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.