the case against fluoridation the case against fluoridation paul connett, phd director, fluoride...

The Case Against FluoridationThe Case Against Fluoridation

Paul Connett, PhDPaul Connett, PhD

Director, Fluoride Action NetworkDirector, Fluoride Action Network

FluorideFluorideALERTALERT.org.org

Taupo, Feb 25, 2015Taupo, Feb 25, 2015

I have spent the last 19 years I have spent the last 19 years fighting fighting waterwater fluoridationfluoridation first as first as a professor of chemistry a professor of chemistry specializing in specializing in environmental environmental chemistry and toxicology, chemistry and toxicology, and now and now as director of the as director of the Fluoride Action Fluoride Action NetworkNetwork..

This research effort culminated in This research effort culminated in the publication of the publication of The Case The Case Against Fluoride Against Fluoride in Oct, 2010.in Oct, 2010.

James Beck, MD, PhD, A retired professor of Physics from Calgary

HS Micklem, D Phil (Oxon) A retired professor of Biology from Edinbrgh

Book published by Chelsea Green

October, 2010

Can be ordered on Amazon.com

Contains 80 pages

of references to the

Scientific literature

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

PROPAGANDA versus SCIENCE

Civil servants in Australia, Civil servants in Australia, Canada, NZ, Ireland, UK, US Canada, NZ, Ireland, UK, US

and other fluoridated and other fluoridated countries are treating citizens countries are treating citizens

to propaganda not scienceto propaganda not science

Queensland HealthQueensland Health’’s s promotion of promotion of ““mandatorymandatory””

statewide fluoridation) statewide fluoridation) (2007)(2007)

“ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007

“ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007

“ Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007

Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn holds up a picture of a child's Medical officer of health Dr. Hazel Lynn holds up a picture of a child's teeth. Lynn said water fluoridation prevents tooth decay and is a teeth. Lynn said water fluoridation prevents tooth decay and is a safe practice. (Owen Sound, Sun Times, Jan 31, 2014)safe practice. (Owen Sound, Sun Times, Jan 31, 2014)

Civil servants in fluoridated Civil servants in fluoridated countries are behaving as if it countries are behaving as if it is more important to protect is more important to protect

the fluoridation program than the fluoridation program than it is to protect the health of it is to protect the health of

their citizens!their citizens!

News from the UK yesterday:News from the UK yesterday:““Water fluoridation above a certain level is linked to 30 per cent higher than expected rate of underactive thyroid (hypothyroidism) in England, suggests research published online in the Journal of

Epidemiology & Community Health. “The researchers call for a rethink of public health policy to fluoridate the water supply in a bid to protect the nation’s tooth health.”

the UK study found a relatively strong and statistically significant effect, with General Practice (GP) areas being 62% more likely to have high rates of diagnosed hypothyroidism if their drinking water fluoride levels were above 0.7 ppm compared to areas with fluoride levels below 0.3ppm. This was after researchers had accounted for key confounders, which are other factors that influence hypothyroid rates.

This was after researchers had accounted for key confounders, which are other factors that influence hypothyroid rates.

But Dr. David Crum of the the New Zealand Dental Assn is saying - "the research was flawed because fluoridated areas of Britain were also the areas with high iodine deficiency"

I will argue that Fluoridation isI will argue that Fluoridation is

1) UNUSUAL1) UNUSUAL 2) UNNATURAL2) UNNATURAL 3) UNETHICAL3) UNETHICAL 4) UNNECESSARY4) UNNECESSARY 5) UNSAFE5) UNSAFE 6) INEFFECTIVE and6) INEFFECTIVE and 7) There are better ways to fight tooth 7) There are better ways to fight tooth

decay in low-income familiesdecay in low-income families

Part 1.Part 1.Better ways of Better ways of

fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 1) Fluoridation is Unusual

The vast majority of The vast majority of countries do NOT countries do NOT

fluoridate their waterfluoridate their water

97% of Western European population now drinks Non-Fluoridated Water

AustriaBelgiumDenmarkFinlandFrance

GermanyGreeceIceland

ItalyLuxembourgNetherlands

Northern IrelandNorwayScotlandSweden

Switzerland

Austria*BelgiumDenmarkFinlandFrance*

Germany*GreeceIceland

ItalyLuxembourgNetherlands

Northern IrelandNorwayScotlandSweden

Switzerland*

*Some fluoridate their salt

97% of Western European population now drinks Non-Fluoridated Water


fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 2) Fluoridation is Unnatural

Nature’s verdict: Nature’s verdict:

