(Deleted marketing scam. Against forum policy. OTFR)

-- ... (...@...com), March 20, 2000

Answers

Thanks, OTFR.

Now, if anyone shows up with the old "Dead Doctors Don't Lie!" thing ...

(G,D and RVF!)

-- Me (me@thisplace.net), March 20, 2000.

So much for "free" speech.!!!..not.

-- Bilko (sgt@arms.com), March 20, 2000.

The follow-up thread should be: ""Dr." Loraine Day is an idiot."

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 20, 2000.

If you want a taste of Dr. Day's ideas on medicine, go to http://www.drday.com/ and see if you'd want her to be your doctor.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.

I'll be damned! Somebody's posting using my name. LL, help me track them down :^)

I love cowards.

-- Jim Cooke (JJCooke@yahoo.com), March 21, 2000.

Can't see anything wrong with a doctor that can come through the other side of a serious tumor and advocate the use of nutrition and lots of water as a result.
Too often we go to the doctor expecting a 'silver pill' to cure our illness and feel indignant if the Dr can't produce one for our symtoms.
Takes a bit more input and effort to stay healthy than a 'script' from your local doc. Start NOW!!

-- bilko (sgt@arms.com), March 21, 2000.

Bilko,

Before you avoid your doctor, look at how many people are walking around with smallpox today.... oops, there aren't any. Vaccines and *most* medicines are only available to the public because they have been PROVEN do what they are designed to and are safe for most people.

A big fan of modern medicine,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), March 21, 2000.

Wow, if Dr. Day and Dr. Laura ever team up, we're going to have lots of disease-ridden, psychological nuts on the loose.

I'm all for nutrition, eathing healthy, and not becoming a pill popper of over the counter drugs and prescriptions; most are unnecessary. But if my leg's broken, call the doc.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 21, 2000.

Those of you who dismiss the idea that vaccinations may be unsafe or ineffective, might consider the following:

Have you read any of the technical literature on the subject, or any books that reference that literature?

Is your confidence in vaccinations based solely on faith in the medical profession?

Can you think of any person or institution that isn't capable of error, or even gross blunders?

How many institutions can you name that wouldn't be reluctant to admit a serious error?

Does rejecting outright any criticism of vaccinations, make any more sense than having rejected outright any argument that Y2K wasn't going to be a 10? Aren't these two forms of the same mental trap?

This thread from the Preparation Forum contains a response that gives many links concerning the dangers of vaccinations. I have not read any of those sites, but from my independent reading on the subject, I concluded that vaccinations are neither safe nor effective. Your mileage may vary.

I agree that the above marketing message (with false attribution to Jim Cooke) was beneath contempt.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 21, 2000.

Good morning David:

Those of you who dismiss the idea that vaccinations may be unsafe or ineffective, might consider the following:

Have you read any of the technical literature on the subject, or any books that reference that literature?

Too many papers to count. As a matter of fact I just finished review of a grant proposal in this area. This is break time.

Is your confidence in vaccinations based solely on faith in the medical profession?

No.

Can you think of any person or institution that isn't capable of error, or even gross blunders?

Besides myself, no ;>).

How many institutions can you name that wouldn't be reluctant to admit a serious error?

If you are talking about public institutions, reluctant or not it will be admitted. The review and oversight process is just too large today. I know. It is part of what I do.

Does rejecting outright any criticism of vaccinations, make any more sense than having rejected outright any argument that Y2K wasn't going to be a 10? Aren't these two forms of the same mental trap?

Don't follow this at all. Rejecting criticism which is not reasonable makes sense to me.

Hey that was fun. Sort of like filling out the census form. Let's do it again sometime

Best wishes,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

(Dr. Day fan, read the "About" section of this forum. It's been there for over a week. I'm inforcing my policies. If I wanted a marketting haven forum, I'd have started one. OTFR)

-- deletor is an idiot (lorained@y.com), March 21, 2000.

I have read about and tried various alternate health approaches for many years. My conclusion is that some work for some people and other techniques for others. The variables are many. I know that for some people, vaccinations are dangerous--some of us may be quite senstive to these substances. For some of us, supplements are a must. Proper supplementation, as prescribed by muscle response testing helped me greatly. Juicing can be terrific, too. I can only say: It depends. One current POV is that all disease is caused by parasites... Dietary plans vary as well--the current popular one is balancing protein, fats, and carbs to prevent overproduction of insulin...

-- Mara (MaraWayne@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

Hello Z,
If I had known you'd be so ungrudging about responding, I would have sent you the long form.

My experience has generally been the following. A new finding in a scientific field (including medicine) gets scrutinized by the current generation of researchers. The next generation of researchers is taught that formerly new finding as if it were fact, and very few of those people will ever question it. Instead they will scrutinize the new findings that their own generation is uncovering.

A premise that has persisted through several generations, such as the value of vaccinations, has been so ingrained in the profession, that if you were to even suggest that it perhaps ought to be questioned, the overwhelming majority of MDs would dismiss it right off the bat. If you tried to pursue the matter further, you'd hear one of those common scientific terms like "quackery," "nonsense," or "bull."

Being in science, you are no doubt familiar with the principle that an idea can never truly be regarded as "proven," because science cannot prove, it can only disprove. But by the time they have received their degree, most physicians seem to have stuck that principle in a drawer or in the fireplace.

With regard to institutional behavior, here's an example from my own experience. I wrote a letter to the Department of Health of the state in which I was living, in which I opposed fluoridation of the public water supply. To my surprise, the Director of the State Dental Health Program called me and acknowledged that I'd made some excellent points, but he would like to see at least one published study showing that fluoride in drinking water affects some people badly. So I found a study and sent it to him. He sent back an "analysis" (character assasination is more accurate) of the study's author, a clear indication that the Director had deliberately lied about his being unaware of studies criticizing fluoridation.

I wrote back with a refutation of that so-called analysis, and instead of responding to my critique, the Director sent me a collection of pro-fluoridation statements by other professional associations. At this point, it was clear that he had no interest in sincere discussion, so I gave up. Plus, by this time I was furious.

