Monday, May 01, 2017

Fluoride Safety Doubted, Researchers Report

Fluoridation Safety & Efficacy is Doubted, Researchers Report
Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report Israeli  researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016)
Fluoridation is the unnecessary addition of fluoride chemicals (lead- and arsenic-laced hydrofluosilicic acid) into public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay.

Albany County  enjoys a very low decay rate (25%)  despite a very low 13% fluoridation rate, according to NYS Dept of Health statistics. 

The Israeli researchers further report that  “A [UK] Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth]." 
Israel policy-makers and public health officials ignored or denied valid evidence, produced by experts in their fields and respected science groups to push through a fluoridation mandate in Israel, report Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz.

They report that “policy makers themselves …[carry] out what they accuse others [fluoridation opposers] of doing. They share only partial, biased information in order to support their [pro-fluoridation] case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”

The same is true in the US

From the beginning, respected US scientists and physicians criticized fluoridation but were ignored (i.e., Waldbott). Voices of opposition were suppressed since the early days, according to Chemical and Engineering News.

Criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV.  

In fact, US public health bureaucrats ignore their own published evidence of fluoride’s potential harm i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.

The ignored1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials.

Today’s PR gurus coach fluoridationists to avoid mentioning risks because then “opponents are likely to win.”  (slide 18) And they disallow fluoridation opponents from partaking in fluoridation discussions. This occurred in New York State.

Coming on the heels of evidence showing that fluoridation is useless and more harmful to the poor, researchers continue to report that fluoridation's tooth decay reduction are still  not scientifically proven.

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016). 

 Swedish researchers, in PLOS one, February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [McDonagh]… was graded as low.”

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable” 

Even respected dental researchers have reported in dental textbooks that fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific evidence.

Countries that do not fluoridate the water have experienced a dramatic decline in tooth decay.  See chart.

NYS Communities which have stopped or rejected fluoridation are:  Suffolk, Nassau & Rockland counties, Albany, Elba, Naples, Levittown, Canton, Corning, Johnstown, Oneida, Carle Place, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, Riverhead, Central Bridge Water District, Homer, Ithaca, Rouses Point, Pulaski, Romulus and Amsterdam.


Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Fluoride: EPA's Protected Pollutant

EPA’s failure to lower allowable fluoride levels in public water supplies protects artificial water fluoridation instead of the American public for political not scientific reasons.

EPA, by law, must determine every six years if safe levels of water contaminants, such as fluoride, allowed in public water supplies are still protective of health.  In 2006, the National Research Council, at the behest of EPA and after 3 years of study, said health-preserving fluoride levels must be lowered. But EPA ignored the NRC and the science showing that fluoride ingestion is harmful to health.  In effect, EPA's lack of action is putting many Americans' health at risk.

It's not EPA's task to determine if the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies - fluoridation - is beneficial for dental health. But EPA oddly defended water fluoridation  in its Federal Register published excuse for ignoring the science of fluoride's harm. EPA felt compelled to rip apart almost every study critical of fluoride but failed to critique virtually any pro-fluoride study - even though many respected research bodies found fluoridation research is mostly shoddy and unreliable.

Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016)

They add,  “A Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth].”

Dentists and the EPA often claim that dental fluorosis is no big deal but then dentists make a tidy profit covering up those discolored teeth as these fluorosis before and after advertisements attest to.  

Based on published science, EPA has enough evidence, not only to lower the water fluoride Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), but to ban all artificial fluoridation programs country-wide. Naturally fluoridated water supplies generally contain calcium fluoride which is much less toxic than the fluoridation chemicals most used for artificial fluoridation.  In fact, calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning.

An EPA scientist details how EPA caved to political interests in 1985 in setting the current safe water fluoride levels. And that was way before hundreds of additional studies were published showing fluoride's harm.

Keeping the MCLG and MCL at scientifically indefensible levels appears to, not only benefit artificial water fluoridation and the special-interests which instigate it, but those industries and corporations that profit from fluoride sales. Corporate interests notoriously protect their products and brand image  – even when water fluoride is not directly linked to their fluoridated dental products. See: Fluoridation - Follow the Money.

Fluoridation began and continues at the urging of dentists – dentists who didn’t perceive that fluoride could get into the brain.  Even the EPA reports, itself, that fluoride is a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.

Well-rehearsed kindly old Dentists, like those in TV commercials, keep to the script. They claim fluoridation is safe and effective before governing bodies who don't realize they are watching an infomercial.   Fluoridation is based on belief not science according to a dental textbook.

Besides, fluoride’s adverse health effects, outside of the oral cavity, are not within the purview of dentistry, according to the California Board of Dental Examiners.  Yet, dentists control the issue - both inside and outside of government.  Organized dentistry's deep pockets full of corporate cash may speak louder than words.

Now over 100 animal and more than 50 human studies show that the neurological system gets fluoridated along with the water, teeth and bones.  The question is no longer “Does fluoride cause brain damage,” but “at what level does fluoride cause brain damage.” 

This alone should be enough to put an end to artificial water fluoridation. 

How long will EPA allow the American public to be guinea pigs in this ongoing human experiment?

The federal government reports that 58% of US adolescents have dental fluorosis - 21% have moderate fluorosis and 2% severe. Clearly, American children are fluoride-overdosed. We know their teeth are fluoride-damaged.  Who's looking at their bones.  No one!

At the same time, the feds report that 350,000 U.S. children (1 in 200) have serum fluoride levels in the approximate range associated with overt neurotoxic effects.

It’s clear that politics has a heavy hand in protecting fluoride levels allowed in water supplies and, therefore, in protecting the US fluoridation program. My guess is that EPA scientists, intimately involved with protecting fluoride, are fully aware that fluoridation is based on a house of cards. In the early 1940’s,  humans  were used to prove a pre-determined outcome – that fluoride, consumed via the water supply, was essential to create healthy teeth. The inconvenient truth is that modern science disproved those out-dated theories. But the belief in fluoridation runs deep.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth as it was once believed to be.  Fluoridation began with the mistaken theory that ingested fluoride was required for children to form decay-resistant teeth.  The Centers for Disease Control now admits that “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…” CDC also admits that “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”  They also admit that the amount of fluoride emerging from saliva to bathe teeth topically with fluoride is too low to have any beneficial effect.

Although the CDC is often cited as praising fluoridation as a great achievement of the last century, the CDC seems to divest itself of responsibility by saying It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.

Fluoridation is based on an early 1900’s discovery that people with fluoride-discolored teeth had less tooth decay. A discovery that failed to factor in that healthier wealthier populations were their test subjects. Those with fluoride-mottled teeth grew and ate their own local produce and could afford dental care – which is how, then and now,  most dentists decide where to practice.  Healthy diets reduced tooth decay. Fluoride just discolored their teeth.