The level of fluoride in The level of fluoride in mothersmothers’’ milk is milk is EXTREMELY LOWEXTREMELY LOW

0.004 ppm 0.004 ppm (NRC , 2006, p. 40) (NRC , 2006, p. 40)

Mothers’ milk protects our babies Mothers’ milk protects our babies from early exposure to fluoridefrom early exposure to fluoride

F = 0.004 ppm

Water fluoridation removes Water fluoridation removes nature’s protectionnature’s protection

F = 1.00 ppm250 x level in mothers’ milk

AA bottle-fed baby in a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community fluoridated community

(0.7 – 1.2 ppm) is (0.7 – 1.2 ppm) is getting getting 175-300 175-300 times times the fluoride dose that the fluoride dose that

nature intended! nature intended!

In other words by In other words by Nature’s standards Nature’s standards

1 ppm is not small 1 ppm is not small

it is HUGE!it is HUGE!

Please Note:Please Note:Life evolved from the sea where Life evolved from the sea where

the level of fluoride is about 1.4 the level of fluoride is about 1.4 ppm, BUT not one single ppm, BUT not one single

process in the body requires process in the body requires fluoride to function! Fluoride is fluoride to function! Fluoride is

NOT an essential nutrientNOT an essential nutrient

Please Note:Please Note:Many biological processes and Many biological processes and

components are harmed by components are harmed by fluoride (enzymes, G-proteins fluoride (enzymes, G-proteins

etc)etc)


fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 3) Fluoridation is Unethical

WWe should NEVER use the public e should NEVER use the public water supply to deliver ANY water supply to deliver ANY medical treatmentmedical treatment

a) You can’t control the DOSE a) You can’t control the DOSE

b) you canb) you can’’t control who gets the t control who gets the

treatment AND treatment AND

c) it violates the individualc) it violates the individual’’s right to s right to informed consent to medicationinformed consent to medication


fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 4) Fluoridation is Unnecessary

In 1999, the CDC Oral Health In 1999, the CDC Oral Health Division Division (the #1 promoter of (the #1 promoter of fluoridation in the world) fluoridation in the world) conceded that the conceded that the predominantpredominant benefit of benefit of fluoride is TOPICAL not fluoride is TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC.SYSTEMIC.

CDC, MMWR, 48(41); 933-940, CDC, MMWR, 48(41); 933-940, Oct 22, 1999Oct 22, 1999

““fluoride prevents dental fluoride prevents dental caries predominantly after caries predominantly after eruption of the tooth into the eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions mouth, and its actions primarily are topical…primarily are topical…””

This admission by the CDC Oral This admission by the CDC Oral Health Division should have Health Division should have

ended fluoridation worldwide!ended fluoridation worldwide!

If fluoride works primarily on the outside If fluoride works primarily on the outside of the tooth not from inside the body,of the tooth not from inside the body,

Why Why swallow it and expose every swallow it and expose every tissue of the body to a toxic tissue of the body to a toxic substance, when you can brush it on substance, when you can brush it on your teeth and spit it out? your teeth and spit it out?

And why put it in the drinking water And why put it in the drinking water and force it on people who donand force it on people who don’’t t want it?want it?


fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 5) Fluoridation is Unsafe

NRC (2006)

FluorideFluoride – but not necessarily – but not necessarily water fluoridation –water fluoridation –

Damages the boneDamages the bone

Lowers thyroid functionLowers thyroid function

Damages the brainDamages the brain

Since 2006 much more has been Since 2006 much more has been published on fluoride and the published on fluoride and the brain. Many animal and human brain. Many animal and human studies indicate that fluoride is a studies indicate that fluoride is a potent neurotoxicant –potent neurotoxicant –www.FluorideALERT.org/issueswww.FluorideALERT.org/issues/health/brain/health/brain

30 out of 32 Animal Studies Have Found 30 out of 32 Animal Studies Have Found Fluoride Fluoride Impairs Learning/MemoryImpairs Learning/Memory

IQ studies – the current tallyIQ studies – the current tally

4444 out of out of 5151 studies have found studies have found an association between fairly an association between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and modest exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ (China, India, lowered IQ (China, India, Mexico and IranMexico and Iran))

Harvard Meta-analysis of IQ studiesHarvard Meta-analysis of IQ studies

The Harvard Meta-analysisThe Harvard Meta-analysis

In 2012, Choi et al (the team included In 2012, Choi et al (the team included Philippe Grandjean) published a meta-Philippe Grandjean) published a meta-analysis of analysis of 2727 studies comparing IQ in studies comparing IQ in ““highhigh”” versus versus ““lowlow”” fluoride villages . fluoride villages .

