may still not be persuasive enough for those who for psychological rather than scientific reasons will want to side with their local dentists - but I think it gives us a fighting chance.
We still have a few copies of the DVD (with a glitch in one of the added features, a matter we continue to work on) available at a bargain price of $15 (US) and $17 (outside US). To order the DVD you can either send us a check (payable to FAN) to Connett, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617 or email us and let us know that you have made a donation (for the same amount) using our secure online server.
The current number of signers of the Professionals' Statement is 2,187 - see top of our home page.
Paul Connett
http://www.FluorideAlert.org
FAN Bulletin 1052: Lessons learned in Plattsburgh, NY
March 16, 2009
Last Thursday (March 12) after much hoopla in the local press I finally gave my 45 minute presentation to the Plattsburgh (NY) city council. The dentists had presented their case the week before and tried to persuade the local councilors to rescind their invitation to hear from me, but that effort failed.
It was a very interesting experience to watch the dental lobby's game plan up close. First, attack the messenger; second, muddy the waters and third, ask councilors to put their trust in their local dentists.
Attacking the messenger. Both before and at the meeting, dentists used the true and tried method of those who do not have the arguments or the evidence on their side: attack the messenger as a way of deflecting from the message. Prior to the meeting in media interviews, Dr. Heins, a local dentist, had said that I and other fluoridation opponents were "dishonest" practiced "junk science" and that I, in particular, was a "clown." At the meeting, I made it clear that I resented the first two charges since they were not true - as my presentation should have made abundantly clear. But I did concede the third point and told the audience that when I was at College I played soccer with John Cleese! At the meeting I was told by another dentist that I was a "scientific entertainer." If he meant by this that I was able to present information in a way which not boring, was understandable to the public and was scientifically accurate, again I plead guilty. But I don't think that was what he meant.
Muddying the waters. As far as the message was concerned, Dr. Heins had claimed before the meeting that that there were thousands of papers demonstrating that fluoridation was safe and effective. However, neither he nor the other two dentists who spoke at the meeting cited any specific scientific evidence to support these claims. However, they did manage to cite again the agencies that endorse this practice and done with such aplomb that the uninitiated might have believed that they were actually listening to scientific evidence rather than to its glaring absence! At the meeting I was again charged with using "junk science" even though I cited peer reviewed and published studies to support all my arguments. One even said I was citing studies which had not been replicated - an incredible charge when you consider that there are 23 studies - from four different countries - indicating a possible association between lowered IQ in children and exposure to fluoride. The real "junk science" in this issue, of course, is the failure of governments that promote fluoridation to do ANY studies on some of the health issues of greatest concern.
Who do you trust? Again the game plan was very clear. Essentially, the councilors were asked to choose between: "highly respected" local dentists, supported by prestigious agencies like the CDC and the ADA or a "scaremongering" outsider. Framed like this, it is very difficult for councilors, unless they are very well informed and confident in their own assessment of the arguments, to side with the outsider. It is "safer" to side with the local professionals and let the matter drop. We will have to wait and see if this happens in this case. The good news is that a number of people from the general public attended this meeting and some of them had their eyes and ears well and truly opened. I hope that they will hold the councilors feet to the fire. You can read press accounts of the meeting and a follow-up article.
I have seen these tactics before. Ironically, this was exactly how the first meeting I ever attended on this issue played out. In July of 1996, after having read the literature that my wife had collected, we attended a meeting of the local Village board who were using the need to replace the corroding fluoridation equipment as an opportunity to revisit the issue. On the way to the meeting I had said to my wife, "Well this issue is going to be easy, when they hear what I read this afternoon there is no way they are going to continue this practice!"
When we entered the meeting room we were met with a phalanx of dentists from miles around as well as a local doctor. At the meeting Dr. Elmer Green (NY Department of Health) spoke in favor of the practice, and the late Dr. John Yiamouyiannis spoke against. I added a few words based on what I had read that afternoon and then the dentists provided their enthusiastic chorus of "professional" support for the practice. Then the audience chimed in. Most said things to the effect, that they were not scientists but they trusted their dentist or doctor and if their dentist or doctor said it was OK then it was good enough for them. Needless to say the Village board backed off - and it took us another seven years before we managed to get fluoride out of our water. But I learned something very important that night. After the meeting I went up to the doctor who was there and I asked him to read three of the papers I had read that afternoon and he said, "I don't' have time to do that."
I replied, 'Well, that is not very responsible. You have just heard these people saying that the reason they are going along with this is because you said it was OK."
He responded by saying that he didn't have time to read up on every issue that crossed his desk. I said, "I can quite understand that, but you shouldn't let these people believe that you have read the literature on this and it is your professional judgment that the practice is safe."
Thus, it turned out that on my very first day of involvement in this matter, I was to witness the "microcosm" of what I would see and hear repeatedly over the last 13 years around the world, namely that dentists, doctors, local, state and federal health officials would state categorically in public that fluoridation was safe even though they offered no evidence that they had actually read the literature on the matter. More often than not, like our local doctor, they were simply parroting the opinions of other "authorities."
How do we fight this? The good news from Plattsburgh is that during my presentation I was able to hand out copies of the Professionals' Statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide (the fancy pdf version) as well as copies of the 29 minute DVD "Professional Perspectives on Fluoridation." This I believe will help to define just whose "professional" opinion is viable in this matter. It may still not be persuasive enough for those who for psychological rather than scientific reasons will want to side with their local dentists - but I think it gives us a fighting chance.
We still have a few copies of the DVD (with a glitch in one of the added features, a matter we continue to work on) available at a bargain price of $15 (US) and $17 (outside US). To order the DVD you can either send us a check (payable to FAN) to Connett, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617 or email us and let us know that you have made a donation (for the same amount) using our secure online server.
The current number of signers of the Professionals' Statement is 2,187 - see top of our home page.
Paul Connett
posted by Bill at
5:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home