Paul Connett's letter to Dr. Julie Gerberding, sent May 19 (no reply by June 25)
To: Julie L. Gerberding, MD, MPH; Director, CDC From: Dr. Paul Connett
May 19, 2005
Dear Dr. Gerberding,
As I travel around the world I am struck with the way that CDC is continually cited, by politicians and the media, for its enthusiastic support for water fluoridation. I hope that you will personally take some time out of your very busy schedule and check out this scientific controversy for yourself before you find yourself endorsing it based upon other people's assurances.
As a scientist who has reviewed the literature on this issue for nine years I am appalled by the cavalier way that the CDC continues to insist that this practice is both "effective" and "safe," offering only the slenderest scientific support for such claims. For example, the CDC report, (MMWR, October 23, 1999) written by just one dental researcher in your agency, and which did not receive any external peer review, is cited all over the world as showing that fluoridation is "One of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century."
This report is embarrassing, or should be, for any one with an ounce of scientific integrity. The author was six years out of date on the health studies cited in support of the claim that the practice was "safe." The author cited the NRC (1993) review. Between 1993 and 1999, there have been many studies published in the peer reviewed literature raising serious questions about fluoride's impacts on the bones and the brain, among other tissues.
Now, as an independent scientist, I would be laughed out of court, if I went to the public relying on studies which were six years out of date, so why should your prestigious agency with many resources at your disposal be allowed to do so?
The CDC author's arguments for effectiveness are even more embarrassing. He offers a graph which purports to show that tooth decay in 12-year-olds has been coming down in the U.S. over the period from the 1960s to the 1990s because of the percentage of the U.S. population drinking fluoridated water has increased over the same period. Data is readily available online from the WHO which shows that the same decline has been occurring in the same period in 12 year olds in at least 16 non-fluoridated industrialized countries.
Again, I wouldn't let one of my undergraduates get away with such a shoddy and superficial argument. So why should the public tolerate it from your agency, which is supposed to be offering us, at taxpayers' expense, genuine science in support of your policies?
You can easily check out what I am saying by viewing my critique of the CDC document at http://www.fluoridealert.org/CDC.htm as well as viewing the WHO figures, side by side with the CDC's graph at http://www.fluoridealert.org/who-dmft.htm.
Now, to bring my concerns up-to-date. I would like you to respond to two serious matters.
Firstly, members of CDC staff are currently going around the country actively supporting mandatory fluoridation in several states (e.g. Arkansas, New Jersey and Oregon) without drawing attention to some of the serious health issues being raised in the scientific literature. Furthermore, even while the CDC relied on the NRC (1993) to establish safety in the 1999 report discussed above, your staff are not drawing attention to the fact that this same body is currently in the middle of a review of the very same issue.
Wouldn't an agency which is there to protect our health wait until this review had been completed before they pushed more fluoride on more communities?
Secondly, the CDC is jointly sponsoring a conference to celebrate 60 years of fluoridation this summer in Chicago (July 13-16, 2005). I have examined the agenda for this symposium and I don't see anywhere on the agenda anyone offering an alternative view on the "effectiveness" and "safety" of this practice. Clearly, this is a one-sided propaganda exercise. I have two questions:
Just how much taxpayers' money is being put into this symposium?
Do you think U.S. taxpayers' money should be spent on such a one-sided exercise?
There is a partial way that you might remedy this. I am prepared to offer my services to present an alternative view of this practice. I would only need an hour to do this (with perhaps 30 minutes for questions), which is not much time in a three-day conference. Alternatively, I and Dr. William Hirzy would be happy to participate in a two-hour debate on this matter with any two experts the CDC and the ADA are prepared to offer, from the U.S., or anywhere else.
I look forward to a swift reply on this urgent matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry, St. Lawrence University, Canton, NY 13617 315-379-9200 paul@fluoridealert.org and executive director of the Fluoride Action Network