why seattle should end fluoridation immediately why seattle should end fluoridation immediately paul...

Why Seattle Should End Why Seattle Should End Fluoridation Immediately Fluoridation Immediately

Paul Connett, PhDPaul Connett, PhD

Director, Fluoride Action NetworkDirector, Fluoride Action Network

FluorideFluorideALERTALERT.org.org

Seattle, March 17, 2014Seattle, March 17, 2014

IntroductionIntroduction On St Patrick’s Day 1967 I became On St Patrick’s Day 1967 I became

an activist…an activist… In Sept 1983 I started what I thought In Sept 1983 I started what I thought

would be the “quiet life” teaching would be the “quiet life” teaching chemistry at St. Lawrence chemistry at St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY…University, Canton, NY…

In Jan 1985 I joined the campaign In Jan 1985 I joined the campaign against the building of a trash against the building of a trash incinerator in our county…incinerator in our county…

IntroductionIntroduction

Since 1985 I have spent 28 years Since 1985 I have spent 28 years fighting fighting incinerationincineration (and (and promoting more sustainable ways promoting more sustainable ways of handling waste)of handling waste)

This has taken me to 49 states in This has taken me to 49 states in US, 7 provinces in Canada and 60 US, 7 provinces in Canada and 60 other countriesother countries

Sostenibilita’Sostenibilita’

I have spent nearly 18 years I have spent nearly 18 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

Definition of an Educated PersonDefinition of an Educated Person

An educated person is someoneAn educated person is someone

Who can entertain his or herself,Who can entertain his or herself,

Who can entertain a friend andWho can entertain a friend and

Who can entertain a NEW IDEA!Who can entertain a NEW IDEA!

Quote from Henrik IbsenQuote from Henrik Ibsen ““It is not only what we have inherited from our It is not only what we have inherited from our

father and mother that ‘walks’ in us. It is all sorts father and mother that ‘walks’ in us. It is all sorts of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. of dead ideas, and lifeless old beliefs, and so forth. They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the They have no vitality, but they cling to us all the same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I same, and we cannot shake them off. Whenever I take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding take up a newspaper, I seem to see ghosts gliding between the lines. There must be ghosts all the between the lines. There must be ghosts all the country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And country over, as thick as the sands of the sea. And then we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the then we are, one and all, so pitifully afraid of the light.” light.” Henrik Ibsen, The GhostsHenrik Ibsen, The Ghosts

Outline of my presentationOutline of my presentation1. Four simple facts (and one realization) that opened my 1. Four simple facts (and one realization) that opened my

mind in 1996.mind in 1996.

2. The better ways of fighting tooth decay.2. The better ways of fighting tooth decay.

3. The events that have made fluoridation obsolete.3. The events that have made fluoridation obsolete.

4. Estimating a safe dose of fluoride to protect children 4. Estimating a safe dose of fluoride to protect children from lowered IQfrom lowered IQ

5. The propaganda used by public health officials.5. The propaganda used by public health officials.

6. Why do health agencies and others continue to promote 6. Why do health agencies and others continue to promote this obsolete practice?this obsolete practice?

7.How can we end fluoridation?7.How can we end fluoridation?

Part 1.Part 1.The four simple facts (and one The four simple facts (and one

realization) that opened my mind realization) that opened my mind in 1996 in 1996

1) There is not one single process in the 1) There is not one single process in the human body that needs fluoride to human body that needs fluoride to function properly. There is no function properly. There is no evidence that fluoride is an essential evidence that fluoride is an essential nutrient.nutrient.

2) On the other hand there are many 2) On the other hand there are many biological components and processes biological components and processes that are potentially harmed by that are potentially harmed by fluoride, e.g. fluoride inhibits fluoride, e.g. fluoride inhibits enzymes, switches on G-proteins enzymes, switches on G-proteins etc…etc…

3) The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk 3) The level of fluoride in mothers’ milk is EXTREMELY LOW is EXTREMELY LOW (0.004 ppm, (0.004 ppm, NRC , 2006, p. 40)NRC , 2006, p. 40)

This means that, This means that, a bottle-fed baby in a a bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community (0.7 – 1.2 ppm) fluoridated community (0.7 – 1.2 ppm) is getting 175-300 times the fluoride is getting 175-300 times the fluoride dose that nature intended. dose that nature intended.