(If you email me, I'd be happy to provide details. I just don't want to bore the rest of the forum.)

Based on my reading, propaganda tactics like this (and worse) abound in the health field. I'd recommend The Cancer Industry: Unravelling the Politics by Ralph Moss, a well written and scrupulously documented account of unconscionable conduct by the major cancer funding and research institutions.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 21, 2000.

David L:

I don't know anything about fluoridation, so on this particular issue I don't have a horse in this race. However, there are things about your post that make me itch.

For the sake of perspective, put yourself in the position of the Director of the State Dental Health program. Presumably, you have either direct knowledge, or direct access to such knowledge, of the chemistry,biology, and history of water fluoridation. And let's say that you consider this practice an excellent trade-off. NOTE that I didn't say you consider fluoridation an Unmitigated Good Thing. There are very real pros and cons, and the cons should not be dismissed. Nonetheless, *on balance* you feel the program is an excellent boon to public dental health.

NOW, you can't help but be aware that there are rabid anti- fluoridation people out there. There are rabid anti's to *every* possible policy. You are also well aware that as a result, there are anti-fluoridation publications. You are aware of several of these, and you find them depressing. You consider them to be mostly propaganda.

NOTE that propaganda doesn't mean lies. When a lawyer argues his case, he uses every possible trick to place his client in the best possible light. Such tricks include carefully selecting positive information and ignoring anything else, stating half-truths, finding creative interpretations of information, dwelling on rare exceptions while failing to mention statistical results, focusing on "studies" whose methodology was designed to "find" only desired phenomena, and so on. But he tells no lies.

In a court of law, the opposition always has the opportunity to point out these tricks (and use their own, to be sure). In a book, of course, no such rebuttal is presented. A lay reader, unfamiliar with the details of the chemistry, biology and history, won't have a basis for comparison. Such a reader can be expected to come away utterly convinced of the evil of fluoridation, and terminally distrustful of anyone who believes otherwise. And that was the whole *purpose* of the book.

At this point, someone who read this book (and perhaps others of the same ilk, since fanatics crave ammunition and abhor perspective) writes to complain of the fluoridation policy. YOU know that the author of this publication is a quack, making his living by misleading his cult. So how do you reply? You can assume your reader is confused, and try to explain how that material came to be. OR, you can assume your correspondent is beyond hope, and ignore him. If you take your job seriously, you try to explain what's going on.

IF your correspondent IS beyond hope and does not accept what you say, the best you can do is provide the other side of the story (in your opinion the overwhelmingly persuasive side) and hope for the best. If your correspondent then becomes "furious" at your "propaganda", well, you did your best. You cannot tell people what they don't want to hear, and meanwhile your correspondent's teeth are healthier (in your opinion) than they would have been otherwise, so whatever conceptual ills he suffers, at least he has good teeth!

So back to being yourself again. Can you explain how the Director of State Dental Health could have possibly engaged in "sincere discussion" without agreeing that fluoridation is bad? Better yet, ask yourself this: WHAT could he have said, as part of this sincere discusson, that would have led you to decide that fluoridation is an excellent trade-off after all? If this is not possible, YOU are the party guilty of insincerity.

And I repeat, NOTHING in life is a Pure Good. There's no free lunch, but there are bargains. And anyone can make *any* bargain look bad by focusing solely on the costs and ignoring all benefits. If nothing else, Y2K should have shown us what happens when you focus exclusively on one side of a story. You can end up being WAY wrong. Beware.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 21, 2000.

Flint,
It seems that my having told the tale in abridged form has greatly distorted it. I will now fill in some of the details while addressing your points, which I am glad you raised. To provide a frame of reference, my tale took place in the early 1990's.

I concur that many things in life are tradeoffs. However, the position of the US Public Health Service, the American Medical Association, the Food and Drug Administration and a slew of other institutions is that in all the years since fluoridation became widespread in the 1950s, fluoridated water has not caused a single side effect in a single human being.

I am not making this up. This has been their official position and it is openly stated in the brochures that they make available to the public. You can confirm (or refute) this by contacting these organizations directly. (Since I haven't followed the fluoridation issue closely over the past few years, I couldn't swear that it remains their official position, but it probably does.)

Given their position that fluoridated water is completely safe, they need not concern themselves with evaluating tradeoffs.

Anyway, when Dr. Director (not his real name) said that although my letter had made many good points, he had yet to see even one study showing fluoridation to harm anyone, I went to the nearby medical library and dug up a paper (took all of half an hour). In this paper (published in the journal Acta Allergologica, 1959, XIII, 456-468, I admit to being a pack rat), a Dr. G. L. Waldbott reported on the symptoms of six of his patients. Some of the patients began to experience symptoms almost immediately upon moving to a city that they did not know had fluoridated water, from a city that did not. After they stopped drinking the fluoridated water, their symptoms cleared, but the symptoms came back when Dr. Waldbott gave them water that they did not know was fluoridated.

This is probably way more than anyone wants to know, but the bottom line is that Dr. Waldbott's work seemed to have been careful and thorough. So that is the paper I sent to Dr. Director.

I was expecting Dr. Director to criticize the methodology, presentation, conclusions or some other aspect of the actual paper I had sent. As a lay person, I was especially interested in what someone with formal training might find.

Instead of sending a critique of the paper, Dr. Director sends me a critique of the author! This "analysis" basically said that having been a devoted opponent of fluoridation for twenty years, Dr. Waldbott lacked objectivity. Further, he lacked training in certain scientific subjects. (Sorry, I don't have the critique handy, so I can't tell you what subjects, but I think they were among the biological sciences.)

My rebuttal was that 1) the US government has been promoting fluoridation for forty years, so they may be expected to have only half the objectivity of Dr. Waldbott; and 2) nothing in the paper I sent Dr. Director implied a need for the author to be trained in anything besides medicine. (Not terribly subtle, but commensurate with the critique.)

This rebuttal was met with an irrelevant reply, consisting of endorsements of fluoridation from various professional groups. At this point, I realized that further attempts at communication were pointless. (Actually, I pretty much realized this when the critique of Dr. Waldbott arrived, but I felt a need to write and send my rebuttal.)