The study was published in The study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives Environmental Health Perspectives (published by NIEHS)(published by NIEHS)

Harvard meta-analysis of 27 studiesHarvard meta-analysis of 27 studies

The Harvard team acknowledged The Harvard team acknowledged that there were weaknesses in many that there were weaknesses in many of the studies, however…of the studies, however…

……the results were remarkably the results were remarkably consistentconsistent

In In 26 of the 27 studies 26 of the 27 studies there was there was lower average IQ in the lower average IQ in the ““highhigh”” versus low-fluoride villages.versus low-fluoride villages.

Average IQ lowering was Average IQ lowering was about 7 about 7 IQ pointsIQ points..

Dr. William Hirzy, a Dr. William Hirzy, a former senior scientist former senior scientist at the US EPA at the US EPA and a and a risk assessment risk assessment specialistspecialist, will present , will present his risk assessment for his risk assessment for F and lowered IQ F and lowered IQ next.next.

More details on one More details on one of the IQ studiesof the IQ studies

Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) Compared IQ of children in two villagesCompared IQ of children in two villages:: Low Fluoride Village Average F in well water Low Fluoride Village Average F in well water

= = 0.36 ppm 0.36 ppm (Range = 0.18 -0.76 ppm) (Range = 0.18 -0.76 ppm) High Fluoride Village Average F in well water High Fluoride Village Average F in well water

= = 2.5 ppm 2.5 ppm (Range 0.57 – 4.5 ppm)(Range 0.57 – 4.5 ppm) Controlled for lead exposure Controlled for lead exposure and and iodine iodine

intakeintake, and retrospectively for , and retrospectively for arsenicarsenic.. Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the

whole age range between the two villageswhole age range between the two villages

The lowest level that lowered IQ The lowest level that lowered IQ in Xiang studyin Xiang study

See group B, mean fluoride concentration = 1.53 See group B, mean fluoride concentration = 1.53 ppm +/- 0.27ppm +/- 0.27

Some children had IQ lowered at 1.26 ppmSome children had IQ lowered at 1.26 ppm

This leaves no adequate margin of safety to protect This leaves no adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking water between 0.7 and 1.2 all children drinking water between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm.ppm.

We usually use a safety factor of 10 to account for We usually use a safety factor of 10 to account for the wide range of sensitivity expect to any toxic the wide range of sensitivity expect to any toxic substance in a large population.substance in a large population.

Dr. Philippe GrandjeanDr. Philippe Grandjean

““Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.” cause chemical brain drain.” (Harvard Press Release)(Harvard Press Release)

Grandjean is the author of a book Grandjean is the author of a book published this year entitled “Only published this year entitled “Only One Chance”One Chance”

IQ and populationIQ and population

100

Number of KidsWith a

Specific IQ

IQ


Very BrightMentallyhandicapped

100


Specific IQ

IQ


95 100


Specific IQ

IQ


Very BrightMentallyhandicapped

95 100


Specific IQ

IQ

Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) MALES

Ave. level = 0.36 ppm FAve. Level = 2.5 ppm

The very last children who need The very last children who need a loss of IQ points are chidlren a loss of IQ points are chidlren from low-income families, who from low-income families, who

are precisely the children are precisely the children targeted in water fluoridaiton targeted in water fluoridaiton

programs!programs!


fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay

Quanyong Xiang, Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and Bill Hirzy outside the EPA Headquarters in Washington, DC Sept 8, 2014

The US EPA is in the process of The US EPA is in the process of determining a new MCLG (maximum determining a new MCLG (maximum contaminat level goal) for fluoride as contaminat level goal) for fluoride as recommended by the NRC in 2006recommended by the NRC in 2006. .

They say they are using SEVERE dental They say they are using SEVERE dental fluorosis as the most sensitive end point of fluorosis as the most sensitive end point of fluoride’s toxicity. fluoride’s toxicity.

They claim that if they protect for this it will They claim that if they protect for this it will protect against damage to the bone protect against damage to the bone and any and any other tissue.other tissue.

