View Full Version : Responses to "Positives of fluoridation far outweigh negatives" op-ed by P. Vanderwolk
From the Sonoma County: No Fluoride page on FaceBook: Check out this great response to Penny Vanderwolk's pro-fluoride piece in the Press Democrat. [Peggy Vanderwolk is also a member of the DHS Fluoridation Advisory Committee]
EDITOR: Unlike Penny Vanderwolk (“Positives of fluoridation far outweigh negatives, (https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130711/OPINION/130719888?title=GUEST-OPINION:-Positives-of-fluoridation-far-outweigh-negatives)” Close to Home, Friday), I am against wholesale fluoridation of the public water supply. I'm not a member of the Sonoma County Oral Health Task Force. However, I am a retired registered nurse who can read.
I disagree that “all credible and current medical science supports fluoridation as the single most effective strategy for preventing dental caries,” that opponents tout “psuedo-scientific” evidence against fluoridation or that they are dishonest about their true fears. There is plenty of actual scientific evidence questioning the wisdom of adding a by-product of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers to public water supplies.
According to the Centers for Disease Control, 90 percent of fluoride added to public water comes from just that. Too much fluoride exposure causes dental fluorosis. Again, according to the CDC, as of 2010, 41 percent of children age 12-15 had some form of dental fluorosis. And a 2009 study of 600 children in Iowa found no significant link between fluoride exposure and tooth decay.
You are permitted to your opinion as I am to mine. But you are out of line when you accuse those with a differing opinion of being fearful or embracing junk science.
VINAYA ALAHAN
Guerneville
Penny VanDerwolk is currently the Director of Development at Sutter Health of Sonoma County. She is a member of the "Fluoridation Advisory Committee" and claims that she submitted this op-ed as a concerned private citizen and resident of the county. That is difficult to believe, especially since all of her talking points are long-standing fluoridation industry and "public health" propaganda also pumped by Silver Chalfin. The word "lapdog" comes to mind.
To me, Ms. VandDerwolk's op-ed sheds light on what is really behind the SCWA water fluoridation push:
1. The fee-for-service by private medical-dental practitioners model simply does not work. The for-profit medical-dental industry, as well as the for-profit insurance industry, is trying desperately to divert our attention from the elephant in the waiting room with such tactics. The last thing they want us to realize is that (so-called) socialized single-payer health care is in our best interest and the current system is not.
On a related note, if there was any doubt in your mind that the county Dept. of Health Services (DHS) and the for-profit medical industry are in bed together, Vanderwolk's piece should confirm that notion for you.
2. If we are healthy (i.e., not sickly) the for-profit medical racket is pretty much out of business, with the exception of trauma, ob/gyn, STDs, and family medicine. Fluorine and fluoride compounds are highly bio-active and cause a host of medical problems, most of them chronic and difficult to identify as resulting from fluorine exposure, creating a lucrative customer base for the for-profit medical and pharmaceutical rackets. Always remember that the for-profit medical industry has an incentive to keep us sick and NOT to make us healthy.
3. A significant factor in dental health is good pre-natal and early childhood nutrition. Poverty is a major impediment to obtaining high-quality food -- or to put in in plain English, poor people end up eating junk food. As the economy declines and more and more families move in to poverty, assistance programs are overburdened, underfunded, and all too often terminated in government "austerity" measures. The water fluoridation circus is, again, a distraction from a larger socio-political problems of poverty and lack of access to medical-dental care.
4. Vanderwolk tells us "Sonoma County's Oral Health Task Force has been working hard for years to increase access and care." Yet they do not seem to be able to solve the problem, which is very likely much less of a problem than they claim. Obviously need a new Oral Health Task Force, one that is composed of the people affected by the problem rather than by elitists who have a vested interest in not solving the problem -- such as Ms. Vanderwolk.
Below is Vanderwolk's op-ed along with my responses and deconstruction in [brackets and mauve text].