Mothers’ milk protects our babies Mothers’ milk protects our babies from fluoridefrom fluoride

4) 4) Fluoride accumulates in the Fluoride accumulates in the bones bones and poses LIFELONG and poses LIFELONG risks in the form of arthritis and risks in the form of arthritis and increased bone fractures in the increased bone fractures in the elderly (especially HIP fractures)elderly (especially HIP fractures)

And a realization:And a realization:

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

1)1) You can’t control the DOSE; You can’t control the DOSE;

2)2) you can’t control who gets the you can’t control who gets the treatment AND treatment AND

3)3) it violates the individual’s right to it violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medicationinformed consent to medication

Part 2.Part 2.The better ways of The better ways of fighting tooth decayfighting tooth decay

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

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 F as NF countries in F as NF countries

SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)

A Better StrategyA Better StrategyMost of the tooth decay today is concentrated Most of the tooth decay today is concentrated

in low-income families. in low-income families. We need to target those families with better We need to target those families with better

dental education and better diet.dental education and better diet.They do not need to swallow a substance that They do not need to swallow a substance that

could put them at greater disadvantage,could put them at greater disadvantage,because fluoride’s toxic effects are made because fluoride’s toxic effects are made

worse by poor diet.worse by poor diet.

A Better StrategyA Better StrategyEveryone agrees that fluoride’s benefits are Everyone agrees that fluoride’s benefits are

largely TOPICAL thus it makes more sense largely TOPICAL thus it makes more sense to provide topical treatments.to provide topical treatments.

These could be provided as fluoride varnishes These could be provided as fluoride varnishes or more simply with brushing with or more simply with brushing with fluoridated toothpaste. fluoridated toothpaste.

Better still we should encourage the use of Better still we should encourage the use of XYLITOL toothpaste. Xylitol toothpaste XYLITOL toothpaste. Xylitol toothpaste has been used for over 30 years in Finland has been used for over 30 years in Finland and Japanand Japan

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

Government opted, in its 2005 dental action plan Government opted, in its 2005 dental action plan (their (their ChildsmileChildsmile program), to pursue: program), to pursue:

a) school-based toothbrushing schemes; a) school-based toothbrushing schemes; b) the offering of healthy snacks and drinks to b) the offering of healthy snacks and drinks to

children; children; c) oral health advice to children and families on c) oral health advice to children and families on

healthy weaning, diet, teething and toothbrushing; healthy weaning, diet, teething and toothbrushing; d) annual dental check-ups and treatment if d) annual dental check-ups and treatment if

required, andrequired, and

ScotlandScotland e) fluoride varnish applications (Healthier e) fluoride varnish applications (Healthier

Scotland, Scottish Government, 2013). Scotland, Scottish Government, 2013). The proportion of children aged 4–6 yearsThe proportion of children aged 4–6 years without obvious dental decay has risen without obvious dental decay has risen

from from 42.3% in 1996 42.3% in 1996 toto 67% in 2012 67% in 2012 Information Services Division, Scotland, 2012. Information Services Division, Scotland, 2012.

ScotlandScotland Nursery school toothbrushing is the most likely Nursery school toothbrushing is the most likely

contributor to the improved oral health in five-contributor to the improved oral health in five-year-old Scottish children (Macpherson, 2013).year-old Scottish children (Macpherson, 2013).

The proportion of children aged 10–12 years The proportion of children aged 10–12 years without obvious dental decay without obvious dental decay rose fromrose from

52.9% in 2005 52.9% in 2005 toto 69.4% in 2011 69.4% in 2011 andand 72.8% in 201372.8% in 2013 (Information Services Division Scotland, 2013). (Information Services Division Scotland, 2013).

A recent BBC report from ScotlandA recent BBC report from Scotland ““A scheme to encourage nursery children to A scheme to encourage nursery children to

brush their teeth has saved more than £6m in brush their teeth has saved more than £6m in dental costs, according to a new study.dental costs, according to a new study.

Childsmile involves staff at all Scottish Childsmile involves staff at all Scottish nurseries offering free supervised nurseries offering free supervised toothbrushing every day.toothbrushing every day.

It emphasises the importance of It emphasises the importance of toothbrushing and helps parents establish a toothbrushing and helps parents establish a healthy diet from the earliest stage.healthy diet from the earliest stage.

ScotlandScotlandGlasgow researchers found Glasgow researchers found

that the scheme had reduced that the scheme had reduced the cost of treating dental the cost of treating dental disease in five-year-olds by disease in five-year-olds by more than half between 2001 more than half between 2001 and 2010.”and 2010.”

In short our kids needIn short our kids need MORE BRUSHING!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!

We need We need EDUCATIONEDUCATION

not FLUORIDATIONnot FLUORIDATION to fight tooth decay and to fight tooth decay and

obesity.obesity.

