Fluoride Action Network

Dec. 10 and the Strongest Argument Against Fluoridation

Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | December 10, 2018

Before we get to our discussion below on December 10th and the Strongest Argument Against Fluoridation here is an update on our annual fundraiser.

In our ambitious – but very necessary quest – to raise $250,000 by midnight December 31, over the last three days (Dec 7, 8 and 9) we raised $3,405 from 25 donors. This included a doubling challenge pledge of $1000 and another pledge of $100 when we reached 100 donors. This brings our grand total to $70,684 from 110 supporters. Thank you everyone who has donated so far.

The good news is that, thanks to another generous challenge pledge, donations will be doubled again today up to a total of $1000.

Please watch this short Video appeal from Dr. Bill Hirzy, former EPA senior scientist and our representative in Washington, DC.

How to make a tax-deductible donation to FAN:

  • Online at our secure server.
  • Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:Fluoride Action Network
    c/o Connett
    104 Walnut Street
    Binghamton NY 13905

*Please note that some corporations match tax deductible donations made by their employees to some non-profits. We qualify for this. This is the information to provide your corporation finance people: FAN is a project of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, Inc, registered in Tennessee.

Human Rights Day

Today, December 10, is Human Rights Day. It commemorates the day in 1948 when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Fluoridation and Human Rights

For many people the strongest argument against fluoridation is that it is a violation of the individual’s right to informed consent to medical treatment, and that is a human right. No government (local, state or federal) should have the right to add chemicals to the drinking water designed to treat human beings as opposed to treating the water to make it safe or palatable to drink. Every doctor and dentist should know this but few seem to care. But on Humans Right day it is time to remind them.

For starters look at the language in the 2005 UNESCO Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Here is some of that language and we have underlined the principles that highlight the violations of human rights inherent in water fluoridation:


Within the scope of this Declaration, in decisions or practices taken or carried out by those to whom it is addressed, the following principles are to be respected.

Article 3 – Human dignity and human rights

1. Human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms are to be fully respected.

2. The interests and welfare of the individual should have priority over the sole interest of science or society.

Article 6 – Consent

1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.

2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.

3. In appropriate cases of research carried out on a group of persons or a community, additional agreement of the legal representatives of the group or community concerned may be sought. In no case should a collective community agreement or the consent of a community leader or other authority substitute for an individual’s informed consent.

Doubtless, promoters of fluoridation will point out that principles 2 and 3 pertain to “research” and they will argue that fluoridation is not research; that its benefits and efficacy were “proved” years ago. However, they can’t have it both ways, whenever a study shows a serious harm (like the U.S. government funded- Bashash et al, 2017 and 2018 studies) the promoters’ response is to call for more studies.

Calling for more studies is tantamount to admitting that their case has NOT been proved and that fluoridation is one of the world’s longest-running medical experiments. The earliest promoters of fluoridation understood this that is why they insisted that the fluoridation 1945 “trials” in Grand Rapids, MI and Newburgh, NY were “demonstrations” not “experiments.”

Sadly, the world is not run on ethical principles, but for one day a year – Dec 10 – perhaps we can pretend that it is. For the rest of the year – as far as fighting fluoridation is concerned it is a relief that the hard science is on our side. Our biggest problem – especially in 2019 – is trying to let the public and the media know that this is the case. We have to make the “invisible” visible to the public, and then in court.

Paul Connett, PhD,

Director, Fluoride Action Network,
Co-author of The Case Against Fluoride…(Chelsea Green, 2010)

See all FAN bulletins online