Consuming a fluoride-free diet does not cause tooth decay.  But there is no dispute that too much fluoride damages bones and teeth.  The problem is that there is no government entity which is tasked with or interested in ascertaining Americans’ total fluoride intake or informing the public to tally fluoride intake and why they should.  

As EPA scientists are well aware the fluoride concentration in public water supplies does not equate to an individual’s dose. Fluoride does not need to be added to public water supplies at all.

Virtually all foods and beverages and some medicines contain fluoride as well as dental products both obvious and obscure, as in dental cements.  Inhaled shower and ocean mist, air pollution and cold mist humidifiers using fluoridated water also contribute to total fluoride intake. In a 2017 study showing that some two-year-old's exceed a safe fluoride level from all sources, Martinez-Mier et. al point out that “Dust and soil, for example, can contribute to a person’s total fluoride intake.”

A 1940’s fluoridation-health experimental study carried out on the entire population of Newburgh, NY, without individual's informed consent, was prematurely declared successful after only 5 years, before the teeth of test animals - schoolchildren - permanent teeth had erupted.  Also ignored were adults, pre-schoolers, brain and long-term effects. The Newburgh study forms the basis for specious claims that fluoridation is safe for everyone. Since then, very little US research looks for fluoride’s adverse health effects to any body parts that aren’t the teeth.  And the few that do are dismissed for poor reasons by this EPA.

The 1940’s was a time when essential vitamins and minerals were discovered to prevent disease. Dentists thought fluoride was their magic bullet but it isn’t.  After 72 years of fluoridation, tooth decay is a national crisis – especially in the poor.  Too many Americans are dentist-deficient and fluoride-overdosed, thanks in part to the EPA’s failure to lower fluoride’s MCL and MCLG.  Dentists prefer to treat the water of and not the teeth of low-income people and EPA enables that

By focusing on fluoridation instead of diet and dentist-access, organized dentistry allowed a national dental health crisis to occur on its watch and created a new one – dental fluorosis.

While the profession increasingly focuses on cosmetic care, 1/3 of all Americans can’t afford or are unable to get any dental care forcing them into hospital emergency rooms to relieve the relentless pain.  EPA has an indirect hand in this.

Dental visits to ERs nearly doubled between 2000 and 2010.  Four million visits cost $2.7 billion, mostly paid by taxpayers, and the patients seldom receive dental care – often just receiving pain and/or antibiotic prescriptions. One hundred and one patients died in hospitals from the consequences of untreated tooth decay, from 2008-2010, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association.

We know that organized dentistry lobbies the EPA to keep the water fluoride MCL and MCLG levels higher than necessary, to protect fluoridation, and claims that dental fluorosis is not a big deal But “Such changes in the tooth’s appearance can affect the child’s self-esteem which makes early prevention that much more critical,” according to dentist Elivir Dincer in the January 2008 New York State Dental Journal.

Fluoridation gives the illusion that dentists care about the low-income folks who aren’t welcomed in their dental chairs.  Most dentists refuse Medicaid patients. Organized dentistry lobbied successfully to have dental care excluded from Medicare.

Tooth decay rates did go down since fluoridation’s inception but there is no valid evidence proving that fluoride is the reason.  Tooth decay rates have gone down in areas with no added fluoride in water or foods.  At the same time, tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities, states and countries.  See:  Some African countries with no fluoride, toothbrushes, toothpaste or dentists have inhabitants with some of the lowest decay rates in the world (Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, by dentist Weston Price)

It’s well established that rotten diets make rotten teeth and no amount of fluoride has changed that. 

So it’s very disheartening to see EPA's frivolous rejection of a growing mountain of published scientific evidence showing that ingesting fluoride is not safe for everyone.  EPA is supposed to base its MCLG on those who are most adversely affected by fluoride which would include kidney patients, babies, the allergic or insensitive and people who drink copious amounts of water or tea.   Anyone can pull apart any one study but EPA neglects to do so with any study favorable to fluoride or fluoridation. 

Because EPA seems to be politicized, EPA scientists, under protection of their union, expressed their scientific reasons to oppose fluoridation in 1999.

William Marcus, PhD, a respected EPA senior scientist was fired after he made public that results of rodent/fluoride studies were selectively downgraded to make it appear that fluoride did not cause cancer in experimental lab animals when it did.  He was re-hired under with back-pay under the whistle blowers’ act but the animal experimental results were never fixed to show the truth.

Others are doing a better job of protecting the public than the current EPA.  For example:

As early as 1988, an investigative reporter with Chemical and Engineering News wrote “Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years.”

In 2008, Scientific American reported “Second Thoughts About Fluoride,”  where John Doull, PhD, Chair of the National Research Council’s (NRC) panel which reviewed current fluoride toxicological research (at the EPA’s request – what a waste of money.) said, “when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began.”

In fact, three expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  in the Journal of Risk Research, August 2016)

They add,  “A Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis.”

In the 1940s and 1950s, dentists in their eagerness to have a magic bullet that would enhance their professional prestige, promoted fluoridation heavily and dismissed legitimate debate over the merits of fluoridation within the scientific, medical and dental communities, according to an American Journal of Public Health article by Catherine Carstairs, PhD (June 2015). 

Carstairs writes, “some of the early fluoridation studies had methodological problems, which may have exaggerated their benefits.”

Carstairs concludes “After 70 years of investigation, there are still questions about how effective water fluoridation is at preventing dental decay and whether the possible risks are worth the benefits.”

In 2014, a legal scholar writes that fluoridation violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects research protocols ( Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, in the William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review  Volume 39 | Issue 1)

Barnett-Rose writes, “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive. Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment. As such, this experiment should be subject to informed consent for each human subject affected.”

She adds, "It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences.”

‘Unfortunately, rather than considering new data objectively, public health officials and dental lobbies spearheading fluoridation schemes often ignore, reject, or suppress the evidence that does not toe the profluoride party line,” she writes.

“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens," she writes.

Even President Obama’s science czar was unkind to fluoridation when he wrote in 1977 “The scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is not as good as it ought to be…”

Dentist Thomas Connelly, reporting in the wrote: “I do not see the good in fluoridating our drinking water.

The US has yet to do any human brain/fluoride studies, especially in regard to fluoride’s link to children’s lower IQ.  When respected scientist Phylllis Mullenix unexpectedly found that fluoride can cause brain damage in lab animals and called for more corroborating research, she was fired instead because she wouldn’t hide her result.  

