Dr. Paul Connett discusses the use of fluoride in the water supply and how it's basically a forced medication. He says the only minmal evidence of fluoride's benefit is as a topical use. So why is it still in the water supply? While it's in the water supply, there is no regulation of dose.
In order to keep our content free, some of the links below maybe affiliate links to trusted websites. Shopping through them will bring a small commission to iHealthTube.com. Read our full affiliate disclaimer for more info.
Scott: Well, let's start with dentalhealth. Everybody knows that fluorideis supposed to help prevent tooth decay. Isthere any evidence that that is in fact true?
Dr. Connett: Well, even the proponents nowadmits that the major benefit of fluoride, if any exists is topical. It workson the outside of the teeth, not from inside the body. At that point,that should have been the end of fluoridation right there. If it workstopically, why on earth swallow it? Why on earth put it in everybody'sdrinking water and forcing it on people that don't want it, and exposingtissues that can be harm to it if you can simply go out, buy fluoridatedtoothpaste, brush it on the target organ and then spit it out? That wouldmake sense.
That's what most countries do. Guess what? Mostcountries that don't fluoridate, their children have just as good, ifnot better teeth than countries that do fluoridate, which are in theminority. Very few countries actually fluoridate their water. Half the peoplethat are drinking artificially fluoridated water live in NorthAmerica. We're the odd ones out really.
Scott: Why is that?
Dr. Connett: I think most civilizedcountries were not persuaded that we should force a medication on people via thewater supply. Nor were many countries persuaded that all the healthquestions had been answered back in the '50s when they started this and theyhaven't. They weren't answered in the '50s and they still have not been answeredtoday. In fact, there are more questions about health today than therewere 50 years ago.
Scott: You talk about it being a forcedmedication.
Dr. Connett: Yes.
Scott: In that respect, there's no controlover any dosage or anything like that, no matter how big or small the personis.
Dr. Connett: It's a terrible medicalpractice for that reason. In fact, the proof is in the pudding. Since fluoridationstarted in 1945, we in the United States nor anywhere else in the world hasused the public water supply to deliver medicine. Now we add a lot ofchemicals to the water, but all those chemicals are added to protect thewater, to purify the water and make the water more palatable to drink.
But fluoridation is the only time where we'veused the water as a vehicle to deliver this medicine. There is not onesingle reaction, biological process in the body that requires fluoride.There's no evidence that it's a nutrient, and clearly no other nutrient works onthe outside of the body, on the outside of the skin or outside of the(inaudible 00:02:36).
So it's not a nutrient, and yet there's plentyof evidence that suggests that the fluoridine is extremely activebiologically and can damage tissues. One they don't even deny is the teethitself. So although the benefit is supposed to be topical, the damagethat fluoride can cause to the teeth is systemic. It works in the inside.
It interferes with the growing tooth cells andcauses a condition called dental fluorosis, which is a [mockling]discoloration of the teeth which starts very small in its very mild form, littlestreaks on the cusp of the teeth. Then it covers gradually more of thesurface of the teeth through mild, through moderate. By the time you get tosevere, you've got 100% of the tooth surface impacted.
When they started fluoridation, they thoughtthey could limit the number of kids with this condition to about 10% and onlyin the very mild condition, which they thought that only dentists wouldrecognize. The parents wouldn't see it. Children wouldn't see it. But now theCDC has told the world in 2010 that 41% of American children age 12 to 15have some form of dental fluorosis including 8.6% in the mild category,which is 50% of the surface impacted and 3.6% either in the moderate or thesevere with 100% impacted.
Now we could argue about how serious that is interms of the psychological damage it does to teenagers if they don't wantto smile on their first date or when they go to school and they get ribbedfor having... The common concern that children have with dental fluorosisis other people think that they don't look after themselves. They're slops.
Well, we could argue about how significant thatpsychological damage is, but what they can't argue about is that thatchild that has dental fluorosis has been overexposed to fluorideduring these years that the permanent teeth were erupting. You can't getdental fluorosis after the teeth have erupted. It's systemic, not topical.
My question is, and I think it should have beeneverybody's question, is it possible that you've got this agent that candamage the growing tooth cells without damaging the bone cells after all theteeth grow from the bone, the brain cells and the other delicate tissues ofthe child's developing body?
The answer seems to be no. If you see dentalfluorosis, it's highly likely that you're damaging the child's bones and nowmore seriously, the child's brain.
We now have actually 33 studies which haveassociated a lowering of IQ with exposure to fluoride at levels which are not somuch greater than our kids right now are being exposed to.