One point you made that I have not yet answered, regards the disparity in training between the typical professional and the typical lay person. I agree this is true, but I think you overstate its significance.

For example, one problem with fluoridating the public water supply is the inability to customize dosage according to an individual's requirement, which may be as low as zero. If someone were to propose adding Vitamin C to the water supply, I would argue against it for the same reason, even though I believe Vitamin C to be a great deal safer than sodium fluoride (what "fluoride" actually refers to).

This particular argument transcends any specific scientific training. We all know from experience that dosages of just about anything may well vary per individual.

However, in my experience, this does not prevent representatives of whatever institution from trying to dismiss such arguments on the grounds that they are being raised by lay person.

I did not try to address all your points, because I thought you might like a chance to refine them based on the above additional information. I'd be happy to address them in subsequent responses.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 21, 2000.

From the American Dental Association's web site: Fluoridation Facts: Safety

The ADA's view seems to be that fluoridated water has no documented side effects.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 21, 2000.

There are millions of people suffering and dying from cancer all over the world. Dr. Loraine Day has the answer for a cancer cure and has cured countless of cancer sufferers.

Now this "blinders on sysop" keeps on deleting this cancer cure because of his stupid policy. He in fact is instrumental in the killing of Americans who suffer from cancer. Where is your charity sysop? Have you no heart? Try and do something of significance in this world and stop deleting vital information that can save lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-- deleter is an idiot (deletorisanidiot@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

(OTFR)

-- Dr.Loraine Day fan (donotdelete@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

(OTFR)

-- Dr. Day fan (donotdelete@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

Well, All I want to know is where did the 1918 flu come from, and why did so many people die? Well, while I am at it, what was with the swine flu in 1976? The vaccine killed lots. Is that why they spray us now? No law suits???? 3legged dog

-- 3 legs (odddog@hotmail.com), March 21, 2000.

(See deleted posts forum. OTFR)

-- Do not delete! (donotdelete@aol.com), March 21, 2000.

Thanks do not delete. The truth is what you are told until you or one of yor children die. Then yoU KNOW

-- 3 legs (odddog_3@hotmail.com), March 22, 2000.

deleter is an idiot,
What if someone were to post promotional material from one of the "quackbusters," offering valuable books and videos which say that all alternative medicine (including that advocated to by Dr. Day) was preventing thousands of people from seeking "proven" therapies and therefore responsible for thousands of unnecessary cancer deaths.

You may feel that Dr. Day is right, and she may even be right, but people on this forum like to hear both sides of an argument. Therefore, if the sysop allowed your posts about Dr. Day to remain, (s)he would also feel obligated to let posts about her opponents to stand, as well as posts about unconventional heart disease cures, opponents of unconventional heart disease cures, and just about anything anyone wanted to promote. And MIT would be paying for all of this!

Perhaps you feel that the cancer problem is the most serious facing the world. You are entitled to that belief, but please stop trying to force it upon other people (whose beliefs may legitimately differ from your own).

One can alert people to information (about Dr. Day or anyone else) by simply posting a few sentences and providing links to the relevant site(s). Presenting in that way usually results in a lot more appreciation while provoking little or no irritation.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 22, 2000.

From: Y2K, ` la Carte by Dancr (pic), near Monterey, California

For more on problems with vaccination see my vaccination page.

-- Dancr (addy.available@my.webpage), March 22, 2000.

David L:

Your response suggests that I should place the issue into a somewhat different perspective. To get some of the details out of the way first:

One "trick" I mentioned was to focus on a few rare case studies while ignoring the body of statistical evidence. Your additional details make it clear that this is precisely the trick used by Dr. Waldbott. He based his case on six people out of an entire city. As a 20-year opponent, you can bet he did some digging to find these six people. I notice you make no mention (and I'll bet long odds Waldbott made no mention) of the number or percentage of people who moved to that city from a non-fluoridated area and had experienced the clear benefits of fluoridation. The Waldbott approach is usually called "propaganda", for this reason.

Next, Dr. Director's response. This is a tough issue for several reasons. One reason is that an exact understanding of a point by point refutation of Waldbott's methodology and conclusions would very likely require scientific specialty well beyond any lay person's knowledge and training. For most curious lay people, the implications behind "findings" by a partially informed but fanatical opponent are fairly clear. Most of us understand that the subset of those of us out to WIN do not overlap the subset of those of us out to LEARN.

A second issue is that people tend to think in binary terms, as we've seen so many times with y2k, where remediation was considered either perfect or hopeless. People in general, for whatever reasons, don't visualize specta or tradeoffs easily. Something is either all good or all bad. So the "official" government position must cater to this tendency, even though the knowledgeable individuals recognize that this is so simplified as to be misleading (and places them in the position of denying the few cases a Waldbott finds, *knowing* such denials are dishonest).

Let's say, for example, that you came up with a cancer cure that would instantly cure 999 of every 1000 cancer sufferers, and instantly kill the other one. You might know that, say, 75% of cancer sufferers will die of the disease ordinarily, usually after a long and painful decline. Would your cure be a net benefit? Absolutely. Could you impose such a cure by governmental fiat? ONLY by denying your cure killed anyone ever. Otherwise, you'd be accused of murder! The Waldbotts out there would collect the deaths, ignore the cures, and refuse to recognize the tradeoff. Why? I don't know, except that there are careers and big money to be made by doing so, if they do it right.

But once we wander into the realm of public policy, things get very sticky (at least for me). Even if we grant that fluoridation has overwhelming net public benefits (with a few rare exceptions), I'm not comfortable with the government imposing such a policy unilaterally and unavoidably, and forcing taxpayers to pay for it. In theory, I'd prefer that we all be made aware of the costs and benefits and allowed to make up our own individual minds. That way, opponents of fluoridation can opt out of the program if they so choose, and suffer consequences (or enjoy benefits) of which they are aware when they make that choice.

