FLUORIDE 31(2), 1998, 127-128	International Society for Fluoride Research	Table of Contents

Pollack argues mainly by quoting fluoridationist opinions, rather than evidence. I here respond to each of his 16 points:

1. What I actually wrote was: "Over the next few years these treatment statistics, collected for all children, showed that when similar fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas were compared, child dental health continued to be slightly better in the nonfluoridated areas [5,6]." The two references, from peer-reviewed journals, presented dental health data for the entire child population of (a) Greater Auckland, containing a quarter of New Zealand's population, and (b) the main population centers of New Zealand. Unfortunately, the last "nonfluoridated" word was misprinted as "fluoridated", quite altering the sentence's meaning. I have requested that a correction be published. If Pollick had read the two references he would have realized the sentence contained a misprint.

2. Pollick alleges I was "misleading" when I stated that the pro-fluoridation report of US Public Health Service authors Brunelle and Carlos was "apparently intended to counter" the Yiamouyiannis finding of no benefit from fluoridation. Yiamouyiannis' criticism of the Brunelle and Carlos paper was published as an addendum, when their attempt to refute the "no-benefit" finding had appeared. Obviously the fact that Yiamouyiannis had obtained the data showing no benefit from the US Public Health Service, using the Freedom of Information Act, would be known to Brunelle and Carlos when they prepared their paper. So my statement was not misleading.

3. Pollick alleges I was biased because I did not record the titles of profluoridation authors. When I listed the well- known fluoridationists whom I visited, early in my paper, no slight was intended. The content made clear that they were leading profluoridation experts.

4. Teotia's studies in India included low as well as high water fluoride areas.

5. Pollick agrees that nutrition is related to dental disease in developing countries, and offers no reason why the same should not apply in developed countries where, in poverty stricken areas, all diseases, including dental disease, are more prevalent than in affluent areas.

6. Pollick simply asserts his belief that fluoridation exerts both a systemic and topical dental benefit, but is unable to produce any study which counters my statement: "It is just not possible to find a blind fluoridation study in which the fluoridated and nonfluoridated populations were similar and chosen randomly."

7. Again, Pollick simply asserts his opinion (claiming "general consensus") that the fluoride in fluoridated water somehow does not cause dental fluorosis while the fluoride in swallowed toothpaste and tablets does. In my paper I cited several studies which have reported higher fluorosis prevalences in fluoridated areas.

8. On the subject of hip fractures, Pollick quotes opinions expressed in "reviews" of pro-fluoridation authorities, but does not answer the points I made in my paper. His defense of high doses of fluoride for attempts to treat osteoporosis (citing the controversial Pak et al paper) is not an opinion shared by many other clinicians.

9. Pollick criticizes my failure to include, among my 73 references, a 1986 paper which reported no association between water fluoride and hip fractures. The paper was published when it was still being claimed that fluoride reduced hip fractures. Since then, the much more comprehensive studies reporting the association between hip fractures and fluoridation have been published.

10. The opinion," the burden of evidence suggesting that fluoridation might be a risk factor for hip fracture is weak and not sufficient to retard the progress of the water fluoridation program", is also not shared by many other scientists.

11. It is difficult to see how an opinion on "possible role for slow-release fluoride combined with high-dose calcium supplementation" is related to the issue of mandatory fluoridation.

12. I agree that the National Toxicology Program study should be cited rather than the Maurer et al study, but that is a minor point. Pollick's quoting of the opinion that" there is insufficient basis to draw conclusions about whether osteosarcoma incidence and fluoridation are causally linked" does not alter the facts I presented: viz. Animal experiments, showing the rare bone cancer, osteosarcoma, occurred in male rats after fluoride ingestion were followed by reports of increased osteosarcoma in young human males in fluoridated areas but not in nonfluoridated areas.

Pollick asserts "Another reference that Colquhoun did not include, perhaps because it didn't support his thesis, is …" I not only cited the Gelberg et al study (reference 61) but also discussed its glaring faults (see p 114, p 40 in original).

13. The study I cited (Kanwar et al 1983) reported reduced testosterone levels at very low as well as high levels of fluoride.

14. Pollick alleges that I "grossly " misstated the facts of Chinese research on intelligence. A reading of the research will confirm the accuracy of my statements.

15. Pollick argues that, because only high intakes of fluoride caused intelligence deficits in rats in the Mullenix experiment, therefore the finding is unrelated to the issue of water fluoridation. Like most fluoridationists, he ignores the possibility that (as has been acknowledged with lead and other toxins) low intakes could have similar deleterious long term effects to the short term ones resulting from high intakes.

16. The same observation applies. However, the statement that I ignored" the dose or concentration of fluoride" comes strangely from one who advocates a measure which supplies an uncontrolled dose (depending on amount of water consumed) to entire populations.

FLUORIDE 31(2)  1998, 127-128	International Society for Fluoride Research
	Home | Table of Contents | ISFR Board | Subscription Submissions | Announcements | Authors | Subject Index