.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

UK Against Fluoridation

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

FLUORIDE: Put an end to outdated practice

Paul Connett, Binghampton, N.Y. and John Mishko, Fircrest
Re: “Anti-fluoridation billboards are misleading, irresponsible” (Viewpoint, 8-16).
Contrary to assertions by Drs. Janelle Guirguis-Blake and Chris Jones, the anti-fluoridation billboards in the Tacoma area are not misleading.
These billboards question whether children should be drinking a neurotoxic chemical. Guirguis-Blake and Jones don’t deny fluoride is neurotoxic. Nor could they. More than 40 studies have associated fluoride exposure to reduced IQ and more than 100 animal studies indicate fluoride damages the brain (see http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ ).
Children from low-income families are targeted for fluoridation, but they are the last children that need their IQ lowered. This is too high a price to pay even if swallowing fluoride reduced tooth decay. However, a recent Cochrane Review indicates that the evidence fluoridation works is very poor.
Space does not allow us to respond to other pro-fluoridation arguments from Guirguis-Blake and Jones. However, we would be delighted to do so in open public debate if they would agree to participate.
Fluoridation is an outdated practice and should be ended. It is utterly irresponsible to add a known neurotoxic chemical to public drinking water.



  • That Paul Connett does not see that billboard as being completely misleading is clear demonstration of the fear-mongering tactics of this man and his New York antifluoridationist faction, "FAN".

    Connett purports to be a chemist, yet he obviously does not even understand the elementary fact that there is no substance known to man which is not toxic at improper levels, including plain water. If he wants to limit himself to ingesting only those substances which are not toxic, he can ingest absolutely nothing, and will be dead within a week.

    It is ironic that on one hand Connett claims that the Cochrane report "indicates that the evidence fluoridation works is very poor", while on the other he cites the 40 Chinese "IQ studies" which by the admission of the Harvard researchers who reviewed these studies, Grandjean and Choi, had key information missing, questionable methodologies, and inadequate control for variables. It is not a certainty that these studies were even peer-reviewed, a bare basic for credibility for scientific literature. Even Grandjean and Choi, themselves, stated that no conclusions could be made about fluoridated water in the US based on these studies. Does this stop Connett from doing so anyway? Obviously not.

    As Connett states, he is from Binghamton, NY, a fluoridated community. The 2014 water quality report of Binghamton lists the fluoride content of the public water supply as 0.86-1.19 mg/L. Presumably, Connett freely consumes and otherwise utilizes the water from his tap. If any sane person believed that fluoridated water did all the things which Connett claims, he or she would not go within a mile of it, much less freely drink it. So, one of two things.....either Connett has long ago taken complete leave of his senses, or he doesn't believes the nonsense he disseminates any more than do any intelligent people with even a modicum of understanding of fluoridation.

    So, the question is.....in whom do citizens want to place their trust for sound recommendations on a science and healthcare issue which directly impacts the health and well-being of each and every one? A retired chemist/leader of an organization which exists for the sole purpose of chasing fluoride all over the globe, who has not even the elementary understanding that all substances are toxic, who hypocritically trumpets discredited studies so flawed it is a wonder anyone would still be attempting to use them as "evidence", who ignores the volume of science which contradicts his claims, who apparently freely consumes fluoridated water himself in spite of all the claims he makes against it, and who uses unconscionable fear-mongering tactics in lieu of facts and evidence.......or the overwhelming consensus of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare including the past 5 US Surgeons General, the Deans of the Harvard Schools of Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health, and over 150 of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 19 August, 2015  

  • Welcome back Steven I missed your caustic comments and disparaging remarks.
    I’ve met Paul Connett many times when he came to Southampton during our long battle against the attempt to introduce fluoride to the city’s water supply and I admire his dedication to free the world from the tyranny of people like you who ignore all arguments of freedom of choice and reasonableness.
    Locally the NHS wasted one million we spent about two thousand and yet beat them. Only because people believed in us when we countered the rhetoric from the brainwashed dentists like your self (that is if you really are the man you say you are)
    Not that they have given up and even yesterday they are calling for a country wide scheme, still it’s in their job description to do so.


