Formal Complaint re: Peel Medical Officer & Health Commissioner & Provision of Professionally Applied Topical Fluoride
Email of Feb 28, 2017
Subject: Ontario Public Health Standards & Fluoride: professionally applied only?
Dear CAO Szwarc,
Dr. de Villa and Health Commissioner Polsinelli have failed to acknowledge my queries conveyed to them on Feb. 1 2017, shown further below, regarding the provision of professionally applied topical fluoride.
Please consider this email a formal complaint.
It is as beneficial for impotence as long as it is present in cipla levitra view description the system . In recent years, with increasing incidence of sexually transmitted diseases, reproductive tract inflammation such as prostatitis, epididymitis, orchitic, pfizer viagra großbritannien urethritis incidence and severity increased severely even result in infertility. Read the reviews, and scrutinize them and viagra ordering then come to the market. What Is The Pathophysiology Of The Problem? The physiology of an erection involves the arousal of the brain’s arteries * Heart attack These are some of the look at here tadalafil overnight.
From: Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Ontario Public Health Standards & Fluoride: professionally applied only?
To: nancy.polsinelli@peelregion.ca
Dear Dr. de Villa and Health Commissioner Polsinelli,
I await answers to my queries below.
If I don’t hear from you by early next week I will be forced to escalate this issue to the proper authorities.
Best wishes,
Christine
Fluoride Free Peel
From: Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: Ontario Public Health Standards & Fluoride: professionally applied only?
To: “de Villa, Eileen” <Eileen.deVilla@peelregion.ca>
Dear Dr. de Villa,
I await your reply to my questions.
Please note that after sending you my email below on Feb. 1st, I phoned Peel Public Health and inquired about the Region’s application of the discriminatory Preventive Oral Health Services Protocol and no one could/would give me a definitive answer. I was told someone would call me back to answer my question but no one ever did.
On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Christine Massey <cmssyc@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Dr. de Villa,
At one of the recent CWFC meetings, I believe you referenced the Region’s obligation under the Ontario Public Health Standards to provide residents access to fluoride. I am concerned that you gave Committee Members a false impression that fluoride in drinking water satisfies a statutory requirement.
Please note that the following information was pointed out to you, Dr. David Mowat, Health Commissioner Janette Smith, and Councillor Moore, by me via email, back in January of 2014.Regarding fluoride, the Ontario Public Health Standards, 2008 only states:
- “The board of health achieves timely and effective detection and identification of communities with levels of fluoride outside the therapeutic range.”
- “The board of health shall review drinking water quality reports for its municipal drinking water supply(ies) where fluoride is added. These reports shall be reviewed at least monthly and, where necessary, action shall be taken in accordance with the Protocol for the Monitoring of Community Water Fluoride Levels, 2008 (or as current).”
It also states that “children in need of preventive oral health services receive essential clinical preventive oral health services”… not toxic industrial waste in tap water.The Protocol for the Monitoring of Community Water Fluoride Levels states:
“This protocol applies to boards of health whose jurisdiction includes community water systems to which fluoride is added.”
When fluoridation ceases in Peel Region, this protocol will no longer apply. While it does apply, it requires scientific evidence and local surveillance data.
The Preventive Oral Health Services Protocol states:
“Professionally applied topical fluoride (PATF)
The board of health shall:
a) Offer PATF to children where two or more of the following criteria apply….”[Professionally applied topical fluoride, not toxic waste in tap water. Forced drugging via artificial water fluoridation cannot satisfy the above.]
“…i) Water fluoride concentration is less than 0.3 ppm
ii) Past history of smooth surface decay
iii) Presence of smooth surface decay”
The Preventive Oral Health Services Protocol appears to discriminate against children living in areas with high fluoride concentration in tap water. Children in high fluoridate areas must have both a history of smooth surface decay and current presence of smooth surface decay in order to qualify for PATF, whereas children in areas with low fluoride concentration in their tap water need only one or the other.
All children deserve legitimate dental care. As far as I can tell, the fluoridation of our drinking water ensures that fewer Peel children legally qualify for professionally applied topical fluoride. Please confirm whether this is true, and also whether the Region of Peel gives equal access to PATF for children in both low and high fluoride areas.
Please also confirm my understanding of the Region’s statutory requirements regarding the provision of fluoride. Is it true that the only statutory requirement is professionally applied topical fluoride for qualifying children?Please note that forcing our entire community to deal with neurotoxic, carcinogenic, endocrine-disrupting, enzyme-inhibiting industrial waste in our drinking water only widens the gap between rich and poor because the poor are far less able to afford a safe water source and professional dental care.
Best wishes,Christine Massey