---------------------
GUEST OPINION: Positives of fluoridation far outweigh negatives
By PENNY VANDERWOLK on Thursday, July 11, 2013
The fluoridation of our public water supply is an important and highly debated issue in our community today. To be transparent, I will say I am in the majority who favor this plan.
[This is an appeal to social conformity, the "go along with the crowd" cudgel. Some of you with gray hair may remember Richard Nixon referring to the "silent majority" of Americans supporting the Vietnam War. Vanderwolk's "majority who favor this plan" is the same as Nixon's "silent majority" -- it is a majority that does not exist.]
All credible and current medical science supports fluoridation as the single most effective strategy for preventing dental caries.
[Nothing could be further from the truth. The "science" allegedly supporting the ingestion of fluoride as a prophylactic for dental cavities is the quintessence of junk science (https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/studies/). Legitimate studies, such as the ongoing Iowa study, make it clear that there is no correlation between levels of fluoride ingested and incidence of cavities. There is, however, a correlation between levels of fluoride ingested and incidence of brittle, malformed tooth enamel (dental fluorosis).]
I also think that most of the very smart, thoughtful opponents to fluoridating the water would agree.
[To the contrary, we could not be more diametrically opposed. Further, this is an attempt at creating a false dichotomy: if you do not agree with Vanderwolk, you are therefore an unthinking dumb-ass.]
Where we disagree is in how the fluoride gets to our teeth.
[Where we disagree is whether or not fluoride should be in our water, our bodies and our environment. We also disagree that ingesting fluoride has any effect on dental health or reducing tooth decay.]
I have been in many meetings recently and have heard opponents tout pseudo-scientific “evidence” that drinking fluoridated water is dangerous, causes brittle bones, bone cancer and altered behavior, among other maladies. I wish that, instead of putting up these poorly supported arguments in face of the many credible scientific studies demonstrating that water fluoridation is safe and effective, they would be honest about their true fears.
[This is both the fallacy of appeal to authority (the authority being science and scientists in this case) and a "shame frame" tactic attempting to belittle opponents and frame them as "fearful" or "hysterical." Describing the opponents' evidence as "pseudo-scientific" is another belittling tactic; further, it sounds like psychological projection to me.]
Fluoridating the public water supply encroaches upon our sacred American value of individual choice.
[It does more than "encroach" on individual choice. It violates individual choice. There is a big difference.]
Even I acknowledge this as a supporter. I believe this to be the true issue underneath the debate about the “health risks,” and I get it.
[She does not get it at all. Health risks are the true issue underneath the debate about health risks. This is another attempt at belittling and dismissing the those who oppose water fluoridation.]
I have wrestled in this muddy water myself (no pun intended), but the reality is that sometimes, public health and safety must trump personal freedoms.
[Very rarely and only when there are no other options. And there are many other options here.]
It's why we add chlorine to the water to prevent infectious diseases,
[Chlorine is used to sanitize the water. Chlorine can be removed from the water with inexpensive filters or by letting the water sit for a few hours. There are also more modern, safer methods of sanitizing water such as UV light, ozone, or bio-remediation.]
why we can't smoke in most indoor places,
[Smoking is an optional and abnormal activity. Using and drinking water are neither.]
why salt has iodine in it,
[not all salt has iodine added to it, so the consumer has choice on the matter. Iodized salt is another outdated, unnecessary notion.]
why some communicable diseases require quarantine, (and sometimes even reporting),
[True, but it applies to an individual and is not comparable to adding a toxin to a community water supply.]
and even why our luggage and bodies are subject to examination at the airport.
[Travel by airplane is optional. Drinking water is not.]
There are some that would argue that the only solution to our dental disease epidemic is better access to dental care for those who don't have it. Instead of spending money fluoridating our water, let's use that money to open up more clinics, educate more families, ban sugary snacks, they say. No one would disagree that those are all important strategies (although wouldn't banning sugar also infringe on our freedoms?).
[Nobody is suggesting banning sugar or sugary snacks. Improving access to high-quality food is a better approach.]
But, as those of us who work in the trenches of local health care know, increasing access and providing education are part of an overall plan to combat this disease that affects more children in our community than asthma, diabetes and any other childhood illness.
