The Case Against Fluoridation

1
The Case Against Fluoridation

• Paul Connett, PhD
• Director, Fluoride Action Network
• FluorideALERT.org
• Perth, Australia, Feb, 2015

2

• I have spent the last 19 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 Oct,
  2010.

3

James Beck, MD, PhD, A retired professor of
Physics from Calgary
4

HS Micklem, D Phil (Oxon) A retired professor of
Biology from Edinbrgh
5
Book published by Chelsea Green October,
2010 Can be ordered on Amazon.com
Contains 80 pages of references to
the Scientific literature
6
After 5 years Fluoridation promoters have not
produced a written scientific response to the
arguments presented in this book
7
Fluoridation has fossilized into a belief
system
8

• The Arguments
• Against Fluoridation

9
I will argue that Fluoridation is

• 1) UNUSUAL
• 2) UNNATURAL
• 3) UNETHICAL
• 4) UNNECESSARY
• 5) UNSAFE
• 6) INEFFECTIVE and
• 7) There are better ways to fight tooth decay in
  low-income families

10
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay
1) Fluoridation
is Unusual
11
The vast majority of countries do NOT fluoridate
their water
12
97 of Western European population now drinks
Non-Fluoridated Water
Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Northern
Ireland Norway Scotland Sweden Switzerland
Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany Gre
ece Iceland
13
97 of Western European population now drinks
Non-Fluoridated Water
Italy Luxembourg Netherlands Northern
Ireland Norway Scotland Sweden Switzerland
Austria Belgium Denmark Finland France Germany
Greece Iceland
Some fluoridate their salt
14
The majority of European countries neither
fluoridate their water nor their salt
15
(No Transcript)
16
However, according to WHO data tooth decay in
12-year-olds is coming down as fast in NF as F
countries
17
(No Transcript)
18
(No Transcript)
19
SOURCE World Health Organization. (Data online)
20
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay
2) Fluoridation
is Unnatural
21
Naturally-occurring versus Natures verdict

• Fluoridation promoters stress that fluoride is
  naturally-occurring and sometimes even say that
  Fluoridation nature thought of it first.
• They are confusing GEOLOGY with BIOLOGY
• What levels of fluoride that naturally occur in
  water simply reflects the vagaries of which ROCKS
  the water has flown through

22
Naturally-occurring versus Natures verdict

• But because something occurs naturally in water
  does not mean it is safe. Arsenic also appears in
  some water supplies.
• Millions of people worldwide have been harmed by
  naturally-occurring arsenic and
  naturally-occurring
• So what is Natures verdict on the fluoride ion?

23

• Natures verdict.
• The level of fluoride in mothers milk is
  EXTREMELY LOW (0.004 ppm, NRC , 2006, p. 40)
• This means that, a bottle-fed baby in a
  fluoridated community (0.7 1.2 ppm) is getting
  175-300 times the fluoride dose that nature
  intended.

24
Mothers milk protects our babies from early
exposure to fluoride
25
Water fluoridation removes natures protection
26
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay
3) Fluoridation
is Unethical
27

• 1) We should NEVER use the public water supply to
  deliver ANY medical treatment
• a) You cant control the DOSE
• b) you cant control who gets the
• treatment AND
• c) it violates the individuals right to informed
  consent to medication

28

• 2)In other words communities are doing to
  everyone what an individual doctor can do to no
  one
• i.e. force an individual to take a medicine (or
  human treatment) without their informed consent.

29

• 3) Fluoridation is being prescribed and
  administered by people with no medical training.
• 4) No agency is monitoring side effects.
• 5) No agency is measuring exposure levels.
• 6) Some individuals should not be exposed to
  fluoride people with poor kidney function and
  people with borderline or outright iodine
  deficiency.

30

• 7) No agency accepts responsibility for harm IF
  and WHEN it is demonstrated.
• 8) Health agencies in fluoridated countries are
  doing a very poor job conducting health studies.
• 9) No health agency has attempted to put the
  issue of sensitivity to fluoride on a scientific
  level (e.g. double blind studies with volunteers).