Hundreds of millions of dollars – maybe billions – are wasted on artificial water fluoridation schemes including PR agencies hired by both government and private organizations, on infrastructure, spokesperson training, water employee indoctrination, dedicated fluoridation employees in health departments and the CDC, lobbying, continuing education credits, grants, webinars, seminars, meetings, symposiums, advertising, videos, pamphlets, posters and other paraphernalia (t-shirts, cups, tote bags, water bottles, etc) – all because EPA won’t do its job and lower the MCL and MCLG of fluoride to a level that is safe for everyone and which would, in effect, abolish artificial water fluoridation in the United States.

Imagine, instead, if that money could be used to actually treat the teeth of low-income Americans – those who dentists neglect, for whom fluoridation shows no benefit and for which the American public picks up the tab for substandard dental care in hospital ER’s to the tune of billions of dollars.

Failure to lower the water fluoride MCL and MCLG, makes EPA an enabler in this political boondoggle. 


Sunday, February 19, 2017

Politics Ruled EPA Way Before Trump Was President

At the urging of Congress, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied fluoride/cancer effects in rodents.  Some rodents developed cancer. But the 1990 report downgraded those and other effects, officially calling the certain cancer findings "equivocal"(uncertain), some said to protect the US fluoridation program and the government agencies promoting it. An EPA Senior Science Adviser blew the whistle on this discrepancy, was fired for doing so, then re-hired with back pay under the whistle blower's act. But the NTP never corrected its misrepresentation. Below is Dr. Marcus'  May 1, 1990 Memo on the falsification of the NTP fluoride/cancer results which got him fired. Here is a 1995 transcript of his experience.

Bioassay on Fluoride
DATE: May 1, 1990
SUBJECT: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride

FROM: Wm L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Criteria &
Standards Division, ODW (WH-550D)

TO: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director, Criteria & Standards Division,
ODW (WH-550D)

The conference was held in RTP at the NIEHS headquarters on April
26, 1990. The subject of the conference was a peer review of the NTP
draft report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of Sodium
Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3F Mice (Drinking Water Studies)
NTP Report Number 393. Dr. Robert Scala was to chair this meeting
but was unable to attend because of ill health. Dr. Michael Gallo
appointed acting Chairperson. One of the attenders seated with the
panel members was David Rall, Ph.D., M.D., Director of NIEHS. Dr.
Rall took an extremely active interest in the proceedings and remained
seated for the entire proceedings with only two minor interruptions.
The most disturbing part of the report was the continual reference to
the historical controls as having the same or higher cancers as the test
groups. On pages 89 - 90 of the report starting with the last paragraph
the authors state the following:

An important consideration which limits the usefulness of the historical
control data base in the current studies is that the diet used in all other
NTP studies had not been closely monitored for fluoride content.
Fluoride concentrations in typical batches of NHI-07 diet range
between 28 and 47 ppm (.7 and 1.2 mg/kg/day)(Rao and Knapka (1),
1987). Assuming a minimum bioavailability of 60% (Tests show 66%
absorption page I-18), the historical database animals actually
constitute a group receiving sufficient fluoride to place them between
the low- and mid-concentration group in the current (the studies
reviewed at RTP at the conference). The fact that this fluoride is
available for absorption from the standard diet is supported by the
levels of fluoride found in the bones of animals maintained on this diet
in the six months studies (Appendix I). (The levels in the bones of the
rats on the standard NHI chow was ten [10] times the levels of those
fed the semisynthetic diet and deionized water, 0.922 vs 0.0901). If the
fluoride [is] in fact influencing the "spontaneous " or background
incidence of osteosarcoma in male rats, comparisons with those in the
historical database maybe misleading. This forces an even greater
reliance on the within-study comparisons, ie., the incidences of the
dosed groups compared with the concurrent control, in the
interpretation of the results of the sodium fluoride studies. [italics in

When I plotted a bar graph of osteosarcoma in male rats and placed the
historical controls on the graph 0.6% is just where expected. This helps
demonstrate a relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoride. The
purpose of such graphs is to predict occurrence. Since the historical
controls comprise some 6,000 animals, this data point is extremely
significant compared to the other three. Osteosarcoma is an extremely
rare animal tumor and may be the result of the variable high fluoride
content in the feed. In order to demonstrate this, all that need be done is
require that the fluoride content of animal chow be lowered
dramatically and that fluoride be removed from the water given to the
animals under study.

The dose of fluoride to which the concurrent controls were exposed is
0.2 mg/kg/day. A 70 kg man who drinks 2 liters daily is exposed to
0.03 mg/kg/day. The "control" animals were exposed to an amount of
fluoride six to seven (6-7 X) greater. Lois Gold, Ph.D. of the review
panel concluded that, "this group of animals therefore, can hardly be termed a control group. It can best be described as a lowest dosed
group." This is an important consideration because as the document
reports on page 9, the levels of fluoride in bone are linearly dependent
upon dose and length of exposure ("depends upon total intake") in
people. The level of fluoride in ashed samples of bone of 20-30 year
old people is 200 - 800 mg/kg compared to 70 to 80 year old people of
1,000 - 2.500 mg/kg. In the document, the authors cited Zipkin (2) who
reported on bone fluoride concentrations in four groups of individuals
with average ages of 56 to 76 who lived in areas with fluoride
concentrations in drinking water of 0. 1, 1, 2.6, or 4 ppm The
relationship to bone fluoride concentrations and water fluoride content
was linear; bone fluoride ranged from about 800 to 7,000 ppm ash with
increasing water fluoride."

In the animal studies the levels of fluoride (Appendix I) found in the
bones of the animals were the same as or lower than those found in
people. The highest dosed level of rats had lower levels of fluoride in
their bones (5,470 ppm) compared to people (7,000 ppm) at the MCL
of 4 ppm. This can be interpreted as people who ingest drinking water
at the MCL have 1.3 times more fluoride in their bones than male rats
who get osteosarcoma This is the first time in my memory that animals
have lower concentrations of the carcinogen at the sight of adverse
effect than do humans. An important toxicologic consideration is that a
toxic substance stores at the same place it exerts it toxic activity. This is
true of benzene and now for fluoride. Fluoride however, is at twice the
concentration in human bones compared to benzene which is 10 to 100
[times] greater in animal marrow. This portends a very serious
problem. One would expect to be able to discern a carcinogenic effect
in the exposed population when compared to the unexposed population
especially if data exist on the populations before fluoridation.

