It gives me enormous satisfaction and pleasure to announce that we have finally uploaded onto Google video the Lennon-Connett debate on fluoridation that took place on the Isle of Man on November 20, 2007.

For this to be possible we owe a huge debt of gratitude to Kevin Glynn, the leader of the successful campaign to keep fluoridation out of the Isle of Man. Not only did he pay to have the whole debate videotaped but he also spent a lot of time hunting down a missing fragment of the debate (where the tapes were being changed). The whole debate lasts just under 60 minutes and I think you will be tickled by the postscript. In this Walter Graham explains the basis for huge opposition to fluoridation in Northern Ireland (the Republic of Ireland has had mandatory fluoridation since 1963). Here is the URL for the debate: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=82194292805035136&hl=en

Why is this debate important?

Professor Michael Lennon is the chairman of the British Fluoridation Society (BFS), which, with British government money, has been promoting fluoridation in the UK for years. Lennon was on the advisory committee of the York Review and was reported to have been extremely disappointed with their findings. He partially salvaged this huge blow to fluoridation in the UK by being appointed to a committee for the Medical Research Council (MRC). This committee was set up to determine what research was necessary to fill in the gaps of knowledge identified by the York review. Lennon helped to dramatically limit this research. The MRC report gave a higher level of priority on more research into dental fluorosis (more money for dental researchers) than studies on fluoride's impacts on the brain, the endocrine system or the kidney! But Lennon's influence does not stop there. He is also a big wheel in a key dental committee of the World Health Organization, which continues to offer its platitudinous support of fluoridation at 1 ppm even while recommending a safe drinking water standard of 1.5 ppm.

You will notice that:

1. Lennon speaks about no other tissue than the teeth.


2. For evidence of the safety of fluoridation he cites "endorsements" not primary studies.


3. For tooth decay all his statistics are on PRIMARY teeth, and not permanent teeth, and he provides no discussion on baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD) which might well be the cause of so many kids having extractions under general anesthesia. BBTD cannot be prevented by water fluoridation.


4. He claims that surveys (paid for by the BFS) have shown consistently that 60-80% of the people are in favor of fluoridation. First, one has to wonder how the questions were worded in these surveys but more importantly, unless the public in question have heard from both sides on the matter, they merely reflect the prevailing establishment views. To this one has to add the fact that over many years people have been indoctrinated by millions of dollars of advertising from toothpaste manufacturers that fluoride is good for teeth. They have heard little or any information about side effects.


5. I find it is interesting that Lennon continues to push the idea that fluoridation has special benefits to children from low income families when the York Review (and he was on the advisory committee for this review) could not find convincing evidence of this relationship.


6. He gives no citations to published literature for the dental statistics he cites.


7. At the lunchtime debate before the Manx parliamentarians, Lennon in response to my reference to the National Research Council report (NRC, 2006) said that he had a copy in his briefcase. However, between lunchtime and the evening debate he didn't bother to check out this report. Or if he did he realized that it wouldn't help his case.


8. Another point not obvious from the evening debate is that even though he had about 5 hours between his lunchtime presentation and his evening presentation, he chose not to address a single point I had made in my lunchtime presentation.


9. He treats fluoride as a nutrient but cites no evidence to support that claim.


10. He talks about an "optimal" dose, but doesn't define how this is derived.


11. He does, however, admit that today some areas in Britain do not need fluoridation and that he does not advocate universal fluoridation. That will come as a big surprise to many of his international colleagues because Lennon through the WHO and other international organizations is advocating fluoridation for the whole world!


12. My impression is that Lennon's influence - such that it is - is gained by style rather than substance. He comes over as authoritative, understanding and even kindly. His whole demeanor suggests that he would not knowingly do anything to hurt any one - he just wants to help out poor kids. It seems to me that this would be very effective with audiences who know little about the issue and there is no one present to point out his errors (in this case largely of omission). What do you think?