paul connett fluoride in drinking water compressed
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
The Case Against Water
Fluoridation
Paul Connett, PhD
Director, Fluoride Action Network
FluorideALERT.org
Curaçao, Jan, 2014
Introduction
I have spent 28 years fighting incineration (and promoting more sustainable ways of handling waste) (1985-present)
This has taken me to 49 states in US, 7 provinces in Canada and 60 other countries
Sostenibilita’
Between 1985 and 1995
We (Work on Waste,
USA) helped to stop
over 300 incinerators
from being built in North
America
EFFECTING CHANGE
Is like driving a nail
through a piece of wood
EFFECTING CHANGE
Experts may
sharpen the
point
EFFECTING CHANGE
Experts may
sharpen the
point
But you need the hammer of public
opinion to drive the nail home
I have spent 17 years fighting water fluoridation first as a professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology, and now as director of the Fluoride Action Network.
This research effort culminated in the publication of The Case Against Fluoride in October, 2010.
How Hazardous Waste
Ended Up in Our Drinking Water
and the Bad Science and
Powerful Politics
That Keep It There
THE CASE AGAINST
Fluoride
PAUL CONNETT, PhDJames Beck, MD, PhD | H. Spedding Micklem, DPhil
.......
A New Look
at the Scientific
Evidence
.......
Book published by Chelsea Green
October, 2010
Can be ordered on Amazon.com
Contains
80 pages
of references
to the
Scientific
literature
James Beck, MD, PhD, A retired professor of Physics from Calgary
HS Micklem, D Phil (Oxon) A retired professor of Biology from Edinbrgh
Outline of my presentation
1. Why fluoridation should not have started.
2. 7 Ugly facts that have emerged since 1990
that should have ended fluoridation.
3. Better alternatives to fight tooth decay
4. Communities ending fluoridation
5. Resources
Part 1.
Why Fluoridation should
never have started
1. We should never use the public water
supply to deliver medicine. WHY?
2. You can’t control who gets the medicine.
3. You can’t control the DOSE people get.
4. It violates the individual’s right to
informed consent to medicine.
5) There is no reason to swallow fluoride
a) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient.
b) There is not a single process inside the
human body that needs fluoride to function
properly, however
6) Fluoride is a known toxic substance that
interferes with many fundamental
biochemical functions
In other words: it doesn’t do any good to
swallow fluoride and it has the potential to
cause harm
7) Nature has given us a very clear
indication that the baby needs NO or
VERY little fluoride for healthy
development. The level of fluoride in
mothers’ milk is EXTREMELY LOW
(0.004 ppm, NRC , 2006, p. 40)
8) A bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated
community (0.7 – 1.2 ppm) is
getting 175-300 times the fluoride
dose that nature intended.
Who knows more about what the
baby needs – nature or those who
promote fluoridation?
9) In addition to posing risks to the
baby’s developing tissues,
because fluoride accumulates in
the bones it poses LIFELONG
risks in the form of arthritis and
increased bone fractures in the
elderly (especially HIP fractures)
10) The fluoridating chemicals used are not the
pharmaceutical grade chemicals used in
dental products, but are industrial waste
products.
These chemicals are obtained largely from the
scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer
industry.
One of the contaminants is ARSENIC.
9) (CONT.) ARSENIC
According to the US EPA arsenic is a human
carcinogen for which there is no safe level.
That’s why they set the MCLG for arsenic at
ZERO.
We should not KNOWINGLY add ANY arsenic to
the drinking water.
Part 2
6 Ugly facts that should
have ended fluoridation
(An ugly fact can destroy a
beautiful theory, Aldous
Huxley)
Prelude to Ugly Fact #1
Between 1980 and 1990
A number of articles began to
appear in major journals indicating
that there was very little difference
in tooth decay between fluoridated
and non-fluoridated communities
Ugly Fact # 1
In 1990 the NIDR survey
was published. This survey
(1986-87) examined the
teeth of over 39,000
children in 84 communities
NIDR - Brunelle and Carlos (1990)
Brunelle and Carlos compared DMFS
(= decayed, missing and filled
permanent tooth SURFACES) between
children who had spent all their lives in
a Fluoridated Community with those
who had spent all their lives in a Non-
Fluoridated community (Table 6)
There are 4 or 5 surfaces per tooth and when all the
child’s permanent teeth have erupted there are a total
of 128 surfaces.