Part 3Part 3

The events that have made The events that have made fluoridation obsoletefluoridation obsolete

Event 1. Event 1. Starting in 1982 a number of articles Starting in 1982 a number of articles

began to appear in major journals began to appear in major journals indicating that there was very little indicating that there was very little difference in tooth decay between difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated fluoridated and non-fluoridated communitiescommunities

Leverett in Leverett in ScienceScience, 1982, 1982

Colquhoun, 1984,’85,’87Colquhoun, 1984,’85,’87

Diesendorf in Diesendorf in NatureNature, 1986, 1986

Gray, 1987Gray, 1987

In 1990 the U.S. National In 1990 the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research Institute of Dental Research survey was published. survey was published. This This survey (1986-87) examined survey (1986-87) examined the teeth of over 39,000 the teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 communitieschildren in 84 communities

The NIDR surveyThe NIDR survey

Brunelle and Carlos examined the Brunelle and Carlos examined the DMFS (DMFS (= decayed, missing and filled = decayed, missing and filled permanent tooth permanent tooth SURFACES)SURFACES) of of children who had spent all their lives in children who had spent all their lives in a fluoridated Community…a fluoridated Community…

The NIDR surveyThe NIDR survey

Brunelle and Carlos examined the Brunelle and Carlos examined the DMFS (DMFS (= decayed, missing and filled = decayed, missing and filled permanent tooth permanent tooth SURFACES)SURFACES) of of children who had spent all their lives in children who had spent all their lives in a Fluoridated Community a Fluoridated Community and and compared them with those who had compared them with those who had spent all their lives in a Non-spent all their lives in a Non-Fluoridated one (Table 6)Fluoridated one (Table 6)

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)

2.8DMFS

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!

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

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

their level of tooth decaytheir level of tooth decay

They found no clear relationship! They found no clear relationship!

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

The claim that swallowing fluoride The claim that swallowing fluoride lowers tooth decay is still unproven! lowers tooth decay is still unproven!

After 68 years there has been no After 68 years there has been no randomized control trial (RCT) randomized control trial (RCT) demonstrating effectiveness.demonstrating effectiveness.

Grade B studies are complicated by Grade B studies are complicated by the difficulty of controlling all the the difficulty of controlling all the confounding variables that can confounding variables that can influence tooth decay rates.influence tooth decay rates.

Event 2Event 2, probably explains , probably explains all the previous resultsall the previous results

Event 2Event 2, in 1999, the CDC , in 1999, the CDC 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’s caries-preventive Fluoride’s caries-preventive properties initially were attributed properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth to changes in enamel during tooth developmentdevelopment..... .

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

““Fluoride’s caries-preventive Fluoride’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 fluoride prevents dental caries that 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…”

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

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

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

Event 3, Event 3, In 2006 the U.S. In 2006 the U.S. National National

Research Council Research Council published its 3-published its 3-year review (NRC, 2006).year review (NRC, 2006).

The panel chosen was the first The panel chosen was the first balanced panel in the history of balanced panel in the history of

fluoridation in the U.S.fluoridation in the U.S.

NRC (2006)

NRC (2006) review NRC (2006) review showed that showed that fluoride fluoride (they didn’t review fluoridation per se) (they didn’t review fluoridation per se) caused many health problems.caused many health problems.

But the But the American Dental Association American Dental Association claimed on the day it was published that claimed on the day it was published that the the NRC only looked at levels of fluoride NRC only looked at levels of fluoride between 2 and 4 ppm, which was not between 2 and 4 ppm, which was not relevant to water fluoridation at 0.7 to 1.2 relevant to water fluoridation at 0.7 to 1.2 ppmppm..

Six days later, the Six days later, the Oral Health Division Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control and of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Prevention (CDC) declared on its Web (CDC) declared on its Web page, page,

““The findings of the NRC report are The findings of the NRC report are consistent with CDC’s assessment that consistent with CDC’s assessment that water is safe and healthy at the levels used water is safe and healthy at the levels used for water fluoridation (0.7–1.2 mg/L).”for water fluoridation (0.7–1.2 mg/L).”

In 2007, the NHMRC brushed aside the In 2007, the NHMRC brushed aside the findings of the NRC review:findings of the NRC review:

““The NAS report refers to the adverse The NAS report refers to the adverse health effects from fluoride at 2–4 health effects from fluoride at 2–4 mg/L, the reader is alerted to the fact mg/L, the reader is alerted to the fact that fluoridation of Australia’s that fluoridation of Australia’s drinking water occurs in the range of drinking water occurs in the range of 0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.”0.6 to 1.1 mg/L.”

These statements by the ADA, CDC and These statements by the ADA, CDC and NHMRC indicate three things:NHMRC indicate three things:

1) 1) They don’t know the difference between They don’t know the difference between concentration and dose. concentration and dose. There would be an There would be an overlap in dose for two populations drinking 1 overlap in dose for two populations drinking 1 and 2 ppm (and even 4 ppm) fluoridated water and 2 ppm (and even 4 ppm) fluoridated water respectively.respectively.

2) They have little notion of the basics of 2) They have little notion of the basics of regulatory toxicology. regulatory toxicology. You can’t declare You can’t declare safety before you have done a careful risk safety before you have done a careful risk assessment (margin of safety analysis)assessment (margin of safety analysis)

3) The ADA, CDC and NHMRC 3) The ADA, CDC and NHMRC can’t read!can’t read!

