by Paul Connett, PhD
“For many months a team of scientists, who met at the International Society for Fluoride Society’s conference in New Zealand in January, have been circulating among their colleagues an appeal and petition which is calling upon those governments which fluoridate their water to bring some integrity into their promotion of the practice.
“This petition has already gathered hundreds of signatures from 38 countries. Those signing include Dr. Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine in 2000, from Sweden; Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, former President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research; Professor Samuel S. Epstein, author of The Politics of Cancer; and Ted Schettler, MD, MPH, Science Director, Science and Environmental Health Network, USA. The petition and list of signers can be viewed online at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/integrity.htm
“Those wishing to add their names should send an email to email@example.com and put the words “Integrity Petition” as their subject line.
1) Please give your name (and your highest degree, if relevant);
2) Your affiliation for identification purposes;
3) Your town, state, and nation.
“Also, to underscore why we are calling for integrity in the fluoridation debate, we have compiled articles documenting some of the more blatant cases of scientific fraud and suppression in the promotion of fluoridation (e.g. the firing of Dr. William Marcus from the EPA, the firing of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix from the Forsythe Dental Institute, the altering of recommendations from the Surgeon General’s 1983 panel, etc). See compilation at: http://www.fluoridealert.org/suppression.htm .
“When you read first the petition you might be disappointed that it is not stronger. It does not ask for an immediate halt to water fluoridation. However, if you read the six demands in the petition, I think you will agree that if a government was to go along with any one of them it would completely undermine water fluoridation.
1) If any government were to truly examine the literature objectively and comprehensively, and applied standard toxicological procedures to their regulatory decision, it would have to reject fluoridation, just as it has been rejected by most industrialized countries.
2) If they collected the levels of fluoride in our bones it would be abundantly clear that a lifetime’s (or even half a lifetime’s) accumulation of fluoride will lead to fluoride levels in many people likely to cause arthritic symptoms and an increased risk of hip and other fractures.
3) If they stopped using industrial grade (and toxicologically untested) hexafluorosilicic acid, they would find the use of pharmaceutical sodium fluoride cost prohibitive.
4) If they lifted the overhanging fear of reprisals from the average dentist, research scientist and government official, many more would reject this archaic form of mass medication.
5) If they were honest about the miniscule (if any) benefits of fluoridation, and stopped their exaggerations, no official in his or her right mind would gamble with such a complex variety of health risks.
6) If the promoters were ever to come on to a public platform and defend this practice in an open public debate, it would be clear to all that they have no defense for a practice which defies common sense, medical ethics and standard toxicological and regulatory procedures.
In short, the promoters cannot retain both fluoridation and their integrity. If we can get the academic, scientific, professional and all those who work actively to protect human health to insist on integrity, fluoridation is doomed.
(For more information, email Dr. Connett at firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com )