Decayed Missing and Filled surfaces (DMFS)
There are 4 surfaces to the top six and bottom six cutting teeth and 5 surfaces on all the other teeth.
128 tooth surfaces in all.
Brunelle and Carlos (1990) (Table 6)
2.8
DMFS
F
The largest US survey of tooth decay
3.4
DMFS
NF
2.8
DMFS
F
Brunelle and Carlos, 1990
Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS
= 0.6 tooth surfaces
3.4
DMFS
NF
2.8
DMFS
F
Not only was this saving very
small (0.6 of one tooth
surface) but it was not even
shown to be statistically
significant!
BEWARE OF EXAGGERATION
In the abstract of this paper. Brunelle and Carlos
don’t mention the actual saving of 0.6 of a tooth
surface. Instead they report it as a percentage
saving. They write:
曨Children who had always been exposed to
community water fluoridation had mean DMFS
scores about 18% less than those who had never
lived in a fluoridated community…the results
suggest that water fluoridation has played a
dominant role in the decline of caries and must
continue to be a major prevention methodology.杇
BEWARE OF EXAGGERATION
Describing the 0.6 of one tooth surface as an
18% saving is mathematically correct:
0.6 / 3.4 x 100 = 18%
But it is misleading to the average person.
Sometimes civil servants working for health
agencies in countries that support
fluoridation make even worse
exaggerations…
Queensland Health’s
promotion of 曨mandatory杇
statewide fluoridation)
(2007)
Queenslanders were told
Fluoridated Townsville has
65% less tooth decay than
Non-Fluoridated Brisbane
“ In Townsville, water supplies have been fluoridated since 1964, resulting in 65% less tooth decay in children than those in Brisbane”
Qld Health newspaper ads Dec 2007
How did they get the 65% less decay ?
“ 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
UGLY FACT #2
Warren et al. (2009)
(the 曨Iowa杇 study) find no
relationship between the
amount of fluoride ingested
by children and level of
tooth decay
The authors state:
曨These findings suggest that
achieving a caries-free status
may have relatively little to do
with fluoride intake…杇
Warren et al., 2009
UGLY FACT #3
Probably explains Ugly Facts
#1 and 2
In 1999, the CDC concedes
that the predominant benefit
of fluoride is TOPICAL not
SYSTEMIC.
CDC, MMWR, 48(41); 933-940,
Oct 22, 1999
曨Fluoride’s caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development... However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggest that fluoride prevents dental caries predominantly after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical…杇
If fluoride works primarily on the outside
of the tooth not from inside the body
Why swallow fluoride and expose every
tissue of the body to a toxic substance, when you can brush it on your teeth and spit it out?
And why put it in the drinking water and force it on people who don’t want it?
Ugly Fact # 4
Ugly Fact # 4
The U.S. National Research
Council 3-year review (NRC,
2006) clearly shows that fluoride
can cause harm at relatively low
levels and there are many
unanswered safety questions.
NRC (2006) review gives an
exposure analysis (see Chapter 2)
that shows that subsets of U.S.
population drinking F -water
(including bottle-fed infants) are
exceeding EPA’s safe reference
dose (0.06 mg fluoride/kg
bodyweight/day)
See Figure 2-8 on page 85
(NRC, 2006)
FIGURE 2-8 shows estimated average
intake of fluoride from all sources, at 1
mg/L in drinking water for various age
ranges
NRC(2006) review
Showed that there are many
unanswered safety questions about
fluoride and recommended that
more research should be done
NRC(2006) review
Showed that fluoride (they
did not look at fluoridation
per se) can cause several
harmful effects at relatively
low levels.
NRC (2006) Review
I argue that the levels, which cause
harm, indicate that there is no
adequate margin of safety to
protect everyone drinking
fluoridated water (see IQ
discussion later)
Ugly Fact # 5
In 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC)
published dental fluorosis figures
that confirm that American kids are
being hugely over-exposed to
fluoride
Context on Dental Fluorosis
Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F they could reduce tooth decay and limit dental fluorosis to 10% of children in its very mild form.
