Sunday, 9 November 2008


Cary G Dean.

Controversial fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin nerve gas (Isopropyl Methyl Phosphoryl FLUoride).
And the stuff that's put in your water supply for you all to drink (HexaFLUrosilic Acid)

by Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617

Even Another 10 More Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation

Fluoridation is unethical because individuals are not being asked for their informed consent prior to medication.

This is standard practice for all medication, and one of the key reasons why most of western Europe has ruled against fluoridation.

As one doctor aptly stated, "No physician in his right senses would prescribe for a person he has never met, whose medical history he does not know, a substance which is intended to create bodily change, with the advice:

'Take as much as you like, but you will take it for the rest of your life because some children suffer from tooth decay.’

It is a preposterous notion."

While referenda are preferential to imposed policies from central government, it still leaves the problem of individual rights versus majority rule.

Put another way -- does a voter have the right to require that their neighbor ingest a certain medication (even if it's against that neighbor's will)?

Some individuals appear to be highly sensitive to fluoride as shown by case studies and double blind studies (Shea 1967, Waldbott 1978 and Moolenburg 1987).

In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions.

Can we as a society force these people to ingest fluoride?

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993), and other researchers (Juncos & Donadio 1972; Marier & Rose 1977 and Johnson 1979), certain subsets of the population may be particularly vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects;

These include:

The elderly, diabetics and people with poor kidney function.

Again, can we in good conscience force these people to ingest fluoride on a daily basis for their entire lives?

Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (e.g. calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodide deficiencies and protein poor diets) (Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin Fa-Fu 1991; Chen 1997; Teotia 1998).

Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition are the poor, who are precisely the people being targeted by new fluoridation programs.

While being at heightened risk, poor families are less able to afford avoidance measures (e.g. bottled water or removal equipment).

Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for poor families.

The real "Oral Health Crisis" that exists today in the World, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance.

The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.

Fluoridation has been found to be ineffective at preventing one of the most serious oral health problems facing poor children, namely, baby bottle tooth decay, otherwise known as early childhood caries (Barnes 1992 and Shiboski 2003).

The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970).

According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude."

In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000, see Appendix 3 for commentary).

The US Public Health Service first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed (McClure 1970)!

Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle 1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999).

This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).


If in doubt leave it out.

This is what most European countries have done and their children's teeth have not suffered, while their public's trust has been strengthened.

Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child's mouth?

For those who would call for further studies, I say fine.

Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want.

This folly must end without further delay.

Fluoride the Aging Factor

About the Author:
Paul Connett, PhD
Professor of Chemistry
St. Lawrence University
Canton, NY 13617

No comments: