Site hosted by Angelfire.com: Build your free website today!

Jehovah's Witnesses oppose mind control because it is Witchcraft and we do not knowingly consume poison. We try to only use bottled water and brush our teeth with salt that has no aluminum added. Go to www.watchtower.org and fill out the online form so you can be contacted by those who will help educate you to protect you from wolves in sheep's clothing. Read Amos chapter 4 in the Holy scriptures and you will see that Yehovah (Jehovah) the Almighty Father gave His people cleaness of teeth. They were exorted to return to Him. So if you are relying on Witchcraft (fluoride chemicals) for cleaness of teeth then you should return to the Almighty Father because he can give you cleaness of teeth without the need to use alchemy which is witchcraft. The Hebrews were certainly not using fluoridated toothpaste or drinking fluoridated water for their teeth health. Yehovah was the source of their clean teeth not witchcraft. If you are relying on witchcraft you need to come back to the Almighty Father Yehovah.

Also see the report I wrote on other behavioral mind control that is also used for eugenics which is the use of antipsychotic drugs that contain reactive elements chlorine and fluorine as part of their molecular structure.

If the link above doesn't work then use the one on this sentence.

Use of Sodium Fluoride

for mass behavioral control in Nazi Germany which is now being carried out in the USA.

It is a matter of record that sodium fluoride has been used for behavior control of populations. 

In an "Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament",  Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon, Australia [In Australia, parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson raised the issue in the Victorian Legislative council, which is recorded in the official Hansard report on August 12th, 1987] made a statement on the historical use of fluorides for behavior control. 

Mr. Dickinson reveals that,

"At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff. 

"This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. 

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. 

"Both the Germans and the Russians added fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile."

It is interesting that Dr. George Estabrooks, an advisor to the United States Government on hypnotism and psychological behavior control, later became chairman of the Department of Psychology at Colgate University. Internationally, Colgate was and remains today the most ardent producer and advocate for fluoridated toothpaste. The use of chemicals by the government to modify behavior of select population groups is not new. During the first two World Wars, bromides were administered to service men to dim the libido in an attempt to inhibit forays into local bordellos.

Today, in Australia, the military fluoridates the drinking water of the soldiers, ostensibly to protect the teeth. However, since the mythical ability of fluorides "to prevent tooth decay" only exists for those under the age of 12, it is certain that the real purpose is less altruistic. In volume one of Matrix III, we discussed the role of Alcoa Aluminum in the production of fluoride, the role of Alcoa lawyer Oscar Ewing, who eventually gained control of what was to become the United States Public Health Service, his promotion of fluoridation and the use of advertising and false propaganda in an attempt to sell water fluoridation to an unsuspecting public. Interestingly, it turns out that Alcoa transferred its sodium fluoride production technology to Germany in 1939 under the Alted Agreement, and Dow Chemical Company transmitted its experience and technology to Germany during the same period.

So, we have the U.S. transmitting technology to Germany before the war that allows Germany to experiment on select elements of the European population, and then after the war Nazi scientists and the results of experiments are brought back to the United States under Operation Paperclip. Curious, isn't it? 

A little research turned up the fact that I.G. Farben developed organophosphate nerve agents, Zyklon B cyanide-based extermination gas used on the Jews during the war, and many other interesting substances. I.G. Farben, financially supported by the United States, was the first to develop and process heroin and cocaine. They also developed fluorinated nerve gases Sarin and Soman. Farben had many interconnections with companies in the United States and Britain. Consult the illustrative chart in this book. 

In a letter abstracted from Fluoridation and Lawlessness, published by the Committee for Mental Health and National Security (with obvious implications) from the aforementioned Charles Perkins, U.S. appointed post-war head of I.G. Farben, to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, October 2, 1954, we read the following:

 "We are told by the fanatical ideologists who are advocating the fluoridation of the water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the gullibility of the public and the cupidity of public officials that is responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country. 

"However - and I want to make this very definite and positive - the real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason, there are many ways in which it could be done which are much easier, cheaper and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination, control and loss of liberty." 

Furthermore, 

"When the Nazis decided to go into Poland, the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans and personnel. The scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to Communize the world. I say this in all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorides. Any person who drinks artificially fluoridated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically."

