Wichitans for Healthy Teeth was invited to multiple events during Dr. Paul Connett’s visit to Wichita. Rather than actually attend any of these events, Wichitans for Healthy Teeth predictably initiated a smear campaign against him, using their web site to post some questions for Dr. Connett, rather than asking in person when they had the chance. Their questions can be found here on their web site, as well as below, with Dr. Connett’s response is below

1. Your group, the Fluoride Action Network, sent an e-mail message last year claiming that fluoridation’s role in the decline of tooth decay “is in serious doubt.” Haven’t you read the 2010 study from New York State showing that low-income kids in non-fluoridated areas needed 33% more fillings, root canals, and extractions than those in fluoridated areas? Aren’t you familiar with the 1995 Illinois study calling fluoridation “the dominant factor” in the decline of decay?

   The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) stands by its claim that the role of fluoridation in the decline of tooth decay is in serious doubt. Unlike Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, FAN does not base this conclusion on two cherry-picked studies. FAN bases this conclusion instead on a wealth of data including (1) a seminal study published in the journal Nature which unequivocally reaches this same conclusion (Diesendorf 1986), (2) comprehensive data from the World Health Organization showing that countries with NO water fluoridation programs have just as low, and often lower, rates of tooth decay than countries with widespread fluoridation programs, (3) dozens of large-scale, modern studies (including the largest dental health study ever conducted in the U.S.) showing NO difference in decayed, missing, or filled teeth among children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas; (4) the results of a multi-million dollar NIH-funded study which shows that children with higher fluoride intake do not have significantly less tooth decay (Levy 2009); (5) the concession by the Centers for Disease Control that fluoride’s primary benefit to teeth is topical, not systemic (ergo, there is no need to swallow fluoride), and (6) the fact that four studies have recently reported that tooth decay continued to decrease in communities after fluoridation was terminated. It is irresponsible, let alone unscientific, for Wichitans for Healthy Teeth to continue to claim, in light of this evidence, that fluoridated water will have a large effect in preventing tooth decay.

2. Your website claims that 97% of Western Europe has “rejected fluoridation.” Isn’t it misleading to say this when more than 80 million Europeans receive fluoride’s benefits through salt, milk or water fluoridation? Shouldn’t you inform your web visitors that Germany and Switzerland — where salt fluoridation is widely used — have among the lowest rates of tooth decay in all of Europe?

   n terms of western Europe’s approach to fluoride, the key fact is that 97% of its population is not forced to drink fluoride in its water — which is what Wichitans for Healthy Teeth is aiming to do here in Wichita. Although some European countries allow salt fluoridation, most do not. Only five western European countries have any salt fluoridation. (Milk fluoridation is only used in very small pockets in Europe, reaching less than 1% of the European population.) On the Fluoride Action Network website, a complete list of which countries fluoridate their water and salt is provided, along with the latest tooth decay data from the World Health Organization. As this data shows, countries with no water and no salt fluoridation (e.g., Denmark, the Netherlands) have just as low, or lower, tooth decay rates than countries with widespread water and/or salt fluoridation programs (e.g., Germany and Switzerland). Has Wichitans for Healthy Teeth ever told its website visitors this fact?

3. Earlier this year, you spoke to the editors of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and explained why you want that city to end water fluoridation. The newspaper wrote afterward that your argument’s “aren’t based on much more than anecdote, conjecture and studies that aren’t particularly relevant to the U.S. practice of community water fluoridation.” Shouldn’t Wichita make a decision on fluoridation based on documentation rather than speculation?

