When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature.

Jason M Armfield
{"title":"When public action undermines public health: a critical examination of antifluoridationist literature.","authors":"Jason M Armfield","doi":"10.1186/1743-8462-4-25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The addition of the chemical fluorine to the water supply, called water fluoridation, reduces dental caries by making teeth more resistant to demineralisation and more likely to remineralise when initially decayed. This process has been implemented in more than 30 countries around the world, is cost-effective and has been shown to be efficacious in preventing decay across a person's lifespan. However, attempts to expand this major public health achievement in line with Australia's National Oral Health Plan 2004-2013 are almost universally met with considerable resistance from opponents of water fluoridation, who engage in coordinated campaigns to portray water fluoridation as ineffective and highly dangerous.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Water fluoridation opponents employ multiple techniques to try and undermine the scientifically established effectiveness of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation. These materials are used to sway public and political opinion to the detriment of public health. Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness. Positive findings are downplayed or trivialised and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions. Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation. Techniques such as \"the big lie\" and innuendo are used to associate water fluoridation with health and environmental disasters, without factual support. Half-truths are presented, fallacious statements reiterated, and attempts are made to bamboozle the public with a large list of claims and quotes often with little scientific basis. Ultimately, attempts are made to discredit and slander scientists and various health organisations that support water fluoridation.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that has been found to be safe and effective. Nonetheless, the implementation of water fluoridation is still regularly interrupted by a relatively small group of individuals who use misinformation and rhetoric to induce doubts in the minds of the public and government officials. It is important that public health officials are aware of these tactics so that they can better counter their negative effect.</p>","PeriodicalId":87170,"journal":{"name":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","volume":"4 ","pages":"25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1743-8462-4-25","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australia and New Zealand health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8462-4-25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Background: The addition of the chemical fluorine to the water supply, called water fluoridation, reduces dental caries by making teeth more resistant to demineralisation and more likely to remineralise when initially decayed. This process has been implemented in more than 30 countries around the world, is cost-effective and has been shown to be efficacious in preventing decay across a person's lifespan. However, attempts to expand this major public health achievement in line with Australia's National Oral Health Plan 2004-2013 are almost universally met with considerable resistance from opponents of water fluoridation, who engage in coordinated campaigns to portray water fluoridation as ineffective and highly dangerous.

Discussion: Water fluoridation opponents employ multiple techniques to try and undermine the scientifically established effectiveness of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation. These materials are used to sway public and political opinion to the detriment of public health. Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness. Positive findings are downplayed or trivialised and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions. Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation. Techniques such as "the big lie" and innuendo are used to associate water fluoridation with health and environmental disasters, without factual support. Half-truths are presented, fallacious statements reiterated, and attempts are made to bamboozle the public with a large list of claims and quotes often with little scientific basis. Ultimately, attempts are made to discredit and slander scientists and various health organisations that support water fluoridation.

Summary: Water fluoridation is an important public health initiative that has been found to be safe and effective. Nonetheless, the implementation of water fluoridation is still regularly interrupted by a relatively small group of individuals who use misinformation and rhetoric to induce doubts in the minds of the public and government officials. It is important that public health officials are aware of these tactics so that they can better counter their negative effect.

当公共行动破坏公共健康:对反氟主义文献的批判性审查。
背景:向供水中添加化学氟,称为水氟化,通过使牙齿更耐脱矿,并在最初蛀牙时更容易再矿化来减少龋齿。这一过程已在全球30多个国家实施,具有成本效益,并已被证明在人的一生中有效防止蛀牙。然而,根据澳大利亚2004-2013年全国口腔健康计划扩大这一重大公共卫生成就的努力几乎普遍遭到水氟化反对者的相当大的抵制,他们开展协调一致的运动,将水氟化描述为无效和高度危险。讨论:水氟化反对者采用多种技术试图破坏科学建立的水氟化的有效性。他们使用的材料通常是基于互联网资源或出版的书籍,这些书籍呈现了一幅极具误导性的水氟化图片。这些材料被用来左右公众和政治舆论,损害公众健康。尽管有大量的文献,但研究和研究中的结果往往被选择性地报道,对水氟化效果的描述有偏见。积极的发现被淡化或轻视,这些发现对人口的影响被误解。生态比较有时被用来支持虚假的结论。水氟化的反对者经常重复说,水氟化与不利的健康影响有关,研究是有选择地从大量文献中挑选出来的,只传达与水氟化有关的声称的不利发现。诸如“弥天大谎”和含沙射影之类的技巧被用来将水氟化与健康和环境灾难联系起来,而没有事实依据。他们提出了半真半假的事实,重复了错误的陈述,并试图用一大堆几乎没有科学依据的声明和引用来欺骗公众。最终,人们试图诋毁和诽谤支持水氟化的科学家和各种卫生组织。摘要:水氟化是一项重要的公共卫生举措,已被发现是安全有效的。尽管如此,水氟化的实施仍然经常被一小群人打断,他们利用错误的信息和花言巧语来引起公众和政府官员的怀疑。重要的是,公共卫生官员要意识到这些策略,以便他们能够更好地应对其负面影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信