Yiamouyiannis and Burk published epidemiology studies that have
since been revised twice (3), by Burk (former head of the
Cytochemistry section at NIH). In these extensively peer reviewed
papers, the authors found that about 10,000 deaths a year are
attributable to fluoride water treatment. The U.S. Public Health Service
(U.S.PHS) criticized the original studies by erroneously asserting that
the results reported by the authors were a result of changes in the age,
race and sex composition of the sample. The U.S.PHS made
mathematical errors and did not include 90% of the data. U.S.PHS
method of analysis when applied to the database, confirmed that 10,000
excess cancer deaths yearly were linked to fluoridation of watersupplies. This evidence has been tested most recently in the
Pennsylvania Courts and found scientifically sound after careful

There were three different short term in vitro tests performed on
fluoride and all these tests proved fluoride to be mutagenic. An Ames
test was performed and reported to be negative. Bruce Ames, in a letter
to Arthur Upton introduced in the Congressional Record, stated that his
test system was inappropriate for fluoride testing based on a number of
technical considerations. EPA's own guidelines require that in vitro
tests be taken into consideration when found positive. In this case, the
mutagenicity of fluoride supports the conclusion that fluoride is a
probable human carcinogen.

Melvin Reuber, M.D, a board certified pathologist and former
consultant to EPA and part time EPA employee, reviewed some of
pathology slides and the Battelle report. Dr. Reuber has had his
pathologic diagnoses questioned several times in the past. When an
independent board together with Dr. Reuber went over the Slides his
opinion was always upheld. He first published the work that identified
hepatocholangiocarcinoma as a pathologic entity. The report changed
Battelle's board certified veterinary pathologists diagnoses from
hepatocholangiocarcinoma to hepatoblastoma and finally to
hepatocarcinoma. Dr. Reuber reviewed the pathology slides [in the NTP fluoride/cancer rodent study]and stated
that these lesions are indeed hepatocholangiocarcinoma. Because Dr.
Reuber first identified and published his findings on this tumor, I trust
his opinion in this matter. These tumors are extremely rare. Dr.
Reuber's diagnoses would make the liver cancers significant because of
their rarity. This changes the equivocal finding of the board to at least
some evidence or clear evidence of carcinogenicity. In addition, the
oral changes in the report were down-graded from dysplasia and
metaplasia to degeneration. Dr. Reuber said that this. change should
also be reviewed. The report also down-graded adrenal
pheochromocytomas and tumors to hyperplasia. This needs to be
reviewed by an independent board. The other liver carcinomas were
down-graded to foci by artificially defining a need for 75%
compression in the tumor before it was no longer a foci. Using this
changed definition carcinomas were down-graded to adenomas and
adenomas downgraded to eosinophilic foci. In almost all instances, the
Battelle board certified pathologists' findings were down-graded. It is
my suggestion that a board independent of NIEHS should be assembled
by ODW consisting of human pathologists (for their experience in an diagnosing osteosarcoma), the Battelle pathologist (to defend his
original diagnoses), Dr. Melvin Reuber, Dr. Thomas Squires and two
other well known independent board-certified animal pathologists. The
charge to this board is to meet as a body, review the slides, agree on a
pathologic diagnoses and prepare a report to be submitted to ODW for
incorporation in our docket for the fluoride regulation.

The report talks about the efficacy of fluoride and tooth decay. Since
the studies were performed to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride
this should not have been addressed. There appear to be at least four
different publications from the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand that
have reported similar or lower tooth decay rates in nonfluoridated areas
as compared to fluoridated areas (4,5,6,7). Therefore, the entire
question of the efficacy of fluoridation based on extensive and multiple
studies has been called into question. Our job is to set safe levels for
fluoride in drinking water based on the scientific evidence.
The problem with this meeting was the inability of independent
reviewers to get to see the slides prior to the meeting. We must perform
our own scientific review of the slides and write our conclusions for
use in the development of the revised fluoride regulation.

(1) Roa, G.N., and Knappa, J.J. 1987. Contaminant and nutrient
concentrations of natural ingredient rat and mouse diet used in
chemical toxicology studies. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.
9, 329-338.
(2) Zipkin, L., McClure, F.J., Leone, H.C., and Lee, W.A. 1958.
Fluoride deposition in human bones after prolonged ingestion of
fluoride in drinking water. Public Health Rep. 73,
(3) Graham, J.R., Burk, O., and Morin, P. 1987. A current restatement
and continuing reappraisal concerning demographic variables in
American time-trend studies an water
fluoridation and human cancer. Proc Pennsylvania Academy of Sci.
(4) Colquhoun, J. 1987. Comm. Health Studies. 11:85.
(5) Gray, a. 1987. J. Canadian Dental Assoc. 53:763.
(6) Hildebolt, C.F. et al. 1989. Amer J, Physiol. Anthropol. 78:79-92.
(7) Diesendorf, M. 1986. Nature. 321:125.
1995 Radio Interview with Dr. Marcus  on NTP fluoride/cancer study is here:


Because EPA management allegedly uses politics and not science to protect fluoridation,  EPA scientists and other professionals under the safety umbrella of their union demanded an end to fluoridation
FluorideGate, The Movie reveals more from Dr. Marcus and his lawyer

Dr. Marcus starts at about 12 minutes into this film

About 13 minutes, hear from Dr. Marcus lawyer from the National Whistleblowers Association

Saturday, January 21, 2017

Israeli and US Fluoridation Promoters Whitewash Scientific Uncertainty

Israeli Fluoridation Promoters Whitewash Scientific Uncertainty
(It Happens in the US, Also)

Israeli fluoridation proponents misled legislators and the public about the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation in order to preserve a country-wide fluoridation mandate, reports two Israeli researchers in the Journal of Risk Research (August 2016) after they reviewed government documents and newspaper reports.

Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz report that “In this study, we argue that the policy makers themselves …[carry] out what they accuse others [fluoridation opposers] of doing. They share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, touted by fluoridationists as a conclusively-proven safe and effective tooth decay preventive, is shown to be the opposite in many scientific reports and government documents. Fluoridation has been doubted by respected scientists and physicians since its US birth, in 1945.

 “Despite the uncertainty surrounding the questions of [fluoridation] safety and efficacy,  [Israeli] health policy-makers and health officials not only characterize the science regarding fluoridation as providing ‘certainty,’ but use decisive and definitive terms, such as ‘unequivocal’ and ‘undisputed,’ to stress that ‘certainty,’” report Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz.

This Israeli research team doesn’t come out for or against fluoridation but says, despite claims to the contrary, uncertainty does exist.  They argue that the public can handle the truth and make appropriate decisions based on all information, both positive and negative towards fluoridation.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials who mandated fluoridation in Israel.

For example, three expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation,” they report.

They add,  “A Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis.” Dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) occurs when too much fluoride is ingested while teeth are forming.

Critics of Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir Raz’s conclusion claim that dental fluorosis  is “often not even considered to be undesirable.” However, writing in the New York State Dental Journal, Dincer reports “Such changes in the tooth’s appearance can affect the child’s self-esteem…”

Furthermore, fluorosis has created a lucrative new market for dentists - covering up fluorosed teeth as these before and after dentist photos show.

