Anti-fluoride “expert” finds the real reason oral health has improved – and it’s not fluoride

Anti-fluoride campaigners always promote people like Geoff Pain as “renowned” or “world experts.” They aren’t. Pain has no credible scientific publications on fluoride.

No, in fact, he claims lead is responsible for tooth decay and the improvement in oral health is a result of removing airborne lead contamination. And the “proof” is even in the title of his report – “Global Decline in Tooth Decay correlates with reduced Airborne Lead (Pb) but water Fluoridation prevents further progress“

Mind you, the word “correlate” appears only twice in the document – once in the title and once in the abstract. Nowhere else. Scientists usually restrict the use of words like this to results of proper statistical analyses – but he presents no evidence of a correlation anywhere in the document.

OK, we shouldn’t expect any better. This document is just another one of a series of documents, dressed up as scientific publications, supported by cobbled together citations which are often are irrelevant or don’t support the claims made. Produced by Geoff Pain, well-known Australian anti-fluoride activist, whose concept of scientific publication is to upload his unreviewed documents on to Researchgate. I have written about his citation trawling and false “publication” before in my article  An anti-fluoride trick: Impressing the naive with citations

But, perhaps he is on to something. Irrespective of fluoride (he has a hangup about that element) perhaps lead is somehow implicated in oral health problems. So let’s see what the document actually claims.

It has three aims:

1: Rejection of all evidence of the beneficial effects of fluoridation

He describes the evidence for fluoridation as “false” and “absurd.”

Of course, he doesn’t consider for a minute any of the many studies providing evidence of beneficial effects – he just relies on the naive use of selected World Health Organisation (WHO) data which the Fluoride Action Network is well-known for. I have written about this before (see, for example, Fluoridation: Connett’s naive use of WHO data debunked).

This simply argues that the fact that oral health has improved over time in both fluoridated and unfluoridated countries is “proof” that fluoridation has no effect.

Here is the graph he uses:

This figure is meaningless because of the huge influence of inter-country differences on these data, irrespective of fluoridation. That doesn’t require a scientific training to see. These differences introduce so much noise into the data that no conclusion is possible about the influence of fluoridation. Robyn Whyman pointed this out in his report for the National Fluoridation Information Service – “Does delayed tooth eruption negate the effect of water fluoridation?“:

“Studies that appropriately compare the effectiveness of water fluoridation do not compare poorly controlled inter-country population samples. They generally compare age, sex, and where possible ethnicity matched groups from similar areas. Inter-country comparisons of health status, including oral health status, are notoriously difficult to interpret for cause and effect, because there are so many environmental, social and contextual differences that need to be considered.”

The figure does not differentiate between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas within countries – a comparison that is more valid. When we look at the same WHO data for fluoridated and unfluoridated areas we can see the beneficial effect. For example, in the data from the Republic of Ireland:

2: Evidence for an effect of lead exposure on oral health

I can accept that – but certainly would not go as far as Pain’s claim that “lead exposure reduction as the major factor in tooth decay decline.” In fact, the articles he cites suggest that the association of  lead exposure with tooth decay is probably weak in most cases.

For example, he cites Gemmel et al., (2002) but ignores what that paper actually says:

“In summary, our findings are consistent with those of several other recent studies (e.g., Campbell et al. 2000; Moss et al. 1999) in suggesting a weak association between children’s lead exposure and caries in primary teeth. The association was region specific, however, suggesting that its magnitude depends on the local distributions of other, more important caries risk factors such as fluoride exposure, diet, and other aspects of environment. The most likely direct role for lead exposure in the development of dental caries, therefore, is as a modifier of host susceptibility. We cannot reject the hypothesis, however, that an elevated lead level is a surrogate or proxy index of some other factor that is itself directly cariogenic.”

Similarly, he cites Martin et al., (2007) but ignores what that paper actually concluded:

“We conclude that this study provides only weak evidence, if any, for an association of low-level lead exposure with dental caries.”

Mind you, he also cites Wiener et al., (2015) who reported:

“This study indicated a strong association of blood lead levels with increasing numbers of carious teeth in children aged 24–72 months.”

