The Case Against FluoridationThe Case Against FluoridationPART A PART A

Paul Connett, PhDPaul Connett, PhD

Director, Fluoride Action NetworkDirector, Fluoride Action Network

FluorideFluorideALERTALERT.org.org

Sydney, Australia, Feb 21, 2015Sydney, Australia, Feb 21, 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

After 5 years Fluoridation After 5 years Fluoridation promoters have not produced a promoters have not produced a

written scientific response to the written scientific response to the arguments presented in this book arguments presented in this book

Fluoridation has “fossilized” Fluoridation has “fossilized” into a belief systeminto a belief system

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 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!

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

““FluorideFluoride’’s caries-preventive s caries-preventive properties initially were attributed properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth to changes in enamel during tooth developmentdevelopment..... However, laboratory . However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggest and epidemiologic research suggest that that fluoride prevents dental caries fluoride prevents dental caries predominantly after eruption of the predominantly after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions tooth into the 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?

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

fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay 5) Fluoridation is Unsafe

NRC (2006)

This 2006 review of the toxicology of This 2006 review of the toxicology of fluoride in water used a balanced panel (3 fluoride in water used a balanced panel (3 pro-F, 3 anti-F and 6 uncommitted)pro-F, 3 anti-F and 6 uncommitted)

It took 3 and ½ years to completeIt took 3 and ½ years to complete It was 500 pages long and had 1100 It was 500 pages long and had 1100

referencesreferences It was dismissed in one sentence by the It was dismissed in one sentence by the

NHMRC in 2007 as not being relevant to NHMRC in 2007 as not being relevant to water fluoridation in Australiawater fluoridation in Australia

However, Figure 2-8 on page 85 However, Figure 2-8 on page 85 shows that bottle-fed babies in shows that bottle-fed babies in fluoridated communities at 1 ppm fluoridated communities at 1 ppm are exceeding the EPA’s safe are exceeding the EPA’s safe reference dose reference dose (0.06 mg/ kg (0.06 mg/ kg bodyweight/day) bodyweight/day)

Dental fluorosis Dental fluorosis rates indicate rates indicate that American children are that American children are being hugely overexposed to being hugely overexposed to fluoride (from several fluoride (from several sources). sources).

CDC (2010)CDC (2010)

41% of ALL American children41% of ALL American children

aged 12-15aged 12-15 (average from both(average from both

fluoridated and non-fluoridatedfluoridated and non-fluoridated

communities) communities) had dental fluorosishad dental fluorosis

Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Prevalence and Severity of Dental Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Prevalence and Severity of Dental

Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004

CDC, 2010CDC, 2010

41%

Very Mild Dental Fluorosis

Impacts up to 25% of tooth surface

Mild Dental Fluorosis

Impacts up to 50% of tooth surface

Moderate- Severe Dental Fluorosis

Impacts 100% of tooth surface

But this is what you can But this is what you can see, see,

what about the things you what about the things you cannot see? cannot see?

It would be reckless to assume It would be reckless to assume that when fluoride is damaging that when fluoride is damaging the baby’s growing tooth cells the baby’s growing tooth cells that is not damaging other that is not damaging other developing tissues like the bone, developing tissues like the bone, brain and the endocrine system. brain and the endocrine system.

In part B In part B of my of my presentation I will talk presentation I will talk about the about the many animal and many animal and human studies that show human studies that show that that fluoride can interfere fluoride can interfere with brain chemistrywith brain chemistry..

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

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

55

56

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

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

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 (it violates the individual’s right

to informed consent to human treatment)to 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 Better alternatives Better alternatives (e.g. the (e.g. the

ChildSmile program in ChildSmile program in ScotlandScotland)). .

Fluoridation is an Fluoridation is an obsolete practice obsolete practice

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

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

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 171, yesterday we heard that Make that 171, yesterday we heard that Montello, WI has stopped fluoridationMontello, WI has stopped 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.

Yesterday the Arkansas House voted to Yesterday 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.

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

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)..

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

EXTRA SLIDES

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

PROPAGANDA versus 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)

“ “ In Townsville, water In Townsville, water supplies have been supplies have been fluoridated since 1964, fluoridated since 1964, resulting in 65% less resulting in 65% less tooth decay in tooth decay in children children than those in than those in Brisbane”Brisbane”

Qld Health newspaper ads Dec Qld Health newspaper ads Dec 20072007

How did they get the 65% less decay ?How did they get the 65% less decay ?

“ “ In Townsville, water In Townsville, water supplies have been supplies have been fluoridated since 1964, fluoridated since 1964, resulting in 7 year olds resulting in 7 year olds having a reduction in having a reduction in tooth decay of 0.12 of tooth decay of 0.12 of one tooth surface one tooth surface compared to children compared to children in Brisbane”in Brisbane”

The Queensland Health ad should have read: