SPEAKER 1: Am I on? I don’t hear you.

DR. SMITH: Okay, hello. All right, we’re really getting a lot more questions and a lot of things coming up as you learn more and more. I know a lot more questions come up in the mind, and our panel, hopefully you can cover any of the talks we’ve given in the upcoming panel right after lunch. Hopefully we’ll be able to answer your questions satisfactorily.

This talk is on mainly healing reactions, but we want to talk a little bit first on dental guidelines as relates to the Gerson therapy. We’re not dentists, we’re not experts, but there are some things that we know we want to share, and then we’ve invited a guest lecturer, a dentist locally who is a holistic dentist, to come this afternoon, and he’ll be able to tell you more specifics about holistic dentistry and mercury and root canals and all that. So this one is just the overview from the Gerson perspectives.

It is important to know that the condition of our teeth and our gums and our periodontal tissues has a great impact on your health. We’re realizing that more and more. If there’s inflammation and microbes and abscesses; even there can be little occult abscesses down in the roots and under the gums that people don’t even realize, that harbor germs. This is a constant stress on the immune system. We’re finding more and more, related to heart disease and even certain cancers are now being associated with gum disease.

It’s always recommended when you see a dentist to find what we call a biological dentist. There’s an organization that some of them belong to, the International Association of Oral and Medical Toxicology. You can Google that, and you can probably search from your area, in the area you live, for a good dentist.

As I already mentioned, the bacteria that’s down in the pockets under your gums enter the bloodstream easily. How many of you have ever seen a little blood on your toothbrush, or when you’re flossing? Well, you have an open invitation right into the bloodstream for the bacteria that’s in your mouth, just like a cut here. You’d want to protect it. You wouldn’t want a cut being exposed constantly to bacteria; you’d take care of it and cover it up. But in our mouth, we’re constantly getting that influx of bacteria into the little micro-tears, and particularly if we have gingivitis and the gums bleed easily. It’s important to get that taken care of.

It’s been associated particularly with heart disease and hypertension, low birth weight babies, osteoporosis, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, they’re showing some associations here. I found a preliminary study found a small but significant risk of developing cancer overall, and particularly lung cancer in smokers with periodontal disease. That’s when it’s gone down and the bone is starting, with all the inflammation, we’re losing bone from the roots of the teeth.

There was a study conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, and Dana-Farber found periodontal disease was associated with an increased risk of cancer in the pancreas. This is preliminary, but it’s pointing in that direction.

I’m sure Dr. Benigar [sp] is going to talk about this specifically, but particularly if you’re dealing with an illness, get your teeth checked out and get anything taken care of that might be there that you don’t know about, cavities and abscesses and so on, and then get on a good program that they will prescribe of the right way to brush, floss, and irrigate, to flush out the pockets.

Then we have the silver mercury amalgam fillings, that we know that mercury is very toxic. It compromises the immune system. However, for a Gerson patient who is seriously ill with cancer, we say wait six to nine months on the therapy to get thoroughly detoxed and stronger before you get those removed. Again, you do it with a biological dentist that does it with the safe procedures – I’m sure he’ll go through this, with the rubber dam, with suction. Sometimes they give oxygen so you definitely don’t get any of the vapors as it’s coming out. Some give IV vitamin C while that’s going on, to quench the toxic mercury. But make sure that it’s done in a safe way.

Biocompatibility testing is a possibility for what you’re going to put back in. I can’t really address that, but what goes back in will be less toxic than mercury. But as one dentist said, we’re going to realize, if we haven’t already, that dentistry is toxic. I mean, they use cements and binders and things in their crowns and all. Sometimes there’s aluminum.

But the biocompatibility testing, they test the blood for all the different substances that are used in putting in a filling or a crown, and see which ones your immune system doesn’t have a real problem with. So it’s at least a little better.

Root canals, there’s a lot of literature out there, and there’s a good book, The Root Canal Cover-Up. You probably talked about it; we sell it. We don’t recommend that you get a root canal. You’ll have to make that decision. I know that you’ll have to do something, if the tooth is so far gone that it can’t be restored, whether it’s a bridge or a partial plate, whatever. But bacteria reside down in those little tubules in the teeth, and you really can’t sterilize a tooth where we think that bacteria doesn’t still hide there and slowly accumulate and secrete toxins that can be a factor in the development of cancer.

Dr. Hal Huggins is really doing a lot of research in this area. I don’t know if I got the book out. He has a brand new book. I know he’s a little controversial, even among the other dentists, but he’s a forerunner in researching dentistry. This is a rather new book, so it isn’t on your PowerPoints, but Patient Empowerment: How to Slay Dental Dragons. He talks about all the diseases he’s seen in his practice, and then he’s related it to what’s in their mouth. He really is doing research on not just the bacteria, but the toxins those bacteria secrete, and correlating it with breast cancer, for one thing. Really good book.

We think root canal teeth should be extracted as soon as possible. If someone is very debilitated and weak, of course, wait. Get a little stronger with the nourishment on the therapy. Get a little more detoxified and nourished, because it is surgery. It’ll still take a bit of a stress on the system. We think it’s probably a good idea to get them out, but at least consult with a good biological dentist. I don’t think the implants, personally, are any – I would still stay away from anything going back down in there as a substitute, myself.

So as I mentioned, The Root Canal Cover-Up is a good book. They did studies, and they took root canal teeth, someone that had a root canal, and then they took that root canal out, and they implanted it under the skin of a rabbit. Within so many days – I can’t remember how long – that rabbit developed the same condition that the person had. At least, that’s what the study says, so it’s food for thought.

We get a lot of questions about this, because it’s in Charlotte’s book: when you’re very well detoxified, you may be more sensitive to things, and perhaps to the anesthesia that the dentist uses. So it says to ask the dentist to use less, maybe a third. I don’t know how often they’ll comply with that, but you can try.

SPEAKER 1: You know what, what I would suggest, if you’re really concerned, because I had two opportunities to ask a dentist to comply. I actually took the book rather than just relaying the information. The first time, the dentist used the regular amount, and my heart started beating, felt like it was going to jump right out of my chest. It really scared me. I think if you mention that to the dentist, if he’s not willing to reduce the amount – most will be – he’ll see that some of that might be his responsibility if he doesn’t listen. I think it just might give you a better opportunity. Another dentist told me that it doesn’t matter how much you have; it matters how the substance is injected into your gum, and you miss the blood cell.

DR. SMITH: It could be the epinephrine, and they don’t always use that anymore, particularly a biological dentist, unless they know someone has a real strong possible allergy to something they’re using. The epinephrine they give to constrict the blood vessels can cause the rapid heart rate. But if they use a less dose and they start right away so that it doesn’t wear off so soon – but it’s going to be up to you and each patient’s tolerance to pain. They don’t want somebody to get halfway through the procedure and they can’t stand it anymore. Of course, on the dentist’s side, you can see why they want to have it well anesthetized.

A lot of vitamin C. Vitamin C can decrease the effects of the anesthesia, so a lot of times dentists say don’t take it before you come in. But you certainly could start taking it soon as you leave that office, start taking a lot of vitamin C, maybe a gram every hour. That will help detoxify out the anesthesia, as well as any other substances that they’ve used.

SPEAKER 1: Then Charlotte will say, as soon as you get home, do a coffee enema.

DR. SMITH: Of course, yeah. Toothpaste, don’t use fluoridated toothpaste. Don’t do anything fluoridated. Or baking soda. Now, baking soda’s been known, it’s a healthy thing for the gums, but it does contain some sodium, so we don’t recommend baking soda. But for the toothpaste, toothpaste is mainly just so that your mouth tastes fresh. The real work is done through brushing and dislodging that biofilm with your irrigation, with your flossing. So it’s a tiny bit of toothpaste to go around at the end, makes your mouth taste fresher. But you don’t need to use much.

There’s one that always seems to not get on the table, that I really like. People ask, it’s Weleda’s Children Gel. You look at that, it has about three ingredients in it. Very clean, and tastes good. Vitamere has some other herbs in it. We think that’s pretty safe. But look for extra sodium and fluoride, and of course you don’t want things like lauryl sulfate. So just check the brands really good.

Environmental Working Group has a wonderful website, and they go into all these different categories, rating body care products, general household cleaning products, and so on. Sometimes they might rate something pretty high, and yet because of Gerson it might have sodium in it, so you have to look at the added things that Gerson wouldn’t allow. But as far as the other chemicals, they’re a great website. Environmentalworkinggroup.com.

SPEAKER 1: And remember, yesterday I told you at the end of that section, Home Setup, there’s several sheets that tell you what contaminates in the toothpaste to watch out for.