But still not evidence that lead is the major factor involved.

Pain ignores suggestions that results may suggest modification of the role of fluoride

I wonder if those who indulge in citation trawling ever actually read the papers they cite. Far from Pain’s citations being evidence of a lack of effect from fluoridation, in almost all cases they suggest the observed effects could be due to modification of the more important effect of fluoride on oral health.

For example, Martin et al., (2007) point out:

” Mechanisms which have been offered to explain the potential association include lead effects on salivary gland development and function (Watson et al., 1997; Bowen, 2001), effects on enamel formation (Lawson et al., 1971; Kato et al., 1977; Appleton, 1991; Watson et al., 1997), and an interference with fluoride uptake in saliva (Gerlach et al., 2002). “

Come on Geoff. Spend some time and actually read the articles you have trawled for your citations.

3: Fluoridation means increase lead concentration in tap water

Having rejected any beneficial role for fluoride and presented lead as the major influence on oral health Pain now puts it all together to “prove” that fluoridation actually enhances tooth decay by increasing dietary lead intake. Why? Because of:

“deliberate addition of Lead as a major contaminant of phosphate fertilizer industrial waste used in Fluoridation plus the exacerbation of Plumbosolvency by Fluoride”

The first point about lead contamination of fluoridating chemicals relies in a naive interpretation of the certificates of analysis required for these chemicals. Just because a very low concentration of lead is recorded in these certificates does not mean this causes an increase in dietary lead intake.

I showed in the article “Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing“ that the fluoridating chemicals contribute less than 0.05% to the lead in tap water – already present from natural sources!

Pain’s reference to “exacerbation of Plumbosolvency” relies on a limited study which reported an association between blood lead levels in children and the treatment of tap water in the US. Of course, the release of lead from pipe fittings can be a problem irrespective of water treatment – which is why authorities recommend one should let the water run for a while first thing in the morning to get rid of such impurities. However, the studies Pain relies on seem to attribute plumbosolvency to specific chlorinating chemicals rather than fluoride.

One can make a simple check, however. In New Zealand authorities regularly make chemical analyses of their tap water available. These do not show increased lead concentrations after fluoridation.

Conclusion

So, again, Geoff Pain has indulged in citation trawling and confirmation bias to produce this report. The citations he uses do not support his claims.

Dietary intake of lead may be one of many factors influencing dental health – but his citations do not in any way support his assertion that it is the “major factor”. Nor do they support his claim that fluoridation does not have a beneficial effect on oral health.

In fact, it is Geoff Pain, not health authorities, who is making the “false” and “absurd” claims.

Similar articles

 

 

Fluoridation: Connett’s naive use of WHO data debunked

Paul Connett is the Executive Director of the anti-fluoride propagandists group, the Fluoridation Action Network (FAN). His recent presentation to the Denver Water Board’s fluoridation forum was full of scientific misrepresentations and distortions.

I debunked his claims on fluoridation and IQ in the article Connett misrepresents the fluoride and IQ data yet again. Here I debunk his claim that WHO data shows community water fluoridation (CWF) is not effective.

This video clip shows his claim:

1: Is there a difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated countries?

Connett waves around graphs showing declines in tooth decay in  some countries but does nothing to support his claim that there is no input from fluoridation to this improvement in oral health. After all, oral health depends on a number of factors so any serious claim needs adjustment for these factors and a proper quantitative comparison.

The data in these graphs is just not suitable for this – but lets humour people like Connett who place so much faith in the graphs. I took this graph from Connett’s book The Case against Fluoride (Chapter 6, page 38).

It is easy enough to do a ballpark comparison of the average rate of decline of dental decay  for the four nonfluoridated countries and compare that to the average rate for the four fluoridated countries. I did this and found the average decline in dmft (decayed, missing and filled teeth) for non-fluoridated countries was 1.4/decade and for fluoridated countries 1.6/decade. On the face of it the decline in tooth decay was more rapid in the fluoridated countries – the opposite to Connett’s claim.