CDC (2010)
Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Prevalence and Severity
of Dental Fluorosis in the United States,
1999-2004
41% of ALL American children
aged 12-15 (average from both
fluoridated and non-fluoridated
communities) had dental fluorosis
CDC, 2010
41%
Very Mild Dental Fluorosis
Impacts up to 25% of tooth surface
CDC, 2010
41%
Mild Dental Fluorosis
Impacts up to 50% of tooth surface
CDC, 2010
41%
Moderate- Severe
Dental Fluorosis
Impacts 100% of tooth surface
A KEY QUESTION
When fluoride is damaging the
baby’s growing tooth cells
(causing dental fluorosis) what is it
doing to its other developing
tissues?
Ugly Fact # 6
There is extensive evidence
that fluoride damages the
brains of animals and
humans
Over 40 animal studies show that prolonged
exposure to fluoride can damage the brain.
19 animal studies report that mice or rats
ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to
learn and remember.
12 studies (7 human, 5 animal) link fluoride with
neurobehavioral deficits
3 human studies link fluoride exposure with
impaired fetal brain development
37 out of 43 published studies show that
fluoride lowers IQ
To access any of these brain studies
1) Go to FluorideALERT.org
2) Click on RESEARCHERS
3) Click on Health Data Base
4) Click on Brain Effects
Or go direct to
FluorideALERT.org/issues/
health/brain
Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)
Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water)
Controlled for lead exposure and iodine intake, and other key variables (NOTE: both lead exposure and low iodine also lower IQ).
Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age range
The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and females
Xiang et al. (2003 a,b) MALES
The Harvard review
Choi et al (the team included Philippe Grandjean) did a meta-analysis of 27 studies comparing IQ in 曨high杇 versus 曨low杇 fluoride villages .
The study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives (published by NIEHS)
Harvard meta-analysis of 27 studies
The Harvard team acknowledged that there were weaknesses in many of the studies, however…
…the results were remarkably
consistent
In 26 of the 27 studies there was
lower average IQ in the 曨high杇
versus low-fluoride villages.
Average IQ lowering was about 7
IQ points.
Promoters claim that the fluoride levels in the
曨High Fluoride杇 villages were so high that they
are not relevant to fluoridation programs?
THIS IS NOT TRUE. In at least six of the studies
the 曨high fluoride village杇 had concentrations less
than 3 ppm
These studies offer no adequate margin of safety
to protect all children drinking uncontrolled amounts
of fluoridated water
11 of the 37 IQ studies found an
association between lowered IQ and
fluoride levels in the urine
Xiang finds an association between
lowered IQ and PLASMA fluoride
levels
Xiang et al., 2011
Ding et al. 2011
Xiang (2012). Children’s IQ versus Levels of fluoride in the serum (children from both villages combined, personal communication with Paul Connett) . The
higher the levels of fluoride in the plasma the lower the levels of IQ.
A Margin of Safety
Analysis
for
Lowered IQ
Nine of the studies in
the Harvard Review
found a lowered IQ at
less than 3 ppm.
In Six of these studies
the lowering of IQ in the
High-fluoride villages
was statistically
significant
I am going to remove
the study by Lin et al.,
1991 because it is
complicated by the
iodine situation
We are left with five ss
studies where the high-
fluoride village
contained 1.8; 2.0; 2.38;
2.5 and 2.9 ppm
respectively
For this Margin of
Safety analysis we will
select the study with the
lowest concentration
where lowered IQ
(harm) was found
STEP 1. Estimating the range of
doses a child would get drinking
fluoridated water at 1.8 ppm
STEP 1. Estimating the range of doses a
child would get drinking fluoridated
water at 1.8 ppm i) If the child drank 0.5 liters of water per day the
dose would be 1.8 mg/L x 0.5 L/day = 0.9 mg/day
STEP 1. Estimating the range of doses a
child would get drinking fluoridated
water at 3 ppm i) If the child drank 0.5 liters of water per day the
dose would be 1.8 mg/L x 0.5 L/day = 0.9 mg/day
ii) If the child drank 1.0 liters of water per day the
dose would be 1.8 mg/L x 1 L/day = 1.8 mg/day
STEP 1. Estimating the range of doses a
child would get drinking fluoridated
water at 3 ppm i) If the child drank 0.5 liters of water per day the
dose would be 1.8 mg/L x 0.5 L/day = 0.9 mg/day
ii) If the child drank 1.0 liters of water per day the
dose would be 1.8 mg/L x 1 L/day = 1.8 mg/day
iii) If the child drank 2.0 liters of water per day the
dose would be 1.8 mg/L x 2 L/day = 3.6 mg/day
STEP 1. Estimating the range of doses a
child would get drinking fluoridated
water at 1.8 ppm
RANGE = 0.9 – 3.6 mg/day
RANGE = 0.9 – 3.6 mg/day
STEP 2. The LOAEL would be 0.9 mg/
day. The NOAEL would be 10 x less
than the LOAEL
The NOAEL = 0.09 mg/day
STEP 3. Applying a safety margin.
