By Dr. Paul Connett
Chris Bryson, in his splendid book, The Fluoride Deception,
offers a very convincing explanation of the political and economic
forces behind fluoridation in the 1940s and beyond.
Meanwhile, U.S. authorities continue to plow on, regardless
of the accumulating scientific evidence that the practice is
neither effective nor safe. Whether continued U.S. support is
being driven by the same economic forces that operated in the
late 1940s is difficult to ascertain.
However, what is abundantly clear is that today bureaucrats
do not want to admit they have been wrong about a practice whose
virtues they have so enthusiastically extolled for more than
50 years. In addition, toothpaste manufacturers like Colgate
and Procter and Gamble are probably very concerned about the
enormous liabilities waiting in the wings, if any of fluoride's
health effects are acknowledged.
As far as fluoridation's ineffectiveness is concerned, figures
from the World Health Organization show the same declines in
tooth decay, which have been experienced in fluoridated countries
since the 1960s have occurred equally in non-fluoridated countries
(http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm).
In a study published last year, pro-fluoridation dental researchers
from the University of Aderlaide in South Australia, were unable
to demonstrate any difference in the permanent teeth between
those children who had lived all their lives drinking fluoridated
water and those who had drunk rain or bottled water. (Armfield
and Spencer, 2004)
If You Repeat it Often Enough
...
As far as safety is concerned, since 1950, U.S. health authorities
have behaved as if, simply by declaring fluoridation is safe
and effective, that it becomes so and that somehow if this mantra
is repeated often enough, it offers almost "biblical" protection
against any possible effect that fluoride might have. Would
that we were so lucky...
We've always known that fluoride can interfere with the developing
tooth enamel, a condition called "dental fluorosis." However,
early promoters thought that, at the so-called "optimum" level
of 1 ppm fluoride in the water, tooth decay would be lowered
without causing more than 10 percent of children to be affected
with the mildest level of dental fluorosis.
However, a recent national survey indicates that at least 30
percent of children living in fluoridated communities in the
U.S. have dental fluorosis on at least two teeth, and not all
of this is in its very mild form of little white spots or flecks.
(Heller et al, 1997)
Proponents of fluoridation try to make light of this by describing
the condition as merely a "cosmetic effect." However, dental
fluorosis is the first of fluoride's toxic effects and is an
indicator that it might have affected other tissues as well.
The latest research from Mexico shows a strong correlation between
the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures
in children. (Alarcon-Herrera et al., 2001)
Increased bone fractures would be serious enough, especially
hip fractures in the elderly (Li et al., 2001) but even more
alarming is the research made public on June 6. The Environmental
Working Group reported a finding which appeared in a Harvard
PhD thesis, which showed young boys exposed to fluoridated water
in their 6th, 7th and 8th years, had a seven-fold increased
risk of developing osteosarcoma, a form of bone cancer.
Prior to this finding, the evidence from both animal and epidemiological
studies has been mixed. This study might go a long way to explain
some of the negative human findings, because most authors have
not narrowed their focus to when the young boys were exposed
to fluoride. The mid-term bone growth spurt seems to be a particularly
vulnerable period for fluoride's impact on the developing bone.
While osteosarcoma is a rare cancer, it is frequently fatal.
I would re-iterate what the late Dr. John Colquhoun asked in
a videotaped interview I had with him in 1998, "How many teeth
saved could possibly justify even one child dying from osteosarcoma?"
A Shameful Celebration
Back to the politics, it is shocking that this very important
and federally funded study that earned a PhD thesis in 2001,
has still not been published in 2005. What is particularly troubling
about the delay is that the PhD advisor for this work, Dr. Chester
Douglass, is also a consultant for Colgate and edits their "Oral
Health report."
Neither the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
nor the American Dental Association (ADA), when challenged,
can defend water fluoridation in open public debate, nor even
answer specific questions submitted to them in writing (other
than those of their own choosing). However, that has not stopped
these agencies promoting this practice at every turn.
Within the last few months, representatives of these bodies
have actively supported efforts to introduce mandatory statewide
fluoridation in Arkansas, New Jersey and Oregon. This is almost
like a war against our own people. The latest battle in this
war, took place last month in Chicago, where the ADA and the
CDC held an opening celebration in Millennium Park and a three-day
symposium at the ADA headquarters to "celebrate 60 years of
fluoridation."
For those who have studied the issue, and thought about the
ethics of enforcing medication on the individual without their
informed consent, 60 years of fluoridation is not a cause for
celebration. Instead, it should be a source of immense shame.
It disturbs me that the CDC is such an active promoter of fluoridation,
because this represents a conflict of interest in their key
role of protecting the health of U.S. citizens. Even if fluoridation
was hugely beneficial to teeth -- and clearly it is not -- it
is only one tissue in the body.
By going overboard on this one tissue, it is turning a blind
eye to potential damage to other tissues, including the brain
(Varner et al., 1998; Xiang et al., 2003); the pineal gland
(Luke, 2001); the thyroid gland (Bachinskii et al., 1985); and
the reproductive system (Freni, 1994), not to mention the 1
percent of the population who appear to be supersensitive to
fluoride (Feltman and Kossel, 1965). (All of these studies are
fully referenced at http:/www.fluoridealert.org/health.)
Protecting Fluoride
Nowhere is the CDC's bias towards promotional rather than protective
activities made more abundantly clear than in their in-house
Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report of October 23, 1999. In
this, they claimed fluoridation was "one of the top 10 public
health achievements of the twentieth century." Incredibly, the
CDC dismissed health concerns in one sentence based upon a National
Research Council (NRC) review, which by 1999, was already six
years out of date. (NRC, 1993)
To underline, still further the political nature of CDC's promotion
of this practice, one only needs to note that the agency (the
NRC) on which they relied for their safety claims in 1999, is
currently engaged in an identical review based upon the science
that has been published since 1993, some of which is identified
above.
However, the CDC is not waiting for this review to be completed
in 2006 and, instead, is sending its representatives around
the country helping to get as many new communities fluoridated
as possible. A key question that I hope that citizens will ask
of their U.S. representatives is: Should taxpayers' be financing
such unabashed propaganda?
Paul Connett, PhD, is a Professor of Chemistry at St.
Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y. He is also director of the
Fluoride Action Network, an international coalition dedicated
to ending water fluoridation and alerting people to fluoride's
health and environmental risks. You can e-mail Dr. Connett at
paul@fluoridealert.org.
For more news click here!
