Professor Paul Connett
Is a graduate of Cambridge University and hold a PhD in Chemistry from Dartmouth College.
This video presents a press conference held in Toronto on August 7, 2008. It featured Dr. Paul Connett, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, Dr. Vyvyan Howard, an infant and fetal pathologist, Karen Buck, Director of Citizens for a Safe Environment (CSE) and Cindy Mayor, spokesperson for People for Safe Drinking Water. All four speakers present the arguments for ending fluoridation immediately.
In May 2006, Professor Connett retired from his full professorship in chemistry at St Lawrence University, Canton, NY, where he taught for 23 years. His specialty was environmental chemistry and toxicology.
Over the past 24 years, his research on waste management has taken me 49 US states and 50 different countries, where he has given approximately 2000 pro bono public presentations. He has co-authored 6 peer reviewed articles on dioxin and numerous other articles on waste management.
He has reviewed and critiqued numerous health risk assessments prepared for incinerator facilities with a particular focus on the dangers posed by dioxin emission. His latest article on waste management (Zero Waste and Sustainability) will appear in a book to be published in Italy.
He has researched the literature on fluoride toxicity for 12 years. He also helped found the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) for which he is the Executive Director.
He has given papers and or presentations at the International Society for Fluoride Research conference in New Zealand, Germany, China and Canada; the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research; the American College of Toxicology; the USA EPA; the US National Research Council; the CDC in Nanjing, China; the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Health and Children in Ireland, a parliamentary committee in the Knesset, Israel as well as to many citizens’ groups in Australia, Canada, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, the UK and the US.
He was also an invited peer reviewer of the York Review (McDonagh, et al.,2000). On August 12, 2003 he was invited by the National Research Council, reviewing the toxicology of fluoride in drinking water, to give a 45 minutes presentation on my concern about the dangers posed by fluoride and the inadequacy of the current drinking water standard (MCL) and goal (MCL) to protect health.
Many of his concern and the supporting references appeared in the panel’s report (National Research Council 2006). The panel concluded that the MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level) was not protective of health and recommended that the EPA perform a new health risk assessment to determine a new MCLG (exhibit 1-PC).
In November 2007, on the Isle of Man, he scientifically debated Dr Michael Lennon, chairman of the British Fluoridation Society. (DVD exhibit 2-PC)
Before he began researching the issue of and literatures on fluoride toxicology and the argument pertaining to the water fluoridation debate over 12 years ago, his impression was that people who opposed to water fluoridation were a little “crazy”.
After more than 12 years of researching and reading on fluoride toxicology and water fluoridation, he believes that the practice of fluoridation is one of the most preposterous public health policies ever propagated and the sooner it is ended worldwide the better.
Network USA and on the Isle of Man, Nov 20,2007. Earlier this year (2008) in response to public opinion the Isle of Man withdrew its proposal to fluoridate the island's water supply.
A simple application of the precautionary principle would make the practice of fluoridation unthinkable and makes the willingness of those in authority who would force it onto individuals, without their informed consent, the most glaring example of governmental arrogance imaginable.
Instead of science in fluoridated countries we get promotion via a long list of dated endorsements, from associations and agencies, most of which are not on top of the current primary literature and who take the word of government agencies on this issue, at face value.
One is not being cynical when one questions the validity of endorsements from agencies and associations on this issue, when they are receiving considerable financial support from governments, which aggressively promote this practice.
Meanwhile, these government agencies appear to have no interest in financing genuine scientific studies, which could resolve some of the issues of concern. Not only is the practice of fluoridation a giant experiment, but those who are conducting the experiment are not even collecting the data!
Perhaps the notion that fluoridation is an “experiment” is a clue as to why scientific monitoring is not taking place. It is possible that government officials believe if they are seen to be checking to see if people are getting sick – or even accumulating too much fluoride – it is tantamount to their admitting that they do not know. Such efforts might be seen to undermine their constant assertions that the program is 100% safe. “Certainty” and “investigation” don’t sit too well together.
Unfortunately, because government officials have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue.
But they must, not only to protect millions of people in Queensland from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science and not political expediency.
For those who would call for further studies, I say fine. Take the fluoride out of the water first and then conduct all the studies you want. Again I would stress that at least 5 modern studies have shown that when fluoride is removed from the water tooth decay has not gone up.
For anyone not simply obeying orders, and who reads the scientific literature, it should be clear that the folly of fluoridation must end without further delay.
In the past 14 Nobel prize winners have been among those scientists either opposed to fluoridation or who have expressed serious reservations about the practice. See appendix 4 for a listing of these Nobel prize winners.
These Nobel prize winners have now been joined by over 2000 professionals who have signed a statement calling for the end of fluoridation worldwide. This statement was largely based upon the NRC (2006) report.
The number of professionals signing this statement grows day by day. At some point we will reach a critical mass, when it will prove embarrassing for a doctor, dentist or scientist, who, in the face of the growing scientific evidence that this practice is neither safe nor effective, does not find their name on this statement.
.The Case Against Fluoride:
How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and
the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There
Soon to be in bookstores and
available from Amazon.com
By Paul Connett PhD, James Beck MD, PhD,
and H.S. Micklem DPhil
Thank you Professor Paul Connett