[Really? She provides no source or backup for this statement. Incidentally, since she is not a doctor, nurse, physician's assistant, nurse's aide, etc., she does not "work in the trenches." She works behind a desk.]
Sonoma County's Oral Health Task Force has been working hard for years to increase access and care. But these efforts are simply not enough to mitigate the overwhelming prevalence and impact of tooth decay in Sonoma County. We need more prevention, too.
[Yes indeed, using techniques that actually are effective at prevention -- which ingesting fluoride is not.]
To those who would say we can't afford it, I say we can't afford not to. Studies clearly demonstrate that for every $1 spent on water fluoridation, $38 is saved on treatment.
[This is a classic example of "the big lie" technique: keep repeating something long enough and people believe it to be a legitimate fact. Only one study generated this statistic. In another forum, our own dzerach provided a reference for the source: "A ratio from 2001. Here is the source : Griffin S.O., Jones K, Tomar SL. An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation. J Publ Health Dent 2001; 61(2): 78-86." Here Vanderwolk is doing Hermann Goering proud.]
Families and communities spend millions every year in Sonoma County to pay for preventable tooth decay. And those are just the hard costs. What about children who are in so much pain they can't eat or concentrate in school? Many of these children require surgery under general anesthesia to treat their severe decay.
[This is an emotional appeal. Ooohhh, those poor children! The girl with the swollen face from an infected tooth! If you do not support this proposal, you must be a heartless jerk! It is also a distraction from the real issue. It implies that spiking the water with fluoride will magically fix this list of woes, which it absolutely will not.]
What about the parents who have to take time off from work to tend to their children who are suffering with pain and infection, or to care for their own infected teeth? What about our elderly who are losing their teeth? We all are impacted by the far-reaching consequences of this public health issue.
[What about families and parents dealing with any illness or medical issue? We need better support and legal protection for all families, especially lower-income ones, not to waste money on something that does not work.]
In my opinion, fluoridating our water is good for our health, our wallets and our children's future. I'm willing to give up a little of my personal freedom for all that. If you're not, well, then don't drink the water.
[That last sentence sounds a lot like Marie Antoinette's famous "then let them eat cake!" If Ms. Vanderwolk wants to give up some of her personal freedom, that is her choice. To force others to do the same is a violation of American values.]
Penny Vanderwolk, a Santa Rosa resident, is a member of the Sonoma County Oral Health Task Force. [and on the DHS Fluoridation Advisory Committee]
lilypads
07-23-2013, 11:48 AM
Arlene Goetze, from Santa Clara County, gave us a great statistic at our Sunday meeting: unfluoridated San Jose is #1 in dental health of US cities. San Francisco, which has been fluoridated for decades, is #84.
Penny VanDerwolk is currently the Director of Development at Sutter Health of Sonoma County. She is a member of the "Fluoridation Advisory Committee" and claims that she submitted this op-ed as a concerned private citizen and resident of the county. That is difficult to believe, especially since all of her talking points are long-standing fluoridation industry and "public health" propaganda also pumped by Silver Chalfin. The word "lapdog" comes to mind.
To me, Ms. VandDerwolk's op-ed sheds light on what is really behind the SCWA water fluoridation push:
1. The fee-for-service by private medical-dental practitioners model simply does not work. The for-profit medical-dental industry, as well as the for-profit insurance industry, is trying desperately to divert our attention from the elephant in the waiting room with such tactics. The last thing they want us to realize is that (so-called) socialized single-payer health care is in our best interest and the current system is not.
On a related note, if there was any doubt in your mind that the county Dept. of Health Services (DHS) and the for-profit medical industry are in bed together, Vanderwolk's piece should confirm that notion for you.
2. If we are healthy (i.e., not sickly) the for-profit medical racket is pretty much out of business, with the exception of trauma, ob/gyn, STDs, and family medicine. Fluorine and fluoride compounds are highly bio-active and cause a host of medical problems, most of them chronic and difficult to identify as resulting from fluorine exposure, creating a lucrative customer base for the for-profit medical and pharmaceutical rackets. Always remember that the for-profit medical industry has an incentive to keep us sick and NOT to make us healthy.
