December Reports and Resources


1 The ‘Killer question’

From Paul Connett at FAN:

During 2016, I asked this question to many fluoridation promoters and have yet to receive an adequate scientific answer.  I asked it in several audiences in New Zealand and also to promoters at a council hearing in Naples, Florida and most recently at a debate in Cortland, New York with Johnny Johnson and Steve Slott.  Neither Johnson nor Slott, otherwise very vocal on promoting fluoridation, had an answer.

The Question to promoters of fluoridation:

“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that gives you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies).”

If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question: fluoridation should be halted immediately.

On Nov 22, 2016, Michael Connett, JD, asked this question to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on behalf of FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several individual mothers, in a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The EPA has 90 days to reply, and if they fail to provide a satisfactory reply then they can be taken to Federal Court.

How you can take this further?

We are requesting that each one of you to ask this question of any promoter of fluoridation – and keep asking it throughout 2017 until you can get an answer. Send that answer to us.

Based on responses we have seen so far we anticipate that there will be no satisfactory answers. In our view, there is no scientific evidence that could justify ignoring the large number of scientific studies that fluoride damages the brain and thus no justification for continuing this unethical and reckless practice of deliberately adding fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water.

This in essence will be our 2017 campaign. Very simple, very direct and very important. We hope that you will support this in two ways: a) ask this showstopper question in as many creative ways as you can and as many times as you can, and b) support FAN financially.


Reproduced in full from Mercola’s site, this article includes the main text of the petition featured in the News section and a restatement of the case.

Dec 12

EPA Urged to Ban Brain Toxin

By Joseph Mercola, M.D.

Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is among a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the addition of fluoride to public drinking water supplies.

The EPA has been served with a petition that includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.

In particular, the petition notes, “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects.”

The EPA is authorized, under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to prohibit the use of a chemical that poses an unreasonable risk to the general public or particularly vulnerable populations.

EPA’s Own Risk Assessment Shows Water Fluoridation Poses an Unreasonable Health Risk

The petition urges the EPA to exert their authority to prohibit fluoridation additives in drinking water, noting that their own Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment shows:1

  • Neurotoxicity is a hazard of fluoride exposure
  • The reference dose that would reasonably protect against neurotoxicity is “incompatible with the doses now ingested by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas”

“In fact,” the petition states, “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by many people in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects; with certain subpopulations standing at elevated risk of harm, including infants, young children, elderly populations and those with dietary deficiencies, renal impairment and/or genetic predispositions.”2

As for fluoride’s effects on the brain, in 2014 Lancet Neurology released a study, authored by a Harvard doctor, among others, that classified fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin.3 It wasn’t the first time.

In 2012, a meta-analysis, also by Harvard researchers, clearly showed that children exposed to fluoride in drinking water had lower IQs, by an average of seven points, in areas with raised concentrations.4

Fluoride Warrants Assessment Priority, Per EPA’s ‘Gold Standard’

Fluoride’s neurotoxicity is an especially unreasonable risk, the petition notes, because fluoride’s predominant effect on tooth decay is related to topical application, not oral ingestion:5

“Since there is little benefit in swallowing fluoride, there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom.”

Even the National Research Council reviewed the evidence, at the EPA’s request, and concluded in 2006 that fluoride has the ability to interfere with brain function.

Nearly 200 fluoride/brain studies have been conducted since, and research published in Lancet Neurology classified fluoride as one of 12 chemicals known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in humans (others include lead, mercury and PBCs).6

Chemicals known to be neurotoxic in humans are classified by the EPA as “gold standard” chemicals that should receive assessment priority.

“The existence of so many human studies on fluoride neurotoxicity highlights the urgent need for a diligent risk assessment, per EPA’s Guidelines, to ensure that the general public, and sensitive subpopulations, are not ingesting neurotoxic levels,” the petition explains.7

Even Low Doses of Fluoride May Be Toxic

Fluoride has repeatedly been linked to reduced IQ even at supposedly “safe” water fluoride levels of less than 4 mg/L (EPA’s “safe” level).

It’s often stated, and assumed by health agencies including the EPA, that dental fluorosis, a condition in which your tooth enamel becomes progressively discolored and mottled, is one of the most significant adverse effects of consuming too much fluoride.

But in reality, this is an outward sign that fluoride is damaging the body. Research has found impairment in cognitive abilities among children with fluorosis (even mild fluorosis) compared to children with no fluorosis.

