Once again science has proven that there is no settled science. America first began examining putting fluoride in our public water systems in 1945, when Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water. The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research) shortly after the Institute’s inception in 1948. The purpose of adding fluoride to the water was to fight cavities and to aid in tooth development in children. It seemed like a good idea at the time, and people who opposed it were mocked (fluoride deniers?).
On Tuesday, Hot Air posted an article about some of the recent studies on the impact of putting fluoride in drinking water. It has not gone as well as expected.
The article reports:
The American Public Health Association says:
Community water fluoridation is recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Water fluoridation has played a major role in lowering the rate of tooth decay in the U.S.
Except it turns out, as I and many others who have read the studies, that this assertion is nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that.
Don’t trust me? After an enormous amount of pressure and years of “study” (other countries have studied the issue and chosen NOT to fluoridate or to discontinue it), the National Institutes of Health have admitted that fluoride at the levels we ingest it is toxic and actually lowers IQ.
The article notes:
The point I want to make is not really about the wisdom of water fluoridation but rather about scientific “consensus.” Opponents of fluoridation have been portrayed as ridiculous and dangerous conspiracy theorists, but they have been right all along. The UN, the CDC, the ADA, and all the experts have attacked and ridiculed critics of fluoridation, who have suffered from being “discredited” for saying true things.
Does that sound familiar? It should. We just saw the exact same thing over the past four years, and enormous damage was done to billions of people.
I am not opposed to people developing “expertise;” we need specialists who focus on vital issues and acquire specialized knowledge.
Rather, the cult of expertise is the problem. In many cases, expertise is really just unearned certainty. No expert should be certain of things to the point that they ridicule others, prevent dissent, and quash inquiry.
Experts also tend to have such specialized knowledge that they totally miss the big picture. Our “experts” in public health never considered collateral damage from even somewhat effective interventions. Not understanding the costs of school closure, they blithely harmed tens of millions of children for no real benefit.
Until we get back to critical thinking and being willing to examine all sides of an issue, we are in danger of doing more harm than good with our ‘scientific consensuses.’