3. A significant factor in dental health is good pre-natal and early childhood nutrition. Poverty is a major impediment to obtaining high-quality food -- or to put in in plain English, poor people end up eating junk food. As the economy declines and more and more families move in to poverty, assistance programs are overburdened, underfunded, and all too often terminated in government "austerity" measures. The water fluoridation circus is, again, a distraction from a larger sociopolitical problems of poverty and lack of access to medical-dental care.
4. Vanderwolk tells us "Sonoma County's Oral Health Task Force has been working hard for years to increase access and care." Yet they do not seem to be able to solve the problem, which is very likely much less of a problem than they claim. It seems to me that we obviously need a new Oral Health Task Force, one that is composed of the people affected by the problem rather than by people who have a vested interest in not solving the problem… such as Ms. Vanderwolk.
Below is Vanderwolk's op-ed along with my responses and deconstruction in [brackets and mauve text].
---------------------
GUEST OPINION: Positives of fluoridation far outweigh negatives
By PENNY VANDERWOLK on Thursday, July 11, 2013
The fluoridation of our public water supply is an important and highly debated issue in our community today. To be transparent, I will say I am in the majority who favor this plan.
[This is an appeal to social conformity, the "go along with the crowd" cudgel. Some of you with gray hair may remember Richard Nixon referring to the "silent majority" of Americans supporting the Vietnam War. Vanderwolk's "majority who favor this plan" is the same as Nixon's "silent majority" -- it is a majority that does not exist.]
All credible and current medical science supports fluoridation as the single most effective strategy for preventing dental caries.
[Nothing could be further from the truth. The "science" allegedly supporting the ingestion of fluoride as a prophylactic for dental cavities is the quintessence of junk science (https://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/studies/). Legitimate studies, such as the ongoing Iowa study, make it clear that there is no correlation between levels of fluoride ingested and incidence of cavities. There is, however, a correlation between levels of fluoride ingested and incidence of brittle, malformed tooth enamel (dental fluorosis).]
I also think that most of the very smart, thoughtful opponents to fluoridating the water would agree.
[To the contrary, we could not be more diametrically opposed. Further, this is an attempt at creating a false dichotomy: if you do not agree with Vanderwolk, you are therefore an unthinking dumb-ass.]
Where we disagree is in how the fluoride gets to our teeth.
[Where we disagree is whether or not fluoride should be in our water, our bodies and our environment. We also disagree that ingesting fluoride has any effect on dental health or reducing tooth decay.]
I have been in many meetings recently and have heard opponents tout pseudo-scientific “evidence” that drinking fluoridated water is dangerous, causes brittle bones, bone cancer and altered behavior, among other maladies. I wish that, instead of putting up these poorly supported arguments in face of the many credible scientific studies demonstrating that water fluoridation is safe and effective, they would be honest about their true fears.
[This is a "shame frame" tactic attempting to belittle opponents and frame them as "fearful" or "hysterical." Describing the opponents' evidence as "pseudo-scientific" is another belittling tactic; further, it sounds like psychological projection to me.]
Fluoridating the public water supply encroaches upon our sacred American value of individual choice.
[It does more than "encroach" on individual choice. It violates individual choice. There is a big difference.]
Even I acknowledge this as a supporter. I believe this to be the true issue underneath the debate about the “health risks,” and I get it.
[She does not get it at all. Health risks are the true issue underneath the debate about health risks. This is another attempt at belittling and dismissing the those who oppose water fluoridation.]
I have wrestled in this muddy water myself (no pun intended), but the reality is that sometimes, public health and safety must trump personal freedoms.
[Very rarely and only when there are no other options. And there are many other options here.]