    By Blogger Bill, at 19 August, 2015  

  • Bill,

    1. Your sterling personal opinion of Paul Connett does not change the fact that he misrepresents science, uses erroneous and skewed data, cherry picks studies, cites discredited studies as his "evidence", ignores the volume of scientific literature which directly contradicts his claims, and uses emotion and fear-mongering tactics in lieu of facts supported by valid evidence. Neither does it change the fact that while he promotes himself as being some sort of "authority" on fluoridation, Connett has not one, single, peer-reviewed piece of scientific literature on fluoridation to his name.

    "Information recently published by the Fluoride Action Network based on Australian data, suggesting a substantial difference in tooth eruption between fluoridated and non fluoridated areas of Australia, have been confirmed as being based on
    erroneous data."

    "The Australian research centre (ARCPOH) responsible for these data have confirmed the data error and reported that when the error is corrected there is little variation in the number of permanent teeth present at each age between children in
    Queensland and all of Australia."

    "The studies and reports cited by Professor Connett to try and validate an argument for delayed tooth eruption either do not make the claims he suggests, or do not have direct relevance to trying to assess the issue. The claimed association is at odds with
    the published literature which indicates minimal variation in eruption time of permanent teeth by exposure to fluoride. "

    ----National Fluoridation Information Service (2011): Does Delayed Tooth Eruption Negate The Effect of Water Fluoridation?
    National Fluoridation Information Service Advisory June 2011, Wellington, New Zealand.

    2. Your implication that fluoridation advocates are doing so because of a "job description" could not be any more comical or hypocritical, given the fact that the only people of whom I'm aware are profiting from keeping this issue alive are Paul Connett, his family, and his cohorts. It actually is in their "job descriptions" to keep the issue alive, and, as is a matter of public record, they are paid to do so, along with whatever expenses are paid for Connett's trips to Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Canada, and all over the United States.

    So, as can be plainly seen, you have it all backward, as is the usual case with antifluoridationists. The dedicated ones are those healthcare professionals, public health personnel, and other concerned citizens who volunteer their time and efforts in trying to overcome the obstacles to improved oral and overall health for all citizens, which are constantly being erected by self-serving, uninformed activist zealots such as you......with the ones carrying out their "job descriptions" for which they are paid, being Connett, his family, and his cohorts.

    3. Yes, when attempting to provide accurate information to the public, in the face of an onslaught of unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and blatant fear-mongering by activists who do not bother to constrain themselves within the bounds of truth, accuracy, or integrity of any sort....it does cost a lot of money.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 19 August, 2015  

  • My reply with your last comment is now published on today's report. (Wednesday)

    By Blogger Bill, at 19 August, 2015  

  • Good. Post it anywhere you please. Whatever is your "reply" is, I'm sure, just the same old antifluoridationist nonsense, not worth the effort it would take to find it.....even if I did care.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 19 August, 2015  

  • Bill, I will give you one thing. Most antifluoridationist sites with which I have experience, censor out my comments, and those of any other fluoridation advocates, being totally oblivious to the fact that they lose all credibility when so doing. I commend you, or whomever controls this site, for understanding the value of allowing free flow of information.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    By Blogger Steve Slott, at 19 August, 2015  

  • Steve, I think you didn't get what I meant, I was giving more prominence to your comments by republishing so that more people would see it.
    Perhaps you will take another look at my reply as I would genuinely like to hear what you think about Prof Sheldon's summary.

    No one "controls" this blog just my input.

    By Blogger Bill, at 20 August, 2015  

  • Steven Slott's 1.7 Google review rating speaks for itself: he is a well-known internet troll and has been widely discredited as such. Don't listen to this guy when he tries to convince you to drink his chemical water.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 05 November, 2017  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home