More distressing is that today’s fluoridationists attempt to pick apart any study not faithful to fluoridation, (including this Journal of Risk Research article) but they never dissect any study glorifying fluoridation – even though the early fluoridation experiments, conducted in several cities, have been thoroughly discredited scientifically but still form the basis for the entire fluoridation program world-wide.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz write, “Even in the rare instances in which scientific sources such as the YORK and the NRC reports are mentioned, the reports are cited selectively, eliminating the uncertainty they expressed…the bottom line emerging from all three is that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation.”

“Despite this uncertainty, [Israeli] dental health policy-makers and health officials continue to communicate it as a safe and effective intervention, and actively promote policies to implement it,” they report.

These Israel researchers are not alone in their criticism. From the outset, fluoridation was criticized in the US by respected scientists and physicians, (i.e., Waldbott, Rorty). It persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Scientific American; Chemical & Engineering NewsIn fact, US public health bureaucrats have a habit of ignoring their own evidence that’s even mildly critical of fluoridation i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.

Voices of opposition have been suppressed since the early days of fluoridation

Readers are left to determine their own conclusions about why fluoridation has become a sacred cow in the face of  strong scientific evidence that it’s a failed concept at worst and uncertain at least.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz write:“Perhaps the most interesting example of a study that was ignored is the survey commissioned by the [Israeli] Ministry of Health itself. Although Health Ministry officials were aware of the findings, they chose to ignore it in their arguments…on several occasions; policy-makers and health professionals explicitly deny that such studies exist.”

Instead of truthfully explaining that some studies support fluoridation while others don’t, they presented a consolidated and simplified “cooked” version.

The Ministry of Health appointed an expert committee (the Adin Committee), which at the end of 2006 voted to halt mandatory fluoridation in Israel and leave the decision to each local authority. 

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz write: “According to Prof. Avner Adin, the committee chair and world-renowned water expert, the decision was based on two central considerations. First, the paucity and inconclusiveness characterizing all studies on the health effects of fluoridation; and second, the reports indicating that, over the years, cases of caries decreased at a similar rate both in fluoridating and in non-fluoridating countries.”

Instead of following the advice of its own expert Committee comprised of chemists, toxicologists, and water experts, the Ministry of Health consulted public health officials and dentists who urged continuation of mandatory fluoridation.

In 2014, new Health Minister, Yael German, ended fluoridation based on the Adin Committee’s recommendation. But, in 2015, German was replaced by Yaakov Litzman, who revoked her decision. 

In March 2016, arguments for and against fluoridation were presented in the Knesset (Israel’s governing body). After hearing valid testimony from experts opposing fluoridation the Ministry of Health officials said that among professionals there is no controversy on the issue, report the Israeli researchers.  Although expressing reservations that they were unqualified to decide this issue, Knesset committee members voted to approve restoration of mandatory fluoridation in Israel.

PR Spin Favorable to Fluoridation Began in 1951 in the US

Attendees of a 1951 Dental Directors’ meeting were taught how to “sell’ fluoridation avoiding these words: toxic, artificial, experiment and sodium fluoride because that is rat poison.”

Today’s US Dental Directors spread similar false information by including dubious documents on the website of the Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors which denigrate the opposition, personally, rather than the science.

Hired US PR agencies and individuals (some call them liars for hire) continue the pattern of misinformation, misdirection and indoctrination of falsehoods. For example, fluoridationists are taught to avoid talking about risks because then “opponents are likely to win.”  (slide 18) 



Thursday, January 19, 2017

Fluoridation Uncertainty Existed From the Start & Persists Today

Adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies, to reduce children's tooth decay, was met with uncertainty by respected medical professionals from the outset, including a very well respected physician, Dr. George Waldbott. Although denied by today's fluoridationists, scientific safety and efficacy uncertainties persist today.  The following was published in 1965 by Dr. Waldbott, but it could just as easily explain the politics of  and lack of science supporting the safety and efficacy of fluoridation today.

 A Struggle With Titans, (1965) By Dr. George Waldbott, Chapter 3 "A Fateful Decision" 

     There were two logical approaches for me to gather preliminary information: To contact the American Medical Association and to ask the local Health Department for all available data. I had reason to believe that I would obtain objective advice from both sources.  The Detroit Health Commissioner, Dr. Joseph G. Molner, as well as his two predecessors, Dr. Bruce Douglas and Dr. Fred Meader, had consulted me frequently on matters pertaining to allergy.  I was certain of his full cooperation.

In a dinner discussion on fluoridation at our home, Dr. Molner assured me that his statisticians had been checking all data carefully. they had found nothing wrong with them. Fluoridation was effective and safe, he stated. He admitted, however, that the Public Health Service and termed the project a "calculated risk."

He was surprised at some of the facts which my wife had dug up. They evidently had not reached Dr. Molner's desk. My wife referred to the article by James Rorty in the Freeman, 1953, which reported the Hearings in Washington, D.C. of the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics, January to March, 1952, under the chairmanship of James J. Delaney.

The Committee included two physicians, Dr. A. LO. Miller, former Nebraska State Health Commissioner, and Dr. E. H. Hedrick of West Virginia. Its counsel was Vincent Kleinfeld, one of the ablest and most experienced food and drug attorneys in Washington.

After all testimony had been heard, the Committee which had split wide open on all its other reports dealing with fertilizers, and cosmetics, was unanimous in its position regarding fluoridation. It recommended a "go-slow" policy.  It pointed to a sufficient number of unanswered questions concerning fluoridation's safety to warrant a conservative attitude. Yet, instead of heeding this advice, the Rorty article stated, both The Public Health Service and the American Dental Association redoubled their drive for fluoridation.

The principal feature which had characterized the promotional campaign up to this date was elucidated in the Rorty article: Promoters attempted to minimize the caliber and the competency of the opposition.

J. Roy Doty, an official of the American Dental Association, complained bitterly in their Journal that the Committee had accepted "misgivings of a few individuals who appeared as witnesses in spite of the weight of evidence furnished by such organizations as the American Dental Association, the AMA, the USPHS, The National Research Council and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers."

Mr. Rorty continued:

The "few individuals" referred to by Dr. Doty numbered seven scientists who "breadth of training and experience as toxicologists, clinicians, biochemists, nutritionists and research dentists qualified them thoroughly to appraise the issues involved."

"In contrast, most of the eleven witnesses who testified for fluoridation were qualified to talk solely about teeth; they were neither toxicologists nor doctors of medicine."

Dr. Molner told us of his own investigation. At his request, a committee of dentists, Wayne University professors, technicians and engineers had studied the question in 1950. This committee's report came to my attention several years later when it was resurrected from the files of Detroit's Municipal Library.  The following are pertinent passages quoted from the Report of the Medical Committee:

"1. Soluble fluoride is an extremely poisonous substance, even more so than arsenic, and its addition to the water supply of a large metropolitan area cannot be undertaken without creating certain possible hazards to the public health. With this in mind, your Committee wishes to present these points:

"A. The intake of city water by this age group (children) is highly uncertain because of the established high consumption of milk and fruit juices.
"B. Certain adults have an abnormally high water intake due to occupation, disease and dietary peculiarities. The fluoride intake of this group might become dangerously high.