But to a large degree, the decision to make us aware, and the slant or spin applied to the "education", is *itself* a matter of public policy. To some degree, we've simply shifted the decision from the city council to the school board. And this also raises a more practical issue -- if fluoridation is most critical during childhood, presumably the primary beneficiaries are not yet capable of making an informed and well understood decision, even if suitably objective material (joke) is made available to them.

So on balance, I'd say the fluoridation policy is acceptable, but I agree that Dr. Director should publicly recognize that there are always going to be a few people who respond negatively to *anything*, and that such people should be made aware of the cause of their problems and have access to non-fluoridated water (they do) to avoid them. Yes, you will get headlines like "Evil Government Deliberately Sickens Us". This is just another tradeoff. If people panic and vote to end the fluoridation practice, well, there's always fluoride toothpaste...

As for Dr. Day's cancer cure, as soon as I see that at bottom it rests on "faith in God", and if it's not working you lack sufficient faith, my eyes glaze over and my skin crawls. Yeah, I recognize that holistic medicine has some clear benefits. Yeah, I understand the implications behind the placebo effect, and how our minds have amazing (if hard to control) influence over our bodies. But shouting about GOD means an appeal to those who substitute organized religion for thought and knowledge. It's a disturbing appeal to a population known to be susceptible to such chicanery, and NOT susceptible to persuasion by (reasonably) objective scientific evaluation. Scary.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 22, 2000.

I'd like to suggest that anyone interested in checking the validity of claims such as Dr. Loraine Day's might want to check a website called www.quackwatch.com

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 22, 2000.

Footnotes, PLEASE. We see reports and claims in these posts that are bereft of footnotes or links to studies. If we are talking about presenting serious information here, then the footnotes are necessary.

I am a proponent of homeopathy, but not to the dismissal of traditional western medicine. It is not an all or nothing proposition to me.

What the Y2K scare proved to me was how impressionable people really are, and how willing they are to let others make decisions for them- when things go wrong, these people can always say it was the fault of someone else.

Do I know if these stories about the dangers of vaccinations are true?? Hell no. But would I investigate further before I have my child get them? Probably. Just as I investigate everything having to do with health, life, buying merchandise, etc.

As far as the delete-If it obviously violates the forum's policy then there is no argument. It is not censorship to have a few small rules for the forum, and I for one am turned-off when someone tries to blatantly market something in a post.

-- FutureShock (gray@matter.think), March 22, 2000.

Flint, My response follows.

One "trick" I mentioned was to focus on a few rare case studies while ignoring the body of statistical evidence.

Earlier, you said, "I don't know anything about fluoridation," yet you imply that the body of statistical evidence favors fluoridation.

Your additional details make it clear that this is precisely the trick used by Dr. Waldbott.

An excerpt from my earlier response, "Dr. G. L. Waldbott reported on the symptoms of six of his patients." What gives you the idea that the conclusions he expressed in that paper go beyond those six patients? Have you read the paper?

He based his case on six people out of an entire city.

*He based his case*? You never heard of the man until a few days ago, yet you have already concluded that his entire output on the subject of fluoridation consists solely of that one paper.

As a 20-year opponent, you can bet he did some digging to find these six people.

Consider that the paper I cited was published in 1959, yet Dr. Waldbott was alive until 1982. It is entirely plausible that his energetic opposition to fluoridation was a result of his patients' experiences. How can you be sure that they didn't come to him of their own accord? Do you believe that anyone who opposes fluoridation must have a serious character flaw?

Suppose he did set out to find them. How do you think he did it? Did he run a radio ad? ("Do you suffer from unexplained symptoms that are actually due to fluoride insensitivity? Here's the number to call...")

I notice you make no mention (and I'll bet long odds Waldbott made no mention) of the number or percentage of people who moved to that city from a non-fluoridated area and had experienced the clear benefits of fluoridation.

So you're saying I ought to have mentioned fluoride's *benefits*, even though my entire discussion was about its *safety*? And that Dr. Waldbott's paper (which was devoted solely to those six patients) should have addressed the benefits of fluoride? Do you think that including data that are off the subject at hand is the hallmark of good writing?

The Waldbott approach is usually called "propaganda", for this reason.

Surely you don't mean to challenge the integrity or judgment of the editors of the journal Acta Allergologica, who saw fit to publish Dr. Waldbott's paper. You claim later in your response that an exact understanding of a point by point refutation of Waldbott's methodology and conclusions would very likely require scientific specialty well beyond any lay person's knowledge and training. So you seem to feel that not being qualified to critique something in depth, should not inhibit one from lobbing grenades at it.

Next, Dr. Director's response. This is a tough issue for several reasons. One reason is that an exact understanding of a point by point refutation of Waldbott's methodology and conclusions would very likely require scientific specialty well beyond any lay person's knowledge and training.

Granted, some flaws in a technical paper might be impractical to try to convey to a lay person. But not all possible flaws fit that category. Examples: a calculation error, an error in logic or reasoning (such as an invalid generalization).

At any rate, the essence of public relations is to present information at a level understandable to the listener, generalizing if necessary but not to the point of gross distortion. What do PR people do if they get an inquiry they can't answer? They consult those who can answer it in a way that allows the PR person to explain it to the person posing the question. If no such experts are available, they refer the inquirer to where the expertise may be found.

So why didn't Dr. Director do that? Because the mission of his State Dental Health Program, as regards fluoridation, is to promote it.

For most curious lay people, the implications behind "findings" by a partially informed but fanatical opponent are fairly clear. Most of us understand that the subset of those of us out to WIN do not overlap the subset of those of us out to LEARN.

Okay.

A second issue is that people tend to think in binary terms, as we've seen so many times with y2k, where remediation was considered either perfect or hopeless. People in general, for whatever reasons, don't visualize specta or tradeoffs easily. Something is either all good or all bad.

Okay, but does this observation not also apply to people in government.

So the "official" government position must cater to this tendency, even though the knowledgeable individuals recognize that this is so simplified as to be misleading (and places them in the position of denying the few cases a Waldbott finds, *knowing* such denials are dishonest).