Also noteworthy, reduced IQ has been seen in study participants with higher urinary fluoride concentrations, even when no dental fluorosis was present, which suggests that the doses of fluoride that impair cognitive ability are lower than those that cause severe dental fluorosis.8

The petition highlighted several other studies that also demonstrated “fluoride’s ability to cause neurotoxic effects at low levels,” including one that found just 0.5 uM of fluoride (.009 mg/L) caused lipid peroxidation after 48 hours of exposure.

“Most individuals living in fluoridated areas in the United States have fluoride levels in their blood that exceed this level,” they wrote.

At daily doses ranging from 0.7 to 2.3 mg/L day of fluoride, adverse effects including reduced IQ, behavioral alterations, neurochemical changes, hypothyroidism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been demonstrated.

Did You Know That Most of Western Europe Has Rejected Water Fluoridation?

 The vast majority (97 percent) of Western Europe has rejected water fluoridation. In fact, most countries fluoridate neither their water nor their salt, but according to the World Health Organization (WHO), tooth decay in 12-year-olds is coming down as fast, if not faster, in non-fluoridated countries as it is in fluoridated countries.9

In contrast, in the U.S. 200 million Americans live in areas where water is fluoridated. From city to city, debates over whether to start or end water fluoridation rage on, including in Cortland, New York.

Earlier this year, city officials had planned to hold a public hearing to consider state grants to study adding fluoride to its water supply, but they’ve since backed away from the idea, in part because residents expressed concern that water fluoridation amounts to mediating the public without consent.10

In the video above, the city of Cortland hosted a forum to discuss the health effects of water fluoridation.

FAN’s senior adviser, Paul Connett, Ph.D., and director Bill Osmunson, debated two pro-fluoridation dentists — Johnny Johnson and Steven Slott — during the forum. According to FAN (although you can watch for yourself in the video):11

“They’re both notorious for posting thousands of pro-fluoridation comments on anything fluoride-related on the internet. Meanwhile, in person they were less than impressive, unable to cite even a single primary study proving fluoridation’s safety or effectiveness.”

10 Million in India at Risk of Disability From High-Fluoride Water

If there were any doubt about fluoride’s toxicity, one need only look at what happens when people are exposed to high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in their drinking water. Fluoride is naturally occurring in some areas, leading to high levels in certain water supplies “naturally.”

Fluoridation advocates often use this to support its safety; however, naturally occurring substances are not automatically safe (think of arsenic, for instance).

Data from India’s Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry indicate that nearly 49 million people are living in areas where fluoride levels in water are above the permissible levels. Exposure to levels above 10 mg/L may cause crippling skeletal fluorosis, as well as abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, seizures and muscle spasms.

It’s estimated that more than 10 million people in the area are at risk of disability due to high fluoride levels in the water.12 When levels in water are too high, the fluoride accumulates in bones, replacing calcium. In the early stages of skeletal fluorosis, pain occurs followed by changes to the bone structure that can hinder movement. It most often affects hands, legs, arms and the back.

Skeletal fluorosis goes through three stages, which makes sense since fluoride is a cumulative toxin. The more exposure you get, and the longer you get it, the worse your symptoms are likely to be. According to FAN, symptoms of early stage skeletal fluorosis include:

  • Burning, prickling and tingling in your limbs
  • Muscle weakness
  • Chronic fatigue
  • Gastrointestinal disorders
  • Reduced appetite and weight loss

The second clinical stage of skeletal fluorosis is characterized by:

  • Stiff joints and/or constant pain in your bones; brittle bones; and osteosclerosis
  • Anemia
  • Calcification of tendons, or ligaments of ribs and pelvis
  • Osteoporosis in the long bones
  • Bony spurs may also appear on your limb bones, especially around your knee, elbow and on the surface of tibia and ulna

In advanced skeletal fluorosis (called crippling skeletal fluorosis), your extremities become weak and moving your joints difficult, and your vertebrae partially fuse together, effectively crippling you. If detected in its early stages, fluorosis can be treated via safe (low-fluoride) water and proper nutrition.

Prevention and Education Are Needed to Prevent Cavities

Recommendations released by the University of Calgary School of Public Policy championed the use of prevention and education to prevent early childhood cavities, noting water fluoridation wouldn’t be needed if such measures were effectively practiced.