In Chapter 2 of the NRC (2006) review In Chapter 2 of the NRC (2006) review there is an exposure analysis that shows there is an exposure analysis that shows that subsets of U.S. population that subsets of U.S. population drinking F -water at 1 ppm drinking F -water at 1 ppm (including (including bottle-fed infants) bottle-fed infants) are exceeding EPA’s are exceeding EPA’s safe reference dose safe reference dose (0.06 mg fluoride/kg (0.06 mg fluoride/kg bodyweight/day)bodyweight/day)

See Figure 2-8 on page 85 See Figure 2-8 on page 85 (NRC, 2006)(NRC, 2006)

This FIGURE shows This FIGURE shows estimated average intake of estimated average intake of fluoride from all sources, at 1 fluoride from all sources, at 1 ppm in drinking water for ppm in drinking water for various age rangesvarious age ranges

These statements from the ADA, These statements from the ADA, CDC and NHMRC are CDC and NHMRC are politicalpolitical not not scientificscientific statements.statements.

They were more intent on They were more intent on protecting the fluoridation protecting the fluoridation program than protecting the program than protecting the public’s health.public’s health.

Event 4, Event 4, in 2010, the U.S. Centers for in 2010, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) published (CDC) published dental fluorosis dental fluorosis figures that confirm that American figures that confirm that American kids are being kids are being hugely over-exposed hugely over-exposed

to fluorideto fluoride

Context on Dental FluorosisContext on Dental Fluorosis

Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F Early promoters thought that at 1 ppm F they could reduce tooth decay and limit they could reduce tooth decay and limit dental fluorosis to dental fluorosis to 10%10% of children in of children in itsits very mild very mild form.form.

Very Mild Dental Fluorosis

Impacts up to 25% of tooth surface

CDC (2010)CDC (2010)

Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Prevalence and SeverityPrevalence and Severity

of Dental Fluorosis in the United States,of Dental Fluorosis in the United States,

1999-20041999-2004

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

CDC, 2010CDC, 2010

41%

Mild Dental Fluorosis

Impacts up to 50% of tooth surface

CDC, 2010CDC, 2010

41%

Moderate- Severe Dental Fluorosis

Impacts 100% of tooth surface

A KEY QUESTIONA KEY QUESTION

When fluoride is damaging the When fluoride is damaging the baby’s growing tooth cells baby’s growing tooth cells (causing dental fluorosis)(causing dental fluorosis) what is it what is it doing to its other developing doing to its other developing tissues?tissues?

Event 5, Event 5, Since 1991 Since 1991 extensive evidence has extensive evidence has emerged that fluoride emerged that fluoride damages the brains of damages the brains of animals and humansanimals and humans

Over 40 animal studies Over 40 animal studies show that prolonged exposure show that prolonged exposure

to fluoride can damage the brain. to fluoride can damage the brain.

19 animal studies 19 animal studies report that mice or rats ingesting report that mice or rats ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn and fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn and remember. remember.

12 studies 12 studies (7 human, 5 animal) link fluoride with (7 human, 5 animal) link fluoride with neurobehavioral deficitsneurobehavioral deficits

3 human studies 3 human studies link fluoride exposure with impaired link fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain developmentfetal brain development

37 out of 43 published studies show that fluoride 37 out of 43 published studies show that fluoride lowers IQlowers IQ

Proponents of fluoridation Proponents of fluoridation have offered practically no have offered practically no published studies to offset published studies to offset the weight of evidence that the weight of evidence that

fluoride is a potent fluoride is a potent neurotoxinneurotoxin

Varner et al. (1998)Varner et al. (1998)

Gave rats Gave rats 1 ppm1 ppm fluoride in their water for fluoride in their water for one year. The exposed animals hadone year. The exposed animals had

kidney damage, kidney damage, brain damage, brain damage, A greater uptake of aluminum into the brain A greater uptake of aluminum into the brain

and and beta amyloid deposits which are thought to beta amyloid deposits which are thought to

be characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease.be characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease.

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

Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm Compared children in two villages ( <0.7 ppm versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water)versus 2.5 - 4.5 ppm F in water)

Controlled for lead exposure Controlled for lead exposure and iodine and iodine intake, and other key variables (NOTE: both intake, and other key variables (NOTE: both leadlead exposure and low iodine also lower IQ). exposure and low iodine also lower IQ).

Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole age rangewhole age range

The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and femalesfemales

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

The Harvard reviewThe Harvard review

Choi et al (the team included Philippe Choi et al (the team included Philippe Grandjean) did a meta-analysis of Grandjean) did a meta-analysis of 2727 studies comparing IQ in “high” versus studies comparing IQ in “high” versus “low” fluoride villages .“low” 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 “high” lower average IQ in the “high” versus low-fluoride villages.versus low-fluoride villages.

