Should You Believe Paul Connett?
Part 1. Should Fluoride Be Considered Bad Medical Practice? Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), would have you believe that fluoridation is ineffective, unsafe, and unethical. His article, “50 Objections to Fluoridation,” contains 10 reasons why he believes that “fluoridation is bad medical practice.” My point-by-point response is in brackets. Connett contends that (a) fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment, (b) FDA regards it as a drug, and (c) all other water treatment chemicals are added to improve the water’s quality or safety, which fluoride does not do. [Connett wants to classify fluoride as a drug (rather than a nutrient or a public health measure) so he can apply drug-related guidelines without considering …
Continue Reading >Should You Trust Paul Connett?
Stephen Barrett, M.D. Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluride Action Network (FAN), would have you believe that fluoridation is ineffective, unsafe, and unethical. Most of his ideas are embodied a 13,000-word article called “50 Objections to Fluoridation,” which has been updated from time to time and posted on the FAN Web site. During the next year, working with a team of experts, I plan to develop responses to each his objections. This page will outline his views and link to our analyses when they are ready. Objections #1-10: Fluoridation is bad medical practice Fluoride is the only chemical added to water for the purpose of medical treatment. Fluoridation is unethical. The dose cannot be controlled. The fluoride goes to everyone regardless of age, health, …
Continue Reading >