Fifty years ago, the promoters of fluoridation were consciously aware of its harmful effects on some people, but elected not to present the risks publicly. But once the children of the 1950s and later decades, who were taught that fluoride was completely safe, grew up and entered the health professions and government, it was inevitable that eventually, the vast majority even of those working in a health-related capacity would believe in their hearts that fluoridation was completely safe.

Let's say, for example, that you came up with a cancer cure that would instantly cure 999 of every 1000 cancer sufferers, and instantly kill the other one. You might know that, say, 75% of cancer sufferers will die of the disease ordinarily, usually after a long and painful decline. Would your cure be a net benefit? Absolutely. Could you impose such a cure by governmental fiat?

Why would we want to permit the government to impose any cure? Do the people in government have greater wisdom than the rest of us? How did they acquire that wisdom?

Answer. The government is perceived as having qualities and abilities that transcend those of the people in it. Take ordinary human beings, put them in government and WHAMMO, they acquire the highest ethical standards and intellect, and government acts accordingly. I have yet to hear a satisfying explanation (or any explanation) of how this magic happens. Maybe you can provide one.

ONLY by denying your cure killed anyone ever. Otherwise, you'd be accused of murder! The Waldbotts out there would collect the deaths, ignore the cures, and refuse to recognize the tradeoff. Why? I don't know, except that there are careers and big money to be made by doing so, if they do it right.

Suppose the government believed that it had a 99.9% cancer cure, and imposed it, but they were wrong, and the number of patients killed per 1,000 was actually much higher. Can you visualize how this coming to light would jeopardize government careers and revenue to the drug manufacturer (and that revenue would amount to $BILLIONS). The amount of money to be made by selling books and videos is paltry by comparison.

Of course, the government would never make such a tragic error.

But once we wander into the realm of public policy, things get very sticky (at least for me). Even if we grant that fluoridation has overwhelming net public benefits (with a few rare exceptions), I'm not comfortable with the government imposing such a policy unilaterally and unavoidably, and forcing taxpayers to pay for it. In theory, I'd prefer that we all be made aware of the costs and benefits and allowed to make up our own individual minds. That way, opponents of fluoridation can opt out of the program if they so choose, and suffer consequences (or enjoy benefits) of which they are aware when they make that choice.

No argument there.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 22, 2000.

David:

I KNOW folks who are allergic to fluoride. They don't drink tap water. On the other hand, I DO believe that I have my teeth today because of fluoride in the water. Like everything else, a certain percentage of the population will NOT respond positively.

This isn't an issue that I feel worthy of drawing the BIG GUNS out of my holster. Have you seen the drug ads on TV wherein the side-affects are iterated to the point where one wonders why ANYONE would take the drug? The drugs help the MAJORITY of the people in the same way that fluoride helped the MAJORITY of the people. Of COURSE there will be those that suffer reactions. Does this mean that all others should cease use? Should the government publish an infomercial wherein they state that a small percentage of folks who drink fluoridated water may have problems and panic the entire population?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.thingee), March 22, 2000.

[Flint, My response follows.]

David, you seem to be so defensive. I told you I had no horse in the fluoridation race. Let me reply with (hopefully) more neutrality. [One "trick" I mentioned was to focus on a few rare case studies while ignoring the body of statistical evidence.

Earlier, you said, "I don't know anything about fluoridation," yet you imply that the body of statistical evidence favors fluoridation.]

Didn't mean to. I was trying to point out, several times, one of the techniques of misinformation commonly applied -- the focus on case studies of exceptions when one is arguing against the general rule. I tried to say that these are not lies, they are misdirection. I tried to give an example. We can grant all day long that Waldbott found six people sensitive to fluoride. And we can grant all day long that these people are clear and present demonstration that any claim that *nobody* ever suffers deleterious side effects is a false claim. The statistical evidence, *whatever it may be*, is irrespective of the existence of these sensitive individuals.

HOWEVER, if I were to set myself in opposition to fluoridation, and IF the statistical evidence were on my side, I'd *damn* well use it, rather than six case studies. At the very least, I'd include such case studies as a footnote, intended as an illustration of the far end of a statistical distribution favoring my case.

[Your additional details make it clear that this is precisely the trick used by Dr. Waldbott.

An excerpt from my earlier response, "Dr. G. L. Waldbott reported on the symptoms of six of his patients." What gives you the idea that the conclusions he expressed in that paper go beyond those six patients? Have you read the paper?]

No. I can only go by what you tell me. If the focus of the paper, or some critical argument in that paper, went beyond six case studies, you chose not to mention that. I can't presume the paper said something you didn't mention, but I can presume it did NOT mention something you didn't mention.

[He based his case on six people out of an entire city.

*He based his case*? You never heard of the man until a few days ago, yet you have already concluded that his entire output on the subject of fluoridation consists solely of that one paper.]

Again, I can't work with material not available to me. If the inferences I make from what you choose to present are not correct, then I need more information. Remember that in my reading, you originally came across as a "fluoridation is BAD" person, rather than as a "What are the REAL tradeoffs" person. Maybe I misread you?

[As a 20-year opponent, you can bet he did some digging to find these six people.

Consider that the paper I cited was published in 1959, yet Dr. Waldbott was alive until 1982. It is entirely plausible that his energetic opposition to fluoridation was a result of his patients' experiences. How can you be sure that they didn't come to him of their own accord? Do you believe that anyone who opposes fluoridation must have a serious character flaw?]

Good question. To me, this depends on the fact situation. IF fluoridation is a great good, and IF sensitive people are very rare, and IF someone opposes it anyway because the distrustful can be swindled, this is a character flaw. But I don't know if any of this is true.

[Suppose he did set out to find them. How do you think he did it? Did he run a radio ad? ("Do you suffer from unexplained symptoms that are actually due to fluoride insensitivity? Here's the number to call...")]

Well, that's one way. This is a procedural question, and I can only speculate. Doctors refer patients to one another based on specialty. If symptoms are comparable, it's not hard for a doctor to let other doctors know that he has made a speciality of such symptoms. But that's all guess work.

