Professor Paul Connett

Professor Paul Connett

Is a graduate of Cambridge University and hold a PhD in Chemistry from Dartmouth College.

Click to watch his Video

video paul 2 Professor Paul Connett

 Why Fluoridation Should Be Halted

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.



Professors Debate Benefits of Fluoride for Isle of Man

Click to watch Video video paul 3 Professor Paul Connett


This is a video of the debate on water fluoridation which took place between Professor Michael Lennon, Chairman of the British Fluoridation Society, and Professor Paul Connett, Saint Lawrence University New York, Director of the Fluoride Action

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.


“Fluoridation must end without further delay”.

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.

Joining the Dots on Australian Fluoridation Fraud: Read Report.

New Book

 .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

By Paul Connett PhD, James Beck MD, PhD,
and H.S. Micklem DPhil

All references with online links
Media Contact for interview with authors

 Search inside this book



Click here to read more about Professor Paul Connett


Thank you Professor Paul Connett


Register  Your Vote & Donate  - 

 To End Water Fluoridation Forever.

Please show this site to your family and friends.

Thank you.


Watch the video Click to view

  1. Prof Noel Campbell
    February 9th, 2011 at 11:37 am

    The risk/benefit ratio for the fluoridation of water is too high.
    It should be removed from all Australian waters.

    Prof. Noel Campbell

  2. Ahmed mahmoud mohamed
    August 2nd, 2011 at 9:58 am

    Dear Prof Paul Connett
    I’m pleasure to introduce myself to you; I’m Ahmed mahmoud mohamed, Demonstrator in the forensic medicine and Toxicology Department, Faculty of veterinary medicine at Qena, South Valley University,Egypt.
    The Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education (EMHE) offers a grant for young academic staff in Egyptian Universities to gain more knowledge and more training in field ofToxicology,The duration of the grant is 3 months (may be extended to 6 months).
    The (EMHE) will provide for my own finance, necessary insurance and travel costs.
    I want to apply for this grant. One of the important requirements of this grant is to have an acceptance letter with a good research plan from a foreign professor. So, I visit your home page, and I’m looking forward to be one of your co-workers and to visit your group. You can find all information about this grant in the link
    Ihope that, I will be one of your Student.
    .So, if it is possible, please send me an acceptance letter with a research plan
    Best regards,
    Ahmed mahmoud

    November 22nd, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    [...] Professor Paul Connett [...]

    November 28th, 2013 at 10:16 pm

    [...] Professor Paul Connett [...]

  5. Fluoridation Queensland | FLUORIDE ROGUES’ GALLERY
    December 24th, 2013 at 11:39 pm

    [...]  Professor Paul Connett [...]

  6. Fluoridation Queensland | AUSTRALIAN FLUORIDATION SKEPTICS .
    January 18th, 2014 at 10:02 pm

    [...] Professor Paul Connett [...]

  7. portela
    June 21st, 2014 at 5:31 am

    Hello my name is Frank I’m 17 and I’m an expert in the field of waste.
    I greatly admire your zero waste policy and I wish I could apply throughout France.
    We think the same thing with respect to waste because we know very well that the waste does not exist it’s just the Man who ill-defined life cycle of the product manufactured and therefore it is treated as such.
    The waste does not exist because the nature know every thing that is rendered useless for some can become a resource for others.
    Designed each product must’m back in a biological or technical and thus remain in its infinite loop cycle.
    I sure would like one day we can meet for my age because I know a lot and just want to meet inspiring people like you.
    If you ever want more information about my knowledge do not hesitate to email me.



    “Today’s waste resources of tomorrow” Frank Portela

    September 13th, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    [...] Professor Paul Connett [...]

  9. Nic Zymaras
    August 30th, 2016 at 8:52 am

    As a resident of Cairns Qld, I am quite concerned with the proposed re introduction of fluoride to the towns water supply.
    I was hoping to get a message to Dr Paul Connett to ask for his guidance to oppose this. There has need a referendum that is due to finish tomorrow but I fear this is merely the illusion of choice they have given the public to make them think they have a voice.

Current month ye@r day *