Ad
Opinion Editorial Cartoons Op-Ed Editorials Letters to the Editor

Chiropractors pushing alternative facts

It is apparent to me the push to remove a very small amount (0.7 ppm) of fluoride ion in the municipal water supply is being promulgated by several local chiropractors (DCs). This is in the face of nearly universal support of fluoridation by local physicians (including pediatricians), dentists and public health officials and 100+ national health organizations.

I am cynical enough to wonder if the DCs opposition to fluoride is in part an effort to raise the medical legitimacy of chiropractors in the eyes of the public, or more cynically, just an effort to drum up more business for themselves?

Most of the letters opposing fluoridation obviously come from an “alternative (DC) fact” sheet, as opposed to virtually all mainstream medical recommendations. My background as a research chemist and inorganic chemistry professor, leads me to cringe at the often times misleading and false claims printed on these pages.

The opponents choose to use inflammatory terms like “Communist China” and “toxins” as if that bolstered their case. The anti-fluoridation chiropractors don’t mention that excessive use of the vitamins and homeopathic “medicines” they sell in their offices can also be toxic, just like fluoride intake can be dangerous in high concentrations.

Several DCs are promoting themselves as medical experts and claim they see inordinate amounts of serious dental fluorosis in Durango residents. Wow! How did the dentists in Durango miss this?

They also tell us fluoridation is a primary cause of a litany of serious medical maladies. How did all of the physicians in this community, with years and years of intensive training and study, miss this?

Is the underlying message that I should seek out chiropractic care for my teeth instead of going to a dentist? Should I reject the broad medical community and instead accept DC arguments asking me to accept a belief without solid scientific evidence, that very low fluoride ion concentrations are dangerous?

I’m going to trust 70 years of peer-reviewed medical studies and vote “against” ballot issue 1A.

John Ritchey

Durango