When Major General Racey Jordan was in charge of the massive lend-lease airlift operations from Great Falls, Montana to Russia, via Alaska, he queried the trans-shipment of considerable amounts of sodium fluoride. He was told frankly that it was to put into the drinking water of the prisoner of war camps to take away their will to resist. It is also interesting that former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who has a background in academic chemistry, initiated a program involving astronomical expenditures of UK revenue on a fluoridation campaign in Northern Ireland. 

____________________________________________________________________

The Truth About 'Fluoride'
http://www.greaterthings.com/Lexicon/F/Fluoride.htm

(or what every Mother should know)

by A. True Ott
tott@mountainwest.net
© August 2000

See also | Feedback

Fluoride used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile. Fluoride a key dumbing down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas -- poisons of choice for tyrant rats.

First of all, it needs to be stated that the 'substance' referred to as 'Fluoride' is a misnomer - there is no such substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the prestigious CRC handbook, nor in the sacred 'bible' of the pharmaceutical industry - the illustrious 'Merck Index'. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine - and from the use of this gas in various industries such as aluminum manufacturing and the nuclear industry -certain toxic by-products are created which have 'captured' fluorine molecules. One such toxic, poisonous 'by-product' is called sodium Fluoride - which according to the Merck Index is primarily used as rat and cockroach poison and is also the active ingredient in most toothpastes and as an "additive to drinking water". But sadly, there is much more to this sordid tale.

Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) and Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl FLUORIDE) - (Yes, folks the same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a crowded Japanese subway train!). 

Let me repeat: the truth the American public needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less) than a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminum industries. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military NERVE GAS! Why, oh why then is it allowed to be added to the toothpastes and drinking water of the American people?

Historically, this substance was quite expensive for the worlds' premier chemical companies to dispose of - but in the 50's and 60's - Alcoa and the entire aluminum industry - with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste - SOMEHOW sold the FDA and our government on the insane (but highly profitable) idea of buying this poison at a 20,000% markup and then injecting it into our water supply as well as into the nation's toothpastes and dental rinse. Yes that's right folks, a 20,000% markup. Consider also that when sodium Fluoride is injected into our drinking water, its level is approximately 1 part-per-million (ppm), but since we only drink ½ of one percent of the total water supply, the hazardous chemical literally 'goes down the drain' and voila - the chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system - but we have also PAID them handsomely in the process!!

Independent scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers and mental disturbances, and most importantly, makes humans stupid, docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package. There is increasing evidence that aluminum in the brain is a causative factor in Alzheimer's Disease, and evidence points towards sodium fluoride's strong affinity to 'bond' with this dangerous aluminum (remember it is a by-product of aluminum manufacturing) and also it has the ability to 'trick' the blood-brain barrier by imitating the hydrogen ion thus allowing this chemical access to brain tissue.

Honest scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on sodium fluoride's mega-bucks propaganda campaign have consistently been given a large dose of professional 'black-listing' and thus their valid points disputing the current vested interests never have received the ink they deserve in the national press. Just follow the money to find the 'control' and you will find prominent American families to be prominent 'players' in the scandal. In 1952 a slick PR campaign rammed the concept of 'fluoridation' through our Public Health departments and various dental organizations. This slick campaign was more akin to a highly emotional "beer salesman convention" instead of the objective, scientifically researched program that it should have been. It has continued in the same vein right up to the present day - and now sodium fluoride use has now become 'usual and customary'.

To illustrate the emotional vs. the scientific nature of this issue, just look at the response given by people (perhaps yourself included?) when the subject of fluoridation comes up. You need to ask yourself, "Is this particular response based on EMOTIONS born of TRADITION, or is it truly unbiased and based instead on thoroughly researched objectivity?" There is a tremendous amount of emotional, highly unscientific "know-it-all" emotions attached to the topic of 'sodium fluoride' usage - but I personally have yet to find even ONE objective, double blind study that even remotely links sodium fluoride to healthy teeth at ANY AGE. Instead, I hear and read such blather as "9 out of 10 DENTISTS recommend 'fluoride' toothpaste" etc. etc. etc. Let me reiterate: truly independent (unattached to moneyed vested interest groups) scientists who've spent a large portion of their lives studying and working with this subject have been hit with a surprising amount of unfair character assassinations from strong vested-interest groups who reap grand profits from the public's ignorance as well as from their illnesses. (Just follow the money!)

