From: Sean – Fluoride Free Lethbridge
To: Council members
Cc: Fernandez, Mason
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 4:07 PM
Subject: Healdsburg likely to revisit fluoridation
Good day Mayor Wood, Councilors of Healdsburg and officials across Sonoma County,
I understand that a group of concerned Healdsburg citizens have presented a petition to city council requesting the cessation of water fluoridation in your community. This is becoming an increasingly frequent event in municipalities across North America of late as new (and old) scientific information showing the harm and ineffectiveness of artificial water fluoridation come into the public eye.
In fact, over 138 communities worldwide have rejected fluoridation since 2010.
The debate whether or not to fluoridate is often heated, and, more often than not, filled with misinformation and falsehoods. Examples of such can be found in a recent Press Democrat article (May 31).
In the article, dentist Fernandez, a vocal fluoride proponent, says that comparing fluoridation to fluoridated toothpaste is an “apples-and-oranges comparison.” Most people educated on fluoridation would agree, which is why we spit out fluoride from toothpaste rather than swallowing it. The CDC, itself a very pro-fluoridation organization, claims that fluoride’s benefit comes from topical application (toothpaste), not ingestion (fluoridation).
He goes on to call fluoride opponents “public health terrorists” who use pseudo science to make it sound like a poison, even though fluoride naturally occurs in drinking water at slighter lower levels.
Naturally occurring calcium fluoride is a completely different chemical compound than the hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA) typically added to municipal water supplies. The former is a basically inert compound that passes through the body virtually unchanged; the latter is a toxic waste product of the fertilizer industry. Studies have shown that HFSA is 25 times more toxic.
Dr. Fernandez goes on to speculate and fear monger that “the rate of cavities will go up 25 to 30 percent” if fluoride is taken out of the water. Does he have any scientific evidence to substantiate this claim?
A more legitimate measuring stick is to look at studies specifically designed to answer the question of what happens on cessation of fluoridation in peer-reviewed journals. None have found that the incidence of cavities increases in comparison with controls after cessation. They have found two results: no change or decrease in incidence of cavities, relative to controls, in the area where fluoridation was stopped. We can provide you with references to these studies at your request.
We here in Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada are one of the few remaining communities in southern Alberta that still fluoridates its drinking water. However, we are confident this is about to change. As a catalyst to change, we have issued a rigorous scientific rebuttal that proves the incompetence and deception of our health authority, Alberta Health Services, in their promotion of artificial water fluoridation. The same arguments and tactics are used by ALL fluoride-promoting health authorities, so this information is of utmost importance and relevance to you as well. The rebuttal is attached as a PDF.
The trend in Canada and the USA is away from the misguided, harmful practice of fluoridating drinking water. As an example, just recently the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada voted to cease fluoridating their drinking water, joining 30 other Canadian communities ending the practice in the last three years.
Mayor Mel Norton said in an interview with CBC, “We are trying to be exceptional stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars in this city with a view to also being sensitive of providing an exceptional quality of life,” said Norton. “As so on that basis, I’ll cast my vote with the nays.” (The full article is at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/saint-john-council-votes-to-stop-putting-fluoride-in-water-1.2567770).
Please examine indisputable evidence in the attached rebuttal and feel free to contact us if any questions arise.
With the hope that Healdsburg will soon be fluoride free,
Sean Fife
www.fluoridefreelethbridge.com
Find us on Facebook at Fluoride Free Lethbridge
From: Mason
To: Fernandez
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 6:43 PM
Subject: FW: Healdsburg likely to revisit fluoridation
Dr. Fernandez,
Thought you’d be interested to see this, since you are referenced in the e-mail. I’d like to hear any rebuttals you care to offer on some of this writer’s points.
I’m going to be at the Healdsburg City Council Monday night since they are appointing a couple council members to write a ballot argument in favor of fluoridation. I’d like to possibly include your comments in the back and forth. I’ll be in the office around 2 p.m.
Monday if you want to chat directly.