The default safety factor when going
from a small study group to a large
population is 10.
We will divide the NOAEL 0.09 mg/day by
10 = 0.009 mg/day
SAFE DOSE sufficient to protect everyone
in a large population = 0.009 mg/day
STEP 4. Estimating how much water
they could drink (ignoring other
sources).
Using the safe dose of 0.009 mg/day
children should not drink more than 9 ml
(0.009 L) per day of fluoridated water at
1.0 ppm (or 6 ml at 1.5 mg/liter)
0.009 L/day x 1 mg/liter = 0.009 mg/day.
0.006 L/day x 1.5 mg/liter = 0.009 mg/day.
In other words in order to protect all
children (including the most sensitive)
drinking fluoridated water at 1.5 ppm
they should not drink more than a few
teaspoons of water per day.
This could go up to 60 ml (half a glass of
water) IF the NOAEL was close to the
LOAEL
Protecting our babies from fluoride
To calculate safe dose for a baby we have to take into account bodyweight
Supposing the safe dose for 20 kg child was 0.009 mg Fluoride per day
Safe dose for a 7 kg baby =0.009 mg/day multiplied by bodyweight ratio 7/20 = 0.009 x 7/20 = 0.00315 mg/day
Safe dose for a 7 kg baby
Breast-fed baby
drinking 800 ml at 0.004 mg/L
= 0.8 L x 0.004 mg/L = 0.0032 mg/day
We estimated safe dose for a 7 kg baby as 0.00315 mg/day – so a bottle fed baby is OK as far as lowered IQ is concerned.
Breast–fed versus bottle-fed baby
Bottle-fed baby
drinking 800 ml at 1.5 mg/L
=0.8L x 1.5 mg/L =1.2 mg/day
1.2 mg/day divided by 0.00315 mg/day = 400 TIMES SAFE DOSE to protect the most sensitive baby in a large population from lowered IQ.
Breast–fed versus bottle-fed baby
Dr. Philippe Grandjean
曨Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury,
and other poisons that cause chemical brain
drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem
small, but the combined damage on a
population scale can be serious, especially
because the brain power of the next
generation is crucial to all of us.杇 (Harvard
Press Release)
IQ and population
100
Number of Kids With a
Specific IQ
IQ
IQ and population
Very Bright Mentally
handicapped 100
Number of Kids With a
Specific IQ
IQ
IQ and population
95 100
Number of Kids With a
Specific IQ
IQ
Ugly Fact # 7
Fluoridation may actually be
killing a few young boys
each year
Bassin et al., 2006
Osteosarcoma
Bassin found that young boys exposed to fluoridated water in their 6th,7th or 8th years, had a 5-7 fold increase in developing osteosarcoma by the age of 20, compared to non-exposed boys.
Her 2006 study has never been refuted.
The study promised by Douglass (Kim et al., 2011) failed to do so.
Part 3
Better Alternatives for
fighting tooth decay
The vast majority of
countries do NOT
fluoridate their water
97% of Western European population now
drinks Non-Fluoridated Water
Austria Belgium
Denmark Finland
France Germany
Greece
Iceland
Italy Luxembourg
Netherlands Northern Ireland
Norway Scotland
Sweden
Switzerland
Austria* Belgium
Denmark Finland
France* Germany*
Greece
Iceland
Italy Luxembourg
Netherlands Northern Ireland
Norway Scotland
Sweden
Switzerland*
*Some fluoridate their salt
97% of Western European population now
drinks Non-Fluoridated Water
According to WHO data
tooth decay in 12-year-olds
is coming down as fast
in F as NF countries
SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)
Better Alternatives If you want fluoride use fluoridated
toothpaste (96% toothpaste sold in US is fluoridated)
Better still use XYLITOL toothpaste. Xylitol toothpaste has been used for over 30 years in Finland
Give Xylitol mints (not chewing gum) to kids in school (e.g. Wichita, Kansas).