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

Promoters claim that the fluoride Promoters claim that the fluoride levels in the “High Fluoride” villages levels in the “High Fluoride” villages

were so high that they are not were so high that they are not relevant to fluoridation programs?relevant to fluoridation programs?

THIS IS NOT TRUE. In nine of the THIS IS NOT TRUE. In nine of the studies the “high fluoride village” had studies the “high fluoride village” had concentrations less than 3 ppmconcentrations less than 3 ppm

But comparing But comparing concentrations is concentrations is

simplistic (and self-simplistic (and self-serving). What is serving). What is

needed is a needed is a Margin of Margin of Safety Safety AnalysisAnalysis

Part 4.Part 4.A Margin of Safety Analysis. A Margin of Safety Analysis.

Goal: Goal: To estimating a safe dose To estimating a safe dose of fluoride which we could of fluoride which we could

confidently predict would protect confidently predict would protect all children in a large population all children in a large population

from lowered IQfrom lowered IQ

Our task is to find the Our task is to find the No No Observable Adverse Effect Observable Adverse Effect

Level (NOAEL) Level (NOAEL) and and divide by a divide by a Margin of Margin of

Safety of 10 Safety of 10 to protect the to protect the whole populationwhole population

For this For this Margin of Margin of Safety analysis Safety analysis we will we will select the study with the select the study with the

lowest concentration lowest concentration where lowered IQ where lowered IQ (harm) was found(harm) was found

STEP 1STEP 1. . Convert the concentration at Convert the concentration at which harm found (which harm found (1.8 ppm 1.8 ppm = = 1.8 1.8 mg/Litermg/Liter) to a DOSE RANGE) to a DOSE RANGE. .

STEP 1STEP 1. . Convert the concentration at Convert the concentration at which harm found (1.8 ppm = 1.8 which harm found (1.8 ppm = 1.8 mg/Liter) to a DOSE RANGEmg/Liter) to a DOSE RANGE. . If the children drank If the children drank one liter per day one liter per day they would get they would get 1.8 mg/day 1.8 mg/day (1.8 (1.8 mg/liter x 1 liter/day)mg/liter x 1 liter/day)

STEP 1STEP 1. . Convert the concentration at Convert the concentration at which harm found (1.8 ppm = 1.8 which harm found (1.8 ppm = 1.8 mg/Liter) to a DOSE RANGEmg/Liter) to a DOSE RANGE. . If the children drank If the children drank one liter per day one liter per day they would get they would get 1.8 mg/day 1.8 mg/day (1.8 (1.8 mg/liter x 1 liter/day)mg/liter x 1 liter/day)If the children drank If the children drank half a liter per half a liter per day day they would get they would get 0.9 mg/day 0.9 mg/day

STEP 1STEP 1. . Convert the concentration at Convert the concentration at which harm found (1.8 ppm = 1.8 which harm found (1.8 ppm = 1.8 mg/Liter) to a DOSE RANGE.mg/Liter) to a DOSE RANGE.If the children drank If the children drank one liter per day one liter per day they would get they would get 1.8 mg/day 1.8 mg/day (1.8 (1.8 mg/liter x 1.0 liter/day)mg/liter x 1.0 liter/day)If the children drank If the children drank half a liter per half a liter per day day they would get they would get 0.9 mg/day 0.9 mg/day If the children drank If the children drank 2 liters per day 2 liters per day they would get they would get 3.6 mg/day 3.6 mg/day

RANGE = 0.9 – 3.6 mg/dayRANGE = 0.9 – 3.6 mg/day


STEP 2STEP 2. Determining the LOAEL. Take . Determining the LOAEL. Take the lowest end of this range the lowest end of this range The LOAEL The LOAEL = = 0.9 mg/day. 0.9 mg/day.


STEP 2STEP 2. Determining the LOAEL. Take . Determining the LOAEL. Take the lowest end of this range the lowest end of this range The LOAEL The LOAEL = = 0.9 mg/day. 0.9 mg/day. STEP 3. STEP 3. Determining the NOAEL. Determining the NOAEL. Divide the LOAEL by 10 Divide the LOAEL by 10 The NOAEL = 0.09 mg/dayThe NOAEL = 0.09 mg/day

STEP 4. Applying a safety margin of STEP 4. Applying a safety margin of 10 to protect whole population 10 to protect whole population (including the most vulnerable). (including the most vulnerable).

STEP 4. Apply a safety margin of 10 STEP 4. Apply a safety margin of 10 to the NOAEL to find a safe level that to the NOAEL to find a safe level that will protect whole population will protect whole population (including the most vulnerable). (including the most vulnerable).