"C. Certain occupational groups of substantial size in this metropolitan area are already exposed to fluorides. The effect of an additional fluoride intake on the health of these adult groups in unknown.

"D. The effect of prolonged fluoride ingestion on the health of a large industrial population is not clearly established.  It will be necessary to extend studies over a period of at least ten to twenty years to determine the possibility of delayed injurious effects.

"2.  In view of the above uncertainties this Committee believes that it is undesirable to undertake the fluoridation of the water supply of metropolitan Detroit."

The Committee recommended the consideration of topical application of fluoride to teeth and exploration of the possibility of adding it to milk.

Dr. Molner expressed some concern about whether or not an even flow of fluoride could be maintained throughout Detroit's water system,.  Indeed evidence published subsequently in the Journal of the American Waterworks Association in Oct., 1957, pages 1268-70 and the American Journal of Public Health, Dec., 1958, testifies to the validity of his doubts.

Many years later, on June 11, 1962, Mr. Gerald J. Remus, Detroit's Water Board Manager, who had made an unusually thorough study on this question, wrote as follows to the Detroit Common Council:

..."Doubt exists as to whether uniform fluoride concentration could be maintained throughout the more than 6,000 miles of distribution mains in the Detroit system. Data reported in the American Water Works Association Journal reflects this un-uniformity...we checked 482 samples of water taken from either Michigan cities that fluoridate their supply and we found considerable variation in concentrations."

Our discussion demonstrated that Dr. Molner still favored fluoridation subject to the same provisos which had been established by the Health Department May 3, 1951, namely:

"1. The Health Department now recognizes the public health value of the fluoridation of water.
2. There are very definite risks associated with the introduction of fluoride into a communal water supply from the point of view of workers. Therefore, certain protective measures must be adopted.
3. Baseline studies must be established. At least 5,000 children should be examined annually to determine the amount of good accomplished.
4. Laboratory controls must be continuously run on the water at source and point of usage.
5. Neighboring non-fluoridated communities with similar sources of raw water supply and geographical location should be used as controls.
6. Fluoridation of water must not be looked upon as a complete and only answer for the prevention of dental caries; it is not a panacea, but rather one factor involved in the prevention of dental caries"

Our discussion had been constructive. Dr. Molner assured me that he would furnish me with whatever material he deemed convincing and worth-while. I offered him the same courtesy. I made it clear that I was considering a more thorough study of this matter.  As an allergist, I was concerned about the long term effect of fluoridation on allergic patients.

Our second approach was to consult the AMA.  Mrs. Waldbott had an unusual entree into AMA's professional staff. It was brought about by a rather fortunate coincidence:

An article appeared in the Alumnae Magazine of Vassar College, her alma mater, by two members of President Truman's Committee for the Nation's Health. It presented the case in favor of socialized medicine. In a letter to the magazine's editor published shortly thereafter, Oct., 1949, page 18, Mrs. Waldbott presented her own appraisal of the subject.

The daughter of a Mr. T. A. Hendricks of the AMA's education staff, at the time a Vassar student, brought Mrs. Waldbott's letter to her father's attention. He immediately wrote Mrs. Waldbott that he considered her letter the "best one page round-up on a subject which had been much misunderstood and misrepresented that had ever reached my desk".  He asked for her permission to reproduce the letter for nation-wide distribution among physicians. She gladly complied with his request.

With this entree into the AMA, Mrs. Waldbott thought she would easily obtain the full cooperation of its staff. She was mistaken. Mr. Hendricks suddenly acted as though he had never heard of her. He transferred her request for information like a hot potato to a "Dr. B"  Dr. B's reply did not furnish the information which Mrs. Waldbott had requested. She  therefore asked for additional information.

In his reply, Dr. B seemed to be quite impatient: "Of course it is simply silly," he wrote, "to talk about any difference between 'natural' and 'artificial' fluoridation of drinking waters. The fluorides are exactly the same, and have exactly the same effect."

This statement is misleading. Of course, the fluoride ion is always the same; its poisonous action, however, is influenced by other minerals associated with it.

Whereas my wife had  previous been considered by one AMA official intelligent enough to write an excellent expose of the shortcomings of socialized medicine, her carefully expressed and logical reasoning on the subject of fluoridation was tossed aside as "silly."

In a letter to the AMA office, I firmly protested this rebuff to my wife.  I did not realize at that time that such high handed treatment was an integral part of the promotional campaign, which did not originate in the AMA office or with Dr. B.

It came to the fore in an editorial written subsequently by the AMA's Secretary and General Manager, Dr. G. F. Lull, June 1955, when he used such phrases as:

"The unscrupulous opponents of fluoridation."
"...those who take every opportunity to discredit medical science and legitimate public health progress."

Dr. Lull's editorial has been widely utilized for propaganda purposes wherever fluoridation has become an issue.

My correspondence with the AMA secretary disclosed how little the AMA officials and the membership of the organization actually knew about the subject. On nearly every question concerning the purely medical aspect of fluoridation, Dr. Lull, the AMA secretary, had to refer us to none other than - the American Dental Association (as though dentists were better qualified to evaluate harm to general health than he and the scientific body of the AMA)

This impression was confirmed in a letter to me by Dr. Elmer Hess, who was president of the AMA in 1955. He wrote on August 9:

"I think most of us in the American Medical Association feel that we have to depend upon the American Dental Association and the United States Public Health Service primarily for scientific facts concerning a situation of this kind and I am unable to express an opinion as to whether it is safe or not safe."

Our correspondence had brought into focus how sorely the medical profession was in need of truly scientific information on the systemic effect of fluoride.

It did much more to me. It made me more and more curious. It stimulated an intense interest in this subject.

I decided to write a scientific article for the American Medical Association. I began to spend all my spare time in the library studying the available data. My efforts would furnish factual evidence which could be made available to physicians. AMA officials would then no longer be obliged to resort to opinions and views of dentists and health officials. Surely, once the basic facts concerning fluoridation were recorded in the literature by one of their own members, they would look into the subject more thoroughly before continuing their endorsement.

Dr. Molner's offer to furnish me information soon materialized. I received a Newsletter stating the position of the Commission on Chronic Illness regarding fluoridation. This Commission was an independent national agency founded by the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association and the American Public Welfare Association, for the purpose of studying problems of chronic disease, illness and disability. The newsletter approving fluoridation had been sent to every prominent health official throughout the land.