DR. SMITH: Floss after meals, irrigate daily. For those people that are more susceptible to cavities, you probably know who you are, we suggest that after a carrot juice that you rinse your mouth well, just in case that extra natural sugar will increase the incidences of cavities. But it’s interesting, Dr. Huggins has got some interesting theories about cavities. He says not that we should eat sugar, but he doesn’t feel like that’s the main culprit either. It has to do with the flow of the juices and the saliva in and out of the tooth, and things that can prevent that.

At the end of this section in your manual, we’ve got some resources. I don’t know Robert Gammal; it’s just that I looked at his website, and it’s just a wealth of information that I think you can look through and might find helpful. And then this is a good YouTube on alternatives to mercury filling. We’re not saying that we’re personally recommending, but it’s good information.

Ian: until last week there were still telling us that we needed to drink 8 glasses of water every day and most people who drink 8 glasses but do it right out of the tap.

Paul : the CDC looks as if the y are taking  responsibility  know , the CDC simply [remotes fluoridation so the ex-communities are trapped into thinking   that this  whole medical establishment  is accepting responsibility for fluoridation  as being safe but there is nobody actually inching  of this program . when it comes down to the toxicity  of the chemical that are  used this sis in  the hand of a private body  called  the National Sanitation Foundation  and they have a disclaimer that they are  not responsible  for their recommendations  and when they are asked   for toxicology  studies on the chemical  used they  refuse to give them

Ian: if this is a  drug ,if it’s  an additive then tits  drug , if they are draining hat they put it in there  to  prevent  something from happening to your body then it’s a drug but the FDA  has north approved it as a drug . They are insisting that we put an unapproved drug in our bodies and they are doing it some sanitation committee department?

Paul: That’s right which has the industry on opts boaDr. The guys that produce this   stuff are on the board of thesis NFS. Let’s see what it means to be unapproved drug , it means that it hasn’t  gone through the  randomized  clinical trials to demonstrate effectiveness , it hasn’t gone through the same  trials  for safety  and they are not monitoring side  effects. if a drug goose out in the market  then both doctors and patients who find side  effects get that information to the FDA  and when the FDA have accumulated  enough complaints of  side effects then they determine whether the drug should be removed. none of that   ids happening with fluoridation , they alter  onto tracking exposure, they are not looking at fluoride levels in our urine , in our blood, in our bones, in a systematic way , doctors arte  not trained to look at side effects  and  we are not doing the studies  and we are not attempting to reproduce  the studies that arte going on  that are going on  right now in  India and china  which have actually produced  a <inaudible>  of problems  for people that swallow fluoride in naturally high communities and not that  high incidentally ; damage to the bone , damage to the brain , damage to the endocrine system , this is being documented  elsewhere but we are not f doing the obvious  studies in this country  or any other fluoridated countries and they  are basically what  you are looking at there. If you don’t look you don’t find, the absence of studies does not mean the absence of harm.  You get  this <inaudible> result for  example  i was in Dryden Ontario in April of 2008   and Dryden was considering if the y were going to  stop fluoridation and  eventually they did , they voted them  out but the chief dental officer for  Canada when to that community  and in his talk  he said  i walk  down  you r high streets this afternoon and i didn’t see anybody growing horns  and you have been fluoridated  for 40 years . He actually seriously offered this as evidence that fluoridation causes no harm, he diet see anybody growing horns. This is sheer lunacy.

Ian: I’m going to pull up something i    found on an FDA site in just a second but I’ll parallel something else. Charlie Sheen’s ex-wife  a woman name Brooke  Molar  has a drug problem and she  and a story i read   earlier this week she  was  trying to go to Mexico  to be treated by a FDA unapproved drug but they don’t sell it i, it’s not allowed  , its illegal in the united states called Imogene  and so hose clinics that are set up  to give drug addicts or people who have chemical depended issues Imogene  which apparently  disrupts their body an addiction processes and makes it easier   to give up drugs . if you take this drug  to break up the  other drugs then the FDA won’t approve it  and    it thought it  was so interesting that there are certain drugs that the FDA  says no  and it’s not  arrived it can’t in any way be sold   or  marketed in the united states as  a drug. i go to  the FDA  site from a year ago  and they  have here ,I’m going to read it right h here maybe h you already know abbot  this . It says “the FDA   orders a halt   to the marketing of unapproved single ingredient oral cortisone. “this is a drug commonly used to prevent gout, to  treat gout flares, to  treated m a couple of other things but mostly it’s for  gout and so they  go out of their  way   to say  if  we don’t approve it  you can’t sell it , you can’t  market it until we say  you can  but except for fluoride . Other people   coming on are saying we have a product, we would like to try it out over the next 40 years on the American people and see if it works   they would say obsoletely not to expect for fluoride.

Paul: fluoride is the exception for any  rule on pollutants  or drugs that  you can think of , it’s a protected  pollutant when the US public health services endorsed  fluoridation in 1950 it established  such a powerful vale of protection  in on this  practise  which stood a rational discussion , rational argumentation , scientific evidence , everything falls by the wayside in order  to protect this practise   and yes  i think the FDA   role in this is   despicable , its total  hypocrisy  to ban some useful things and  now   foxing overboard in trying   to regulate nutrients and  so on which they are  doing  and at the same time  allow those fluoride , this unapproved drug to go into the drinking water  of over a hundred  million Americans every day with no supervision , no study , no randomized  clinical trials  and ye to look at the back  of  your tube of tooth paste because  that is the FDA in action on fluoride but only on  the cosmetic because they regulate cosmetic  as well as food and drug . then you see what they should be doing with water but they have been kept  away by the US  Public Health Service, the  great big bus , the department of health and human  services have kept the FSDA away from doing these  job on this  issue .

Ian: very interesting in the case against fluoride and how hazardous waste ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and  powerful politics that  keep it there.  Who are the politicians for and against it, do you have anybody that have come out for you?  Do you have a national <inaudible> persons politically?

Paul: in fact you can find a lot about this there is so much to talk about this on this front. If you got to our web page fluoridealert.org you go to web page and at the top of the web page it tells you the recent communities stop fluoridation and links to   all the 200 communities that have stopped since 1990. it gives  details about how to  order out book , it gives  more information on all those  IQ studies , it gives the professional statement against fluoridation signed  by over 3700 medical scientific in  environmental professional nitrifies. if you keep scrolling down  you eventually comes down to  a statement by  Ralph Nature and  if you keep going down you will faint  the professional perspective  from   water fluoridation , 28 minutes, 15 scientist   and if that doesn’t convince you to stop  then i don’t know what will but perhaps the book  will .

Ian: who are  the politicians because i know  Ralph Nator you mentioned   but like i said  my grandmother  who was John Birch  society all the way  she would have hated the  fact …

Paul:  i f this is essential a political we have people on the right, on the  left ,  the centre run poor announced that he   became persistent how would  have not  fund the CDC to  promote fluoridation , he think it should be  a local decision not a federal  imposition . we have the  reverend Andre  Young , former ambassador to the UN,  former  mayor of  Atlanta   that worked with martin Luther king jar and  we have DR. Martin Luther king’s  daughter Venice and his niece has come out against  fluoridation . they are practically concerned in Georgia because they have mandatory   fluoridation , they are strictly concerned  in Atlanta because they see the CDC is not warning the family of colours , they are particularly susceptible  to fluoride at least as far as dental fluorosis  is concerned. I think reverend Andre young is very important because his father was a dentist and for a long time he supported fluoridation. Things change, science develop, we have more information today than we did 60 years ago and we have to patty attention to that. the mayor  of Peter Value JR , well known counsellor  of new  your city whose father was   very famous  in new York city  he has introduced a bill  in new York city to stop fluoridation . If you live in New York City and you are listening to tis contact Peter Valona Jar or contact your conceal person and ask them to support Peter Valona JR.

Ian: i assume when you mentioned Martin Luther King jar before you meant martin Luther king the third? Or did you mean MLK was interested in the fluoride issue themself.

Paul: not the American hero that got assonated.

Ian: ok.  internationally , it thought  this was an  interesting quote  this  is on the back of the book   The Case Against  Fluoride  and  sweeten  rejected fluoridation  in the 1970s  these three  scattiest have confirmed the wisdom of that decision . Our children have not suffered  greater tooth decay  as World Heath o Organization figures has  test and  in turn our children our citizens have no tot borne the other j hazards that  fluoride may cause. we do  have  whole countries where  there are healthy people  that we can use as  test subjects   and  you can compare and contrasts  and we can say this  western nation didn’t do fluoride and their teeth and their kids and everybody  else . By comparison to ours. are there any  cases  e where you can  make the argument   that they  didn’t put  fluoride in the water and they are  countries that do have tragic teeth problems because  of that . Are there any examples?