Dividing the NOAEL of Dividing the NOAEL of 0.09 mg/day by 10 0.09 mg/day by 10 = 0.009 mg/day= 0.009 mg/day

STEP 4. STEP 4. Thus the SAFE DOSE sufficient to protect Thus the SAFE DOSE sufficient to protect everyone in a large population = everyone in a large population = 0.009 0.009 mg/daymg/day

STEP 5. Estimating how much water STEP 5. Estimating how much water children could drink of fluoridated children could drink of fluoridated water at 1 ppm without exceeding this water at 1 ppm without exceeding this safe dose of safe dose of 0.009 mg/day.0.009 mg/day.

STEP 5. Estimating how much water STEP 5. Estimating how much water children could drink of fluoridated children could drink of fluoridated water at 1 ppm without exceeding this water at 1 ppm without exceeding this safe dose of safe dose of 0.009 mg/day.0.009 mg/day.

0.009 mg/day = 0.009 L/day x 1 mg/liter0.009 mg/day = 0.009 L/day x 1 mg/liter

Children should not drink more than Children should not drink more than 0.009 L per day of fluoridated water at 1.0 0.009 L per day of fluoridated water at 1.0 ppm. 0.009 L = 9 ml or two teaspoons!ppm. 0.009 L = 9 ml or two teaspoons!

In other words - In other words - using standard using standard regulatory toxicological procedures regulatory toxicological procedures - in - in order to protect all children (including the order to protect all children (including the most sensitive) from lowered IQ they most sensitive) from lowered IQ they should not drink more than two teaspoons should not drink more than two teaspoons of fluoridated water per day.of fluoridated water per day.

Sensitivity analysis –Sensitivity analysis –

if we drop one safety factor of 10 –if we drop one safety factor of 10 –Children shouldn’t drink more than 90 mlChildren shouldn’t drink more than 90 ml

of water at 1 ppm fluoride (half a glass)of water at 1 ppm fluoride (half a glass)

If we drop both safety factors of 10 –If we drop both safety factors of 10 –

children shouldn’t drink more than 900 ml of children shouldn’t drink more than 900 ml of

water at 1 ppm fluoride (more than a quart)water at 1 ppm fluoride (more than a quart)

Simply put –Simply put –

If fluoride lowers the IQ of children If fluoride lowers the IQ of children

drinking water at 1.8 ppm fluoride indrinking water at 1.8 ppm fluoride in

a small study groupa small study group

It is not safe (protective against It is not safe (protective against

lowered IQ ) for all the children in lowered IQ ) for all the children in

a large population drinking fluoridateda large population drinking fluoridated

water at 0.7 to 1.2 ppm.water at 0.7 to 1.2 ppm.

Another criticism of these IQ Another criticism of these IQ

studies is that there was no studies is that there was no measure of individual exposure, measure of individual exposure,

However, However, 11 of the 37 IQ studies 11 of the 37 IQ studies found an association between found an association between lowered IQ and fluoride levels in lowered IQ and fluoride levels in the children’s urinethe children’s urine

Xiang found an association between Xiang found an association between lowered IQ and PLASMA fluoride lowered IQ and PLASMA fluoride

levelslevelsXiang et al., 2011Xiang et al., 2011

Ding et al. 2011Ding 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) . Thehigher the levels of fluoride in the plasma the lower the levels of IQ.

Dr. Philippe GrandjeanDr. Philippe Grandjean

“ “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage small, but the combined damage on a on a population scale population scale can be serious, especially can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.” generation is crucial to all of us.” (Harvard (Harvard Press Release)Press Release)

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

Event 6, Event 6, Fluoridation may Fluoridation may actually be killing a few actually be killing a few young boys each yearyoung boys each year

Bassin et al., 2006Bassin et al., 2006

OsteosarcomaOsteosarcoma

Bassin found that young boys exposed to Bassin found that young boys exposed to fluoridated water fluoridated water in their 6th,7th or 8th in their 6th,7th or 8th yearsyears, had a 5-7 fold increase in , had a 5-7 fold increase in developing osteosarcoma by the age of developing osteosarcoma by the age of 20, compared to non-exposed boys. 20, compared to non-exposed boys.

Her 2006 study has never been refuted.Her 2006 study has never been refuted. The study promised by Douglass (Kim et The study promised by Douglass (Kim et

al., 2011) failed to do so.al., 2011) failed to do so.

We can anticipate more evidence that We can anticipate more evidence that fluoridation causes other health fluoridation causes other health affects:affects:

1. lowered thyroid function,1. lowered thyroid function,

2. arthritis, 2. arthritis,

3. hip fractures in the elderly, and 3. hip fractures in the elderly, and

4. the fact that some individuals are 4. the fact that some individuals are very sensitive to fluoridevery sensitive to fluoride

BUT LET’s KEEP IT SIMPLEBUT LET’s KEEP IT SIMPLE

No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable. No risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.

There is no need to swallow fluoride. There is no need to swallow fluoride.