[I notice you make no mention (and I'll bet long odds Waldbott made no mention) of the number or percentage of people who moved to that city from a non-fluoridated area and had experienced the clear benefits of fluoridation.

So you're saying I ought to have mentioned fluoride's *benefits*, even though my entire discussion was about its *safety*? And that Dr. Waldbott's paper (which was devoted solely to those six patients) should have addressed the benefits of fluoride? Do you think that including data that are off the subject at hand is the hallmark of good writing?]

Not exactly. Indirectly, I'm asking for data here. I was trying to point out that the most common way an advocate builds a case is by ignoring everything that disagrees, *even if* this means ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of indications. Does Waldbott tend to do this in his various writings? It's a clue.

In your dealings with Dr. Director, were you *really* trying to make the abstract point that the "100% safe" claim probably had exceptions? Or were you motivated by a conviction against fluoridation? MOST people who lobby on this practice are trying to get the policy *reversed*, rather than to make relatively minor modifications in the official wording describing a policy they support.

And one thing I didn't mention, for fear you'd take this wrong. The "character attack" you say Dr. Director made against Waldcott could be highly informative. Since this study was done in 1959, and medical science has come a long way since then, I'd really like to know if Waldbott's diagnoses have held up. Do doctors today feel he really *did* find what he thought (or claimed) he did? Your clear implication is that Dr. Director was speaking from many years of hindsight, like 30 years AFTER Waldbott's paper. If the gist of Dr. Director's "attack" is that Waldbott was in clear error, given current knowledge, this would be interesting to know.

Basically, there are other possibilities inherent in what you write, beyond the simple conclusion that Dr. Director is a lying fraud giving lip service to a dangerous and outmoded practice in deference to the vested interests to whom he owes his position. Know what I mean?

[The Waldbott approach is usually called "propaganda", for this reason.

Surely you don't mean to challenge the integrity or judgment of the editors of the journal Acta Allergologica, who saw fit to publish Dr. Waldbott's paper. You claim later in your response that an exact understanding of a point by point refutation of Waldbott's methodology and conclusions would very likely require scientific specialty well beyond any lay person's knowledge and training. So you seem to feel that not being qualified to critique something in depth, should not inhibit one from lobbing grenades at it.]

You're correct here. I should have said "my interpretation of your presentation of Waldbott's efforts". Clearly there is a heated debate going on about fluoridation, and there seem to be few objective voices and many hardened, closed-minded advocates on BOTH sides. But I should not lob ignorance grenades in the hope of dislodging a mental logjam you may not suffer.

[So why didn't Dr. Director do that? Because the mission of his State Dental Health Program, as regards fluoridation, is to promote it.]

Agreed. But this doesn't answer whether the mission itself is of value. Does it *deserve* promotion? Let's grant there are some people harmed, and fluoridation is not 100% safe for everyone as claimed. But I already spoke of the need for government to oversimplify, which I can understand if not condone.

[it was inevitable that eventually, the vast majority even of those working in a health-related capacity would believe in their hearts that fluoridation was completely safe.]

Uh, no, I don't believe this. Knowledge is not forgotten. *Especially* knowledge of a controversial topic. It may not be presented as openly as we'd prefer. But I'd bet you could ask your dentist about the pros and cons, and get some idea of what they DO know, whether they advertise it or not.

[Of course, the government would never make such a tragic error.]

Here I agree, and this is a very real and serious concern. One thing governments do NOT do is admit errors -- regardless of how clear the error or how many lives are destroyed. One need only look at Vietnam or the war on drugs to see that once a policy is in place, it stays there, no matter how stupid or ill advised.

Anyway, I was just trying to point out that advocacy is the enemy of investigation. Is fluoridation a bad thing everything considered? Was the policy put in place in well-meaning ignorance? Is it something we should support, albeit with reservations?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 22, 2000.

Anita,
I don't wish to deprive those who wish to consume fluoride, of the ability to do so. But I also feel that those who desire to avoid fluoride should be able to without enduring economic hardship.

If a family of four consumes three gallons of water daily for cooking and drinking, that translates to over a thousand gallons a year. Purchasing bottled water in that quantity is not an option for many households. But purchasing fluoridated toothpaste to make up for the absense of fluoride in the water is affordable for nearly everyone.

Regarding the infomercial, I don't understand why it should lead to panic among the general population. Fluoride would be just another in a long list of additives whose potential for harm has been publicized.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 22, 2000.

Flint, you said: "But once we wander into the realm of public policy, things get very sticky (at least for me). Even if we grant that fluoridation has overwhelming net public benefits (with a few rare exceptions), I'm not comfortable with the government imposing such a policy unilaterally and unavoidably, and forcing taxpayers to pay for it. In theory, I'd prefer that we all be made aware of the costs and benefits and allowed to make up our own individual minds. That way, opponents of fluoridation can opt out of the program if they so choose, and suffer consequences (or enjoy benefits) of which they are aware when they make that choice."

This is all well and fine for people like us who are educated enough and have the means to do research on fluoridation so we can decide for ourselves. But what about the poor and uneducated? What about the kids in squalid ghettos? Can their parents make such decisions? Do they even have the money to buy fluoridated toothpaste is they want it for their kids and the water isn't fluoridated?

We're sitting here in front of our expensive computers, discussing alternative medecine vs. traditional medecine and drugs, we have the choice to buy bottled water if we're paranoid about fluoride (or have an adverse reaction to it), we have the choice to experiment on our bodies with all the non-FDA-aproved alternative substances/drugs. But who looks after those kids who's parents can't? Do we just wave them off and say "well too bad for them, if they're too ignorant to care for their own kids they deserve their lot." ?

We can't dismiss the statistics and the past that shows that fluoride, as well as traditional medecine/drugs and vaccines have improved our health greatly over the past century. As Anita stated, there always will be a small percentage of people having adverse reactions or allergies to certain drugs, and for them there are alternatives. But the population as a whole has benefitted and contunues to benefit from them.

-- Chris (!@#$@pond.com), March 22, 2000.