Thanks,
Mason
Staff Writer
[Fernandez sent an E-mail as Mason asked, and it is dealt with below:]
From: Sean Fife
To: Fernandez
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014, 1:07 PM
Hello Dr. Fernandez,
Thank you for your response, which gives us the opportunity to respond to these arguments that the whole truth be known. Throughout our time of working to get fluoride out of the drinking water here in Lethbridge, we have been in contact with Dr. James Beck, who has been an invaluable resource in providing technical information. He has answered your letter in red below and we have added our own comments, in black.
Sean Fife
From: Fernandez
To: Mason
Cc: Sean Fife
Sent: Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:56 PM
Subject: RE: Healdsburg likely to revisit fluoridation
Mr. Mason,
You asked if I had a rebuttal to the email from Sean Fife. Here is my open letter to Mr. Fife:
Mr. Fife,
Hello to you in Alberta, Canada. I’m pleased to learn that Lethbridge is currently receiving the benefits of community water fluoridation (CWF). This does not surprise me, as Canada is a very progressive nation with regards to public health. As you are aware, CWF is supported by the following major organizations in your country: Canadian Public Health Association, Canadian Medical Association, Canadian Dental Association, Canadian Paediatric Society, Canadian Dental Hygienists Association, and the Canadian Nurses Association. I’ve visited the website you’ve created, and noticed this information was missing. As you have stated, the debate over fluoridation is often filled with misinformation, and I believe the best antidote to misinformation is the whole truth.
DR. BECK: Endorsements, especially endorsements by trade organizations, do not constitute scientific evidence. That Dr. Fernandez says “this information was missing” moves me to wonder why he didn’t mention that over the past few years this list of endorsements has shortened.
FFL [Fluoride Free Lethbridge]: Dr. Fernandez, we resent the accusation we’re misinforming. Spell out the misinformation you perceive at our site and we will promptly answer.
While it is true we haven’t listed the professional associations you mention, we do address them and their error and corruption with substance and true science. We counter their pseudoscience, which long ago was proven deceptive and fallacious.
Furthermore, we aren’t simply regurgitating that which has been preached in dental and medical colleges as truth, yet without honest, personal investigation by students such as yourself. Please, Dr. Fernandez, get honest and responsible.
Your letter to the leaders of the city of Healdsburg provides me with an excellent opportunity to address several topics raised by people opposed to fluoridation. To get people excited about your position, you stated “over 138 communities worldwide have rejected fluoridation”. The whole truth is the trend is in the opposite direction. Here in the U.S., over 74% of Americans receive the benefits of CWF, and that percentage is increasing, not decreasing. That trend applies to California as well. The Fluoride Action Network states that most of western Europe drinks non-fluoridated water. This implies Europe rejects fluoridation. The whole truth is Europe embraces fluoridation, but provides fluoride through a variety of delivery methods. 70 million Europeans consume fluoridated salt (most of the population of Germany and Switzerland). Fluoridated water is provided to 12 million residents of Great Britain, Ireland, Spain, and other countries. Many areas in Italy drink water that has natural levels of fluoride high enough to be protective, making the addition of fluoride unnecessary. Fluoridated milk programs reach millions of additional Europeans. The delivery method of the proper level of fluoride is not important; what’s important is that people receive the protection of fluoride. Water fluoridation isn’t the main source of fluoride protection in Europe for technical and economic reasons, not because they reject fluoridation. That is the whole truth.
DR. BECK: One wonders about the source(s) of Dr. Fernandez’s statements on the prevalence of fluoridation. I can’t document an increase in the extent of fluoridation in the US, but we can list the jurisdictions that stop fluoridation and the populations of those jurisdictions. Clearly in Canada the extent of fluoridation is decreasing. In the case of Alberta it has moved from about 74% to less than 40% over the last four years.
As for Europe over 95% of the population lives in the absence of fluoridation of public water supplies. A few countries do have fluoridated salt, but the use of that salt is an OPTION; IT IS NOT FORCED ON A POPULATION. The ethics issue is of paramount importance, yet Dr. Fernandez makes no mention of it.
Dr. Fernandez ignores the significant difference between natural fluoride content and the addition of fluoride by use of hydrofluorosilicic acid (more on that below). I don’t know what “technical and economic reasons” that water fluoridation isn’t the main source of fluoride might be, but I do know that over a dozen officials and health authorities in Europe have stated that fluoridation in their countries was stopped for combinations of three reasons: it is ineffective; it is unsafe; it is unethical.