Paul: no. you can’t point, you can have perfectly good teeth with ought fluoride you don’t have to swallow fluoride that is very clear. There’s a much   stronger relationship between income levels and tooth decay than you are ever going to find between tooth decay and fluoride.  The whole thing is just been badly studies scientifically, no randomized clinical trials for example. there was a study recently done  financed  by the  US  government  published in 2009  where they actually looked at tooth decay as a  function of how much fluoride  the  kids swallow. they got a bunch  of kids, they calculated how  much flu rode the kids actually ingested from all sources in the toothpaste, pesticide  residue , water and so  on and found that there was no relationship between how much fluoride the kids have swallowed and tooth decay and again it comes  back  to the reason that fluoridation should have stopped was  when they’d found out that  fluoride  major   benefit if there’s any is  topical , it  works on the outside of the  tooth and not from swallowing it .

Ian : there are people who have obviously  been promoting this and  other politicians  that are part of this dental industry that are out there trying  to protect it through legislation ,  have you noticed ? Are there senators or congressmen who arte former dentist? Are they trying to? are they moving the needle  in favour  of fluoridation on anything that we can  resist and we can  write our congressman  or senators  about to object to ?

Paul: it is very difficult to function at the state and federal  level because the American dental association erases over 100 million dollars per year , i think they maintain something  like 20  bias in  Washington DC ` and our biggest concern is the amount of  federal money that is being  capped off to promote fluoridation and  the CDC  dollars . on the one  hand you have the ADA  sending  money on public  violation outfits working behind the scenes , lobbying state  legislators , they have a real big effort  at the   moment to try to  introduce  mandatory fluoridation . A couple of years ago they introduced mandatory fluoridation in Louisiana.

Ian: did they pass?

Paul: yes. Also in Arkansas they are trying in Pennsylvania, they try every two years n Aragon. In many off these states its being resisted   but they are having more success recently because they’ve got a strategy where the public doesn’t find out until they are ready to vote in the state legislate, theta what happen in Louisiana. No one knew about it. Even labia’s for the environmental movement did not know that fluoridation was going through by itself in the legislation.

Ian: we’re going to open up the phones and we   will take calls for Dr. Paul Connett the Case against Fluoride next   on Coast to Coast.

Ian: Just walk me through the fluoridation process. Thru trucks arrive and what is the fluoride delivery system like? What do they do? How do they get it and how do they monitor the levels of fluoride that are going into the water supply. I can understand checking the PH  balance  of a pool in the backyard but that  water is not going anywhere  and you can walk around the pool and check it in  3 or 4 j places and get a real  idea of how much  choline for  example to add h to a backyard pool  but how did they do that with fluoride in a fluid system where you are f going to be running water down through  pipes?

Paul: Most of the communities which are fluoridated are now using a liquid, they use hex fluorolistic acid or silicone acid to the water and they drip it

Ian: they drip it into a pipe as the water is leaving the plant?

Paul: Yes but when you talk about how you control the dose top people that’s when you get into one of the absurdities of this practise.  The argument that you are getting to is how do you control the concentration in the   water but that’s not the issue. the issues  is how do  you control the dose going to people and the answer is you can’t control the  dose because you can’t control how much water people drink and some   people drink a huge amount of water , people who work outside in the  hot climate, people who have diabetes. There’s a huge range of dose that people are getting and ask any pharmacist if these any drug that you can give   to people and say take as much as you like. is there any drug that you give to everybody  whether they are very  young with a baby , with  an infant , whether a child ,  whether they are  elderly , sick or they have poor   nutrition or good nutrition . It’s absurd, it’s a very bad medical practise as you earlier indicated. You are depriving individuals of informed consent.  its pernicious to families of  low income because  they can’t afford  avoidance measures  but they’re really  crippling arguments  against fluoridation is that you can’t control the  dose , you can’t control who  gets it . It’s a lousy medical practise and there is no way around that.

Ian: I’m going to read something to you and I’m going to encourage you not to go   ballistic but i want to encourage you for a second. Knowing what i know about your work i anticipate your response.  I’m reading this from the CDC’s website on fluoridation. Here’s what it says /” two published studies conducted by CDC reaffirmed the benefits of community water fluoridation. Together the studies continue to show that wide spread community water fluoridation prevents cavities and   saves money both for the families and the health care system. in fact the economic analysis found  that for larger communities  have more than  20 000 people where it  cost about 50 cents per person to fluoridate the water  ,  every dollar  invested in this preventative measure yields approximately  $38 in savings  in dental treatment cost . ”

Paul: i know the study that they are refereeing to that was done, the lead author was Susan Griffin who is an economist, worked for h the CDC.  the trouble with that study is it completely ignored the cost of  treating dental fluorosis  which can cost up to a $1000 per  tooth and we have at least 4% of 12-15 year olds with moderate or  severe dental fluorosis  so you can imagine the  huge cost of treating that condition and ignored of course any other health  ailment which  might be related to fluoride exposure and  also they exaggerated the benefits  in there  calculation ,they assume  a greater benefit than they are  actually retrieving .Of course  it also  ignores the reality that they  are using a hazardous grade material instead of a pharmaceutical grade. if they  were forced to use  pharmaceutical grade then you would go to a more  rational delivery system which would be a an optional use of fluoridated bottle water  where you make fluoridated bottle water  available  as pharmacist say and you can  choose whether you use it or not .   If you use that approach you can use pharmaceutical grade instead of this industrial grade hazardous waste material.

Ian: I’m going to read you another paragraph here.  it says ” fluoridation reports  indicate  12 year old children living  in states where more h than  half the  community have  fluoridated water have 36% fewer  decided tooth surfaces per  year than 12  year old children living in states where less  that 1/4 of the community have fluoridated”

Paul: first of all look at the way they used percentages there. This is based upon   this study of the august <inaudible> this is the study that look at 39 000 <inaudible>, 84 communities and the average difference in tooth decay was .6 of   one tooth surface. that’s what you find out if you actually go to the table  and look at the number  but they didn’t report .6  of a tooth  surface , they  describe  it  as 18%  savings in tooth decay and they also did some  hand  waving  if you  subtract the benefit from   fluoridated  toothpaste, it may be as  high as 24 %or 25 % figure but notice  they do this all the time ,, they  convert a very small savings  . When you are comparing two small numbers into what sounds like an impressive percentage. for the average person  when they 18% less tooth decay  they imagine 5 or 6  tooth decaying and  reduce that by  18% but the difference  is .6 of  2/3 is  absolute savings is less than 1%.

Ian : it says here   a related j analysis found here in children  again  I’m reading from the CDC’s website  a related analysis   found that  children living in non-fluoridated community in states  that are  highly fluoridated   receive  partial benefits   of  fluoridation just  from eating foods and drinking   beverages processed  in fluoridate communities .  if you don’t have fluoride in your water  you are still  benefitting from the fact that the beverages  that you drink might have been r processed  with fluoridated water or  that you may get produce coming out of farms  that have  sprayed fluoridated water on the crops .

Paul: Yes. This is the so called halo effect. the y are arguing that the   treason that there is so little tooth decay  between fluoridated and  non-fluoridated communities is that the non-fluoridated  communities is getting fluoride  from other sources , beverages and  so on and that is true but they are also  getting the harm . When i said the 41% of children age 12-15   have dental fluorosis that was for all American children. even children today  from  non-fluoridate communities are getting  non fluoride  by this dedication  of fluoride  through the beverages  and the food chains and so on .  The halo effect does not apply when you are looking at Europe because you have such we countries   that are fluoridated in Europe so the less children in Sweden arte   drinking Guinness from Ireland which is one of the countries that is fluoridated. There is no halo effect there. In other words fluoride in beverages and food produced in a fluoridate community are not getting into the fluoridated community. You can’t use that as an argument as to why there is so little difference in tooth decay between fluoridated countries and non-fluoridated country in Europe. Again i think those things that you have read indicates very clearly that the CDC is acting like a propaganda operation. It’s promoting fluoridation, that’s their function, they promote fluoridation and they don’t have the toxicologist on staff to do it independent. it’s certainly not an independent assessment  of the damaging’s instead you get this propaganda material and it’s  not  what  would have expected  15 years ago before getting  involved that health agencies  should be s doing . You would think the bureaucrats, the civil servants working for health agencies would be giving objective information to the public and the decision maker and that the spinning should not begin with them. if there is any spinning  involved it should  come from pollutions later on  but it shouldn’t come from the civil servants and this is eroding the public’s  trust  in this country in their  health agencies , not only  this kind of shenanigans   when bureaucracies are protecting a practise   rather than  protecting the health but also the big money from economic interest , the  pharmaceutical industry for instance  influencing the national institute of  health and  other  health agencies. We are losing the public’s trust and one way to regain it is to admit that they are wrong on fluoridation and stop this stupid practise.

Ian: i don’t think i have ever lived in a community that hadn’t  fluoridated the water , i could be wrong  but  i  assumed it was .

Paul: if you tell me the names of the community you were living in, about 70% Americans now are drinking fluoridated water, over 180 million. Tell me the towns that you have lived in and i will tell you.