Flint,
Based on your initial post on this subject, I seem to have drawn incorrect inferences about your views, which were compounded by our subsequent exchange. Sorry about that.

In the paper I cited, Dr. Waldbott concludes with a simple statement of having described six individuals demonstrably sensitive to fluoride. That paper does not address the policy of fluoridation, nor does it attempt to extrapolate from those six patients to a larger population. The paper's focus and discipline was probably a big part of why I liked it enough to send to Dr. Director.

I am not acquainted with Dr. Waldbott's other work, but would surmise that it was considerable, based on the above mentioned *analysis* characterizing him as the leader of the anti-fluoridation movement for over twenty years. I have not tried to obtain his other writings, and given how long he's been deceased, at least his books probably would be out of print by now. My exposure to the anti-fluoridation view came from contemporary writings, which I'll get into a bit later in this response.

My personal belief is that fluoridation of the public water supplies should cease. The above *tale* actually began with a letter I wrote to the Governor expressing that view, which was referred to Dr. Director who responded on the State's behalf. (I had forgotten this detail.) My first letter to Dr. Director (a polite rebuttal of his letter) prompted his phone call, which I recall as being completely amicable and without friction. He said that my letter made many excellent points, but that he had yet to have seen a study showing fluoride's harmful effects on humans.

I was surprised by this, since even back then I had understood there to be reams of studies showing that fluoride was harmful to some people, and I had seen citations of several dozen. In addition, these studies began prior to 1940 and had continued steadily since, so it was hard to believe that Dr. Director was not familiar with any of them. Nonetheless I cheerfully offered to find a study to send to him, and he in turn agreed to send me some of his material.

Fast forwarding a bit, the *analysis* Dr. Director sent me on Dr. Waldbott disturbed me very much, because a personal attack such as regarding Dr. Waldbott's objectivity may be employed in order to hide the accuser's inability to substantively criticize the accused's actual work. I see such attacks as slander.

In contrast, your asking whether Dr. Waldbott's work has been borne out by subsequent studies seems perfectly legitimate. Such a question may be pursued constructively to almost any depth.

It's now almost two hours past my usual bedtime, but I will share my book recommendation before turning in: Fluoride the Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis, PhD (biochemistry, I believe). He may be no more objective than Dr. Waldbott (grin), but his work seems to be sound. The book addresses both technical and political aspects of fluoridation.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 23, 2000.

Flint,
To continue where I left off, here is some background on why I feel that fluoridation is a poor idea.

Drugs in general are dispensed in a way such that the quantity or concentration ingested by the particular individual may be controlled to within a few percent, and can be adjusted as needed according to the person's reaction. Since one person might require a dose that's ten times as strong as that required by another person (or by the same person at a different stage of an illness), the ability to accurately control the amount being taken is essential to optimizing a drug's benefit/risk tradeoff.

Successful application of a drug also requires considering its potential interactions with other substances being taken by the person, whether drugs, nutritional supplements or even foods.

Administering a drug (fluoride in this case) through the public water supplies would appear to defeat each of the above safeguards. The amount of fluoride ingested will vary according to the amount of tap water consumed. Very few people consult their physicians about possible interactions between fluoride and other things they may be taking, since either they aren't aware that their water is fluoridated or they have heard that it's completely safe.

If despite these difficulties, putting fluoride in the public water supplies produced a benefit/risk tradeoff comparable to dispensing it directly to consumers (in the form of tablets, for example), it would mean that sodium fluoride is one of the few drugs (or possibly the only drug) without negative interactions and with an enormous margin of safety.

It just doesn't seem reasonable to me to employ a drug dispensing method that demands (hopes for?) the perfect drug.

I'll share some more thoughts over the next day or two.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 24, 2000.

My previous post stated that if a drug had a remarkable margin of safety while having no harmful interactions, then administering it through the water supply might produce results that are equivalent to dispensing that drug directly to the consumer.

So then the problem becomes how to definitively establish that a drug has these characteristics. Studies could be conducted to evaluate safety. Supposing that no harmful effects turn up, can it be concluded with certainty that the drug meets the above criteria?

The problem is that we don't get to define the axioms of our world as if it were like geometry. An experiment that's conducted many times, may or may not yield equivalent results each time.

So even if studies find no side effects of a drug, a vigilant eye must be kept for future evidence of side effects. Some kinds of effects might be too subtle to detect experimentally, and may require looking for rates of change in various diseases over a multi-year period.

Therefore, administering a drug (any drug) through the water supply necessarily entails greater risk than the more usual methods.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 25, 2000.

David L:

OK, but consider what you've written here. Some excerpts should illustrate the issue:

[...if a drug had a remarkable margin of safety while having no harmful interactions...how to definitively establish that a drug has these characteristics...evaluate safety...no harmful effects...no side effects...future evidence of side effects...necessarily entails greater risks...]

Yes, you have thoroughly beaten the risk/cost side of the equation into the ground, while totally failing to mention even a hint of benefit, even potentially. The implication is that *no matter how beneficial* a policy may be, that policy should be discontinued if ongoing studies (*designed* to find problems) can ever find even a single harmful side effect on anyone.

By this reasoning, one could easily decide that nothing whatever in life is worth doing, because *everything* in life has risks, however small, if you're determined enough to find them (and *refuse* to even consider potential benefit).

I think if I were to offer you $1000 in exchange for a single dollar, you'd start focusing on the dollar it would cost you. My gosh, this *costs*. My gosh, I will *lose* my dollar. This is a *real loss*, and therefore it's a bad trade! Not only that, *everyone* who goes for this deal loses a dollar! LOOK at all those dollars they're losing! Intolerable!

So I ask you. There have been times and places where fluoridation was not practiced. What were the costs there? How many suffered, and how serious was it? WHAT is the comparison between the side effects suffered now and those suffered without this practice? What's the tradeoff? So long as you mention costs over and over and over and never mention benefits even a single time, I cannot accept that you are doing anything close to a cost/benefit analysis. You are simply lobbying for a personal conviction.