The paper’s authors even pointed out that water fluoridation is not preventing tooth decay, as areas with water fluoridation still have a high rate of early childhood cavities. The recommendations call for increased education for parents on the importance of proper feeding and dental hygiene for infants, as well as for health care professionals to discuss these issues with patients. Co-author Jennifer Zwicker told 660 News:13

“We’re recommending that at baby visits …  and any kind of interface with public health nurses or pediatricians, just explaining to parents, you need to be cleaning their gums, you need to be brushing their teeth, just so you’re not ending up with children going to the emergency room needing surgery for dental pain.”

In the U.S., meanwhile, the petition urges the EPA to follow the lead of western Europe and reject water fluoridation. “The EPA is the one federal agency with the authority to make this happen here in the U.S. We urge EPA to act accordingly,” they wrote.14

 Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:


Dec 23

More Researchers Acknowledge Fluoridation’s Lack of Effectiveness Data

More Researchers Acknowledge Fluoridation’s
Lack of Effectiveness Data

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016), reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

Sicca, et al. analyzed thirty systematic reviews on tooth decay prevention, from 2002 – 2015, and report “there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the use [of] water fluoridation has a significant impact in the reduction of caries.” Other scientists concur. Swedish researchers, in PLOS one, February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [MdDonagh]… was graded as low.”

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable”

Fluoridation’s foundation is based on human experimental studies which began in 1945.  Errors and omissions in those studies were pointed out, but ignored, as early as 1959 by dental researcher Phillip Sutton and others.

In 2011 the West Virginia University Rural Health Research Center reported “…it was found that fluoridation rates were not significantly related to the measures of either caries or overall condition of the teeth for urban or rural areas.”

In 2015,  the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence that proves fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” or that fluoridation cessation increases decay rates.

NYSCOF President, attorney Paul Beeber says, “Fluoridation is one the biggest public health blunders of modern times, a political boondoggle, not supported by science. It must stop.”

In 2009, attempting to prove that fluorosed teeth are less decayed, Kumar reveals 1986-1987 National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) data which, upon analysis, shows similar cavity rates in permanent teeth whether the water is fluoridated or not (Table 1).  Chart depicts data.

  • More ineffectiveness evidence here.

A December 2016 Health Affairs article claims fluoridation may save money but it’s based on “an assumption of Community Water Fluoridation Programs effectiveness in reducing caries,” the researchers write. It’s not proof of effectiveness as some have claimed.

FAN commentsthat after 70 years of enthusiastic support for this practice from government agencies and professional bodies, not one single researcher has ever produced a randomized control study (RCT) which demonstrates that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay. Not one! And this is the gold standard for human epidemiology. …

SOURCE New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc Contact: Paul Beeber, JD 516-433-8882

To view the original version on PR Newswire, visit:


Dec 5

From FAN

Ongoing Neurotoxicity Studies 

FAN’s relentless effort to get the U.S. government to take fluoride’s neurotoxicity seriously is beginning to pay off. Hitherto, for many years, American regulatory and research agencies have failed to finance studies seeking to reproduce the many studies undertaken abroad that have found harm to the brain (over 300) but that is changing:

  1. There is a new National Institute of Health funded fluoride/brain study.  Our Canadian friends are extremely excited by this research funding to Christine Till and Ashley Malin, the co-authors of the important study that found a correlation between fluoridation and increased ADHD rates in the U.S. This is what Robert Flemingof the national group Canadians Opposed to Fluoridation (COF-COF) wrote: “This is possibly the most important recently evolving development in water fluoridation to date.”
  2. A new rodent study that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the process of completing using low levels of fluoride exposure. We have concerns over the consultation process that NTP had prior to when this study was undertaken, see “Vigilance Still Needed” at end of bulletin.
  3. Dr. Jaqueline Calderón Hernandez, from Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí in Mexico is currently working with Dr. Diana Rocha-Amador on three U.S. government funded studies by the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies (NIEHS) on fluoride neurotoxicity: (1) an examination of the cognitive effects from fluoride in drinking water, (2) estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation associated with environmental fluoride exposure, and (3) investigating the impact of in utero exposure to fluoride (via drinking water) on cognitive development delay in children.  Dr. Diana Rocha-Amador is also examining the impact of fluoride on thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women. She also published a fluoride/IQ study in 2007.
  4. Dr. Philippe Grandjean (Harvard School of Public Health) is leading an ongoing study of fluoride and intelligence among a group of schoolchildren in China. Grandjean published the preliminary results of this study in the January-February 2015 issue of Neurotoxicology & Teratology. (Choi 2015).
  5. An NIEHS-funded human epidemiological study titled “Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment,” is investigating the relationship between fluoride and IQ among a cohort of children in Mexico. A summary of the study is available online.
  6. An NIEHS-funded animal study, titled “Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models,” is investigating fluoride’s effects on behavior and whether these effects differ based on the genetic strain of the mouse. The principal investigator of the study is Pamela Den Besten. A summary of her study is available online.
  7. The NIH is funding a study investigating the impact of fluoride on the timing of puberty among children in Mexico. This study is pertinent to the assessment of fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland’s regulation of melatonin. The preliminary results of the study were presented at the 2014 ISEE conference and can be accessed online.