The commission's members were professional and lay persons guided by PHS officials. They included such notables as Miss Sarah Gibson Blanding, President of Vassar College; Leroy E. Burney, MD, future surgeon general of the PHS; Theodore G. Klumpp, MD, president of a drug company; The Most Reve. Wm T. Mulloy: Thomas Parran, MD, a former surgeon general; Walter Reuther, representing labor; and other civic leaders.

The pamphlet was written by a Committee of three scientists: Dr. Nathan Shock, Chief of the Section on Gerontology of the National Institutes of Health, a branch of the USPHS; Dr. KF Maxcy, Prof. of  Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; and a noted gerontologist (specialist in disease of old age), E J. Stieglitz, MD

The composition of this committee of scientists is worthy of note.  In all subsequent investigations of fluoridation initiated for the purpose of obtaining endorsements, whether from professional or from lay organizations, whether on the national, state or local level, so-called "study committees" have been formed. they are guided by one or more outstanding scientists who are thoroughly familiar with statistical surveys furnished by the USPHS and the ADA.  The less informed Committee members thus receive all their information from promoting agencies. Rarely if ever are scientists with knowledge unfavorable to fluoridation represented on the committee.

The principal feature of the Chronic Illness Report was its acknowledgment that the Commission had carried out no independent investigation. The three Committee members charged with studying the subject had adopted the opinion of another committee, namely the Ad Hoc Committee of the National Research Council.

This council, set up by the National Academy of Sciences, consists of top leaders in science in their special fields. It acts as liaison between the Public Health Service and industry.  It was organized in 1916 with the cooperation of major scientific and technical societies to enable the scientists of the country to associate their efforts with those of the Academy in service to science and to the group.

As customary, this body likewise appointed a special "Ad Hoc Committee for...the Study of Fluoridation.

The nine-member Committee was guided by three scientists two of whom were closely connected with industry, namely Dr. B. G. Bibby, Director, Eastman Dental Dispensary, who had been carrying out research for the Sugar Research Foundation, Inc.; Dr. FF Heyroth, Cincinnati's Health Commissioner, and Assistant Director, Kettering Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, an institute sponsored and supported by industry where research on fluoride has been financed by Alcoa and either other corporations; Dr. HT Dean, the "father of fluoridation," who has personally been responsible for obtaining endorsements in at least a dozen national and international organizations. The only physician member of the Committee, Prof. A. McGehee Harvey of Johns Hopkins Medical School, had never carried out research on fluoride. He therefore had to rely on his dental and PHS advisors for background material.

With such a set up valid scientific evidence unfavorable to fluoridation was bound to be disregarded or presented to the group with adverse comments. Any "neutral" member of the Committee could not have become aware of the true facts without great personal effort.

The Committee based its deliberations according to their Final Report on the evidence of some 30 authors, whose names read like a "who's who" in fluoridation promotion. The only two not linked with a promoting agency were the late Danish scientist, Roholm and Dr. PC Hodges and co-workers.

Significantly, the National Research Council's Committee was chaired by Dr. Kenneth F. Jaxcy, who later became one of the three members of the Study Committee for the Commission on Chronic Illness. Such interlocking of the commission on Chronic Illness. Such interlocking of board and committee members of scientific organizations explains how endorsements are brought about through the influence of a few top scientists. They do not reflect the position of the members whose views have not been canvassed and who in most instances have given the matter little if any consideration.

The most frequently quoted and most impressive endorsements of fluoridation are those of the National Research Council and of the commission on Chronic Illness. Both represent the same group of scientists.

One item in the National Research Council Committee's Nov. 29, 1951, report deserves special mention.  It contains the following information: "Concurrently (with the decline of tooth decay in Grand Rapids) there has been a slight decline in the caries rate reported by Muskegon with its fluoride free water supply, 22 per cent in the six-year-olds and 28 per cent in the seven-year-olds. This is unexplained."

Studies on the decay rates in Muskegon had been made simultaneously with those  in Grand Rapids, the experiment ally fluoridation town. In the 6 and 7 year age groups of the nonfluoridated "control" city a simultaneous reduction in tooth decay occurred. This observation suggests that some factor other than fluoride added to Grand Rapids' drinking water may have been responsible for improving the condition of children's teeth.

Had this observation become generally known, it would have been embarrassing to the health officials conducting the Grand Rapids-Muskegon experiment. Thus upon become aware of this development they initiated in 1951 a drive to add fluoride to Muskegon's water.

The precipitous abandonment of the control for the Grand Rapids fluoridation experiment was explained by health officials - as stated by Dr. Phillip Jay to the Michigan House of Representatives Committee Investigating Fluoridation Oct 7, 1963 - on the basis that Muskegon's children could no longer be deprived of the "great benefits" of fluoridation. Muskegon citizens' sole source of information concerning what was transpiring in Grand Rapids was the one-sided proponent releases.

Comparisons between Grand Rapids children's teeth and those of a non fluoridated control city were no longer possible. This tended to weaken the claimed benefits to children's teeth made for this major American fluoridation experiment.

It should be emphasized that the members of the Commission on Chronic Illness and of the National Research Council attempted to arrive at an objective appraisal of fluoridation but must have been unaware of the one-sided orientation of their committees. The subject is extremely involved. Valid research is difficult to access.  It is only  logical to consult those who have done most research. To separate the wheat from the chaff, to distinguish genuine research which sets out to find the answer to a question from research designed to "prove" a thesis determined in advance for sheer propaganda purposes is a laborious process indeed.

Let us return to the Report by the Commission on Chronic Illness: The three scientists who were charged with the investigation accepted several highly controversial theories as though they were proven facts. to name a few such claims:

- Fluoride is a trace element in human nutrition - necessary for sound teeth:  An essential trace element to be so designated must be proven to be required for existence of life. Although a board guided by Dr. FJ Stare, Harvard School of Public Health, and several other proponent scientists heavily endowed by industry, have listed fluoride among essential minerals, nowhere in the scientific literature has fluoride been proven necessary for maintaining human life. there is no difference in the fluoride content of sound and decayed teeth. In other words, decayed teeth are not "deficient in fluoride"  Fluoride is not needed for healthy teeth. 

Another claim made by the commission on Chronic Illness:

- Storage of fluoride in the skeleton is of no "functional disadvantage." this statement has also been subsequently disproven in humans. Serious crippling fluorosis has been reported in areas where natural fluoride water levels are less than 1 ppm.

the Report further claimed:

- "Minute" amounts of fluoride present in food and beverages, particularly in tea  - which contains 30 to 60 parts of fluoride per million parts of water - are of no significance Data are available which show that food alone can provide amounts of fluoride up to or far above the so-called safe daily amount of 1-1.5 mg.

- An extraordinary statement constituted a part of The Report. It implied that fluoridation must be harmless because more than 3 million people have been drinking water containing fluoride naturally for generations.