   The decision about whether to force people to consume fluoride in their tap water for the rest of their life should absolutely be made based on documentation, not speculation. That is why FAN has made the findings of over 1,000 peer reviewed studies available on its website at http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/health_database/. This documentation shows that many of the beliefs upon which water fluoridation was launched in the 1950s have been proven false. For example, in contrast to what dentists once assured the public: (1) fluoride is not an essential nutrient, (2) fluoride’s primary benefit to teeth comes from topical application, not ingestion (there is no need to swallow it), (3) infants should NOT receive fluoride supplements of any kind (whether fluoridated water or fluoride drops), and (4) relatively low doses of fluoride can affect many tissues in the body besides the teeth, including the brain, the bones, and thyroid gland. We hope that Wichitans for Healthy Teeth will examine the hundreds of studies which document these facts. Also, rather than relying on the opinion of a newspaper editorial in Wisconsin, we believe the opinion of Dr. John Doull (the esteemed toxicologist who chaired the National Research Council’s three-year review of the scientific literature on fluoride’s toxicity) should carry far more weight. According to Doull:

   What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began.

4. Over the last year, the largest hospital system in Sedgwick County had more than 3,200 patients seek treatment for toothaches and other dental problems–many of these were preventable. By opposing water fluoridation and not offering any viable alternative strategy, are you saying that Wichita should simply accept the fact that these kinds of emergency dental visits will continue?

   No one disputes the very real problems that high levels of tooth decay can cause, particularly in low-income communities. The idea, however, that adding a cheap industrial chemical to the water can prevent the oral health crises being experienced in disadvantaged communities is as illusory as it is insulting. These communities need dental care (i.e., over 80% of dentists refuse to treat Medicaid patients), not toxic fluorides. Indeed, the simple, unavoidable fact is that oral health crises are occurring in virtually every large metropolitan area in the U.S. — the vast majority of which have fluoridated their water for 30 to 50 years. In fluoridated Cincinnati, the City’s Dental Director has stated that the level of tooth decay in the city is “absolutely heartbreaking and a travesty. We have kids in this community with severe untreated dental infections. We have kids with self-esteem problems, and we have kids in severe pain and we have no place to send them in Cincinnati. People would be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become.’” Does Wichitans for Healthy Teeth reveal these inconvenient facts to its visitors? If decades of water fluoridation has proven incapable of preventing oral health crises in fluoridated areas across the country, why should Wichitans think it will prevent an oral health crisis in Wichita?

5. Water fluoridation is endorsed by the American Dental Association, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Mayo Clinic, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Institute of Medicine and other widely trusted organizations. Can you name one well-known, reputable medical/health organization that opposes water fluoridation?

   While many medical organizations in the U.S. have endorsed fluoridation, the fact remains that the majority of developed countries have not been convinced by these endorsements. In Sweden, the parliament rejected an effort to fluoridate water based on the detailed recommendation of a Nobel Prize winning scientist (Dr. Arvid Carlsson). Today, there are more people drinking fluoridated water in the U.S. than the rest of the world combined. Although fluoridation has become a sacred cow in the U.S. medical community, a number of health and scientific organizations have begun speaking out against the practice. Perhaps most notably, the Union of Scientists and Professionals at the Environmental Protection Agency’s Headquarters Office, which represents over 1,500 scientists at EPA, has gone on record as opposing water fluoridation due to concerns about fluoride’s health effects. According to the Union, “In summary, we hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk.”

6. Your website cites anti-fluoride research from Dr. John Yiamouyiannis and praises him as a man “of true honor and integrity.” Don’t your website’s visitors deserve to know that Dr. Yiamouyiannis wrote a book falsely claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS?

   Dr. Yiamouyiannis (“Dr. Y”) was widely regarded, by both pro- and anti-fluoridation scientists, as having a brilliant mind. While FAN does not endorse or promote Dr. Y’s views with regard to HIV and AIDs, his work on fluoride speaks for itself. Rather than engaging in character assassination, Wichitans for Healthy Teeth would better serve the interests of Wichitans by acknowledging and responding to Dr. Y’s analysis of the largest national oral health study ever published in the U.S. This study found no difference in decayed teeth among children who had grown up in fluoridated or non-fluoridated communities.

The following is an open letter to Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, and their guest, Dr. Bill Maas. WFHT solicited questions from the public prior to Dr. Maas’ public appearance and discussion on October 16. This letter is our response to that request, submitted October 16 at 6:15am. The questions are as yet unanswered by WHFT or Dr. Bill Maas.