Historical footnote:

When Phyllis Mullenix et al published their groundbreaking animal study on fluoride and animal behavior in 1995, she was fired from her position as chair of the toxicology department at the Forsythe dental center. That sent a chilling message to US researchers – research on fluoride toxicity is a “no go area.” Now with the U.S. government funding several important studies this should encourage other Western researchers to get involved.  



Dec 10 From FAN, a reminder that medication without consent is a human rights issue

Today, December 10, is Human Rights Day. It commemorates the day in 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In a world where we daily witness gross abuses of human rights it is difficult to find hope, but it is there in each one of us. I remember in the 1960s reading a short statement from Alan Paton, the author of Cry the Beloved Country, a novel written during the apartheid era in South Africa. How could a white humanitarian find hope in such a situation? He wrote, “The only way we can endure man’s inhumanity to man, is to make our own lives an example of man’s humanity to man.”

Fluoridation and Human Rights

No government (local, state or federal) should have the right to add chemicals to the drinking water designed to treat human beings as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink. Treating human beings in this way violates the individual’s right to informed consent to medical – or human – treatment. Most European countries recognize this human right. Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the UK, the US and a handful of other countries, do not.



Dec 23 From FAN

Fluoride-Free Victories in 2016
More than 450 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990.  In 2016 alone, we’ve confirmed that at least  26 communities with more than 845,000 residents voted to end fluoridation, bringing the number of victories since 2010 to at least 219 communities, representing approximately 6.5 million people. Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision-makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice.  Some of 2016’s victories included:

  • Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District, Maine  (30,000)
  • Mackay Regional Council, Australia    (124,724)
  • Bedford, England, U.K  (166,252)
  • Gladstone Regional Council, Queensland, Australia  (73,335)
  • Wakefield, England, U.K.  (77,500)
  • Cornwall, Ontario, Canada  (46,340)
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico  (157,428)
  • Newport, Oregon  (10,120)
  • Guilford Township, Pennsylvania  (26,000)
  • Whakatane, New Zealand  (37,000)

National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached

Center For Disease Control (CDC) fluoridation statistics for the U.S. have been released for 2014, and they show exactly why the fluoridation-lobby has been pouring more money and resources into promoting the practice and fighting our efforts: WE ARE WINNING!
For the first time in nearly 40 years the percentage of the U.S. population served by community water systems receiving fluoridated water decreased, from 74.6% to 74.4%.  The percentage of the U.S. population receiving optimally fluoridated water (natural and artificial) also decreased, from 67.1% to 66.3%.

Also decreasing:

  • The number of water systems providing fluoridated water (natural or artificial);
  • The number of water systems adding fluoride, and
  • The number of water systems providing naturally “optimal fluoride” levels.



From FAN

Why Government Officials Opposed Fluoridation in 2016

Here are more quotes from elected officials on why they oppose fluoridation.

“Ten people have emailed me to tell me they want fluoride, as opposed to the hundreds who have told me they don’t want it.  I’ve listened and reviewed the material sent to me…therefore, what I have been doing is listening to the people. Overwhelmingly the people have said they don’t want fluoride in their water. Whatever their reason doesn’t really matter. They are telling me to support them.”
Mayor Leslie O’Shaughnessy, Cornwall, Ontario

“Councils are not engaged in public health. Local Government doesn’t carry that expertise. The senior levels of Government are being quite mischievous here. This has become a pattern over the past couple of years. This council has never voted against fluoride. This council has voted against the method of delivery.  Why not have a form of delivery that you can go buy that service. This is not a sledgehammer to just whack everybody over the head with.”
Council Mayor Bob Manning, Cairns Regional Council (Australia)

“We are making this change because the authority recognizes there are conflicting opinions about the benefits of water fluoridation…We believe we should not put anything into the water that is not required by regulation to maintain the potability and pH balance of your water.”
Guildford Water Authority (Pennsylvania)

“The pipe at the “T” by the air stripper has had to be replaced in the area where fluoride is pumped into the water supply due to corrosion. It has been replaced for the 3rd time since installing the air stripper in 2012 at a cost of $850 for the replacement parts.”

Ron Jean, Streets Superintendent for the City of Attica (Indiana)
“I have read the reports’ pros and cons.  I have seen firsthand what the fluorosilicic acid  does to pipes, the concrete. It was a hard decision, but I thought, weighing both sides, that it’s better not to add something that could be destructive — we’re told in small amounts it’s not destructive — but I just thought it’s better to err on the side of safety.”

Board Member Bill McGriff, Soddy-Daisy (Tennessee)
“Tooth decay is not a result of lack of fluoride but a result of too much sugar. And the DHBs, Dave [Macpherson and] Martin [Gallagher] should start addressing that issue.”
Siggi Henry, Hamilton City Councilor (New Zealand)

“After considering the overall annual operational and maintenance expenses, including testing, the committee decided it was not worth the expense to continue infusing fluoride into the village’s water system for such a small added value.  There are 1,000 milligrams per liter of fluoride in most tooth paste (about 2,000 times more than is available from treated water), as well as many other avenues, such as mouth washes and dental application.”

Dale Kropidlowski, Saukville Water Superintendent (Wisconsin)



Dec 14

Letter:Salt Lake Tribune With over 100 comments

I recall the water-fluoridation lobby pointing to the low cavity rates in some cherry-picked fluoridated areas as proof that the toxic swill is effective, such …


Dec 8

A brief , reasonable summary of the dangers of lead and fluoride in public water systems.

In Maine, seven towns voted on November 8 to remove fluoride from the water supply, following voters in Newport, Oregon, and Patton, Pennsylvania,who did the same earlier this year

You don’t have to live in Flint, Michigan, to worry about your family’s water supply. Concern about Flint’s continuing battle with lead contamination has people across the…. For all the myriad concerns, it’s two chemicals — hydrofluorosilicic acid and lead — that are most in the news right now, and both have ties to Michigan…

what-s-in/article_1a189880-bd91-11e6-bb74-fb0d0e02e027.htmlm Fluoride to Lead, How to Know What’s in Your Family’s Water



Video Link 1

FAN: 28 min. video

From FAN: We have spent much of the last month celebrating Michael’s grand opus: an analysis of over 300 studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic. This celebration climaxed yesterday with the release of the video in which he explains in layman’s terms several of the studies which give further credibility to the notion that fluoride lowers IQ . Citizens armed with these two items (petition and DVD) will be able to argue successfully with any dentist or official pushing fluoridation.  As Michael says, “There is no question that fluoride is neurotoxic and has the potential to lower IQ, the only question is at what dose this occurs, and how that dose varies based upon individual susceptibility.”

Links 2

 Summary of Videos available from FAN

How Can These Fluoridation Debates Help You?

As someone who opposes fluoridation, sooner or later you’re bound to find yourself debating the issue with friends, family, colleagues, dentists, and local government officials.  What is essential is to know the issue.  To add to this, watch and study the experts from FAN as they take on the fluoride-lobby in the following debates captured on video.

After watching these debates, please share at least one with your local councilors, water plant employees, and state legislators.  Consider these debate videos a very powerful tool in educating local decision-makers about fluoridation, offering them both the scientific case against the practice as well as the rebuttals to claims made by proponents.  In fact, you should consider sharing these with officials as one of the first steps to take when initiating a local campaign.  Local officials will be more likely to reject fluoridation if they’ve already heard the often-repeated pro-fluoridation talking points debunked prior to holding any hearings:

From 2016:

  • Thinking Green NZ Debate: The televised 30-minute debate in New Zealand between FAN Senior Advisor and co-author of The Case Against FluoridePaul Connett, PhD, and Professor Mike Berridge, PhD from the Malagan Institute.  Paul has been waiting over 12 years for someone to debate him in NZ. The more vocal proponents refuse to do so. While Berridge is a well known scientist in NZ, he is obviously fairly new to the fluoridation debate – and it shows. What astonishes me was how forcefully he defended fluoridation with very little in-depth knowledge of the practice. Also how willing he was to accept positions based upon the “authority” of proponents (like Sir Peter Gluckman) rather on the quality of the science they offered in the defence of this outdated practice.
  • Fluoride Expert Loses Debate in Queensland: Merilyn Haines, director of Australia’s Fluoride Action Network debated dentist Michael Foley, chief fluoride expert for the Australian Dental Association, in September in front of the Mackay Council in Queensland.  The debate starts with Michael Foley at 1:18 and Merilyn at 1:32.  This debate resulted in a vote by the Mackey Council to end fluoridation at the end of September.
  • Kennebunk Fluoridation Forum: While the video of the full debate is not available yet, or even the fantastic presentation by FAN Director Bill Osmunson, DDS, it does feature the presentation of Norm Labbe, the Supervisor of the local water district.  Not long after this debate, voters in the district voted to end fluoridation by a vote of 60-39%. 

Prior to 2016:

  • East Brunswick Fluoridation Debate: Watch FAN’s former Executive Director and environmental chemist, Paul Connett, PhD debate periodontist and former President of the New Jersey Dental Association, Richard Kahn, DDS on the safety, ethics, and effectiveness of fluoridation in East Brunswick, New Jersey. The video also features legal expert David Lonsky, Esq, who reviews the U.S. legal issues stemming from fluoridation practice.  The important thing about this debate is that the dentist Dr. Kahn had probably used these comments in many communities and got away with them. But with Paul to rebut his arguments with the latest science he was far from convincing.  This would be a very good video to show a council before they hear from a posse of local dentists.
  • The Arizona Fluoridation Debate: An unprecedented full one-on-one Lincoln/Douglas style debate with powerpoint presentations featuring FAN’s Director and co-author of “The Case Against Fluoride”, Paul Connett, PhD, squaring off against Arizona dentist and long-time fluoridation proponent, Howard Farran, DDS.  Dr. Farran had very little scientific input in response to Paul’s comments on fluoride’s neurotoxicity except stating that he didn’t trust any scientific research coming from China.
  • Pennsylvania forum discussion on fluoridationIn 2015, a public TV station in Pennsylvania held this informative one-hour forum on fluoridation, featuring attorney Michael Connett, Michal Meyer of the Chemical Heritage Foundation, and Dr. Craig Collison.   It is clear in this debate that the doctor is rather shocked learning more science than he knew about this issue – and a hint that Michael Connett had changed his mind.

There is also a 30-minute debate that took place on a public radio station from Pennsylvania in 2015 where Michael Connett took on a dentist and two officials from the PA Department of Health. Fortunately the radio host knew the issue very well, which helped to balance out the 3 against 1 situation.

  • The Great Fluoride Debate 2014: Held in Prince George, British Columbia, which later voted to end the practice. In this video Dr. Connett debates Dr. Todd Whitcombe, an Associate Professor at the University of Northern British Columbia.
  • Boyne City, Michigan: Paul Connett shows how to win a debate with civility and class against a rude and demeaning opponent, who in this case is a water engineer. As in this debate and several others Paul applauds his opponent for having the courage to debate, in contrast to the  hundreds of others who promote the practice very vocally but don’t have the courage of their convictions and defend their position in open public debate.
  • Portland, Oregon: In 2013, prior to the voters of the city significantly rejecting fluoridation on the ballot, members of Clean Water Portland, including FAN’s Campaign Advisor, Rick North, faced-off against members of the opposing pro-F campaign.  Rick is one of FAN’s heroes. He is a terrific organizer. He does his homework and is meticulous with his statements. He is also a model of restraint and politeness when dealing with opponents. In short he is a real winner. (Watch Part 2 / Part 3 of the debate)

Additional Resources:

  • Response to Dr. Wu: Dr. Jay Levy, a practicing dentist in Portland, refutes the demonstrably false claims recently made by Dr. Phillip Wu in a video made by the pro-fluoridation advocacy group Healthy Kids, Healthy Portland.
  • A Response to Pro-Fluoridation Claims: Chapter 25 from the book “The Case Against Fluoride” offers very helpful responses to 40 inaccurate or misleading arguments used by proponents.
  • 10 Facts About Fluoride: These talking points are a must for all fluoride-free campaigners.  Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. To download the flyer that accompanies this video, click here.

Stuart Cooper