Of all problems encountered in medical science, the recognition of the cause of a chronic illness, especially of chronic poisoning, is one of the most difficult tasks, as demonstrated by our experience with smoking. Millions had been  smoking for many years before its ill effect was recognized. If physicians are not looking for harm from fluoride they cannot be expected to recognize  it.

Since the dental profession was the major promoter of fluoridation, I assumed that dentists were thoroughly familiar with every phase of the subject. I expected to obtain further information by addressing a circular letter to Detroit's dentists, which I did in May, 1054. I asked for expression of their views. This letter was based upon what I had thus far learned. Essentially it presented an answer to the Report by the Commission on Chronic Illness.

Unaware of the explosiveness of this hot political issue and inexperienced in public relations, I had made reference to Oscar Ewing. Shortly after becoming Director of Social Security in charge of the USPHS he had given the green light to fluoridation before the permanent teeth of children born in the pilot cities had erupted. At the Washington, DC hearing it was brought out that Oscar Ewing, Alcoa's former legal counsel in that city, as a member of President Truman's cabinet, had committed the PHS to promotion of fluoridation.

For the sake of good public relations one was not supposed to mention such things.

My letter stirred up a hornet's next. I received many replies; most of them critical, some abusive and unbecoming to members of a learned profession. A few reached a high emotional pitch, others were most illogical.

"Don't you know that dentistry's greatest experts, Dr. Phillip Jay of Ann Arbor, Dr. FA Arnold, Jr., Dr. John Knutson, consider fluoridation the greatest health measure of modern times?"

"Aren't people allergic to penicillin, too?  Would you abandon penicillin treatment?"  (As though anyone would ever have proposed adding penicillin to the water supply for everyone to consume daily for a lifetime!)

"You are an allergist and physician. How dare you offer an opinion on fluoridation - a purely dental subject?"

There were a few voices in the wilderness: Several dentists were interested in the information which I had furnished to them. they suspected that not all the had read in their journals and heard at their meetings was cricket. they sensed that something strange was going on in the promotion of fluoridation. They realized that ordinarily genuine advances in dentistry are handled quite differently. They asked, why are not both sides, the pros and cons discussed openly in dental journals and in dental meetings as is customary with new advances in dentistry? they were aware that every new measure in medicine or dentistry is bound to have some side effects. Some knew that fluoride was a treacherous poison. How had it suddenly become a "nutrient," they wondered.

Their uniform demand was, "Please don't quote me."

Subsequently, when several Detroit  physicians joined me in forming a group to study fluoridation a local dentist approached every one of them This group was short lived. Each ember in turn received his share of harassment and embarrassment. One of these men was the dean of Detroit's pathologists, the late, beloved Dr. Plinn Morse; another, Dr. Ralph Pino, who had taken an active part in the affairs of the Michigan State Medical Society and the AMA; a third, a greatly respected and highly reputed Detroit internist, the late Dr. William H. Gordon.

One internist, still practicing in Detroit , received a warning from a member of his hospital staff. Should he continue to publicity oppose fluoridation he would jeopardize his consultant practice, even his hospital staff appointment. He was profoundly, distressed.  Reluctantly he withdrew.  He had no other choice.

I learned subsequently that intimidation and harassment of opponent professional men by dentists and health officials is another major feature of fluoridation promotion. To quote the Journal of the American Dental Association of May, 1955, from a letter by the late journalist George Sokolsky:

"I find that as many of those whom I interviewed who are members of your association are opposed to the process as favor it. I also find that they live in terror of being quoted. They tell me that they may be brought up (before the ethics committee) on charges should I quote their names. I regard such intimidation of any citizen for whatever reason as un-American. I should like to see a Congressional Committee investigate this whole subject."

The Public Health Service has spent thousands of dollars for so-called "research" to "discover" what motivates fluoridation opponents. social scientists call opponents "unsound," "erratic" and "hard to comprehend."  Such views indicate that these scientists have not had access to the genuine case against fluoridation. They have based their opinions upon one-sided information given them by proponents.

Shortly after I had written the circular letter to dentists, representatives of the Detroit District Dental Society requested the Council of my medical society to censure me.To oppose fluoridation, they claimed, was unethical.  It should not go unpunished. Two members of the Council subsequently told me what went on during that meeting behind closed doors.

After a brief discussion, one of the Council members set the tone: If one of our members has knowledge on a subject about which we know very little and if he does not bring it to our attention - that would be reason for censuring him. The society promptly dropped the matter as did societies in Dayton, Ohio, and in Greenwich, Conn.

This experience had cooled my enthusiasm for the study of fluoride's action on the human organism. I was obliged to re-appraise my situation before going farther. I had to decide whether I should continue looking into the matter or simply drop the subject for good. Persistent open opposition to fluoridation was bound to affect my practice adversely.

Up to this time I was not aware of having ever made enemies. Most of my colleagues, I assumed, had considered me competent. they respected my contributions to the advancement of my own specialty. all of a sudden a large segment of Detroit dentistry, little acquainted with medical research, was questioning  my competence. Under such circumstances could I continue to practice medicine? True, I had hosts of satisfied and grateful patients. Numerous physicians were referring their allergic patients to me. Would these physicians be influenced by the wild stories which were already being circulated about me?

There was another side:

Should I drop this extremely challenging study? Should I disregard the very patients for whom I had taken up cudgel?

My friends told me: "It isn't worth while!"

I had just been elected vice-president of the american College of Allergists, one of the two leading national scientific organizations devoted to the study and teaching of allergy. this was solely due to having made important research contributions to this specialty.  I had never taken an active part politically in this or in any other organization. Nevertheless, I was in line for the presidency. Any activity in opposition to fluoridation wold almost certainly preempt my becoming president.

"Am I a coward?" I asked myself. "Can I be intimidated?"

Actually these considerations were minor. My curiosity had been aroused. I wanted to learn more about fluoride. I was interested in its effect on those to whom I had devoted my life's career, especially the patients with chronic asthma. Here was a completely virgin field of endeavor. I was thinking of some of the unfortunates who had been extremely allergic to iodide. How much worse wold their illness become were they obliged to ingest, day in and day out, trace quantities of fluoride, another halogen much more toxic than iodide?

Few scientists were in as strategic a position as I to produce the sorely needed evidence. My research background of many years, my financial independence and my indifference to political emoluments, the high repute in which I was held by my patients and by my colleagues in the community, throughout the country - and  internationally - surely they could withstand a campaign of disparagement and slander whic had already begun.  I could not stop now.

I decided to go on.


The above was copied from a hard copy of the book - forgive any typos. Chapter 1 is here:
The book in its entirety can be seen here:

Dr. Waldbott also co-authored "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma"