Commentary on Dr. Paul Connett’s Top 7 Reasons to End Artificial Water Fluoridation
On Monday, April 22, 2013, Dr. Paul Connett Ph.D joined us at the North York Civic Centre to discuss the artificial fluoridation of Toronto’s water supply. You can see the full video presentation on YouTube here.
Dr. Connett is a graduate of Cambridge University and holds a Ph.D. in chemistry from Dartmouth College. After teaching for 23 years in Canton NY at St. Lawrence University, he retired from his full professorship in chemistry in May 2006. Dr. Connett was kind enough to grace Toronto with his presence before travelling on April 23rd to testify against the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid (fluoride) to the water supply in various municipalities in Quebec. Quebec currently has one of the lowest rates of artificially fluoridated water in Canada at around 2.6% with their largest city Montreal, having never fluoridated their water supply.
After another incredibly informative presentation, Dr. Connett reviewed the top 7 reasons why the artificial fluoridation of any water supply is absurd, immoral, unethical, and goes against one of our most basic human rights which is our right to informed consent.
Here are the top 7 reasons to end the artificial fluoridation of any water supply as presented by Dr. Paul Connett:
1) The Results of the Largest Study Ever Conducted on Fluoride and Tooth Decay
In 1991, the largest study ever conducted on tooth decay was performed by Brunelle and Carlos at a cost of $3,600,000 examining over 39,000 children in 84 fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. The results showed that out of the 128 tooth surfaces in the human mouth, 0.6/1 tooth surface may have been saved through fluoride ingestion.
Under true informed consent where you the patient makes the choice of ingesting a medication based on the potential risk/reward analysis provided by your doctor, would you choose to ingest fluoride as a medication every single day for the rest of your life to save 0.6 of a single tooth surface in your mouth?
2) Fluoride Works Topically
In 1999, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the USA conducted a study with 30 scientists to review the literature on the intake of fluoride. The CDC, although a strong advocate for the addition of hydrofluorosilic acid to the water supply, determined “… laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children” citing the peer reviewed study from JD Featherstone.
The CDC themselves say that fluoride works topically, yet in the very same paper, they then advocate continuing the addition of fluoride to the water supply so that the population continues to ingest it… Something seem wrong here?
3) Population Overexposed to Toxic Fluoride
In 2006 the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science (NRC) released a 450 page review of fluoride toxicity titled Fluoride in Drinking Water – A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. The results of the 3 year study showed that fluoride at 4 ppm (4mg/liter of water) placed the target population at increased risk of teeth, bone and joint damage. This lead the NRC to recommend that the “safe” level of fluoride in drinking water be dropped.
4) Increased Risk of Bone Cancer
In 2001 a study was produced by Bassin et al. from Harvard University “Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma.” The results showed that there was a statistically high correlation between increased fluoride intake in young males, and increased incidence of bone cancer later in life. The same finding was not true for females however Bassin acknowledged that more study was required either way.
The interesting point to acknowledge is that Bassin found a link between fluoride and osteosarcoma using the same data analysed from a previous study (McGuire, Douglass, et al. 1995) where no link was found. How could two separate researchers find different results when analysing the same data? The fact that Professor Douglass, who found no link to osteosarcoma from fluoride ingestion, also worked for Colgate and donated millions of dollars to Harvard, brought forward enough controversy for even Fox News to question.
5) Fluoride May Have Nothing At All to Do With Tooth Decay
In 2009 Warren et al. conducted a complete study on total fluoride exposure as it relates to tooth decay and dental fluorosis. Their findings suggested that “achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.” (Warren 2009).
As Health Canada’s dangerously outdated endorsement of fluoride is based on studies as old as the 1930′s studies conducted by Dr. H. Trendley Dean who observed a correlation between higher intakes of fluoride, less tooth decay, yet more dental fluorosis, the question remains… Would you risk increased dental fluorosis for decreased tooth decay?
6) 41% of the Population Now Has Dental Fluorosis
Dental fluorosis is a mottling and discolouration of the teeth and can be a very debilitating disease. Increased fluoride ingestion has been directly linked to this disease and was observed as far back as 1931 causing a “browning” of the teeth.
In 2010, the CDC reported that dental fluorosis affected 41% of the population as the following graph shows:
Note that an alarming 3.6% of the general US population are now diagnosed as having “moderate or severe” dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis is highly problematic especially for those who consume a large amount of fluoridated water compared to the general population such as fire-fighters, athletes, diabetics etc… Hence the controversy of dose vs. dosage. Although the dose of fluoride added to water at 1 ppm is very accurate, the dosage is different for everyone depending on how much water they consume.
7) Fluoride Reduces IQ in Children
In India and China, where naturally occurring levels of fluoride are very high in some areas, numerous studies are being conducted to understand the effect of this poison on the human mind and body. The most concerning of which was the recently published 2012 Harvard School of Public Health study Developmental Fluoride Neurotoxicity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
The results were repulsive.
Zhang et al. showed that those children who were exposed to high levels of fluoridation exhibited significantly lower IQs supporting the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride on children’s neurodevelopment.
And there you have it. The scary thing about these top 7 reasons to end fluoridation is that opposing studies trying to show that fluoridation is good for teeth are not only weak… they are non-existent. Try to find a single study yourself, not an endorsement, which shows that fluoride is good for you.
We challenge anyone to refute the studies cited above and for any public health figure to debate Dr. Connett publically on national television.
And the next time you think that fluoride is good for you ask yourself one question… Says who?