FFL: The population of Canadians receiving water fluoridation has gone from over 45% in 2007, to 32% in 2014. Thirty-five Canadian communities, including Calgary, Alberta (population – 1.3 million), Gatineau, Quebec (pop. 266,000) and Windsor, Ontario (pop. 279,000) have rejected fluoridation since 2010.
Yes, Dr. Fernandez, it does appear “Canada is a very progressive nation” indeed, as you declare, at least in the matter of public water fluoridation.
In the U.S. Wichita, KS, Albuquerque, NM and Portland, OR have all rejected water fluoridation in the last two years alone.
In your home state, Hoopa Valley (Humboldt County), Cotati (Sonoma County), Davis, Olivehurst, and Plumas Lake, Crescent City, and Napa, have all rejected fluoridation in the last four years. California, at 15.7%, is the least fluoridated state in the nation after Hawaii (13.0%). These states have residents who are the least likely to be toothless, according to the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Yet Kentucky and West Virginia, 100% and 82.1% fluoridated, have the most toothless residents. Coincidence? Can you explain this, Dr. Fernandez?
According to Gotzfried, salt fluoridation is not nearly so widespread in Europe as Dr. Fernandez indicates: 6% of all household salt in Austria is fluoridated; in Czech Republic the figure is 15%; France – 27%; Germany- 65%; Spain – 10%; and Switzerland 88%. (Gotzfried F. “Legal aspects of fluoride in salt, particularly within the EU” Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 116: 371–375 (2006).
Denmark, England, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Ireland, Italy, Finland, Greece, Iceland, and Norway have NO salt fluoridation. Neither do Australia, New Zealand, or Japan.
While 70 million Europeans consuming fluoridated salt may sound like an impressive figure, consider the population of Europe is 742 million. Less than 10% of Europeans are consuming fluoridated salt. And here’s the issue: It is their free choice – fluoride is not forced upon them. We expect the same right.
Dr. Fernandez, being a dentist, should know better than to expect people to accept being medicated without informed consent.
According to Beaglehole et al (2009), as of 2001 a mere 1 million people worldwide were drinking fluoridated milk and not millions in Europe alone as Dr. Fernandez either ignorantly or disingenuously asserts.
These facts are readily corroborated through published studies.
Your letter contained another statement that might scare people into rejecting CWF. You stated “natural fluoride” is different than the commercially produced product most commonly used to adjust the fluoride levels in drinking water in this country, hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA). You called it “..a toxic waste product of the fertilizer industry.” That is a misrepresentation which may frighten people. HFSA is a product that is extracted from phosphate rock, and is the most cost-effective product used to supplement sub-optimally fluoridated water. Healdsburg currently uses sodium fluoride in its water system. The source of the fluoride may be different (rain water naturally percolating through phosphate rock, or adding sodium fluoride or silicofluoride), but the cavity-fighting protection is the same. Once these fluoride sources are dissolved in water, the fluoride ion released is identical, no matter the source. High school level chemistry demonstrates this principle. There is no “good fluoride” and “bad fluoride”, only one fluoride, the negatively charged ion of fluorine, the ninth element on the periodic table of the elements of the universe.
DR. BECK: Dr. Fernandez’s chemistry and geochemistry is woefully off track here. Fluorine found in the earth’s crust is almost all in the form of calcium fluoride. HFSA is not found in nature. It is produced during the production of phosphate, in the wet scrubbers required by law to remove fluorine from emissions. When added to water, calcium fluoride dissociates into ions only minimally; HFSA dissociates almost completely, though some silicates damaging to the mucosa of the stomach persist. So the fluoride of calcium fluoride largely is excreted in the feces without having entered the blood.
On the other hand the fluoride ion swallowed, whether from sodium fluoride or from HFSA, enters the stomach and encounters a very acidic liquid. And this is what counts, what is in the stomach. The abundant hydrogen ions in the stomach combine with the fluoride ion to form hydrofluoric acid. This is an electrically neutral compound that crosses the mucosa and enters the blood. So it is distributed to all tissues of the body. Some of it dissociates in the blood; some of it enters cells where it can dissociate to produce fluoride ions.