Give free toothbrushes and free toothpaste to low-income families (e.g. Scotland)
A recent BBC report from Scotland
“A scheme to encourage nursery children to
brush their teeth has saved more than £6m in
dental costs, according to a new study.
Childsmile involves staff at all Scottish
nurseries offering free supervised
toothbrushing every day.
It emphasises the importance of
toothbrushing and helps parents establish a
healthy diet from the earliest stage.
Scotland
The programme was launched in
2001 and costs about £1.8m a year.
Glasgow researchers found that the
scheme had reduced the cost of
treating dental disease in five-year-
olds by more than half between 2001
and 2010.
Better Alternatives Most of tooth decay is concentrated in low-
income families
Most distressing tooth decay is baby bottle tooth decay
Low-income families need better diet and better dental education
LESS SUGAR! MORE BRUSHING!
Less sugar means less tooth decay and less OBESITY…less diabetes, fewer heart attacks (education = a good investment!)
Summary 1. Fluoridation is a bad medical practice:
you can’t control DOSE, or who gets the medicine and it violates the individual’s right to informed consent.
2. Fluoride is not a nutrient.
3. Fluoride can interfere with many aspects of biochemistry
4. The level of fluoride in mothers milk is very low (0.004 ppm). A bottle-fed baby in Curacao could get 370 times more fluoride.
Summary 5. The evidence of any benefit is weak
(Brunelle and Carlos, 1990; Warren et al., 2009 and WHO figures for different countries).
6. Point 5 is best explained by the fact that the predominant benefit is TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC (CDC, 1999 and 2001).
Summary 7. Today children are getting far too much
fluoride – see dental fluorosis prevalcnce.
8. Fluoride can damage the brain and there are 37 studies that have found a statistically significant reduction in IQ associated with fluoride exposure as low as 1.8 ppm.
9. Fluoride accumulates in the bone and may cause osteosarcoma in young men and over a lifetime may cause arthritic symptoms and increased hip fractures.
Summary 10. There are better alternatives that are
proving successful in many non-fluoridated countries e.g. Scotland.
In short, the RISKS to the brain and the bones far outweigh the small BENEFIT to the teeth. Lower tooth decay can be achieved in low-income families with alternative methods, which do not involve exposing the whole body to fluoride and do not involve governments forcing it on citizens who don’t want it.
Summary We need EDUCATION not
FLUORIDATION to fight tooth decay and obesity.
We need to get Dentistry out of the public water supply and back into the dental office or dental clinic.
It is TIME TO END FLUORIDATION IN CURACAO!
More on IQ studies
Part 4.
Communities
ending
fluoridation
Since 2008, over 130 communities in
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the
U.S have stopped fluoridation
4 million people have been liberated!
3. May 21, Portland Oregon voted 61%
to 39% to reject fluoridation despite
being outspent 3 to 1.
The promoters spent nearly $1 million –
which included paying several groups
$20,000 for their support!
1. Nov 2012, Queensland
lifted mandatory requirement
2. April 2013, Israel MOH
announces lifting of
mandatory requirement in one
year
More on IQ studies
Part 5.
RESOURCES
www.FluorideALERT.org
click on the
RESEARCHERS’ button
top right on home page
National Research Council (2006)
How Hazardous Waste
Ended Up in Our Drinking Water
and the Bad Science and
Powerful Politics
That Keep It There
THE CASE AGAINST
Fluoride
PAUL CONNETT, PhDJames Beck, MD, PhD | H. Spedding Micklem, DPhil
.......
A New Look
at the Scientific
Evidence
.......