Of course, Connett would laugh at such a comparison and claim the data is just not good enough to make such comparisons.  And I agree – but isn’t that exactly what he was trying to do?

He was simply waiving around a poor set of data which he thinks supports his claim that CWF is ineffective – it doesn’t. He should know that, and he should be ashamed, as someone with scientific training, to make these claims using such evidence.

The huge influence of inter-country differences on these data, irrespective of fluoridation, surely sticks out like a sore thumb in Connett’s graphs. That doesn’t require a scientific training to see. These differences introduce so much noise into the data that no conclusion is possible about the influence on fluoridation.

Robyn Whyman pointed this out in his report for the National Fluoridation Information Service – “Does delayed tooth eruption negate the effect of water fluoridation?“:

“Studies that appropriately compare the effectiveness of water fluoridation do not compare poorly controlled inter-country population samples. They generally compare age, sex, and where possible ethnicity matched groups from similar areas. Inter-country comparisons of health status, including oral health status, are notoriously difficult to interpret for cause and effect, because there are so many environmental, social and contextual differences that need to be considered.”

2: Comparison within countries

The WHO data includes New Zealand and Ireland where there are fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. Cornett’s graphs do not differentiate – the just use the averages for these two countries.  Yet, even that sparse WHO data set  shows clear benefits of community water fluoridation on oral health. Consider the differences in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas of  Ireland.

I showed this graph to Connett at the beginning of our debate on fluoridation. throughout the next few months he continued to confuse the issue and I kept coming back to it. Finally, he said in his closing statement, “My apologies. I should have checked back.”

An acknowledgment, of sorts, that his use of the WHO data is wrong in his graphs – but he continues to misrepresent it in this way!

The data in the graphs below shows a similar situation for New Zealand – this time using data from the NZ Ministry of Health (which is much more extensive than the WHO data).

3: CWF still effective when fluoridated toothpaste used.

Paul Connett’s claim that CWF is unnecessary when fluoridated toothpaste is used was based on a naive interpretation of the graphs he was waving around. The data above for Ireland and New Zealand show that, even where the use of fluoridated toothpaste is widespread, there is still a difference in the oral health of children living in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas of a country.

Other research also shows CWF is still effective, even though its effectiveness may, these days, be less than observed in the past when fluoridated toothpaste was not used. But, in contrast to what Connett appears to think, fluoridated toothpaste in not the only factor involved. There is the general improvement in dental health treatments and diet in recent years. Rugg-Gunn & Do (2012)  also refer to the “halo” effect – a diffusion of beneficial fluoride from fluoridated area into unfluoridated areas via food and beverages and consumption of water away from the place of residence.

The recent data can also be influenced by differences in residence and place of dental treatment. For example, dental treatment and record taking may occur at a school or dental clinic in a non-fluoridated area but the child may live in a fluoridated area. This effect could explain the apparent reduction of differences for New Zealand children from fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas after 2006 in the above graph. In 2004 a “hub and spoke” dental clinics system was introduced where one school dental clinic could serve several areas – both fluoridated and non-fluoridated.

 

Conclusion

Paul Connett’s use of the graphs showing improvement in oral health in countries independent of fluoridation, is on the surface, naive because no conclusion about the effectiveness of CWF can be drawn from this sparse data involving comparison between countries with so many political, social and environmental differences. Connett is presumably aware of this, and of the fact the same WHO data shows a beneficial effect for Ireland and New Zealand.

This is another case of Connett using a scientific academic title (his PhD), to give “authority” to his misrepresentation and distortion of the science to local body politicians.

References

Connett, P., Beck, J., & Micklem, H. S. (2010). The Case against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There.

Ministry of Health (2014) Age 5 and Year 8 oral health data from the Community Oral Health Service.

National Fluoridation Information Service (2011): Does Delayed Tooth Eruption Negate The Effect of Water Fluoridation? National Fluoridation Information Service Advisory June 2011, Wellington, New Zealand.

Rugg-Gunn, A. J., & Do, L. (2012). Effectiveness of water fluoridation in caries prevention. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, 40, 55–64.