FFL: Our rebuttal (PDF attached) goes into detail about the difference between calcium fluoride and HFSA or sodium fluoride. This is far more elementary than “high school level chemistry.” One compound is essentially inert, the other dissociates virtually completely; a fundamental fact that makes all the difference.
The 2013 paper, “Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride,” by Sauerheber R. published in Journal of Environmental and Public Health provides a technical explanation (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2013/439490).
On the subject of your claim that “natural fluoride” is somehow superior to adjusted fluoride, I offer the following study done in your country: A fluoridation study was conducted in the Ontario, Canada, communities of Brantford (optimally fluoridated by adjustment), Stratford (optimally fluoridated naturally) and Sarnia (fluoride-deficient). The researchers discovered much lower decay rates in both Brantford and Stratford as compaired to nonfluoridated Sarina. There was no observable difference in decay-reducing effect between the naturally occurring fluoride and the adjusted fluoride water supplies, proving that dental benefits were similar regardless of the source of fluoride. (Brown HK, Poplove M. The Brantford-Sarina-Stratford fluoridation caries study: final survey, 1963. Med Serv J Can 1965; 21(7):450-6) There is no substitute for well-designed, verifiable, peer-reviewed research.
DR. BECK: I have not studied the 1963 paper Dr. Fernandez cites above, but if its “final survey” is a survey of the Brantford study begun in 1945, then it is worthless. I won’t take the time now to tell you why, but you will find attached the monograph by Dr. Phillip Sutton (an academic dentist and statistician, as I recall). Maybe Dr. Fernandez would be interested in it.
Mr. Fife also raised the issue of speculation and fear mongering. Speculation is expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence. The evidence to support CWF is overwhelming, and goes back over 65 years. Speculation should not be confused with extrapolation, where we use established knowledge to infer what will happen in the future. For example, if a growing number of people fail to vaccinate their children from measles, epidemiologists have extrapolated an increase in observed measles cases. Fear mongering is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others toward some specific end. If public health officials recommend vaccination to avoid a disease, is that fear mongering, or prudent advice? I understand that information that is contrary to our beliefs is not easily accepted, but science can only advance if we keep an open mind. If good research on CWF is done that contradicts the body of knowledge acquired over the last half century, we have an obligation to act on those discoveries. All I ask is all parties involved follow the same rules. Knowledge is the goal, and sound science is the vehicle to get us there.
FFL: The evidence for Artificial Water Fluoridation is far from overwhelming as has been clearly shown in the attached rebuttal. Worldwide statistics by the World Health Organization have shown that DMFT (decayed, missing and filled teeth) rates have dropped in fluoridated and un-fluoridated countries alike. What Dr. Fernandez cites as evidence is nothing more than the chest pounding of largely American organizations (Canadian associations for the most part follow their lead).
There IS good research done on AWF, and has been done all along, but it is only now that communities, governments, citizen groups and medical professionals (over 4,600 professionals have signed a petition against AWF) in North America are waking up to the dark reality of it. AWF was rejected long ago in Europe and other industrialized nations.
Again, what Dr. Fernandez calls “prudent advice” is not only fear mongering, but forced medication, without informed consent – it is tyranny. Is that how he delivers medication to his patients? And does he disregard the Precautionary Principle all together? Obviously so.
Dr. Fernandez, where are your ethics? And don’t tell us you disregard basic ethical principles for the sake of public health. Those two lines of thought are incongruent.
On a personal note, I regret my use of the term “public health terrorists” which appeared in the June 1st edition of The Press Democrat. Rohnert Park resident Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh was the person who lead the signature gathering effort in Healdsburg, and I know her personally. She has always been polite to me whenever we interact. I belief her intentions are good. I invite her, her supporters, and you, Mr. Fife to continue your interest in the subject of CWF. I have attended some of the local antifluoridation meetings, read their literature, and visited their suggested websites. I invite anyone interested in CWF to also visit the following resources:
Campaign for Dental Health: https://ilikemyteeth.org/debate-fluoridation/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/
Calif. Dept. of Public Health: https://web.archive.org/web/20140705153606/http://www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/pages/fluoridation.aspx
American Dental Association: https://www.ada.org/resources/community-initiatives/fluoride-in-water
DR. BECK: You might invite Dr. Fernandez to include primary scientific research and competent meta-analyses in his suggested sources. I have examined only some of the “resources” given. They are not scientific discussions and make no reference to reliable research.