31

• 9) cont. One would expect a small percentage of a
  the population to be sensitive to fluorides
  toxic effects at LOW doses when it is known that
  it has toxic effects at HIGH doses.
• 10) Health agencies are not doing epi studies in
  children using the severity of dental fluorosis
  as a biomarker for exposure prior to the eruption
  of the secondary teeth.

32

• 11) All this, despite the fact that there is no
  scientific reason to SWALLOW fluoride.
• There is not a single biochemical process in the
  human body that needs fluoride to function
  properly.
• In other words there is no evidence that
  fluoride is an essential nutrient.

33
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay
4) Fluoridation
is Unnecessary
34

• In 1999, the CDC conceded that the predominant
  benefit of fluoride is TOPICAL not SYSTEMIC.

35
CDC, MMWR, 48(41) 933-940, Oct 22, 1999

• Fluorides 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

36
The admission by the CDC should have ended
fluoridation in the US and around the world
37
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 dont want it?

38
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay
5) Fluoridation
is Unsafe
39

• 1) There are many biological processes that are
  harmed by fluoride
• e.g. fluoride inhibits enzymes, switches on
  G-proteins etc(Barbier et al, 2010)

40

• 2)Bottle-fed babies in fluoridated communities
  are exceeding the EPAs safe reference dose (0.06
  mg/ kg bodyweight/day)
• Figure 2-8 on page 85 (NRC, 2006)

41
NRC (2006)
42
(No Transcript)
43
See Figure 2-8 on page 85 (NRC, 2006)

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

44
(No Transcript)
45

• 3) American children are being hugely overexposed
  to fluoride (from several sources).
• The evidence for this is increasing prevalence of
  DENTAL FLUOROSIS.

46
CDC (2010)

• 41 of ALL American children
• aged 12-15 (average from both
• fluoridated and non-fluoridated
• communities) had dental fluorosis
• Beltrán-Aguilar et al. Prevalence and Severity of
  Dental
• Fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004

47
CDC, 2010
41
48

• 4) It would be reckless to assume that when
  fluoride is damaging the babys growing tooth
  cells that is not damaging other developing
  tissues like the bone, brain and the endocrine
  system.

49

• 5) The weight of evidence from many animal and
  human studies is that fluoride is a potent
  neurotoxicant i.e. it can interfere with brain
  chemistry.
• www.FluorideALERT.org/issues/health/brain

50
Animal Studies
51
Over 100 Animal Studies have found Fluoride
Damages the Brain

• Damage to hippocampus
• Neuronal degeneration
• Inhibitions of cholinesterase
• Damage to nicotinic receptors
• Deceased brain glucose utilization
• Increase in oxidative stress

52
30 Animal Studies Have Found Fluoride Impairs
Learning/Memory
53
Learning/Memory Studies

• 30 of 32 studies have found an effect
• Different types of tests
• Y maze
• T maze
• Morris water maze
• Novel object recognition test
• Open field test
• Low Doses 5 ppm (Lu 2014)

54
Human (non-IQ) Studies
55
Rey-Osterrieth Complex Figure Test
56
Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure TestRocha Amador
(2009)

• High quality study
• Controlled for key variables (e.g., education,
  nutritional status, exposure to other
  contaminants)
• Individual-based fluoride exposures (urine F
  levels)
• Findings
• Approximately 9 out of 10 children were unable
  to copy the ROCF as expected for their age.
• For Immediate Recall, almost 6 out of 10
  children were unable to draw the figure as
  expected for their age.

57
IQ studies the current tally

• 43 out of 50 studies have found an association
  between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and
  lowered IQ (China, India, Mexico and Iran)
• 19 of these studies the fluoride water
  concentration was less than 4 ppm (the current
  EPA safe drinking water standard!)

58
Harvard Mta-analysis of IQ studies
59
The Harvard Meta-analysis

• In 2012, Choi et al (the team included Philippe
  Grandjean) published a meta-analysis of 27
  studies comparing IQ in high versus low
  fluoride villages .
• The study was published in Environmental Health
  Perspectives (published by NIEHS)

60
Harvard meta-analysis of 27 studies

• The Harvard team acknowledged that there were
  weaknesses in many of the studies, however

61

• the results were remarkably consistent
• In 26 of the 27 studies there was lower average
  IQ in the high versus low-fluoride villages.
• Average IQ lowering was about 7 IQ points.

