Ideologically motivated political activists often make extreme claims. Perhaps they feel their claims will never be challenged because they are aimed at their own supporters. Sometimes I think it is because they just don’t get challenged enough by reasonable people.
I have previously shown examples of misrepresentation of science by local anti-fluoride activists (see Fluoride and heart disease – another myth , Anti-fluoridation porkies – Mullinex’s rats, Fluoridation: the hip fracture deception, Anatomy of an anti-fluoridation myth , Fluoridation – the IQ myth, Activists peddle chemical misinformation for fluoridation referenda, Cherry picking fluoridation data, Fluoride sensitivity – all in the mind?, Fluoridation – topical confusion, Fluoridation – it does reduce tooth decay, Fluoridation – are we dumping toxic metals into our water supplies?).
Here’s another blatant example – their misrepresentation of dental fluorosis. In this case it involves knowingly using the wrong photographs while quoting a Ministry of Health (MoH) source on the subject. I have posted below both the official photographs used by the MoH and the photographs they were replaced with in the anti-fluoridation quote. This blatant misrepresentation occurs on the official website of the Fluoride Action Network of NZ (FANNZ).
But first, this is what I wrote about dental fluorosis in my exchange with Paul Connett. The graph illustrates the nature of dental fluorosis observed in New Zealand.
Proponents of fluoridation do acknowledge dental fluorosis in a negative, although minor, aspect of fluoridation.
Opponents of fluoridation will often quote high values of the incidence of fluorosis which ignore the fact that much of it is “questionable” and/or “very mild.” These grades are really only cosmetic and usually can only be detected by a professional. Opponents may also hide the fact that the incidence of fluorosis for children living in fluoridated may often be the same as, or only slightly greater than, the incidence for children living in non-fluoridated areas.
The graphs below shows the situation reported for New Zealand in the 2009 New Zealand Oral health Survey (see Our Oral Health).
Health experts have generally concluded that the apparent rise in the incidence of fluorosis is caused by increases in other forms of fluoride intake, such as from eating toothpaste, and not from fluoridated water.
Ministry of Health version
I am quoting here from the MoH website page - Infant formula and fluoridated water. This is the page FANNZ quoted from
Enamel fluorosis
Tooth enamel fluorosis is one of a range of changes to tooth enamel. Living in an area with fluoridated water can increase the mild white flecks or streaks in the tooth enamel.
The following photos provide examples of normal teeth and the types of mild to moderate diffuse enamel fluorosis that is most commonly associated with water fluoridation. The most recent New Zealand information indicates that about 29 percent of 9-year-old children in Southland who had always received fluoridated water had these changes to the tooth enamel. This level had not changed since several earlier studies undertaken in the 1980s. (Bold my stress)
Normal dental enamel
Mild white spots on teeth – mild diffuse enamel hypoplasia
Mild white spots on teeth – moderate diffuse enamel hypoplasia
Moderate white streaks associated with enamel fluorosis
Other defects on teeth
Severe enamel fluorosis involves brownish defects to the tooth enamel which may also be pitted.
This form of enamel defect is uncommon in New Zealand. The most recent New Zealand information from 9-year-old children in Southland indicates that about 5 percent of children had similar defects.
These defects were just as common in children who had received fluoridated water as non-fluoridated water and the level of these defects had decreased about three fold from about 15 percent of children in the mid-1980s.
FANNZ version
The quote here is from the FANNZ website page Dental health.
Fluoridation causes dental fluorosis
Dental fluorosis is the outward sign that has a child has consumed too much fluoride – it is a bio-marker of over-exposure. In New Zealand, dental fluorosis statistics are lacking, even though the Ministry of Health acknowledges this condition to be an undisputed side effect of fluoridation.
Very mild fluorosis
Moderate fluorosis
Severe fluorosis
Severe fluorosis
According to the Ministry of Health*, “The most recent New Zealand information indicates that about 29 percent of 9-year-old children in Southland who had always received fluoridated water had these changes to the tooth enamel. This level had not changed since several earlier studies undertaken in the 1980s.” (Bold my stress).
* Note this link goes only to the MoH front page – not the page from which the quote was taken and which contains the photographs. Now, I wonder why the link isn’t direct?
So a blatant example of misrepresentation. Conscious misrepresentation at that because it involved substitution of the official photos by others. The intention was clearly to make the MoH seem to state that fluoridation causes severe fluorosis when the MoH clearly did not state that.
I really wonder how these people sleep straight in their bed at night.
Similar articles