Ian: I live right now in South Paulo, Minnesota

Paul: fluoridated

Ian: Atlanta Georgia

Paul: Georgia has mandatory fluoridation

Ian: Nashville, Tennessee

Paul: fluoridated

Ian: Chicago, Illinois

Paul: fluoridated, Illinois has mandatory fluoridation

Ian :  I’ve made my point and then  i lived in a whole in new jersey on the  jersey  shore .

Paul:  New Jersey doesn’t have many communities fluoridated so when you are living in New Jersey you probably escaped fluoridation.

Ian : just to  make the point again , this is a  medicine   that they are touting at the CDC  that they are force feeding    a medicine and on that basis  alone it really makes you have to wonder  .  that’s odd that they are doing that and  there’s no  proof  other that what we ‘ve been getting into a little bit  here that the e ingestion of this medicine is the  way to go . It has a topical benefit but   we was just sharing some of that right there. Have you had any successes as the head of the fluoride action network?   have you  any  to talk communities   out of that were withier offering it  that were  no longer  putting it in their water  supply or  cities that were thinking about it that decided not  to do it.

Paul: it’s much easier to stoop today, to stop communities putting it in that to reverse the h status quo of stopping communities that are   actually doing it but we have had some significant victories. Did you know Alaska followed by Fair Banks Alaska have stopped, some communities in Texas have stopped. in Canada  major  cities lie  Calgary has  stopped, that’s  1.1   billion  , most of brattish  Columbia is non-fluoridated   ,  most of Quebec non  fluoridated ,  Quebec city  stopped . Only 3% of Quebec   is fluoridated a day communities in Ontario have stopped fluoridating very recently this year. Very recently this i year Waterloo in last October Waterloo voted it out by referendum. If we can get it to referendum we have a very good chance of stopping fluoridation.

Ian: Ok. As you are doing that , as you  are f  going across the country and you are making your case against fluoridation are there then people  that are on the other side  of it paid for n by the fluoride industry  that come along on your heels or on either same time and debate you on fluoride .

Paul: by and large they will not debate. The closest we had to a debate recently was in front of a community for Austin Texas, the counsel there a doctor and a dentist spoke in favour of fluoridation, another dentist and i spoke against it and that was not actually a debate so much. Each side presented their case and then answered question and that’s on video you can access that. I’m sure if you go to austintexasfluoride.com you will be able to see that. incidentally  talking about videos if you go to our webpage , flouridealert.org  if you scroll down you will find a video take  called   professional perspective   of water fluoridation and its 15 scientist on that , doctors, dentist , scientist like   myself explaining the arguments , 28 minutes i think people will be convinced. Aim not the only scientist opposed to fluoridation,

Ian: one argument we haven’t discussed for fluoride next on Coast to Coast. Now we’re talking about fluoride into the water and the case against it. There is one argument that we haven’t dispelled which we will next   on Coast to Coast   this is Ian Punnett. , talking with Dr Paul Connett with St Lawrence University and the case   against fluoride. You can link up to him through coasttocoastam.com.  we kind  of touched on it  but we  kind of gave it a glancing glow   and i think its  way  more interesting than that  since we talked about that fluoride is   a drug and not a nutrient but it’s also not an approved drug . that’s the part that got me confused  especially as  i was reading the CDC  website and  the way in which they made  the case for fluoride in thaw water but you argue that it’s  an unapproved drug that  according to the government .

Opal: other is no agency in the United States that takes responsibility for fluoridation. The EPA regulates fluoride as a contaminant not as an additive. The FDA   had never approved fluoride for ingestion. The FDA has a warning for fluoride on toothpaste, on the back of a tube of toothpaste it says only use a small amount, pea sized amount.  You should keep always form children under 6, if you should accidentally swallow more than the recommended amount contact a poison   centre and get medical help.

Ian: that’s if you swallow too much of your own toothpaste?

Paul: An ova sized amount Ian is a quart of a milligram of fluoride.  That the equivalent of one glass of floriated water, van you imagine the same warning on the tap?

Previous Lectures:
June 2013

February 2013

Ian:  If ‘m to extrapolate  what  you just said there  then if a woman is drinking fluoridated  water and she is braes t feeding then somewhere along the  line that fluoridated water  will not  then show up in here  breast milk .

Paul: it doesn’t increase it very much. The average level in a non-fluoridated community is about. 004, in a fluoridated community it   goes up to about .01. There is an increase but there seems to be a mechanism in the body to keep fluoridate from the nursing infant.

Ian : What else would and we don’t know for sure but   what  else  do you think an increase  of fluoride in our bodies  for people  in different social economic  groups or  just in different countries what else could  fluoride be responsible for  that we may  not even have science for  yet but you suspect that florid e may be a contributing  factor in a health issue .

Paul: what we know from around the world in communities which have high natural levels, their so called endemic areas for fluorosis in India and china is that fluorosis has two components. One is dental fluorosis   , in the beginning you see dental fluorosis and as a child h grows up some of those children will get skeletal fluorosis when they become adults. it not only attacks the  teeth but it attacks the  bone  and  the esteem actually grows  out of the bone and the reason  why   you don’t see the dental fluorosis until the secondary teeth emerge , parents get the shock when the kids are 8 or 9 and the  permanent tenth start coming out you see the  dental fluorosis , the while specks or streaks  on their teeth . That’s because the fluoride is loaded up in the bone, it accumulates in the bone. About 50% more for kids accumulates ion the bone. 50% of all the fluoride that you take in each day from tooth paste, from water or wherever it concentrates in the bone steadily increasing over your life. The concept here is twofold.  In the beginning the first symptoms of  fluoride  damage to the bone and Thais  has been observed in India and china and hundreds  of studies of symptoms that ids  identical to arthritis ,  stiffness of the joints , pains in the joins , pain in the bone that’s the first symptoms of fluoride  poising of the bone and as the fluoride  continues to accumulate it makes  the bones more brittle and so a big concern  is that  by the time you have been  exposed the 50 , 60 , 70 odd years  of fluoridated  water then you may see an  increase in hip fractures in  the alto my . The human studies, the epidemical logical studies are met. some studies have shown  an increase in hip fractures, other studies  have not found this but again  you   have only been fluoridated   now  for 60 years so nan the future  we  will have  people who have lived 70  years , 80 years , 90 years in fluoridated communities  and there i think it’s going to become more  obvious that we’re  not just damaging the teeth of people we  are damaging the bones.

The other issues is we can see dental fluorosis but what about what you can’t see, what about the baby. Let’s go back again to the bottle fed baby. That bottle fed baby is get 250 times more fluoride than nature intended. what’s that fluoride  doing to  the  developing  brain , the  endocrine  system , the thyroid glands , the pineal gland and in the  fluoridated countries they really haven’t  done the studies but we’re beginning to find these studies  being done in  India and china. Theirs   now been 24 studies which show w an association between moderate to high exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children and that’s very disturbing and the dosses are not that much higher than what our kids are getting today.

Ian: The argument here is that having a neurological effect?

Paul:  it isn’t just we are seeing lowered IQ we know that fluoride damages the brain and ways with these issues because they use high dosages in animal. It’s a question of does you high dose animal experiment give you a good window into a low dose for human beings. That’s why the IQ studies are so important because they are looking at much lower doses than we have used in animals.

Ian: We’re talking about the vase against fluoride in water and the impact on poorer kids. The reason that we can say that is that in certain economic groups they are not going to be likely to use bottle water and other people can use bottled water all the time. Do all bottled water contain fluoride? Do some of them make sure they don’t have it?

Paul: we don’t know. In America the bottle water companies are not required to list the elementally composition but they are in Canada and Europe. If you go to Europe they tell you what the levels are but not in America. We are flying blind on that.

Ian: Why?

Paul:   You need to contact the manufacturer to find out how much fluoride is in the bottle water.

Ian: Some may be fluoride free but they are not   advertising that on their bottles.

Paul:  Some of them have advertised that they have added floured to the water, nursery water. they are  selling water in supermarkets  deliberately  to give the baby fluoridated water which is absolutely crazy which is crazy because it’s the first year which the kids are  most vulnerable to dental fluorosis but to go back to the  low income for a moment . This is one of the emotive argument used to promote fluoridate. We have to do this to help poor kids.   This is the argument because they are not getting a dental treatment and they can’t afford the tooth treatment.  it’s  very punishes  because  as you pointed out  its precisely the low income families that  cannot  afford avoidance measure ,  either  using reversal osmosis  distillation or  buying bottled water  on the one hand and secondly its more than likely that you are going to get  poor  nutrition from low income  families and when you have poor nutrition then fluoride is worse. Fluoride toxicity is exasperated. If you have  low calcium , low vitamins and so it’s not only that they can’t avoid  it with low income families but you’re  going to be  more vulnerable . we already now  incidentally  from the  centre of disease and  control that  clack children and Mexican American children in the united states  have higher dental fluorosis  rates .  The eye have higher rates of dental fluorosis meaning that they are more vulnerable for a variety of reasons. One of them may be what i just say   poorer nutrition. Another one is a higher instance of lactose intolerance in back family so they are for a variety of reasons and these warnings are not being given. Nobody is warring parents or any families not to use tap water to make up baby formula.  Even if the concern was to end with dental fluorosis which they admit, even if that was the only concern thy should be warning parents not to   use tap water to make yup formula but they are not doing that because they are scared of threatening their precious fluoridation program.