62

• promoters claim that the concentrations in the
  high fluoride villages were very high and
  irrelevant to artificial water fluoridation (0.7
  to 1.2 ppm)

63
(No Transcript)
64
(No Transcript)
65
However, promoters dont acknowledge that

• 8 Studies were less than 3 ppm
• If you include means (for those reporting a range
  of values) then 11 studies were less than 3 ppm
• If you include the low end of the ranges, then 16
  had some children with lowered IQ drinking water
  less than 3 ppm

66
(No Transcript)
67
More details on one of the IQ studies
68
Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)

• Compared IQ of children in two villages
• Low Fluoride Village Average F in well water
  0.36 ppm (Range 0.18 -0.76 ppm)
• High Fluoride Village Average F in well water
  2.5 ppm (Range 0.57 4.5 ppm)
• Controlled for lead exposure and iodine intake,
  and other key variables
• Found a drop of 5-10 IQ points across the whole
  age range
• The whole IQ curve shifted for both males and
  females

69
Xiang et al. (2003 a,b)
MALES
Ave. Level 2.5 ppm
Ave. level 0.36 ppm F
70
(No Transcript)
71
(No Transcript)
72
(No Transcript)
73
(No Transcript)
74
(No Transcript)
75
The lowest level that lowered IQ in Xiang study

• See group B, mean fluoride concentration 1.53
  ppm /- 0.27
• Some children had IQ lowered at 1.26 ppm
• This leaves no adequate margin of safety to
  protect all children drinking water between 0.7
  and 1.2 ppm.
• We usually use a safety factor of 10 to account
  for the wide range of sensitivity expect to any
  toxic substance in a large population.

76
If IQ lowered at 1.26 ppm

• This leaves nowhere near an adequate margin of
  safety to protect all children drinking water
  between 0.7 and 1.2 ppm.
• We usually use a safety factor of 10 to account
  for the wide range of sensitivity expected for
  any toxic substance in a large population.

77
Choi et al., 2015

• In a preliminary study of 51 children, the
  children were asked to remember a sequence of
  numbers and report both forwards and backwards
• Children with dental fluorosis performed less
  well than those without.
• (world expert on lead neurotoxicity David
  Bellenger was involved in the study)

78
Dr. Philippe Grandjean

• Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury,
  and other poisons that cause chemical brain
  drain. (Harvard Press Release)
• Grandjean is the author of a book published this
  year entitled Only One Chance

79
IQ and population
Number of Kids With a Specific IQ
100
IQ
80
IQ and population
Number of Kids With a Specific IQ
Very Bright
100
IQ
Mentally handicapped
81
IQ and population
Number of Kids With a Specific IQ
95 100
IQ
82
IQ and population
Number of Kids With a Specific IQ
Very Bright
95 100
IQ
Mentally handicapped
83
(No Transcript)
84
Since 1986 the US EPA has been in a position
where they could end water fluoridation
85

• US EPA
• Since 1986 has had NO authority to regulate
  ADDITIVES (in other words it cant regulate water
  fluoridation)
• However, it has authority over CONTAMINANTS
  (naturally occurring or pollutants).

86

• US EPA
• For any CONTAMINANT the EPA has to determine a
  Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) which
  protects the whole population from known and
  reasonably anticipated health effects.

87

• US EPA
• At a Press conference in DC, Jan 7, 2011
• The EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office
  of Water Peter Silva, said EPAs new (MCLG)
  analysis will help us make sure that people
  benefit from tooth decay prevention while at the
  same time avoiding the unwanted health effects
  from too much fluoride.

88

• US EPA
• So under the guise of regulating fluoride as a
  contaminant (setting a safe drinking water goal-
  MCLG- and standard MCL) EPA is actually
  attempting to protect the the fluoridation
  program.
• Determining an MCLG should have nothing to do
  with any perceived benefit. Moreover

89

• The EPA is colluding with HHS to protect the
  fluoridation program
• And using bad science to do it.
• They say they are going to use SEVERE dental
  fluorosis as the most sensitive end point of
  fluorides toxicity (to determine MCLG).
• They claim that if they protect for this it will
  protect against damage to the bone and any other
  health effect.