Book published by Chelsea Green
October, 2010
Can be ordered on Amazon.com
Contains
80 pages
of references
to the
Scientific
literature
Please watch the
29 minute DVD
曨Professional Perspectives
on Fluoridation杇
Can be viewed ONLINE at
www.FluorideALERT.org
Please watch the
20 minute DVD
曨TEN FACTS on FLUORIDE杇
PLUS BOOKLET
at
www.FluorideALERT.org
EXTRA SLIDES
Part 6 The bad science that is used
in the promotion of
fluoridation
1) There has been NO investigation of a possible
relationship (in F-countries) between fluoridation &
a) Arthritis;
b) Hypo-thyroidism;
c) Alzheimer’s disease;
d) lowered IQ;
e) behavioral problems in children;
f) earlier onset of puberty or
g) bone fractures in children
The science supporting
fluoridation has been very poor
2) There has been NO attempt in any
fluoridated community to investigate the
many complaints by citizens that they are
super-sensitive to fluoride exposure and
suffer symptoms that are reversed when
they avoid fluoride.
The science supporting
fluoridation has been very poor
Dr. Peter Cooney
Dr. Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental
Officer of Canada, told an audience
in Dryden, Ontario (April 1, 2008),
曨I walked down your High Street
today, and I didn’t see anyone
growing horns, and you have been
fluoridated for 40 years!杇
John Doull (chairman, NRC, 2006 Review)
曨What the committee found is that
we’ve gone with the status quo
regarding fluoride for many years
—for too long really—and now we
need to take a fresh look . . .
John Doull (chairman, NRC, 2006 Review)
曨In the scientific community people
tend to think this is settled. I mean,
when the U.S. surgeon general
comes out and says this is one of the
top 10 greatest achievements of the
20th century, that’s a hard hurdle
to get over…
John Doull (chairman, NRC, 2006 Review)
But when we looked at the studies
that have been done, we found that
many of these questions are
unsettled and we have much less
information than we should,
considering how long this
[fluoridation] has been going on.杇 Scientific American, Jan 2008.
The science supporting
fluoridation has been very poor
3) There has been NO attempt to reproduce studies
of harm found in countries with high natural levels
of fluoride
4) The absence of study is being used to suggest the
absence of harm
5) There has never been a single randomized clinical
trial (RCT = the Gold Standard for Epidemiology) to
demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation
Fluoridation has become a
曨belief system杇 which has
undermined decision-making
in the public health
community
Fluoridation is a 曨belief杇 system
Fluoridation has never been a 曨science-based杇
practice (certainly not good science).
The tactics of promoters reveal this:
a) they use 曨endorsements杇 (i.e. authority) in
place of primary science
and
b) they attack the credibility of opponents with
many personal attacks.
Such tactics would not be necessary if the
primary science was on their side.
Some examples of unprofessional tactics,
poor science and biased reviews
1) ADA White paper (1979)
2) CDC (1999)
3) Queensland Health (2007) promotion
4) Health Canada (2008) expert panel biased
ADA White Paper (1979)
曨Individual dentists must be convinced that
they need not be familiar with scientific
reports and field investigations on
fluoridation to be effective participants
and that non- participation is overt neglect
of professional responsibility.杇
CDC (1999)
In October 1999, the CDC claimed that
fluoridation was 曨one of the great public
health achievements of the 20th century.杇
But this statement (and all statements on
fluoridation from the CDC) comes from
the Oral Health Division – consisting of
about 30 – largely dentally trained
personnel – whose mission is to promote
fluoridation.
CDC (1999)
This claim was based on a report written by two
people. One a dentist who had not published
anything on fluoridation before and the other
an economist.
This report was not externally peer-reviewed.
It was six years out of date on the health studies
cited for safety.
The evidence cited to demonstrate effectiveness
was trivial and embarrassing (see Figure 1).
CDC MMWR, October 22, 1999
SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)
Queensland Health’s
promotion of 曨mandatory杇
statewide fluoridation)
(2007) discussed above
Health Canada’s expert panel (2007)
In 2007 Health Canada selected a panel of
six experts to review the literature of
fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness
Of the 6 panelists chosen FOUR were
dentists well-known for their promotion
of fluoridation.
The review was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The dental lobby
has controlled this debate
for far too long.
There are more tissues in the
body than teeth!
It is time to get dentistry out of the
public water supply and back into
the dental office.