The Case Against Fluoridation
PART A
Paul Connett, PhD
Director, Fluoride Action Network
FluorideALERT.org
Sydney, Australia, Feb 21, 2015
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.
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
After 5 years Fluoridation
promoters have not produced a
written scientific response to the
arguments presented in this book
Fluoridation has “fossilized”
into a belief system
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
Part 1.
Better ways
7) There
areofbetter
fighting
tooth
decay
ways of fighting
tooth decay in
low-income families
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.
They have done this in Scotland
Scotland
Instead of water fluoridation, the Scottish
Government instigated its ChildSmile program.
This involves:
 a) teaching toothbrushing at nursery-school
 b) plus healthy snacks & drinks;
 c) plus health, dental hygiene and diet advice to
their families;
 d) annual dental check-ups and treatment if
required including fluoride varnish applications.

Scotland
 The
proportion of children aged 4–6 years
without obvious dental decay has risen
from 42% in 1996 to 67% in 2012.
 And for 10–12 years it rose from
 53% in 2005 to 73% in 2013
(Information Services Division Scotland, 2013).
Scotland
“Glasgow
researchers found
that...the cost of treating
dental disease in five-yearolds decreased by more than
half between 2001 and 2010.”
(BBC, Scotland)
 The
message:
 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!
Part 1.
Better ways of
1) Fluoridation
fighting tooth
decay
is
Unusual
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
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*
*Some fluoridate their salt
Part 1.
Better ways of
2) Fluoridation
fighting tooth
decay
is
Unnatural
Nature’s verdict:
The level of fluoride in
mothers’ milk is
EXTREMELY LOW
0.004 ppm
(NRC , 2006, p. 40)
Mothers’ milk protects our babies
from early exposure to fluoride
F = 0.004 ppm
Water fluoridation removes
nature’s protection
F = 1.00 ppm
250 x level in mothers’ milk
A bottle-fed baby in a
fluoridated community
(0.7 – 1.2 ppm) is
getting 175-300 times
the fluoride dose that
nature intended!
In other words by
Nature’s standards
1 ppm is not small
it is HUGE!
Please Note:
Life evolved from the sea where
the level of fluoride is about 1.4
ppm, BUT not one single
process in the body requires
fluoride to function! Fluoride is
NOT an essential nutrient
Please Note:
Many biological processes and
components are harmed by
fluoride (enzymes, G-proteins
etc)
Part 1.
Better ways of
3) Fluoridation
fighting tooth
decay
is
Unethical
We should NEVER use the public
water supply to deliver ANY
medical treatment
a) You can’t control the DOSE
b) you can’t control who gets the
treatment AND
c) it violates the individual’s right to
informed consent to medication
Part 1.
Better ways of
4) Fluoridation
fighting tooth
decay
is
Unnecessary
In 1999, the CDC Oral
Health Division (the #1
promoter of fluoridation in
the world) conceded that the
predominant benefit of
fluoride is TOPICAL not
SYSTEMIC.
CDC, MMWR, 48(41); 933-940,
Oct 22, 1999
 “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…”
This admission by the CDC Oral
Health Division should have
ended fluoridation worldwide!
If fluoride works primarily on the outside
of the tooth not from inside the body,
Why swallow it 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?
Part 1.
Better ways of
5) Fluoridation
fighting tooth
decay
is
Unsafe
NRC (2006)
 This 2006 review of the toxicology of
fluoride in water used a balanced panel (3
pro-F, 3 anti-F and 6 uncommitted)
 It took 3 and ½ years to complete
 It was 500 pages long and had 1100
references
 It was dismissed in one sentence by the
NHMRC in 2007 as not being relevant to
water fluoridation in Australia
However, Figure 2-8 on page 85
shows that bottle-fed babies in
fluoridated communities at 1 ppm
are exceeding the EPA’s safe
reference dose (0.06 mg/ kg
bodyweight/day)
Dental fluorosis rates indicate
that American children are
being hugely overexposed to
fluoride (from several
sources).
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
CDC, 2010
41%
Impacts up to 25% of tooth surface
Very Mild Dental Fluorosis
Impacts up to 50% of tooth surface
Mild Dental Fluorosis
Impacts 100% of tooth surface
Moderate- Severe
Dental Fluorosis
But this is what you can
see,
what about the things you
cannot see?
It would be reckless to assume
that when fluoride is damaging
the baby’s growing tooth cells
that is not damaging other
developing tissues like the bone,
brain and the endocrine system.
In part B of my
presentation I will talk
about the many animal and
human studies that show
that fluoride can interfere
with brain chemistry.
Part 1.
Better ways of
6) Fluoridation
fighting tooth
decay
is
Ineffective
1) No RCT after 70 years!
RCT = randomized control trial,
the gold standard of
epidemiology testing of drugs
2) WHO data
According to WHO data
tooth decay in 12-year-olds
is coming down as fast
in NF as F countries
55
56
SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)
3) The largest survey of
tooth decay in the US
NIDR survey: Brunelle & Carlos (1990)
 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
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
3.4
DMFS
NF
2.8
DMFS
F
Average difference (for 5 - 17 year olds) in DMFS
= 0.6 tooth surfaces
Not only was this saving very
small (0.6 of one tooth
surface) but it was not even
shown to be statistically
significant!
4) The most precise study of
tooth decay in the US
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
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
More
on
IQ
studies
SUMMARY
Fluoridation is:



Unusual (most countries don’t do it),
Unnatural (the level of fluoride in
mothers’ milk is extremely low),
Unethical (it violates the individual’s
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
Ineffective
 Better
alternatives (e.g. the
ChildSmile program in Scotland).
Fluoridation is an
obsolete practice
and it is
time to end it
Communities
More
on
IQ
studies
ending or rejecting
fluoridation
Since 2010, 170 communities in
Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the
U.S have stopped or rejected
fluoridation
Make that 171, yesterday we heard that
Montello, WI has stopped fluoridation
1n Nov 2012, Queensland
lifted mandatory requirement
In August 2014, the Israeli
Minister of Health announced
an end of fluoridation in
Israel.
Yesterday the Arkansas House voted to
remove the mandatory requirement for
fluoridation. The Bill now goes to the
Senate.
More
on
IQ
studies
RESOURCES
NRC (2006)
Book published
by Chelsea Green
October, 2010
Can be ordered
on Amazon.com
Contains
80 pages
of references
to the
Scientific
literature
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)
 Ten Facts on Fluoride (20 minutes)
 Interview with Chris Bryson (The
Fluoride Deception); John Colquhoun;
Hardy Limeback; Bill Osmunson and Bill
Hirzy (click on FAN-TV).
More
on
IQ
studies
EXTRA SLIDES
PROPAGANDA
More on IQ studies
versus
SCIENCE
Queensland Health’s
promotion of “mandatory”
statewide fluoridation)
(2007)
“ 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 teeth. Lynn said water fluoridation
prevents tooth decay and is a safe practice. (Owen
Sound, Sun Times, Jan 31, 2014)

“ 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 ?
The Queensland Health ad should have read:

“ In Townsville, water
supplies have been
fluoridated since 1964,
resulting in 7 year olds
having a reduction in
tooth decay of 0.12 of
one tooth surface
compared to children
in Brisbane”