90

• The EPA is saying that SEVERE dental fluorosis is
  the most sensitive end point
• But this is nonsense
• To demonstrate that SEVERE DF is a more sensitive
  end point than lowered IQ they would have to show
  that ALL the children in the High Fluoride
  village in all the 40 studies where IQ was
  lowered
• had only SEVERE DF and not other milder categories

91
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay

Quanyong Xiang, Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and
Bill Hirzy outside the EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC Sept 8, 2014
92
The level of fluoride and IQ in different group
by dental fluorosis
Group No. Water F IQ Urine F Serum F
0 301 0.500.53 99.763.50 1.130.71 0.0440.017
1 65 1.881.07 94.1813.77 2.701.15 0.0710.023
2 59 2.440.66 93.2713.10 3.691.61 0.0820.016
3 63 2.670.63 91.5112.84 3.851.79 0.0850.019
4 24 2.890.81 95.3314.64 3.811.80 0.0840.018
Xiangs presentation at FAN conference , Sept 6,
2014
93
Dr. J. William Hirzy will be presenting his
health risk assessment to determine a safe level
of fluoride that would protect all children from
lowered IQ at the Feb 21 conference in Sydney
94
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay

Quanyong Xiang, Paul Connett, Chris Neurath and
Bill Hirzy outside the EPA Headquarters in
Washington, DC Sept 8, 2014
95
Ding et al. 2011 (J. Hazardous Materials)

• Mean value of ?uoride in drinking water was
  1.31 1.05mg/L (range 0.242.84).
• Conclusions
• Overall, our study suggested that low levels of
  ?uoride exposure in drinking water had negative
  effects on childrens intelligence...
• The results also con?rmed the doseresponse
  relationships between urine ?uoride
  concentrations and IQ scores

96
Ding et al, 2011 The higher the level of
fluoride in the urine the lower the IQ
97
Ding et al. 2011
Fig 2. The relationship between IQ differences
and urine fluoride concentrations. Multiple
linear regression model was carried out to
confirm the association with urine fluoride
exposure and IQ scores (F9.85, p lt 0.0001)
98
More on Fluoride Urine levels

• Eleven of the studies reviewed by Choi reported
  the fluoride level in the children's urine. The
  level averaged less than 3 ppm in 5 of the
  studies. 
• To put this in perspective, a study from England
  (Mansfield 1999) found that 18.1 of study
  participants in fluoridated areas had urine
  fluoride levels above 2 ppm, 5.6 had urine
  fluoride levels above 3 ppm, and 1.1 had urine
  fluoride levels exceeding 4 ppm. In other words 
• The urinary F levels in western fluoridated
  populations can exceed the urinary F levels in
  the children with reduced IQ in China. 

99
Xiang finds an association between lowered IQ and
PLASMA fluoride levelsXiang et al., 2011
100
Xiang et al. 2010
Xiang et al., 2012

101
Ding et al. 2011
Xiang (2012). Childrens 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.
102
2) CDCs weak evidence
Choi et al., 2015
103
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay
6) Fluoridation
is Ineffective
104
The weak evidence summarized

• 1) There has never been an RCT (randomized
  control trial) demonstrating the effectiveness of
  swallowing fluoride.
• 2) CDCs weak evidence (CDC (1999)
• 3) Little difference in tooth decay in
  12-year-olds between F and NF countries
• 4) The largest survey in the US
• 5) The most precise study in the US
• 6) Osmunsons observations

105
1) No RCT after 70 years!
106
2) CDCs weak evidence
107
CDCs weak evidence of benefit (CDC, 1999)
SOURCE US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
1999
108
CDCs weak evidence of benefit (CDC, 1999)
Tooth decay in 12 year olds, measured as decayed
missing and filled teeth (DMFT)
SOURCE US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
1999
109
CDCs weak evidence of benefit (CDC, 1999)
Tooth decay in 12 year olds, measured as decayed
missing and filled teeth (DMFT)
Percentage of US population Drinking fluoridated
water
SOURCE US Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
1999
110
3) WHO data
111
SOURCE World Health Organization. (Data online)
112
4) The largest survey of tooth decay in the US
113
NIDR survey Brunelle Carlos (1990)

• This was the largest survey of tooth decay ever
  carried out in the US. They looked at 39,000
  children in 84 communities.
• In Table 6 Brunelle and Carlos compared tooth
  decay of children who had spent all their lives
  in a Fluoridated Community with those who had
  spent all their lives in a Non-Fluoridated one

114
NIDR survey Brunelle Carlos (1990)

• Their measure of tooth decay was Decayed Missing
  and Filled Surfaces (DMFS) of the permanent teeth.

