Ken’s Support for Fundamental Anti-Fluoridation Arguments


In Ken’s latest manifestation of his repressed man crush on Dr. Paul Connett, he continues his bizarre pattern of supporting fundamental anti-fluoridation arguments, whilst railing against the movement as a whole.

This time Ken cites L. Seppä, S. Kärkkäinen, and H. Hausen (2000); W. Künzel, T. Fischer, R. Lorenz, and S. Brühmann (2000); W. Künzel and T. Fischer (2000); and G. Maupomé, D. C. Clark, S. M. Levy, and J. Berkowitz (2001).

And what is the one thing all these papers ultimately say? i.e. That the fluoridation of drinking water is not necessary and that there are alternative, proven methods of reducing tooth decay that don’t involve mass treatment of public water supplies with fluoridation chemicals.

In the Finnish context, the researchers say, “The children have been exposed to such intense efforts to increase tooth resistance that the effect of water fluoridation does not show up any more”. In other words, the USA, Australia, New Zealand and the other minority of fluoridating nations could easily replicate the Finnish example and start investing in better oral health initiatives and this would have an even more effective outcome over the long term.

In the East German context, the researchers say, “The causes for the changed caries trend were seen on the one hand in improvements in attitudes towards oral health behaviour and, on the other hand, to the broader availability and application of preventive measures”. Once again, there are alternative means of reducing tooth decay, such as educational awareness initiatives and making individually-targeted oral health options more widely available.

In Cuba, the researchers suggest, “the school mouth rinsing programme” is responsible for the improvements in oral health. And it’s so simple as fortnightly mouthrinses over a period of time! Of course, just another simple and effective, carefully targeted solution for reducing tooth decay.

And finally, what does the Canadian research team say? In essence, it’s complicated to measure the actual effect of water fluoridation, but there are some subtle differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. It’s complicated? Subtle differences? Not exactly justification for forcing a mass treatment on an entire population.

So, when is Ken going to cease his bizarre crusade of trying to convince us all that the mass artificial fluoridation of public drinking water supplies is absolutely essential and urgent? When is he going to admit that there is ample evidence to show that there are many other effective means of reducing tooth decay in a population, which centre around better education and awareness and individually-targeted oral health initiatives?

Ken, your own examples support what anti-fluoridation folks have been saying all along – mass treatment of the population via drinking water supplies for the claimed purpose of reducing tooth decay rates, is unnecessary to achieve said outcome. Mate, you are flogging a dead Cretaceous period dinosaur, hoping it will awaken thinking it’s a rabbit. Flog away all you like, Ken, it isn’t going to happen. Let it go, and join us the 21st Century.

Learn more

> So what about the so-called benefits?
Fluoride & tooth decay: The facts


Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

3 thoughts on “Ken’s Support for Fundamental Anti-Fluoridation Arguments

  1. Pingback: Ken: “Fluoride is safe and effective, says AFAM” – AFAM’s response | Research Blog

  2. If Ken were smarter, he would regain some dignity before he dies by admitting he was wrong about forced-fluoridation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s