To demonstrate that SEVERE DF is a To demonstrate that SEVERE DF is a more sensitive end point than lowered more sensitive end point than lowered IQ they would have to show that ALL IQ they would have to show that ALL the children in the “High Fluoride” the children in the “High Fluoride” village in all the 40+ studies where village in all the 40+ studies where IQ was lowered IQ was lowered

had only SEVERE DF and not other had only SEVERE DF and not other milder categoriesmilder categories

Group No. Water F IQ Urine F Serum F

0 301 0.50±0.53 99.76±3.50 1.13±0.71 0.044±0.017

1 65 1.88±1.07 94.18±13.77 2.70±1.15 0.071±0.023

2 59 2.44±0.66 93.27±13.10 3.69±1.61 0.082±0.016

3 63 2.67±0.63 91.51±12.84 3.85±1.79 0.085±0.019

4 24 2.89±0.81 95.33±14.64 3.81±1.80 0.084±0.018

The level of fluoride and IQ in different group by dental fluorosis

Xiang’s presentation at FAN conference , Sept 6, 2014

Group No. Water F IQ Urine F Serum F

0 301 0.50±0.53 99.76±3.50 1.13±0.71 0.044±0.017

1 65 1.88±1.07 94.18±13.77 2.70±1.15 0.071±0.023

2 59 2.44±0.66 93.27±13.10 3.69±1.61 0.082±0.016

3 63 2.67±0.63 91.51±12.84 3.85±1.79 0.085±0.019

4 24 2.89±0.81 95.33±14.64 3.81±1.80 0.084±0.018

The level of fluoride and IQ in different group by dental fluorosis

Xiang’s presentation at FAN conference , Sept 6, 2014

Severity of dental fluorosis on the Dean scale


fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 6) Fluoridation is Ineffective

1) No RCT after 70 years!1) No RCT after 70 years!

RCT = randomized control trial, RCT = randomized control trial, the gold standard of the gold standard of

epidemiology testing of drugsepidemiology testing of drugs

2) WHO data2) WHO data

According to WHO data According to WHO data tooth decay in 12-year-olds tooth decay in 12-year-olds

is coming down as fast is coming down as fast in NF as F countries in NF as F countries

SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)

3) The largest survey of 3) The largest survey of tooth decay in the UStooth decay in the US

NIDR survey: NIDR survey: Brunelle & Carlos (1990) Brunelle & Carlos (1990) They looked at They looked at 39,000 children 39,000 children in in 84 84

communitiescommunities.. In Table 6 In Table 6 Brunelle and Carlos compared Brunelle and Carlos compared

tooth decay of children who had spent all tooth decay of children who had spent all their lives in a Fluoridated Community their lives in a Fluoridated Community with those who had spent all their lives in with those who had spent all their lives in a Non-Fluoridated one a Non-Fluoridated one

Brunelle and Carlos (1990) (Table 6)

2.8DMFS

F

The largest US survey of tooth decay

3.4 DMFSNF

2.8DMFS

F

Brunelle and Carlos, 1990

Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS = 0.6 tooth surfaces

3.4 DMFSNF

2.8DMFS

F

Not only was this saving very Not only was this saving very small (small (0.6 of one tooth 0.6 of one tooth

surface) surface) but it was not even but it was not even shown to be statistically shown to be statistically

significant!significant!

4) The most precise study of 4) The most precise study of tooth decay in the UStooth decay in the US

Warren et al. (2009)Warren et al. (2009)

(the (the ““IowaIowa”” study) examined study) examined the relationship between the the relationship between the amount of fluoride ingested amount of fluoride ingested by individual children by individual children (in (in mg/day) mg/day) and their level of and their level of

tooth decaytooth decay

They found no clear relationship! They found no clear relationship! The authors state:The authors state:

““These findings suggest that These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake…with fluoride intake…””

Warren et al., 2009Warren et al., 2009


fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 7) There are better ways of fighting tooth decay in low-income families

A Better StrategyA Better Strategy

Most of the tooth decay today is Most of the tooth decay today is concentrated in low-income concentrated in low-income families. families.

We need to target those families with We need to target those families with better dental services, better dental better dental services, better dental education and better diet.education and better diet.

They have done this in ScotlandThey have done this in Scotland

ScotlandScotland Instead of water fluoridation, the Scottish Instead of water fluoridation, the Scottish

Government instigated its Government instigated its ChildSmileChildSmile program. program. This involves:This involves:

a) teaching toothbrushing at nursery-school a) teaching toothbrushing at nursery-school b) plus healthy snacks & drinks; b) plus healthy snacks & drinks; c) plus health, dental hygiene and diet advice to c) plus health, dental hygiene and diet advice to

their families; their families; d) annual dental check-ups and treatment if d) annual dental check-ups and treatment if

required including fluoride varnish applications. required including fluoride varnish applications.