Other countries have demonstrated that Other countries have demonstrated that there are other – and better - ways of there are other – and better - ways of fighting tooth decay without forcing water fighting tooth decay without forcing water fluoridation on the whole populationfluoridation on the whole population..

Fluoridation is an obsolete practice and it is Fluoridation is an obsolete practice and it is time to end ittime to end it

Part 5Part 5

The propaganda used by The propaganda used by some some civil servantscivil servants in the in the promotion of fluoridationpromotion of fluoridation

Queensland Health’s Queensland Health’s promotion of “mandatory” promotion of “mandatory”

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

“ “ 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 ?

“ 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)

What we have here are public What we have here are public servants betraying the public’s trust.servants betraying the public’s trust.This is not healthy in a democratic This is not healthy in a democratic

society.society.

Part 6Part 6

Why do health agencies and Why do health agencies and others continue to promote others continue to promote

this obsolete practice?this obsolete practice?

Motivations?Motivations?

Many dentists and doctors are fiercely Many dentists and doctors are fiercely proud of this public health policy and proud of this public health policy and do not question its safety and do not question its safety and effectiveness.effectiveness.

That is the problem – they do not That is the problem – they do not question it. question it.

It has fossilized into a belief system.It has fossilized into a belief system.

Motivations?Motivations?There are some entities with economic There are some entities with economic

interests and liabilities:interests and liabilities:1)1) The sugar lobby; The sugar lobby;

2)2) dental researchers for whom fluoridation is the dental researchers for whom fluoridation is the gravy train;gravy train;

3)3) the phosphate fertilizer industry;the phosphate fertilizer industry;

4)4) toothpaste manufacturers; toothpaste manufacturers;

5)5) The dental organizations that endorse fluoridated The dental organizations that endorse fluoridated products (e.g. American Dental Association). products (e.g. American Dental Association).


6) 6) the industries that use fluoride or the industries that use fluoride or release fluoride in their manufacturing release fluoride in their manufacturing processes. They have exposed both the processes. They have exposed both the environment and their own workers to environment and their own workers to this highly toxic substance and are this highly toxic substance and are worried about liabilities (see worried about liabilities (see The The Fluoride Deception Fluoride Deception by Chris Bryson by Chris Bryson and also examine the role of the ACSH)and also examine the role of the ACSH)


7) Public health agencies.7) Public health agencies.

Are they worried that if fluoridation falls that Are they worried that if fluoridation falls that it will erode the public’s trust, which in turn it will erode the public’s trust, which in turn may undermine other public practices (e.g. may undermine other public practices (e.g.

vaccination)? vaccination)?

Are they defending these other practices by Are they defending these other practices by proxy?proxy?

The best way to regain the public’s The best way to regain the public’s trust is to end this obsolete practice as trust is to end this obsolete practice as

soon as possible.soon as possible.

Part 7Part 7

How can we end this How can we end this obsolete practice?obsolete practice?

One Open Mind One Open Mind At a TimeAt a Time

One Community One Community at a timeat a time

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

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

RESOURCES

National Research Council (2006)

Book published by Chelsea Green

October, 2010

Can be ordered on Amazon.com

Contains 80 pages

of references to the

Scientific literature

See AlsoSee Also“50 Reasons to Oppose Water “50 Reasons to Oppose Water

Fluoridation”Fluoridation”Can be viewed ONLINE atCan be viewed ONLINE atwww.Fluoridewww.FluorideALERTALERT.org.org

Please watch the Please watch the 29 minute DVD29 minute DVD

“Professional Perspectives“Professional Perspectiveson Fluoridation”on Fluoridation”

Can be viewed ONLINE atCan be viewed ONLINE atwww.Fluoridewww.FluorideALERTALERT.org.org

Please watch the Please watch the 20 minute DVD20 minute DVD

“TEN FACTS on FLUORIDE”“TEN FACTS on FLUORIDE”PLUS BOOKLET PLUS BOOKLET

atatwww.Fluoridewww.FluorideALERTALERT.org.org

More on IQ studiesMore on IQ studies

Communities

ending fluoridation

Since 2008, over 130 communities in Since 2008, over 130 communities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the U.S have stopped fluoridationU.S have stopped fluoridation

4 million people have been liberated!4 million people have been liberated!

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

2. April 2013, 2. April 2013, Israel Israel MOH MOH announces lifting of announces lifting of mandatory requirement in mandatory requirement in 2014.2014.

Many citizens, media and Many citizens, media and decision-makers have little decision-makers have little

idea of the number and idea of the number and caliber of the people fighting caliber of the people fighting fluoridation around the world.fluoridation around the world.

Many citizens, media and Many citizens, media and decision-makers have little decision-makers have little

idea of the number and idea of the number and caliber of the people fighting caliber of the people fighting fluoridation around the world.fluoridation around the world.