Ian: Real quickly you have mentioned the reverse osmosis processes.  Are you talking about a pure water system or one of the filters that you would put on a tap does it take the fluoride   out?

Paul:  Some do but not the cheap ones.  The typical carbon filters, the Brita filters and so on they do no remove it.

Ian: We haven’t talked about the cost. About how much s does it cost to   add fluoride to the water supply and how do they measure floured in the   water supply. Is there a trickle that goes in or are some people getting more fluoride depending on where they are these are the origins of the water system in a community versus other people j that maybe be further   away or not. we’ll  find out how much its costing and is everybody  giving the same  amount of fluoride , The Case against Fluoride next on Coast to Cost , This is Ian Punnett.

Again tweeting @deconpunnett. I’ll be doing two shows next week. I’ll be doing the Friday night show and the Saturday night show. i believe i will be in  New York city for the premier of The Rise of the Planets of The Apes, very cool and hoping it will be as good as what i saw  preliminary what  it was shaped up to be . We’ll talk about that next weekend on Coast to Coast and The Case against Fluoride continues, how hazardous waste c ended up in our drinking water and the bad science and powerful  politics that keeps it there.  They would say follow the money on this.  How much is it costing to put fluoride in the water?  Who are the people that are getting paid to keep fluoride in the American water system? Only one of eight countries in the world, maybe it’s not a cost basis system   alone. We have to re consider that on Coast to Coast this is Ian Punnet.

We’re talking with Dr Paul Connett who is with St Lawrence University as well as the head as the Florida Action Network. The Case Against  Florida is actually the name  if the book and on any way you look hat  fluoride you look at it  in terms of  is it a medicine then  is unethical  to give people without  them having a choice on it . if  its hazardous waste  its unethical to give people  something which is also used as  a poison … omits in ethical to give it to people  if it  affects  different people  , in different socio  economic grouses  differently and then we get into the argument of what  is the cost  of adding fluoride to water. These are huge water systems so   who is paying for that and who is benefiting.

Paul: it’s a huge cost and especially in big cities. It’s costing New York something like 7 our 8 million dollars per year   for the chemicals let alone when you have to repair the systems and change the delivery systems. So for big cities we are talking millions of dollars per year, smaller towns thousands of dollars per year. But even that Ian if you were using pharmaceutical grade fluoride, if you were using the same kind of fluoride that is in dental products you could not afford to do this. The only reason the big cities can use fluoride chemicals to use this fluoridation is they are using the hazardous waste largely produced by the phosphate fertilization industry.  The phosphate fertilizer when you are making soluble phosphate heats up phosphate rocks with sulphuric acids. This releases two very toxic gasses into the environment.  for about a hundred years these gasses  decimated the  local vegetation , cripple cattle  etc. and  eventually they were required to put wet scrubbers on  a spray of water  and that spray of water n converted  these gases into a solution called hexaflourotic acid and it’s that scrubbing liqueur , untreated which  gets put into tanker  trucks and is shipped  around the country and put into our water  supplies. They can dump this into the sea buy international law. its too concentrated  to dup locally bit f they  can find d somewhere to dilute this down , the  180 000 to one  then they can get  rid of it .  It’s one of the idiom syncretise of American Hazardous Waste regulations.

If someone buys a hazardous product from you it’s no longer classified as hazardous waste it n becomes a product. that’s what’s  happening , i haven’t made  it up . This isn’t Monty Pryce and this is absolutely what is happening. We are taking a hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer   industry and dumping it into our drinking water. The answer to pollution is dilution.

Ian: Say for a water  system  as big as  New York  7 -8 million dollars that’s insignificant though  financially and i would  imagine for a smaller city  it’s not that much money to add  fluoride  right ?

Paul: Not if you divide it by the population .i cant believe they would accept any taxes of   you divide the total by the total number of population it doesn’t seem very much but when you are talking about something that is damaging   your teeth and causing dental fluorosis and other problems that’s where the money is going to be and its unnecessary damage to our health.

Ian: That idea as fluoride as a medicine lets hang on to that thought  for a moment because that’s going to  open up a whole  other aspect of this conversation. Just to amplify it for people who are still catching on then about what year was it when people started saying “hey when are we ever going to have those studies that prove that this is actually good to put in the water?”  Where was it that scientist began to say “what a second, why are we doing this again?” when did the movement start against fluoride?

Paul: Almost immediately. The first opponents of fluoridation were in Wisconsin. there were some dentist that was really pushing it like crazy in Wisconsin and the first opponent were bio chemist and because those bio chemist had used fluoride in their laboratory experiments to inhibit enzymes it was a very good tool in bio chemistry to find the metabolic pathways of how sugar was broken down in the body and they often use poisons to block steps in the pathway to study those pathways. bio chemist had use fluoride  to  poison enzymes  and they were horrified that  anyone would add this  deliberately to the body systems and  put it in the drinking water  but their voices were drowned out  by the  dental community and  those who had   a huge self interest in propelling this  thing .

Ian: So the dentist then let’s say they had their  heart in the right place and they said look  fluoride is  great in toothpaste on the outside , we  don’t have the science yet to prove it but it must be good on the inside so  we’ll just start putting it in there and the idea was they were  going to stop tooth decay  among people who weren’t incline  to  use fluoride toothpaste .

Paul: Can i say that didn’t comet ill later, the fluoride toothpaste actually didn’t come till the 60s. In the beginning they only had fluoride to put into the water.

Ian: So then the fluoride toothpaste comes along  and i grew up with fluoride toothpaste , i know of nothing else to be in my toothpaste e other than fluoride and so when someone  said ” they put fluoride in the water I would  think fine “I’m already putting it in my mouth anyways , what is fluoridated water?  Is there any difference between the brushing my teeth with fluoride toothpaste and me drinking water with fluoride in it? I wouldn’t have known the difference.

Paul: absolutely and the fact that every few countries have succumbed to this practise, there’s only 8 countries in the world that have more than 60 % of their population drinking it. Despite that 98% of Europe is not fluoridated you cants see difference in tooth decay between the child who has grown up in fluoridated communities or non-fluoridated community or countries. That’s World Health Organization data. The world Health Organization tracks  tooth decay in 12 year olds  in many different  countries and if you look at the tooth  decay  today  there  is practically no difference from  those children   whether they live  in a fluoridated  ire non fluoridated  country.

Ian: Are we 3% more likely to not have tooth decay in the United States because we have fluoridated water?

Paul:   That a good question. the arrest survey ever done in the United States was conducted   in 86 or 87 by the National Institute  od Dental Research and they looked at it  and  39 000 children in 84 different communities and  at the end of the day they  found practically no difference whatsoever in the tooth decay . The average difference for a child that lived all their lives in a fluoridated community from a child   who lived all their life in a non-fluoridated community the average difference was 0.6. You have four tooth surfaces   on the cutting teeth and five surfaces on the chewing teeth and overall by the time the team would come out you have 128 tooth surfaces. so out of  128 tooth  surfaces a difference  of 0.6 of 1   tooth surfaces, let’s say 1 5 of the total tooth surfaces actually is safe and even  that study didn’t demonstrate that  the finding was statistically significant and other   larger studies since then , especially in  Australia have found  even less savings  .

Ian: I’ll be darned. That doesn’t surprise me. the Case Against Fluoride, How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our  Drinking Water and the Bad Science  and  the Powerful Politics  That Keeps It There , that’s the title of the book  . Dr Paul Connett is one of three   very smart people who have been working on this book. We are talking about noble rose winners have come out against fluoride in the water. Let’s just get back to cases fluoride is like a medicine.  It’s not even ethical to force feed people a medicine.  At   what point to do you have a right to say no to a medicine just put in the water. what if it  wasn’t fluoride  , what  if it was just anti-depressants ,  what if  it was just some other sort of narcotic  out  in the water just because they want you to be   medicated and then  on top of that hats the  expense of fluoride in the  water and how can they   say no .  You will hear all about that next on Coast to Coast this is Ian Punnet.

I was at U2 earlier, it was a fabulous show but most importantly it would be a beautiful say for some of you soon. it’s going to be a  hot day for many more tomorrow before the cool front get there but for some there will be   some relief  on the way, it’s just coming down from Canada and  it will create some  rain and some turbulent  weather but i would  take that trade off. Better that then facing more days of under Armageddon which i know that many more people will suffer from before it’s over. When you get rely hot you can always cool off in a bath tub full of hazardous waste. That’s what fluoride is and more than that fluoride is also a medicine. Test take a look at both of those, the ethics of both of those hazardous materials and a medicine in your body against you’re will. We’ll get to that coming up next, the case against fluoride on Coast to Coast this is Ian Punnet.

