1 THE FLUORIDE DEBATE PAUL CONNETT AND KEN PERROTT 2 Contents Introduction - Ken Perrott .......................................................................................................... 3 First article: Paul Connett - October 30, 2013 ........................................................................... 5 Ken Perrott - October 30, 2013 .................................................................................................. 9 Paul Connett - November 4, 2013............................................................................................ 18 Ken Perrott - November 7, 2013 .............................................................................................. 36 Why I Support fluoridation: Ken Perrott - November 11, 2013 .............................................. 46 Paul Connett - November 14, 2013.......................................................................................... 52 Ken Perrott -November 17, 2013 ............................................................................................. 56 Paul Connett - November 21, 2013.......................................................................................... 65 Ken Perrott - November 25, 2013 ............................................................................................ 78 Paul Connett - December 2, 2013 ............................................................................................ 90 Ken Perrott - December 9, 2013 ............................................................................................ 103 Paul Connett - December 12, 2013 ........................................................................................ 119 Ken Perrott- December 16, 2013 ........................................................................................... 135 Paul Connett - December 25, 2013 ........................................................................................ 150 Ken Perrott - 1 December 30, 2013 ....................................................................................... 161 Closing statement: Paul Connett - January 22, 2014 ............................................................. 176 Final article – Ken Perrott - 23 January 23, 2014 .................................................................. 196 3 Introduction - Ken Perrott This is a collection of articles written by Paul Connett and Ken Perrott in their exchange of opinions on the fluoridation of drinking water and related issues. While loosely titled The Fluoride Debate this was in no way meant to be a debate in the gladiatorial sense. It was not about “winners” and “losers.” Our intention was to discuss the science in a format encouraging good faith discussion and intelligent participation from commenters. I leave it to readers to decide how successful, or otherwise, we have been in this. Introducing the authors The authors in this "debate' have similar academic and professional backgrounds. Both have PhDs in chemistry, worked as research chemists and are now retired. Neither of us have done original research on fluoridation specifically, although both have become involved in the public discussion of it since there retirements. Paul Connett is an executive director of the Fluoride Action Network and campaigns throughout the world against fluoridation. He is, together with James Beck & H. Spedding Micklem, author of the book "The Case Against Fluoride." Paul has made several speaking tours in New Zealand as part of his campaign and will have another tour in February, 2014. Ken Perrott is a retired research chemist. These days he writes a blog, Open Parachute (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/), which deals issues related to science, human rights, philosophy and religion. Many of his articles have argued against pseudoscience and the misrepresentation of science. He has written a number of articles on scientific issues related to fluoridation (see http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoridation/) Format of debate The exchange occurred as posts on the blog Open Parachute. Paul originally proposed it as 5 pairs of articles with Paul starting and raising specific arguments against fluoridation followed by my reponse.– Paul Connett’s specific argument first with my response second. I thought this would be a convenient size for a series of blog articles. Paul's first article went live on October 30, 2013. Without the discipline of an external moderator the series ended up a longer than originally planned - we ended up with 8 pairs of articles, with my final closing article posted on January 23, 2014. Responding to requests from commenters about my own personal, rather than scientific, motivations I also posted an extra article Why I support fluoridation on November 11. Inevitably its content was also debated. Editing of articles 4 The articles here are basically the same as originally posted in the debate. I have corrected some typos and added reference lists to my own articles recognising that the hot links provided in a blog article may not be suitable for all readers of this document. I have avoided editing or altering Paul's articles except for a few minor issues like adjusting image size.. Comment discussions Many others, representing both sides of the "debate," participated in this exchange through the comments section of each article. Some commenters were very well informed, often with professional experience related to fluoridation. There were almost 2000 comments in total with many of them containing useful information and citations. Unfortunately it is not feasible to include the comment discussion here but I urge interested readers to browse through them on-line. Links to debate You can easily find original blog articles, together with comments, at the link Fluoride Debate (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/fluoride-debate/) Advice to readers Such lengthy articles, and so many of them, might be intimidating to some readers. My advice is to browse, read the articles that interest you or cover issues of interest. I imagine only the most dedicated reader would start at the beginning and read to the end. Any reader wishing to make contact with me can do so via my About me blog page (http://openparachute.wordpress.com/about-me/). 5 First article: Paul Connett - October 30, 2013 This is part 1 of a five-part series of internet exchanges on the fluoridation debate between Paul Connett (USA) and Ken Perrott (NZ). 1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice. 2. The evidence that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay is very weak. Better alternatives for fighting tooth decay 3. The large database that indicates that fluoride can impact the brain of animals and humans. 4. Other health concerns and the lack of an adequate margin of safety to protect everyone drinking fluoridated water. 5. Key moments since 1990 that should have forced an end to fluoridation. Paul Connett is co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010) and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (www.FluorideALERT.org ) Paul’s cv and list of publications is attached. Part 1. Fluoridation is a poor medical practice Introduction. Using the public water supply to deliver medical treatment is a very unusual practice. In fact it has only been done only once before and that was a short trial in which iodine was added to the drinking water to help fight hypothyroidism. However this was quickly abandoned when it was found that some people were being over-exposed to iodine. Since then fluoridation has been the only example. The reasons for not using the water to deliver medical treatment are fairly obvious. 1) It is impossible to control the dose people get. Once a chemical is added to the water to treat people (as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink) it is impossible to control the dose people get. People drink very different amounts of water. In short, engineers at the water works can control the concentration added to the water (mg/liter) but no one can control the total dose (mg/day) individuals receive. 2) It is totally indiscriminate. It goes to everyone regardless of age, regardless of health or nutritional status. Of particular concern is that it goes to people with poor kidney function who are unable to clear the fluoride from their bodies via the kidneys as effectively as others. It thus accumulates in their bones more rapidly. It also goes to people with low or borderline iodine intake, which makes them more vulnerable to fluoride’s impact on the thyroid gland. In general, according to studies done in India, people with poor diet (low protein, low calcium and low vitamin intake) are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects. 6 3) It violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medical treatment. This is a very important medical ethic which is fully described on the website of the American Medical Association (www.AMA.org). It is very surprising that so many medical doctors standby while the community does to everyone what they are not allowed to do to a single patient. The above arguments would apply to any medicine added to the drinking water but there are other aspects to the fluoride ion, which makes it particularly unsuitable for addition to the drinking water. 4) Fluoride is NOT a nutrient. There is not one single biochemical process in the body that has been shown to require fluoride for normal function (we will see later that fluoride’s predominant action on teeth is topical not systemic). However, 5) There are many biochemical processes