115
Brunelle and Carlos (1990) (Table 6)
2.8 DMFS F

116
The largest US survey of tooth decay
3.4 DMFS NF
2.8 DMFS F

117
Brunelle and Carlos, 1990
3.4 DMFS NF
2.8 DMFS F
Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in
DMFS 0.6 tooth surfaces
118
TABLE 6Mean DMFS of U.S. Children with Permanent
Teeth By Age and Water Fluoridation Exposure
Life-Long Water Fluoridation Exposure Mean DMFS
No Water Fluoridation Exposure Mean DMFS
Percent Difference
Age
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 All Ages
0.03 0.14 0.36 0.64 1.05 1.64 2.12 2.46 3.43 4.05
5.53 6.02 7.01 2.79
0.10 0.14 0.53 0.79 1.33 1.85 2.63 2.97 4.41 5.18
6.03 7.41 8.59 3.39
70 0 32 19 21 11 19 17 22 22 8 19 18 18
All means adjusted to age and gender
distribution of total U.S. population ages 5-17.
1.) 3.39 2.79 0.6 Tooth surface out of 128
0.47 Tooth surfaces saved! 2.) Authors 0.6/3.39
x 100 17.7 18 Difference
119
(No Transcript)
120

• Not only was this saving very small (0.6 of one
  tooth surface) but it was not even shown to be
  statistically significant!

121
5) The most precise study of tooth decay in the
US
122

• Warren et al. (2009)
• (the Iowa study) examined the relationship
  between the amount of fluoride ingested by
  individual children (in mg/day) and their level
  of tooth decay

123

• They found no clear relationship! The authors
  state
• These findings suggest that achieving a
  caries-free status may have relatively little to
  do with fluoride intake
•  Warren et al., 2009

124
Percent
50 USA States and DC
National Survey of Children's Health.
http//mchb.hrsa.gov/oralhealth/portrait/1cct.htm
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Health Resources and Services Administration,
Maternal and Child Health Bureau. The National
Survey of Children's Health 2003. Rockville,
Maryland U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, 2005 http//www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/wat
erfluoridation/fact_sheets/states_stats2002.htm
125
Part 1.Better ways of fighting tooth decay
7) There are better ways of
fighting tooth decay in
low-income families
126
A Better Strategy

• Most of the tooth decay today is concentrated in
  low-income families.
• We need to target those families with better
  dental services, better dental education and
  better diet.
• Thye shouldnt be forced to swallow a substance
  that a) they cant avoid and b) puts them at
  greater disadvantage, because fluorides toxic
  effects are made worse by poor diet.

127
Scotland

•  Instead of water fluoridation, the Scottish
  Government opted for a dental action plan (their
  ChildSmile program), to pursue
• a) a nursery-school based toothbrushing program
• b) providing healthy snacks drinks to school
  children
• c) oral health advice to children and their
  families on healthy weaning, diet and
  toothbrushing
• d) annual dental check-ups and treatment if
  required including fluoride varnish applications.
  

128
Scotland

• The proportion of children aged 46 years without
  obvious dental decay has risen from 42 in 1996
  to 67 in 2012.
• The proportion of children aged 1012 years
  without obvious dental decay rose from
• 53 in 2005 to 73 in 2013
• They are ahead of schedule!
• (Information Services Division Scotland, 2013).

129
Scotland

• 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. (BBC, Scotland)

130

• In short our kids need
• MORE BRUSHING!
• MORE FRUIT AND VEGETABLES!
• LESS SUGAR!
• Less sugar means less tooth decay and less
  OBESITY
• Less obesity means less diabetes and fewer heart
  attacks
• In other words education to promote less sugar
  consumption is a very good investment!