Dr Paul Connet is a very well respected member of the chemical community. As a professor at St Lawrence’s University as somebody who is a graduate of Cambridge and of Dark Mirth. this is not a fringe since  he’s working on in the case against  fluoride but as we were  talking about earlier i remember when i was  growing  up my  grandmother who i love  very much who is very exercised about fluoride  in the water but then again she though Dwight Eisenhower was a  communist  it was like that type of thing that would get   rolled together until i actually sat  down and read your book i didn’t realize how right she really was  , not about Dwight Eisenhower bout about fluoride and one of the things i never  really thought about was if  fluoride is a  medicine that we intentionally purchase and use in toothpaste how dare we pump it into  the water as a  medicine that’s unethical;  even if it is good for  somebody that person would make the choice on whether or not they want to take that medico. I couldn’t think of any other modification that we force people to take against their will.

Paul: No. there was a short experiment  with iodine to fight hypothyroidism  <inaudible> but they  quickly sopped that because  they  found that people were overdosing on iodine when  they put in the water so that experiment short lived but since  fluoridation was introduced we  never ever used the water supply to deliver a medico.

Ian:  what about iodized salt, you mentioned do dine. Would that be a comparison?

Paul: first of all iodine is a nutrient, the body needs it, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the body needs fluoride. there’s not  one biological   process in the  body that requires fluoride  so  it’s quite  different from the other nutrients which are added to food.  In all those other cases there is some choice in the manner but when you put it in the water there is no choice and especially for families of low income there is no choice.

Ian: Again to amplify that  then iodized salt in the water and as a medicine its unique then  this means that the  governmental body has decided that you need this for your teeth and they  are going to give t to you whether you like it or not. It’s not a nutrient and i can also be a hazardous waste.

Paul: That’s exactly right and unfortunately the agency that is most involved    in promoting fluoridation is the Oral Health Division of the centre for disease control in Atlanta.  The total body control many thousands of scientist with many credentials butt the Oral Health Division is only 30 people and they are largely dentally trained. There’s not any toxicology on the staff, there is very few specialized in different forms of medicine.   So you have people whose preoccupation is teeth, teeth, teeth who are promoting this and making statements for which they have no credentials in terms of the safety. That’s a very unfortunate situation. The centre of disease control in this case is like tittle dump to tittle Dee with j the ADA the American Dental Association that promotes fluoridation.  The CDC is like an adjunct of the ADA, preoccupied with teeth and very credential when it comes to safety issues.

Ian: Again fluoride very topically applied, yes. there is aplenty of evidence  that says when fluoride   is brushed unto  teeth when it is  absorbed  through toothpaste  into the teeth , to the gum area , that’s a positive  thing  you’re not disputing that .

Paul: Some people that oppose to fluoridation don’t even want fluoridated toothpaste. I personally don’t use fluoridated toothpaste for 15 years. The   thing is to brush your teeth and the key thing is to have a good diet if you want to protect t your teeth and i would want to advocate the use of xylitol in the use of toothpaste. Xylitol is a natural sugar and it prevents the bacteria from sticking to the surface of the teeth and therefore the bacteria do not strive in the mouth. Put that aside if you had to choose between adding fluoride top t the water or encouraging persons to use fluoridated toothpaste that’s a no brainer, brushing only takes spitting out, don’t put it in the water.

Ian:   There’s actually if i remember from the case against fluoride there is some evidence that says   fluoride applied topically works. you’re not disputing that it works  typically it’s just that there is zero proof and this is where we start  getting into  as you were talking about in different economic  groups for a lot of people putting it in the water is not only does it not  only help their teeth it may degenerate different aspects of their health.

Paul: Absolutely. We have 41% of American children, this is the Centre of Disease Control now admitting this 41% of children ages 12-15 have a condition called dental fluorosis. This is a damage to the enamel which can discolour the enamel and be <inaudible> in the most sever forms. when they started they  thought that 10% of children would have  dental fibrosis  and its  very mild form but today as i said  41% of children ages 12-15 in the United States  including  children in non-fluoridated  areas have dental fluorosis. Our kids are being over exposed to fluoride. The  fact which made me blink 15 years ago when i read  in the afternoon the papers my wife put on  the table, the thing  which made me blink was the level of fluoride in mothers milk.  This is the baby’s first meal, developed over millions of years to be the best meal for the baby, the level of fluoride in the mother’s milk is extremely low. If in a non-fluoridated community it can be as low as .004 parts of a million. We fluoridate at about 1 path of a million. what this means is that the parent bottle feeds there baby   and makes up the formula with tap water is going to be given her baby 250 times more fluoride than a breast fed baby, 250 times more fluoride than nature intended and i think that there h are clearly on the line the fact that   fluoride is not a nutrient because if it is a nutrient that clearly   nature screwed up a babies fords meal.

About three hours ago I was tweeting about a song, Stuck in a moment from U2.  I was at a  U2 show at the university at Minnesota the  Golden Gophers  Stadium that’s  TCF  Bank  Stadium and  it  was air huge  down our , it was raining , it was h  crazy . we thought we were all getting electrocuted kind  of crazy but they dedicated  that song to Amy Winehouse , Stuck in a Moment . and i was kkind of expecting that Bono  would say  something about  the shooting in Aslow  but then  again i left early because there were sheets of rain not to mention distant rumble of thunder and i thought I better get while the getting is good  so that i can get back and do Coast to Coast  but it was an awesome show and it was nice of  him to say  something  both about her and Michael Hudgens .  I think it was back in 1983 when the war came out, 1983 was the same year that Paul Connett became a professor at St Lawrence University in Catton New York. After doing work   in Dark Mirth and Cambridge this is a guy who is pretty much educated. This is not a guy on the fringe but this is a guy who knows chemistry and he says fluoride is essentially hazardous waste and how it’s ended up in our drinking water and the bad signs and the powerful politics that keep it there.  He is  part of the fluoride action network and we will talk  about the case against fluoride and why we should all be against  fluoride  in our water,  why it i doesn’t do what scientist said it was supposed to  do . We know what now and it’s a waste of money and it can actually really hurt people to have it there. I will tell you a little bit more about that coming up next on Coast to Coast this is Ian Punnett.  I should probably mention too because people always ask if you want to follow the twitter fen I’m @deaconpunnett. If you want to follow those  tweets there’s tuff there in the week that we talk about , stuff that’s coming up on the show  on Coast to Coast  like that  first hour conversation we were having about Amy Winehouse  i tweeted about that   earlier today and the sad 27 club and the case against fluoride Dr Paul Connett is here  . Good evening Dr Paul Connett how are you?

Paul: I’m fine Ian, thanks very much.

Ian: impressive career, great pedigree. Obviously you are well verse to the subject and i think a lot of people when they hear folks talk about fluoride in the water h they still think of it as firing science. people  who are against  it  , they don’t get it , they  don’t understand or they are  just paranoid people and after  reading  your book i realize it’s really the other way around . The case against fluoride is much stronger than the case to have   it be in our water system.

Paul:  i agree with you. i joined  with two other scientist to write this book , James Beck an MD Ph. from Calvary in Alberto  and Professor Speeding Milam , a biologist PHD  from Oxford from  Scotland and the three  of us wrote this book  and its understated rather than  over stated . its relatively easy to read but everything is well documented and  i must say that 15 years    ago when my wife first ask me to  read some material on fluoridation , just like most people  i thought the people  opposed  to fluoridation a little  crazy and i didn’t want the issue  because that stigmatization  that  you  are loony tunes  if you talked about it. As soon as is started to read the literature i was appalled and slightly embarrassed because i f i held that view or that impression i would be nurturing that prejudice for   many years prior to this reading.

Ian: fair is fair it doesn’t really get a hearing, it doesn’t really get a discussion. The only thing I’ve ever heard is that fluoride is good to help us have strong teeth, put fluoride in the water, more people have strong teeth. That’s all you ever really heard about it.

Paul: that’s right. It’s backed up with the commercial, everybody sees the commercial and yes theirs millions of impressions being made. In fact every time   we go to the pharmacy or the supermarkets   there it is all those toothpaste have fluoride in it, that and the professional bodies that have come out and said it’s wonderful and safe and effective. If you go back  and look at the history and when the united states  government  in the form  of  the public health service   endorsed fluoridating in 1950 , none of the tail  that  begun in 1945 had been completed and it was practically no science of the safety  of either short term or long term  effect of  fluoride gave been  done .

Ian: why did they want to jump in it in 1950 if they didn’t have the trials yet that backed up doing it? What was the impetus to start putting fluoride in the wart before they had a reason to put fluoride in the water?