Let me add that though the circumstances of the discussion going on here may not lead to ethical considerations, it is important that we—promoters, opponents, and neutral—not forget them.
FFL: It is truly the pro-fluoridationists who are the “public health terrorists.” Who else could get away with putting a known toxin into the water supply?! Anyone else would be jailed for what they do. Such is the contradiction and irony of “official” evil.
Sincerley
Dr. Fernandez
Sean Fife
www.fluoridefreelethbridge.com
Find us on Facebook at Fluoride Free Lethbridge
From: Fernandez
To: Sean – Fluoride Free Lethbridge
Cc: Council members and more
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 3:19 PM
Subject: Re: Healdsburg likely to revisit fluoridation
Mr. Fife and Dr. Beck:
I agree that endorsements do not constitute scientific evidence. Neither does a short list of towns scared into stopping fluoridation.
Let’s also agree to let the quality research speak for itself.
Respectfully,
Dr. Fernandez
Fernandez, DDS
From: Victor Hafichuk
To: Fernandez
Cc: Council members and more
Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 5:20 PM
Subject: RE: Healdsburg likely to revisit fluoridation
Dr. Fernandez, why do you insist on hitting below the belt? Where’s your moral compass?
So you agree endorsements don’t constitute scientific evidence, yet you swallow the industry-funded studies and continue to blindly rely on studies that have been proven either bogus or bungled. We challenge you to provide JUST ONE study that proves HFSA (hydrofluorosilicic acid) added to water is safe, effective or necessary. You can’t do it, yet while you agree endorsements mean very little, you and the dental associations endorse the heinous practice of artificial water fluoridation promoted by the proponents of toxic industrial waste.
And are cities “scared” into rejecting AWF or are they getting wise to it? How about Europe? How about the Netherlands who have legislated illegality of water fluoridation? How about Israel, which has now condemned fluoridation nationwide?
How about the 1500 EPA Headquarters Union of Scientists and other professionals who have formed an association to condemn fluoridation? How about 14 Nobel Laureates who have raised their voices to condemn fluoridation? Who scared them, Dr?
How about Dr. William Marcus, senior scientist of the EPA, who risked his career when in good conscience, stood up and told his employers he could not support the wickedness of fluoridation? What was HE afraid of, Dr. Fernandez? He had much to fear by not supporting fluoride. They fired him, twice, and both times the Supreme Court exonerated him and restored his position as senior scientist with the corrupt institution, whose endorsement you endorse!
How about the Nobel Laureate Arvid Carlsson, who was appointed by the Swedish parliament to investigate the validity of water fluoridation? After intensive investigation with a team of scientists, Carlsson strictly warned them to have nothing to do with fluoridation. Who were they afraid of, Dr. Fernandez?
Do your homework, Dr. Get honest. What are YOU afraid of?
Victor Hafichuk
From: Fernandez
To: Victor Hafichuk
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: Healdsburg likely to revisit fluoridation
Hi Victor:
I’m afraid I wasted my time with this email thread.
Take Care, and
Good Health to You,
Dr. Fernandez
Fernandez, DDS
From: Victor Hafichuk
To: Fernandez
Are you now taking the high road, Dr. Fernandez? You accuse reasonable, responsible, self-sacrificing, professional people of scare tactics and misinformation, yet you fear when you ought to be thankful to be soundly informed. You are one confounded man.
Like I asked, “What are you afraid of?” Do you know? Ethics and sound science scream for the Precautionary Principle to be put into effect. While you promote fluoridation, either in ignorance or for intentional gain or both, others, having done their homework, at the risk to their careers, are endeavoring to save lives by opposing fluoridation. When all is said and done, how will you face your Maker?
Dr. Fernandez, if as you say, you’ve wasted your time with this thread, it is a sorry loss for you and those you continue to adversely impact with falsehood. Know it.
Victor Hafichuk