It's why we add chlorine to the water to prevent infectious diseases,
[Chlorine is used to sanitize the water. Chlorine can be removed from the water with inexpensive filters or by letting the water sit for a few hours. There are also more modern, safer methods of sanitizing water such as UV light, ozone, or bio-remediation.]
why we can't smoke in most indoor places,
[Smoking is an optional and abnormal activity. Using and drinking water are neither.]
why salt has iodine in it,
[not all salt has iodine added to it, so the consumer has choice on the matter. Iodized salt is another outdated, unnecessary notion.]
why some communicable diseases require quarantine, (and sometimes even reporting),
[True, but it applies to an individual and is not comparable to adding a toxin to the water supply.]
and even why our luggage and bodies are subject to examination at the airport.
[Travel by airplane is optional. Drinking water is not.]
There are some that would argue that the only solution to our dental disease epidemic is better access to dental care for those who don't have it. Instead of spending money fluoridating our water, let's use that money to open up more clinics, educate more families, ban sugary snacks, they say. No one would disagree that those are all important strategies (although wouldn't banning sugar also infringe on our freedoms?).
[Nobody is suggesting banning sugar or sugary snacks. Improving access to high-quality food is a better approach.]
But, as those of us who work in the trenches of local health care know, increasing access and providing education are part of an overall plan to combat this disease that affects more children in our community than asthma, diabetes and any other childhood illness.
[Really? She provides no source or backup for this statement. Incidentally, since she is not a doctor, nurse, physician's assistant, nurse's aide, etc., she does not "work in the trenches." She works behind a desk.]
Sonoma County's Oral Health Task Force has been working hard for years to increase access and care. But these efforts are simply not enough to mitigate the overwhelming prevalence and impact of tooth decay in Sonoma County. We need more prevention, too.
[Yes indeed, using techniques that actually are effective at prevention -- which ingesting fluoride is not.]
To those who would say we can't afford it, I say we can't afford not to. Studies clearly demonstrate that for every $1 spent on water fluoridation, $38 is saved on treatment.
[This is a classic example of "the big lie" technique: keep repeating a study result enough and people believe it to be a legitimate fact. Only one study generated this statistic. In another forum, our own dzerach provided a reference for the source: "A ratio from 2001. Here is the source : Griffin S.O., Jones K, Tomar SL. An Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation. J Publ Health Dent 2001; 61(2): 78-86." Here Vanderwolk is doing Hermann Goering proud.]
Families and communities spend millions every year in Sonoma County to pay for preventable tooth decay. And those are just the hard costs. What about children who are in so much pain they can't eat or concentrate in school? Many of these children require surgery under general anesthesia to treat their severe decay.
[This is an emotional appeal. Ooohhh, those poor children! The girl with the swollen face from an infected tooth! If you do not support this proposal, you must be a heartless jerk! It is also a distraction from the real issue. It implies that spiking the water with fluoride will magically fix this list of woes, which it absolutely will not.]
What about the parents who have to take time off from work to tend to their children who are suffering with pain and infection, or to care for their own infected teeth? What about our elderly who are losing their teeth? We all are impacted by the far-reaching consequences of this public health issue.
[What about families and parents dealing with any illness or medical issue? We need better support and legal protection for all families, especially lower-income ones, not to waste money on something that does not work.]
In my opinion, fluoridating our water is good for our health, our wallets and our children's future. I'm willing to give up a little of my personal freedom for all that. If you're not, well, then don't drink the water.
[That last sentence sounds a lot like Marie Antoinette's famous "then let them eat cake!" If Ms. Vanderwolk wants to give up some of her personal freedom, that is her choice. To force others to do the same is a violation of American values.]
Penny Vanderwolk, a Santa Rosa resident, is a member of the Sonoma County Oral Health Task Force. [and on the DHS Fluoridation Advisory Committee]
lilypads
07-23-2013, 12:07 PM
Looks like the original comment list for this article is back up on the PD site. https://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20130711/opinion/130719888
Arlene Goetze, from Santa Clara County, gave us a great statistic at our Sunday meeting: unfluoridated San Jose is #1 in dental health of US cities. San Francisco, which has been fluoridated for decades, is #84.