Paul: there’s another  whole book written on that so we didn’t have to spend too much time on the early history of  fluoridation but Chris  Branson a former BBC  corresponded spend 10 years writing a book about the fluoride  deception , explaining that  history and how they were many industries that  either  used fluoride in their manufacturing or   produced fluoride as a pollutant .  They h were faced with lawsuits from farmers whose farm land have been damaged by fluoride and a concern about what fluoride was doing to its workers every day. They saw this  practise as a way  of changing the image  of loured which in the  1940 was seen  as the words air pollutant out there that had caused more  damage to agriculture than  any other air pollutant  and threatened many law suits . They saw this is as a way of changing the image   and the collision between the US public health service and The Fluorine Lawyers Association. Those lawyers obviously were defending industry in water. That’s all been documented. There’s a huge economic interest an also throw in the nuclear industry that use a huge amount foo fluoride to make the atomic k bomb and refine the fuel for the process.

Ian:  Maybe i need to ask, what is fluoride?

Paul: fluoride is essentially any compound from the element fluorine. Florien is a very active element and we’re not talking about that. No one is putting  fluorine  into the drinking water but they are putting a compound  that either  contains the fluoride  iron  or generates the  compound iron when it  goes into water . One example would be sodium fluoride. When sodium fluoride goes into water then it   separates into the sodium iron and the fluoride iron. It’s not the sodium iron that does anything but the fluoride iron that supposedly helps to reduce   tooth decay. Its fluoride iron that we are talking about which again gong back 15 years ago when i started looking g at this from a chemical point of view fluoride is not very reactive chemically. Fluorine is pretty reactive Burt fluoride is pretty be nine from a chemical perspective but the shocker is its extremely active biologically. It interferes with enzymes, with protein and other things going on. It’s a very nasty substance you don’t want it anywhere near your body tissues.

Ian: then why do we want to put it in our toothpaste? What is it about fluoride applied topically to teeth that makes the h teeth stronger and more resilient against tooth decay?

Paul: the theory from chemical perspective and it seems quite reasonable is that the theory that the fluoride iron replaces the hydroxide iron the mineral that makes up the teeth, the calcium hydroxyl appetite. that’s  the  mineral` that makes up the teeth and the enamel and also the bones and the fluoride gets in there, once it is exchanged with this  hydroxide iron it makes the  enamel stronger and  more resistant to acid attack  and its thee acid attack from the acid   which are generated with  sugar is broken down  in the mouth by bacteria  , it’s that  acid that attacks enamel  and so if you can stop it there, if you can make the enamel  more resistant to acid attack then you’re going to fight tooth decade. When you have fluoride in toothpaste at very high concentration <inaudible> you also inhibit the bacteria. you make the bacteria less  able to survive in the mount . For toothpaste there’s two ways that you fight tooth decay, one you get fluoride into the enamel and two you fight the bacteria.

Ian: i like that. Here’s home I’m liking that , back  in the days when i used to  buy beater cars   i would  buy cars that had rust on it  that had a couple of bad  winters . you  have some road salt on the car and it  starts corroding at the  metal so you get out a good sander and you use  either bond or fibre glass and you patch up the corder  panel on the car so  that it looks good as new and that’s would  he sort of how you described it maybe the roll that fluoride  would have on my external , the enamel on my teeth and that from the external  in it helps to patch up  where  sugar  has been corroding at the tooth on the exterior.

Paul: i think this a good analogy but the key to thing to focus on it’s a topical effect. It works on the outside of the enamel.

Ian: That’s what I’m saying, the other side to this would be saying look see how we can patch  up the corder panel on the car by using  bond  or a fibre glass  kit that we get from our local car body  shop, why don’t we  do this? Why don’t we put the bond in the gasoline and then   we pump it right into the gas tank and that will patch up the holes from the inside? That would seem to be the problem with the fluoride on the inside.  Is that right?

Paul: I think that’s a very god analogy. the one that we use a lot is that   swallowing fluoride makes  as much sense  as swallowing sun tan lotions which is designed to be on the outside of the skin and if you are  someone who swallow sun tan lotion they would look at you a little strangely.

Ian: Back in 1950 they though  we have all these extra fluoride we have to  find a place to put it , why don’t we rehabilitate  fluorides image and at  the same tome create a new market for something which otherwise would be expensive  to get rid of and lets just converse  people that it would be the same as swallowing  sun tan lotion and then it  would be good for them . If sun tan lotion s good on the outside then   focusers its good on the inside and yet there was no science yet available   that said that it didn’t work. Is that fair?

Paul: that’s absolutely right. They did not do the kind f of studies that would be required from instances from the Food and Drug Administration, the FDA. of you were bringing a new drag into the market  the FDA would have to approve it and that  approving prices would require randomized clinical  trials to establish  it with safe and effective  and that’s  never been  done  ,the FDA has never submitted this substance or had companies  submitted  this substance to randomize  chemical  trials .   The official classification of fluoride by the FDA is that sits an unapproved drug. It’s amazing isn’t it?  over 60 years we’ve out this stuff in our  drinking water m pliably the most prescribed medication  in US history and yet the FDA which is in charge of approving medicine  has beaver done this for fluoride.

Pregnancy is, probably, the most beautiful period in the life of every woman. But, besides great feelings and happy moments in life, health of the pregnant woman may be at risk. The fact is that the immune system and the amount of calcium in the body are usually sharply reduced, and this is what may cause the destruction of tooth enamel or caries. So, let’s find out how necessary is it to visit the dentist and proceed the dental treatment during pregnancy and whether you should do it at all.

Unfortunately, today, there is a widespread myth that dental treatment during pregnancy is not only deprecated, but is contraindicated since the anesthesia and other processes could harm the health of the baby. As a consequence, future moms suffer from a toothache during the whole pregnancy and when the baby is born, it turns out that during the period of breast-feeding visit to the doctor is still banned. But at the same time none of them think about how not treated teeth can harm the baby.

Pennsylvania dentists warn: «Any cavity of decay in the tooth of a future mother, decayed tooth, or inflammation in the mouth primarily is centers of chronic infection, which can spread throughout the body while eating. If the nidus is located in the root tip of a tooth, or between the roots of the teeth, the infection can immediately spread through the bloodstream. » In such cases, the body spends more internal resources to combat the spread of the infection instead of keeping the fetus. As a reaction, complications during gestation or late toxicosis are possible.

Another reason to go to the dentist during pregnancy is that the future mom is in need of a healthy and varied diet for proper development of the fetus. A damaged teeth or constant pain prevent proper and thorough mastication of food, so that the baby does not receive all the necessary vitamins and minerals, because they are poorly absorbed in the body.

Probably, it is not necessary to talk much about oral hygiene during pregnancy, but anyway. As it was already mentioned, during pregnancy the immunity falls and many processes and sluggish oral diseases can be accelerated. It’s not as terrible as it may seem, but in this situation visit to the dentist is essential. But, in order to make this need not to appear, it is necessary to remember how important is to brush teeth at least twice a day. After all, prevention of the disease is always better than treatment.

Often, a visit to the dentist cause negative feelings in people. Most often, people associate it with pain, inconvenience and with humming drill. What can we say about pregnant women, whose psychological state is much more unstable than one of the average person? All these mean that such feelings like stress and pain are contraindicated for these women. Therefore, when the intervention of dentist is needed, the right kind of anesthesia is the key to success. There is good news for anyone who has strong belief that any anesthesia may harm the baby. This is not true. Today, there are a number of pain medications that do not have contraindications to the use during pregnancy (they do not reach the fetus through the placenta and do not cause any change in the pregnancy, gestation and fetal development).

Looking back on everything aforesaid, we can safely conclude that going to the dentist during pregnancy is possible and necessary, and there is nothing to be afraid of. Modern technologies make the process of treatment minimally stressful and absolutely painless. In order to find certified and experienced dentist in your state, try this service http://reviewfordentists.com/dentists/oklahoma.

Pregnancy is the best state in which a healthy woman can stay, so nobody should refuse themselves and their future babies to be healthy and beautiful.

My response is that every day that health agencies and professional bodies promote and defend fluoridation, they are losing their credibility.  Any audience that I get to speak to is going to walk away from here wondering what on Earth is happening to the Ministry of Health in New Zealand or what is happening on these District Health Boards.

It’s going to get worse and worse until they admit they were wrong, bite that bullet, put it behind them and then begin to regain the public’s trust.  This is, I think, the only way forward for them, and I think we have to hasten that a lot.

So, better alternatives.  If you want fluoride, if you want fluoride, use fluoridated toothpaste; 96% of toothpaste sold in New Zealand is fluoridated.  Better still use xylitol toothpaste.  Xylitol is a natural sugar that we make in our bodies every day, about 15 grams of it.  It’s extracted from pine bark.  It’s been used in Scandinavia for over 30 years, and also in Japan.  It’s endorsed by a number of national dental associations.