Per your request for questions for former Centers for Disease Control employee, Dr. William Maas, now working with PEW to promote fluoridation in many cities in the country, including Wichita, which will face a fluoridation referendum on Nov 6:

1. Those opposed to fluoridation are blocked from commenting or asking questions on pro-fluoridation webpages owned by Wichitans for Healthy Teeth. We are also blocked from the Pew Foundation’s Twitter Page. If the truth is on your side, why do you block us? You should welcome the opportunity to explain how we are wrong.
2. Matt Jacob, Pew’s Fluoridation PR person advises fluoridationists to frame the issue based on teeth. He says framing fluoridation on Harms and Risks will not give you a win. Will you sign a statement saying fluoridation will not harm any Wichita resident in any way?
3. How did Pew get involved with promoting fluoridation. Who or what organizations lobbied them for their financial support and how did you come to work for Pew? How much has Pew spent on fluoridation country-wide? What is Pew’s budget for fluoridation promotion?
4. How much is being spent in Wichita to get a Yes vote on fluoridation? Residents are getting multiple mailings of slick campaign literature.
5. Do you have any evidence that low-income Wichita residents are fluoride-deficient?
6. Do you endorse the use of Dental Therapists in Kansas as are working in rural Alaska where residents were pulling out their own teeth because no dentist would work or live there. Dental Therapists need only a couple of years training to work as well as dentists, doing simple fillings and extractions. They could work in areas and mouths where dentists refuse to go and would be more affordable and accept Medicaid (80% of dentists don’t). Since more people are dentist-deficient and none are fluoride-deficient, Dental Therapists seems to be a more suitable solution to the dental-care crisis of Untreated tooth decay and makes more sense than spending millions of tax payers dollars on building and maintaining fluoridation systems.
7. Since you are a consultant to Pew, are you still paid by the CDC
8. Will you share with voters that the CDC says fluoride benefits teeth by topical application, not by swallowing it, and that the amount of ingested fluoride emerging from salvia to bathe teeth topically with fluoride is too low to have any beneficial effect.

CDC quotes: “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…” and

“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”

and

“Saliva is a major carrier of topical fluoride. The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low — approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas (27). This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity.”

9. Since the CDC’s name is often invoked to prove fluoridation’s safety, will you share with voters that the CDC says, “It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe” and that CDC does not do any original fluoridation research.
10. We understand that fluoridation chemicals are now purchased from Mexico and China. How can we trust China, especially, to deliver non-contaminated fluoridation chemicals since they have a poor record on quality control.
11. Will you warn kidney patients and diabetics (who are prone to kidney disease) that fluoride might be harmful to them? The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation and the American Dental Association admits in its “Fluoridation Facts” booklet (page 27) that people with kidney disease could be harmed by fluoride because their kidneys may not properly filter out fluoride from the body. As you know, there is no dispute that too much fluoride can damage bones as well as teeth.
12. Since fluoride is in virtually all foods and beverages, especially high in tea and ocean fish, and absorbed and involuntarily swallowed from dental products, are you concerned that some Wichitans may be fluoride-overdosed and develop dental or skeletal fluorosis if fluoridation is implemented in Wichita? The CDC says that up to 60% of US 12-15 year olds are affected with dental fluorosis – white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth – with 3.6% of it moderate/severe. As you know, these children have never been studied to see if fluoride has damaged their bones with skeletal fluorosis.
13. When fluoridation began in the 1940′s, it was accepted that the collateral damage would be that 10% would develop mild dental fluorosis (white spots on teeth). That was before fluoridated toothpaste and other products were sold. And now fluoridated water is used to make many products on store shelves. What percentage of Wichita children will develop dental fluorosis if fluoridation is voted in and how severe will it be for some of them?
14. The and other health, government and dental groups, including Colgate, now advise parents that, if they want to avoid dental fluorosis in their babies new teeth, they shouldn’t mix fluoridated water into infant formula. Will you share that information with Wichita residents before the vote?
15. What other cities has Pew targeted for fluoridation promotion? What other city councils have Pew members lobbied to pass fluoridation laws?