And this approach is NOT going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. I think there's a general sense that fluridation is not practiced by pure sadists to enjoy their evil deeds. If they have some other motivation, you'd better address it or you look like a fanatic.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 26, 2000.

Flint,
I continue to be willing to address your points, but I have to say that your tone on this thread strikes me as pointlessly confrontational. I don't take it personally, however.

I do systems engineering in the telecommunications industry. There are often many alternative solutions to a problem. I consistently seek the solution most consistent with fundamental engineering principles. I have found that this approach leaves a project best situated to cope with whatever the future may bring. Quite often, a more expedient solution requires less effort, but when such a solution goes bad, it goes *really* bad.

On those rare occasions when applying fundamental engineering principles does not produce a clear winner, a quantitative analysis will come into play. This would consider impacts on system performance and other factors.

The roles of qualitative and quantitative analyses are beautifully illustrated on the thread that discusses capital punishment. For some, qualitative considerations are sufficient to choose a position. Conversely, those who don't find these sufficient to form a judgment, bring quantitative evidence to bear.

Fluoridation seems qualitatively so inferior to dispensing fluoride directly to the user, that framing a cost/benefit analysis involving fluoridation strikes me as an exercise in mental masturbation. But I'll give it a try.

The major benefit of fluoridation supposedly is fewer cavities, which translates to fewer fillings and less exposure to dental anesthesia, as well as fewer incidents of tooth decay that don't get promptly treated. The costs of fluoridation, according to studies, include (but are not limited to) greater incidence of cancer.

The next step in the analysis would be to express a tradeoff between tooth decay and cancer, but I just don't know how many saved teeth would fully compensate for one dead person.

I'd like to now step back and examine a fundamental premise of the pro-fluoridation position, that reducing tooth decay is a laudable goal in itself.

Health professionals across the philosophical spectrum seem to agree that sugar is a prime cause of tooth decay. They are sharply divided as to the extent of sugar's broader negative effects on the body. But I am aware of at least one researcher, Dr. John Yudkin of Queens College (England), who found the negative effects of ingesting sugar to be sufficiently serious that he advocated its outright ban.

If tooth decay is an indicator that a person is consuming too much sugar or doing something else to undermine health, then inhibiting tooth decay may be depriving people of a symptom indicative of a broader problem.

It might not be obvious, but I have tried to limit this post's length, out of consideration for forum readers. I would be happy to expand upon any of these points (or to address others). But I would also appreciate if you would refrain from taking a writer's failure to address your points, as proof that (s)he sought to evade them.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 26, 2000.

David L:

What you're seeing is frustration, not an effort to be confrontational. To evaluate the overall effectiveness of any policy, we must weight costs (there are always costs) and benefits (and it's an ill wind that blows nobody good). Doing so honestly is probably wisest.

So I'm glad you are at least willing to say that there are "supposed" benefits, so manifestly trivial that even alleging them is mental masturbation, before you launch back off into the terrible terrible cost we all pay as a result of this misguided policy. A balanced treatment if I ever saw one!

Meanwhile, those who argue in *favor* of fluoridation dwell lovingly on the overwhelming and obvious benefits, so clear and undeniable that the only resistence is being put up by the the paranoid fringe (or by outright frauds), trumping up misleading cases, specious sophistry and junk science at its worst.

And here I sit, suspecting that reality lies somewhere between these two positions, but with no way to really determine where. All I know is that I'm in excellent health and haven't had a cavity in over 30 years. And my water is fluoridated. And the same is true of my wife.

NOT a significant sample, but my alternative is to engage in a major course of study. Even that may be insufficient, since I notice that Ph.D's are beating one another over the head with the number of letters following their names. This suggests to me that the issue really *isn't* one of cost/benefit, but rather a quasi-religious issue where both armies of Ph.D's are rising in battle against the infidel. This always makes my skin crawl. I'd much rather approach it as an engineer than as a politician. I think the fanatics should be led quietly away, while the engineers determine what's good enough.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 26, 2000.

In the final analysis, while alone, in a dark, quiet room, ask yourself: How/Why is it a Government so concerned with our teeth, while they still allow millions to die because the citizen cannot afford the medical treatments and prescription drugs available for their ailment/disease? http://www.sonic.net/~kryptox/politics/carton.htm http://www.inter-view.net/~sherrell/bomb.htm

-- Just to (m@keyou.think), March 26, 2000.

Flint,
You said (bold added)

So I'm glad you are at least willing to say that there are "supposed" benefits, so manifestly trivial that even alleging them is mental masturbation, before you launch back off into the terrible terrible cost we all pay as a result of this misguided policy.

You are taking my words out of context. Here is what I actually said (bold added)

Fluoridation seems qualitatively so inferior to dispensing fluoride directly to the user, that framing a cost/benefit analysis involving fluoridation strikes me as an exercise in mental masturbation.

In other words, since dispensing fluoride by prescription seems clearly superior to putting it in the water supply, a cost/benefit analysis of the latter is not necessary to conclude that it's not the best method.

Dispensing fluoride by prescription ("directly to the user") has these advantages over fluoridation (of the water supply).

• The dosage may easily be tailored to the individual, taking into account factors such as age, condition of teeth, overall health, interactions with other prescription drugs.
• Those who prefer not to ingest fluoride may easily avoid it.

I too have felt that the question of how much fluoride to ingest (irrespective of the way it is dispensed) is difficult to resolve without either going back to college, spending many days at the library or listening to *experts* argue.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), March 26, 2000.

A couple comments on some stuff that I may have missed in scanning the verbiage:

1) The most common medical problem for which assistance and intervention is sought, year after year, is carries (cavities).

2) The incidence of carries is INCREASING by a VERY LARGE amount in the recent years in mid and upper class families due to the reliance on designer bottled water (and I don't have the NEJAMA references but they are there)

3) In ref the ORIGINAL topic of the thread, because of one of my avocation/hobbies I am DAMNED sure I have my Hepi B series up to date. I REALLY like the liver I was issued with and do NOT want to contract a disease that has a nearly 1:1 predictive hx of liver CA.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), March 29, 2000.