131

• We need
• EDUCATION
• not FLUORIDATION
• to fight tooth decay and obesity.

132
More on IQ studies
SUMMARY
133

• Fluoridation is
• Unusual (most countries dont do it),
• Unnatural (the level of fluoride in mothers milk
  is extremely low),
• Unethical (it violates the individuals right to
  informed consent to human treatment)
• Unnecessary (if it works at all it works
  topically)
• Unsafe (dental fluorosis, lowered IQ,
  accumulation in the bones) and

134

• Ineffective (No RCT etc)
• Better alternatives (e.g. the ChildSmile program
  in Scotland).

135

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

136
More on IQ studies
Communities ending or rejecting fluoridation
137
Since 2010, over 170 communities in Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and the U.S have stopped or
rejected fluoridation
138
In May 21 2013, 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!
139
1n Nov 2012, Queensland lifted mandatory
requirement
140
In August 2014, the Israeli Minister of Health
announced an end of fluoridation in Israel.
141

142
(No Transcript)
143
More on IQ studies
RESOURCES
144
Please examine both sides

• Arguments for fluoridation
• www.ada.org
• Arguments against fluoridation
• www.fluorideALERT.org

145
NRC (2006)
146
Book published by Chelsea Green October,
2010 Can be ordered on Amazon.com
Contains 80 pages of references to
the Scientific literature
147

• FluorideALERT.org
• Largest health database on fluoride in the world
  (click on researchers)
• Videos Professional Perspectives on Water
  Fluoridation (28 mins) (click on FAN-TV)
• Interview with Chris Bryson (The Fluoride
  Deception) John Colquhoun Hardy Limeback Bill
  Osmunson and Bill Hirzy (click on FAN-TV).

148
Please watch the 20 minute DVDTEN FACTS on
FLUORIDEPLUS BOOKLET (10 sides)atwww.FluorideA
LERT.org
149
Part 2. A selection of arguments against water
fluoridation
150
Part 2. A selection of arguments against water
fluoridation
151
More on IQ studies
PROPAGANDA versus SCIENCE
152
Queensland Healths promotion of mandatory
statewide fluoridation) (2007)
153

• Beware of tooth decay savings reported as
  relative differences rather than absolute
  savings reported as tooth surfaces saved.

154

• 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

155
How did they get the 65 less decay ?
156
Teeth exposed to fluoridated water Qld
Health 2007

157
Teeth exposed to fluoridated water Qld
Health 2007
Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water
Qld Health 2007

158
(No Transcript)
159

• 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 safe
  practice. (Owen Sound, Sun Times, Jan 31, 2014)

160
We must suggest to these civil servants that they
read Ibsenss playAn Enemy of the People
161

162

• Fluoridation promoters
• Cannot defend this practice in open debate
• Cannot produce studies that demonstrate
  convincingly that fluoridation is safe or
  effective
• Cannot respond in writing to The Case Against
  Fluoride
• So they attack the messenger

163
Michael Easley DDS, MPH on debates

• Debates give the illusion that a scientific
  controversy exists when no credible people
  support the fluorophobics view,
• Like parasites, opponents steal undeserved
  credibility just by sharing the stage with
  respected scientists who are there to defend
  fluoridation.
• Unfortunately, a most flagrant abuse of the
  public trust occasionally occurs when a physician
  or a dentist, for whatever personal reason, uses
  their professional standing in the community to
  argue against fluoridation, a clear violation of
  professional ethics, the principles of science
  and community standards of practice. (Easley,
  1999)

164

• Fluoridation promoters
• Instead of science
• Use endorsements from authorities
• And ridicule their opponents
• But what it tells us is this practice is
  intellectually bankrupt
• They can only get away with this because they
  have power and the mainstream media is not doing
  its job

165
EXTRA SLIDES
166
We have to think of more and more ways of getting
out the truth about this miserable practice to
more and more people
167
Impacts up to 25 of tooth surface
Very Mild Dental Fluorosis
168
CDC, 2010
41
169
Impacts up to 50 of tooth surface
Mild Dental Fluorosis
170
CDC, 2010
41
171
Impacts 100 of tooth surface
Moderate- Severe Dental Fluorosis