ScotlandScotland The proportion of children aged 4–6 years The proportion of children aged 4–6 years

without obvious dental decay has risen without obvious dental decay has risen from from 42% in 1996 42% in 1996 toto 67% in 2012. 67% in 2012.

And for 10–12 years it rose from And for 10–12 years it rose from 53% 53% in 2005 to in 2005 to 73% 73% in 2013in 2013(Information Services Division Scotland, 2013). (Information Services Division Scotland, 2013).

ScotlandScotland““Glasgow researchers found Glasgow researchers found

that...the cost of treating that...the cost of treating dental disease in five-year-dental disease in five-year-olds decreased by more than olds decreased by more than half between 2001 and 2010.half between 2001 and 2010.”” (BBC, Scotland)(BBC, Scotland)

The message: The message: our kids need MORE BRUSHING!our kids need MORE BRUSHING! MORE FRUIT AND VEGETABLES!MORE FRUIT AND VEGETABLES! LESS SUGAR! LESS SUGAR! Less sugar means less tooth decay and less Less sugar means less tooth decay and less

OBESITYOBESITY Less obesity means less diabetes and fewer Less obesity means less diabetes and fewer

heart attacks heart attacks In other words education to promote less In other words education to promote less

sugar consumption is a very good sugar consumption is a very good investment!investment!


SUMMARY

Fluoridation Fluoridation is:is: UnusualUnusual (most countries don’t do it), (most countries don’t do it), Unnatural Unnatural (the level of fluoride in mothers’ (the level of fluoride in mothers’

milk is extremely low),milk is extremely low), UnethicalUnethical (it violates the individual’s right to (it violates the individual’s right to

informed consent to human treatment)informed consent to human treatment) Unnecessary Unnecessary (if it works at all it works (if it works at all it works

topically)topically) UnsafeUnsafe (dental fluorosis, lowered IQ, (dental fluorosis, lowered IQ,

accumulation in the bones…) andaccumulation in the bones…) and IneffectiveIneffective (based on promoters’ own studies) (based on promoters’ own studies)

Fluoridation is an Fluoridation is an obsolete practice obsolete practice

and it isand it is time to end ittime to end it

Let’sLet’s EDUCATE EDUCATE

NotNot FLUORIDATEFLUORIDATE


Communities

ending or rejectingfluoridation

Since 2010, 170 communities in Since 2010, 170 communities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S have stopped or rejected U.S have stopped or rejected fluoridationfluoridation

Make that 173, over the last few days Make that 173, over the last few days we heard that Montello, Wisconsin; we heard that Montello, Wisconsin; Boynton Beach, Florida and East Boynton Beach, Florida and East Brunswick, New Jersey have voted to Brunswick, New Jersey have voted to end fluoridationend fluoridation

1n Nov 2012, 1n Nov 2012, QueenslandQueensland lifted mandatory requirementlifted mandatory requirement

In August 2014, the In August 2014, the Israeli Israeli Minister of Health announced Minister of Health announced an end of fluoridation in an end of fluoridation in Israel.Israel.

Last week the Arkansas House voted to Last week the Arkansas House voted to remove the mandatory requirement for remove the mandatory requirement for fluoridation. The Bill now goes to the fluoridation. The Bill now goes to the Senate.Senate.


RESOURCES

NRC (2006)

Book published by Chelsea Green

October, 2010

Can be ordered on Amazon.com

Contains 80 pages

of references to the

Scientific literature

FluorideFluorideALERTALERT.org .org Largest health database on fluoride in the Largest health database on fluoride in the

world world (click on “researchers”)(click on “researchers”) Videos: Videos: Professional Perspectives on Water Professional Perspectives on Water

Fluoridation (28 mins) Fluoridation (28 mins) (click on FAN-TV)(click on FAN-TV) Ten Facts on Fluoride (20 minutes)Ten Facts on Fluoride (20 minutes) Interview with Chris Bryson Interview with Chris Bryson (The Fluoride (The Fluoride

Deception); Deception); John Colquhoun; Hardy John Colquhoun; Hardy Limeback; Bill Osmunson Limeback; Bill Osmunson andand Bill Hirzy Bill Hirzy (click on FAN-TV)(click on FAN-TV)..

the case against fluoridation the case against fluoridation paul connett, phd director, fluoride...

Documents

science slide

water fluoridation

calgary slide

edinbrgh slide

fluoridated water qld

scientific literature

fluoridated countries

fluoridation program