Another thing that we can do is to give free toothbrushes and free toothpaste to low-income families.  This is what they’re doing in Scotland with good results.  Give xylitol mints to kids in school, not chewing gum.  One of the problems with xylitol chewing gum is that dogs that eat that chewing gum can be killed.  Some dog breeds are very sensitive to xylitol.  So, it’s better to give the kids mint and suck them in class.  That’s what they’ve been doing in low-income schools in Wichita, Kansas, with some good results.

Most of tooth decay is concentrated in low-income families.  This cries out for targeted attention, better education, more clinics, certainly better education.

The most distressing tooth decay is baby bottle tooth decay.  This is when babies suck on bottles of Coca cola, milk, fruit juice for hours on end, go to sleep with it in their mouths, and it rots the top teeth down to the gums.  It is totally intellectually dishonest for dentists to hold up these pictures of baby bottle tooth decay, and use these to say the communities should be fluoridated because fluoridation does not fight baby bottle tooth decay.  We need better education, not fluoridation.

Now, low-income families need better diet and better dental education.  Less sugar, more brushing.  Less sugar, more brushing.  One year before the US government endorsed fluoridation in 1950, mysteriously, the Sugar Lobby, the sugar research foundation, which represented 133 sugar interests from cookies to candies to corn flakes, said, “We need to find a way to reduce tooth decay without reducing consumption.”

Then, they proceeded to put millions of dollars on nutrition departments in prestigious universities in the United States including Harvard, and professors like Fred Stare, Chairman to the Nutrition Department in Harvard went around the country and testified to Congress that sugar was nutritious, that Coca cola was a nutritious drink, and fluoridation was the best thing since sliced bread.  He kept up his mantra for years and year and years.

Sugar, not only causes tooth decay, but it also causes obesity.  So, if we’re talking about fighting tooth decay and fighting sugar, then the amount of money that’s available, if you combine it with fighting obesity, is very large.

Obesity, talking about money is being spent is money, money, money, money being spent, the amount of money that’s going to be spent on the complications of obesity in the health systems of modern countries is going to absolutely cripple us.  So, why not take this opportunity to get some soft drinks out of schools, educate the kids on better nutrition, make nutrition a course subject in schools, and combine it with tooth brushing, combine it with xylitol, combine it with more exercise.  This should be a top priority.

A very sad truth is the Maori who are being singled out as one of the reasons that why we have to fluoridate in New Zealand had perfect teeth before Western diet.  There’s a whole book that’s been written about the Western price on these indigenous peoples from Eskimos to Maoris to Aborigines to Pacific Island people had perfect teeth until they got Western diets, the way that we throw out the refined flour.  Now, we’re adding insult to injury.  We’ve ruined their teeth, and now we’re going to give them poison.

It’s precisely the Maori community that doesn’t need fluoride because they have a high prevalence of kidney disease.  They can’t get rid of that fluoride.  They have higher rates of diabetes.  They don’t need fluoride because people with diabetes drink more water.  So, we need the education.  I’ll be talking in [1:23:17] on Monday, in Hamilton, and one of the things I’m going to suggest to them, “What were those diets that you had that so impressed Western diet?  What were you eating before Western diet?  Why not see if you could go back to some of those diets?

So, how could we end fluoridation in Auckland?  Ending fluoridation is as easy as turning off a tap.  I’ve mentioned this, but we need the political will.  We need many, many people educated, organized, affecting changes like driving a nail through a piece of wood.  The expert may sharpen the nail, and I hope I’ve sharpened some nails tonight, but I can’t push the nail through the piece of wood.  We need the hammer of public opinion to drive that nail home.

Now, what you should all be thinking about is how can you take the ammunition that I’ve shared with you tonight and use that to affect change?  How can you use that to influence your local dentist, your local doctor, and your local decision makers.  We’ve got a lot of resources for you to use.  FAN New Zealand has an excellent website, and we need to network.  We can’t do this alone.

Right now, there are people all over the country that are drawing tremendous energy from the fact that we’re making progress in Queensland (and I’ll talk about that in a moment).  Every time a community stops fluoridation anywhere in the world, everyone in our network celebrates.  Same with New Zealand.  Our website is one of the best, FluorideAlert.org.  Don’t forget that health database that my son Michael made.

This book is available online, the National Research Council report.  You can search it by word.  It’s easy to use, but it’s very dense.  To do justice to that, you’d have to spend several months on that. That will be good for doctors and scientists, perhaps.  Our book was an attempt to make this information more readily accessible to the public but without insulting your intelligence.  Every fact is documented.  That will take you a few days to a few weeks to master that material, but you will have it.

Something that will only take you 29 minutes is there’s a videotape on our webpage called “Professional Perspectives on Fluoridation”.  There, you’ll hear form 15 scientists, one Nobel Prize winner, three from the National Research Council that wrote that report, two former employees of the US EPA, a couple of dentists that were one pro-fluoridation, now anti-fluoridation, and a few scientists and environmentalists like myself.

In 29 minutes, they do a pretty good job.  You have our permission to make as many copies of this as you want, and I think, if you can get around to it, trying to influence your neighbors.  The simplest thing you can do is to give them a videotape.  Don’t get into an argument.  Ask them to watch it. Then, talk about it later.  Do that with your dentist, too.  Don’t get into an argument and say, “You’re a dentist.  You’re a doctor. You’re a professional, I’m not.  I’ve watched this videotape, and I’m disturbed by the arguments in here.  I’d like you to watch it, and then, give me your response.  Should I be worried or not?”  So, treat them with the greatest respect, but try to encourage them to look at this with an open mind.

We have to end fluoridation one open mind and one community at a time.  I’m not anticipating, any day soon, help from federal governments, the big central agencies, but I think with people like yourselves, with more and more open minds, we can win this.

Since October 25, when fluoridation met its waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, where they voted out fluoridation, a referendum, we’ve had over 100 communities stop fluoridation in Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand.  That’s about 3 million people liberated worldwide, and there’s a listing on our webpage.  We keep it up to date.

On February 4, Windsor, Ontario voted to stop.  That was about 300,000 people.  February 5, Cairns in Queensland voted to stop.  February 12, St. Croix Falls in Wisconsin voted to stop.  On February 12, Bundaberg in Queensland voted not to start, and February 20^th, Frazer Coast in Queensland voted to stop.  Hopefully, you will add Auckland to this list.

One word of warning:  In these communities that you’ve just seen, when these councilors vote out fluoridation, they immediately are bombarded with a horrible series of ill-informed attacks and criticisms.  They’re attacked in editorials.  They’re attacked by the Minister of Health going on television and telling people that they’re talking nonsense.

I didn’t tell you the good news was that Queensland lifted that mandatory fluoridation.  The new premier lifted the mandate.  That’s why we’re getting these eight victories in Queensland.

I want to arm the councilors that you’re trying to reach.  We have to protect them.  So, tell the critics this, “When the critics go after you, Mr. or Mrs. Councilor, for stopping fluoridation, you say:  There are too many unanswered questions for me to feel comfortable forcing this on citizens against their will.”

This is what many of the European countries have said:  We do not feel comfortable forcing this practice on people that don’t want it.  A second thing that you can say is, “I feel very uneasy that promoters who tell us that fluoridation is ‘safe and effective’ do not accept any liability if harm is caused.”  They’re pressuring us to do this or not to stop it, but if anything goes wrong, who are they going to come after?  Who are the lawyers going to come after when the lawsuits begin for some of these health effects?  It’s not going to the American Dental Association or these other people.  It’s the people that actually do it, either the Water Department personnel or the councilors who said “yes”.

The third thing which is good protection is this:  “Professor Connett raised a lot of powerful arguments with us and in his book”.  Powerful arguments. The book is available on Amazon.com.  “If you disagree with Professor Connett’s arguments, are you prepared to debate him during his tour of New Zealand? That’s February 18^th to March the 10^th.”  Now, after March 10^th and none of these people are prepared to debate me, I predict that right now.  I won’t get a debate, then you just change it, the next time I come to New Zealand.  The point is that you’re trying to make clear, yes or no.  It’s a one word answer.  “Are you prepared to debate him if you know so much?”

Now, if promoters don’t have the courage of their convictions—sufficient to defend their opinions in open public debate—why should you—or anyone else—have the confidence in those convictions?  So, it’s simple isn’t it?  It’s not my practice.  It’s not your practice.  It’s their practice.

If it’s their practice, and they are prepared to put a poisonous substance in the drinking water without control of who gets, without controlling of dose, with lousy science to support the effectiveness and the fact that it’s safe.  If they’re prepared to do all those things, then they have to be able to defend it.  Defend it completely and convincingly and on a public platform against all comments, and if they can’t do that then that’s the time that we have to insist you stop.