Tuesday, 22 June 2010


Acccording to the Fluoride Action Network in the USA, their scientists and supporters strongly object to recent mischaracterizations of fluoridation opponents by political pundits Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and others in conjunction with Senator Harry Reid's Nevada re-election campaign.

"Fluoridation opposition is science-based and growing," says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, who has co-authored the upcoming book, "The Case Against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics that Keep it There." Co-authors are James Beck, MD, PhD, professor emeritus of medical physics at the University of Alberta in Calgary; and Spedding Micklem, DPhil, professor emeritus at Edinburgh University.

"We have spent many years investigating water fluoridation and the toxicity of fluoride and we are dismayed that commentators are willing to repeat, without verification, pro-fluoridation statements that disparage scientists and citizens who oppose the practice," says Connett.

"FAN's website has a wealth of scientific information indicating that water fluoridation is neither safe nor effective," says Connett. "In fact, mounting evidence shows that it is harmful to large segments of the population and has helped to create an epidemic of dental fluorosis in children." On April 12, 2010, Time magazine listed fluoride as one of the "Top Ten Common Household Toxins" and described fluoride as both "neurotoxic and potentially tumorigenic if swallowed."

"The majority of countries do not fluoridate or have ended the practice, including 98% of Western Europe, and yet, according to WHO statistics, their tooth decay rates are no different than those in fluoridated countries," Connett states.

The FAN website has an online DVD of 15 scientists explaining why fluoridation is a risky and inappropriate medical practice. These scientists include one Nobel Prize winner, three members of a National Research Council committee that published a groundbreaking report on fluoride's toxicity in 2006, and two former EPA scientists.

According to Nobel laureate Arvid Carlsson, fluoridation is an "obsolete" practice that "is against all principles of modern pharmacology." FAN's site also has a listing of over 2800 scientists and professionals who are calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide.

The Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association now concede that fluoride's predominant action on the tooth is topical, not systemic, as it works on the outside of the tooth, not from inside the body. Both groups admit that using fluoridated water to prepare infant formula elevates the risk of dental fluorosis and they advise using very low or non-fluoridated water to lessen the risk. Pediatricians rarely inform parents of this advice.

"Topical treatments like fluoridated toothpaste are readily available. It makes no sense to expose the whole body to this toxic substance or force it on people who do not want it," says Connett.

According to Connett and other scientists, "Fluoridation is reckless as there is clear science indicating that fluoride has the potential to damage human bones, kidneys, thyroid and to lower children's IQs."

Connett concludes, "Fluoridation promoters have painted themselves into a corner and cannot find a face-saving way out. But citizen awareness and opposition is growing rapidly and instead of ridiculing those who oppose fluoridation, responsible commentators should educate themselves about this 60 year controversy and urge a more rational discussion of the issue."

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

Brian Jackson of the Friends of the Earth Fluoride Network concurs that the same bad mouthing, combined with bad science and political hipocrisy applies equally in the UK where even Government ministers spout nonesence about the "benefits of fluoride" regularly but somehow seem to be unable to respond to any scientific queries about it. Perhaps this is simply because these people either dont understand the science or more likely are terrified of beinf drawn into a proper discusion about it because they know they have litttle or no evidence to support their regularly repeated claims that it is "safe and effective" The only medical side effect that they will admit to is Dental Fluorosis, a mottling and discolouration and this they describe as "cosmetic". Its certainly not cosmetic to people who suffer from it and are too embarassed to smile.

If they didnt understand it there might be some excuse for their behaviour but the previous Government of New Labour even appointed Health minister Andy (Virgil) Burnham despite the fact that he was actually employed to represent the British Fluoridation Society. What a wonderful example of science and impartiality that was. Virgil only resigned from his position when we grassed him up to the press but of course this should not have been necessary. Amazingly, this was not the most glaring example of duplicity however. At an earlier stage, the Government appointed a research team at York University headed by Professor Sheldon. The stated aim was to examin the merits of fluoride with a view to rolling out fluoridation right across the UK. After careful consideration of all the available evidence and papers on fluoride and fluoridation, its summary indicated a lack of good quality evidence in this country and found that it could not recommend the expansion of fluoridation in the UK. Our wonderful Government however, not liking this result found it necessary to deliberately rewrite the summary and conclusions to make it look like Professor Sheldons team supported expansion of water fluoridation.

There is nothing new in this of course, its very typical of the pro-fluoride lobby and our Governments general attitude towards science, which it seems to believe is a tool to be used by the politicians to support any policy that they think will win them votes and keep them in power. Professor Nutt who was appointed to examine the current drug regulations but they also rubbished his findings and then removed him from his position. Government policy cannot be allowed to dictate to science or facts it has to be the other way round and any government which is prepared to stoop to such low and dishonest methods to support the unsupportable is simply not fit to be in power and cannot be trusted. A look at the recent history of MPs of all persuasions bears witness to this dishonesty. In the USA, the puppets of the regime or the corporations bad mouth opponents of fluoride, whilst here in the UK they just make up any old crap and lie through their teeth. "Oh brave new world that has such people in it!"