Top Fluoride Expert Saddened by London Council’s Fluoridation Position

(Email sent on Feb 13, 2019)

Dear Mayor and Councillors of London:

I watched the CWC deliberations online regarding fluoridation here and then I watched the recorded council meeting here. 

Based on the vote to reject reexamining whether or not to continue adding fluoride to the drinking water, it was obvious to me most of the councillors sided with the Medical Office of Health, Dr. Chris Mackie, even though he misled the committee on several points:

1. Will more cavities result from ending fluoridation?

The London Middlesex Health Unit’s estimate that there would be 40,000 new cavities over the next 10 years if London stopped fluoridation cannot be supported by any science. The Calgary study that was mentioned in Dr. Mackie’s submission was critiqued by us in the same peer-reviewed journal but this was omitted by Dr. Mackie. Furthermore claiming that Windsor cavity rates increased by 50% after fluoridation ended was based on a flawed, unscientific survey by the Windsor Essex Country Health Unit that was unable to show any difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions. That unfounded claim was repeated at the council meeting.

2. The evidence of prenatal exposure to fluoride causing harm.

None of the most recent rigorous, high quality, peer-reviewed studies from Canada linking prenatal fluoride exposure at current fluoridation levels that Councilllor Van Holst mentioned at the council meeting were critiqued by Dr. Mackie, or by anyone. This new data cannot simply be dismissed. In today’s “the London Free Press” it was reported by Megan Stacey:

Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen pointed to his previous council term, when the same fluoridation debate raged, saying the arguments and the players are just the same. He urged his colleagues to reject “junk science.”

I find this ‘junk science’ characterization of the new science that I and my colleagues have produced warning of the dangers of fluoridation extremely offensive and potentially libellous.

Just so that you have been sufficiently advised about this new science here are the press releases.

a. IQ

b. ADHD

Erectile Dysfunction is a form of sexual dysfunction which affects more than 18 million men in the United States have been levitra generika http://deeprootsmag.org/2012/09/07/the-wounded-wanderer-restored/ affected by erectile dysfunction (ED) or impotence. One just viagra 20mg cipla needs to identify the underlying cause and consult with the expert. For entire men, whether they suffer with heart viagra sales online disease or not, the perfect way to maintain safe sex is to be in shape by shunning tobacco, practicing repeatedly, taking a good diet, staying incline & shunning too much alcohol. Folkman detected in the 1970s that angiogenesis – the growth of new blood tadalafil viagra vessels – performs a considerable purpose in the development of cancerous cells.
c. Thyroid

3. How serious is dental fluorosis caused by fluoridation?

We have a paper in press- Neurath, Limeback et al. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2019- showing dental fluorosis is rampant and the severity has increased in America, which has increased the population on fluoridated water. At current dental fluorosis levels from fluoridation it costs families more money to treat dental fluorosis than to treat the dental decay that the London health unit estimates could result if fluoridation is ended. The dental fluorosis issue was not properly discussed except anecdotally. I find it ironic that Dr. Mackie falsely claimed that moderate to severe dental fluorosis does not occur in Canada when minutes afterward, two different councillors reported seeing visible dental fluorosis (which is at least moderate dental fluorosis) in family members. I have posted on twitter that Dr. Mackie is wrong on his claim because the published literature says otherwise: fluoridation significantly increases moderate to severe dental fluorosis. (See attached)

4. Purity of the fluoridation Chemicals.

At no point was there any discussion, as there was in Peel here, about the chemical being used for fluoridation. It is derived from the smokestack scrubbers of the phosphate fertilizer industry and is contaminated (please consult your water department). Peel switched sources of this hyrdofluocilicic acid to one derived from mining fluorspar (personal communication, Peel councillor John Sprovieri, Peel Committee recommendation, Peel Council approval ) and in my opinion, this is an admission of guilt that Peel was using contaminated chemicals. As far as I know London continues to purposely contaminate the drinking water with arsenic and other carcinogens that are contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. The Safe Drinking Water Act does not allow dilution as an excuse for purposely contaminating the drinking water.

As some councillors mentioned, this issue will not go away, especially since councils directing their cities to continue to fluoridate despite new evidence of harm may be held personally liable for this practice under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We will have to wait for the outcome of the lawsuit currently underway in Peel.

I am saddened by the position taken by the new London council and that new councillors were swayed by the arguments of the re-elected councillors who do not realize that the science had drastically changed in 6 years since the last discussion. This science (see links above) is solid, peer-reviewed science. The evidence of harm from fluoridation is mounting and this issue will be raised again I’m sure before the current council term is completed. It may even become an election issue as it has been in many other municipalities in Canada.

I am available to answer any of your questions should you want to contact me further on this issue.

Sincerely

Dr. Hardy Limeback BSc PhD (Biochem) DDS
Professor Emeritus, Former Head of Preventive Dentistry
University of Toronto