1 / 160

The Case Against Water Fluoridation with supporting documents

The Case Against Water Fluoridation with supporting documents. Paul Connett, PhD Director, Fluoride Action Network Fluoride ALERT .org Brooksville, Florida August 27, 2013. Introduction.

afra
Download Presentation

The Case Against Water Fluoridation with supporting documents

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Case Against Water Fluoridation with supporting documents Paul Connett, PhD Director, Fluoride Action Network FluorideALERT.org Brooksville, Florida August 27, 2013

  2. Introduction • I have spent 17 years researching the fluoridation issue, first as a professor of chemistry specializing in environmental chemistry and toxicology, and now as director of the Fluoride Action Network. • In 2010 this research effort culminated in the publication of The Case Against Fluoride

  3. Book published by Chelsea Green October, 2010 Can be ordered on Amazon.com Contains 80 pages of references to the Scientific literature

  4. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 1. Paul Connett’s CV 2. Paul Connett’s publications 3. Chapter Summaries from “The Case Against Fluoride”

  5. Outline of my presentation 1. Why fluoridation should not have started. 2. Key moments since 1990 that should have ended fluoridation. 3. Better alternatives for fighting tooth decay. 4. My challenge to fluoridation promoters. (5. The lack of solid science to justify fluoridation and to justify forcing the practice on people who don’t want it.)

  6. Part 1.Why Fluoridation should never have started: Ten common sense arguments

  7. 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 medical treatment (check AMA website for definition). We are allowing communities to do to everyone what an individual doctor can do to no one!

  8. 5) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient. There is not a single process inside the body that needs fluoride to function properly, however 6) Fluoride is a known toxic substance that interferes with many fundamental biochemical functions See Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity by Barbier et al, 2010

  9. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 4.Barbier et al., 2010

  10. 7) 1 ppm fluoride (1 mg/liter) is NOT small. It is 250 times the level in mothers milk in a non-fluoridated community (0.004 ppm, NRC , 2006, p. 40) 8) A bottle-fed baby in a fluoridated community is getting 250 times the fluoride dose that nature intended. Who knows more about what the baby needs?

  11. 9) The fluoridating chemicals used are not the pharmaceutical grade chemicals used in dental products, but are arsenic-contaminated industrial waste products. 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.

  12. 10. The vast majority of countries do NOT fluoridate their water

  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

  14. 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

  15. According to WHO data tooth decay in 12-year-olds is coming down as fast in F as NF countries

  16. SOURCE: World Health Organization. (Data online)

  17. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 5. Cheng et al. 2007 (an article in the BMJ)

  18. Part 2 Some of the events since 1980 which should have forced an end to water fluoridation

  19. "The great tragedy of science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.” Aldous Huxley

  20. The TEN ugly facts that should have slain the water fluoridation hypothesis

  21. The ten year prelude to UGLY FACT #1

  22. 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

  23. Leverett in Science, 1982 Colquhoun, 1984,’85,’87 Diesendorf in Nature, 1986 Gray, 1987

  24. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 6. Colquhoun, J. (1993) “Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.”

  25. UGLY FACT # 1

  26. Ugly Fact #1 • In 1990, Brunelle and Carlos published the results of the largest survey of tooth decay ever carried out in the US. The NIDR (1986-87) examined the teeth of over 39,000 children in 84 communities. • Brunelle and Carlos reported very little difference in tooth decay in children between F and non-F communities.

  27. NIDR - Brunelle and Carlos (1990) • In Table 6, Brunelle and Carlos reported the DMFS (= decayed, missing and filled permanent SURFACES) of children aged 5-17 and compared children who had lived all their lives in either a fluoridated community or non-fluoridated community.

  28. 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.

  29. The average DMFS (children aged 5-17) for children who had lived all their lives in a F-community 2.8 DMFS F

  30. The average DMFS (children aged 5-17) for children who had lived all their lives in a Non-F community 3.4 DMFS NF

  31. Comparing the two subsets (about 8000 children in each) 3.4 DMFS NF 2.8 DMFS F

  32. 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 (4 to 5 surfaces to a tooth)

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

  34. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS 7. Brunelle and Carlos, 1990 (see Table 6)

  35. A word of warning These very small savings in tooth decay (even if they are real) are often obscured by reporting them as percentage differences

  36. Queensland Health’s promotion of “mandatory” statewide fluoridation) (2007)

  37. Queenslanders were toldFluoridated Townsville has65% less tooth decay thanNon-Fluoridated Brisbane

  38. Qld Health “results - 65 % less tooth decay” • “ In Townsville, water supplies have been fluoridated since 1964, resulting in 65% less tooth decay in children than those in Brisbane” • “ fluoride, which is proven to be safe and effective ” Qld Health newspaper ads Dec 2007

  39. How did they get the 65% less decay ?

  40. 0.26 – 0.09 = 0.17 DMFS0.17/0.26 x 100 = 65% fewer tooth surfaces decayedAn absolute saving of 0.17 of one tooth surface in 7 year olds!

  41. This was an atrocious example of “cherry picking” the data

  42. “ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007

  43. “ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 “ Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007

  44. “ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 “ Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 Does this look like a difference in 0.17 of one tooth surface?

  45. “ Teeth exposed to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 “ Teeth without exposure to fluoridated water” Qld Health 2007 Does this look like a difference in 0.17 of one tooth surface? Or is this fraudulent promotion?

  46. UGLY FACT # 2

  47. Ugly Fact #2 Several modern studies (1997-2001) show that tooth decay does NOT go up when fluoridation is stopped

  48. Modern studies indicate that Dental Caries has not gone upafter Fluoridation Stopped 1. Former East GermanyKunzel, W. & Fischer, T. (1997). Rise and fall of caries prevalence in German towns with different F concentrations in drinking water. Caries Res 31(3): 166-73 2. CubaKunzel, W. & Fischer, T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res 34(1): 20-5. 3. CanadaMaupome, G. et. al (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29(1): 37-47. 4. FinlandSeppa, L. et. al (2000). Caries trends 1992-98 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoride. Caries Res 34(6): 462-8.

  49. UGLY FACT # 3

More Related