We need to make this We need to make this movementmovement visible visible

We need to bring all the We need to bring all the groups and communities groups and communities

fighting fluoridation together fighting fluoridation together and form one alliance…and form one alliance…

We need to bring all the We need to bring all the groups and communities groups and communities

fighting fluoridation together fighting fluoridation together and form one alliance…and form one alliance…

Worldwide Alliance to End Worldwide Alliance to End FluoridationFluoridation

EXTRA SLIDESEXTRA SLIDES

Dr. Peter CooneyDr. Peter Cooney

Dr. Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental Dr. Peter Cooney, the Chief Dental Officer of Canada, told an audience Officer of Canada, told an audience in Dryden, Ontario (April 1, 2008),in Dryden, Ontario (April 1, 2008),

““I walked down your High Street I walked down your High Street today, and I didn’t see anyone today, and I didn’t see anyone growing horns, and you have been growing horns, and you have been fluoridated for 40 years!”fluoridated for 40 years!”

Health agencies Health agencies frequently pick pro-frequently pick pro-fluoridation panels to rubber stamp fluoridation panels to rubber stamp fluoridation (Irish Fluoridation Forum, fluoridation (Irish Fluoridation Forum, 2002; Australian NHMRC, 2007 and 2002; Australian NHMRC, 2007 and Health Canada, 2011).Health Canada, 2011).

In 2007, Health Canada chose SIX experts to In 2007, Health Canada chose SIX experts to review the fluoridation literature –review the fluoridation literature –

FOUR of them were well-known pro-FOUR of them were well-known pro-fluoridation dental researchers!fluoridation dental researchers!

Protecting our babies from fluorideProtecting our babies from fluoride

Mothers’ milk protects the baby from Mothers’ milk protects the baby from lowered IQ lowered IQ but formula made up with but formula made up with fluoridated tap water does not. fluoridated tap water does not. Further calculations show that a Further calculations show that a bottle-fed baby would get 180-300 bottle-fed baby would get 180-300 times the safe dose!times the safe dose!

To calculate safe dose for a baby we To calculate safe dose for a baby we have to take into account bodyweighthave to take into account bodyweight

Supposing the safe dose for 20 kg child Supposing the safe dose for 20 kg child was 0.009 mg Fluoride per daywas 0.009 mg Fluoride per day

Safe dose for a 7 kg baby =0.009 Safe dose for a 7 kg baby =0.009 mg/day multiplied by bodyweight ratio mg/day multiplied by bodyweight ratio 7/20 = 0.009 x 7/20 = 7/20 = 0.009 x 7/20 = 0.00315 mg/day0.00315 mg/day

Safe dose for a 7 kg babySafe dose for a 7 kg baby

Breast-fed babyBreast-fed baby drinking 800 ml at 0.004 mg/Ldrinking 800 ml at 0.004 mg/L = 0.8 L x 0.004 mg/L = = 0.8 L x 0.004 mg/L = 0.0032 mg/day 0.0032 mg/day We estimated safe dose for a 7 kg We estimated safe dose for a 7 kg

baby as 0.00315 mg/day – so a breast-baby as 0.00315 mg/day – so a breast-fed baby is OK as far as lowered IQ is fed baby is OK as far as lowered IQ is concerned.concerned.

Breast–fed versus bottle-fed babyBreast–fed versus bottle-fed baby

Bottle-fed babyBottle-fed baby drinking 800 ml at 0.7 mg/Ldrinking 800 ml at 0.7 mg/L = 0.8 L x 0.7 mg/L = = 0.8 L x 0.7 mg/L = 0.56 mg/day 0.56 mg/day We estimated safe dose for a 7 kg baby We estimated safe dose for a 7 kg baby

as 0.00315 mg/day – so a bottle-fed as 0.00315 mg/day – so a bottle-fed baby (at 0.7 ppm) gets baby (at 0.7 ppm) gets 180 times too 180 times too much fluoride much fluoride to protect against to protect against lowered IQ.lowered IQ.


Bottle-fed babyBottle-fed baby drinking 800 ml at 1.2 mg/Ldrinking 800 ml at 1.2 mg/L = 0.8 L x 1.2 mg/L = = 0.8 L x 1.2 mg/L = 0.96 mg/day 0.96 mg/day We estimated safe dose for a 7 kg baby We estimated safe dose for a 7 kg baby

as 0.00315 mg/day – so a bottle-fed as 0.00315 mg/day – so a bottle-fed baby (baby (at 1.2 ppmat 1.2 ppm) ) gets 300 times too gets 300 times too much fluoride much fluoride to protect against to protect against lowered IQ.lowered IQ.


Mothers’ milk protects the baby from Mothers’ milk protects the baby from lowered IQ lowered IQ but formula made up with but formula made up with fluoridated tap water does not!fluoridated tap water does not!

why seattle should end fluoridation immediately why seattle should end fluoridation immediately paul...

Documents