Do you have diabetes and/or kidney disease? There are reportedly more than 11 million Americans with diabetes. If it is true that diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these 11 million people are at much higher risk drinking fluoridated water because they will receive a much deadlier dose because of their need for higher than normal water consumption. Kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, which of course is the primary means in which fluoride (or any other toxic chemical) is eliminated from the body. Does it not make sense that these people shouldn't drink fluoridated water at all? Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where ill kidney patients on dialysis machines died because they ingested relatively small amounts of SODIUM FLUORIDE from unwittingly drinking the 'fluoridated' city water supply? Will adequate warnings be given to people with weak kidneys, or will the real cause of such deaths be 'covered up' in the name of 'domestic tranquility'?

Concerning the 'practice' of putting sodium fluoride into drinking water, where did this insanity begin and WHO tried it first? From personal research, the very first occurrence of purposefully putting sodium fluoride into drinking water was in the German ghettos and in Nazi Germany's infamous prison camps. The Gestapo you see had little concern about sodium fluoride's 'supposed' effect on children's teeth; instead, their reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to STERILIZE HUMANS and force the people in their concentration camps into calm, bovine, submission. (See for reference: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" written by Joseph Borkin.) Kind of shocking isn't it folks!! Ah, but it gets even better.

The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by the name of Charles Perkins. He writes:

"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation", to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the 1930's Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light lobotomy? --- Ott].

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communize the world."

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."

Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.
______________________________________________________________

Another letter needs to be quoted at length as well to help corroborate Mr. Perkin's testimony. This letter was written by a brilliant (and objectively honest) scientist named Dr. E.H. Bronner. Dr. Bronner was a nephew of the great Albert Einstein, served time in a WWII prison camp and wrote the following letter printed in the Catholic Mirror, Springfield, MA, January 1952:

"It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the 'next' on the agenda of the water poisoners.

"There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless intellectual parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic ---- from within if they can, according to their plan --- for their own possession."

"The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us."

"Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. DON'T DO IT!!"

"Even in very small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most effective rat-killer. Sodium Fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God's great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assailable by the human body; whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it."

"Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting 'dental health', fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How then can it be called a 'health plan'? What's behind it?"

"That any so-called 'Doctors' would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal insanity!"

"No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin's 'Last Will' and Hitler's Mein Kampf: "America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within."

"Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium Fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats."

"Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity ------- treason!!"

Signed: Dr. E.H. Bronner, Research Chemist, Los Angeles

Apparently, the public outcry by Dr. Bronner and others precluded the fluoridation of public water systems for a season - but soon thereafter, the Food and Drug Administration allowed this deadly poison to be put in 'toothpaste', and our dentists were systematically brainwashed into providing 'fluoride treatments' to their many patients. Of course, today many major metropolitan areas have a minimum of 1 parts per million sodium fluoride systematically added to their water supply and more areas are seeking to add this poison every year. Add to this the fact that bottling companies (soft drinks, juices, etc.) use fluoridated water to make their products - is it any wonder that people can no longer think clearly and ask pertinent questions of their elected and ecclesiastical leaders? Is it also a mystery why so many top Nazi mind control scientists were brought to America by the CIA and their infamous 'Operation Paper Clip'?

If you believe all of this is 'just a coincidence' - go ahead and keep brushing your teeth with your 'fluoride' toothpaste and sucking on your sodium fluoride enhanced Coke or Pepsi product - for ignorance truly is bliss and you truly deserve what you get.

Mothers, if your little ones are having trouble concentrating at home or in school, or have been diagnosed as 'attention deficit' - perhaps you would be well advised to look for the culprit (and the solution to the problem) no further than your home medicine cabinet (your tube of toothpaste) and your friendly neighborhood school's water fountain!!

 

  See also

 

  Feedback

From: <christopher.currie@fmglobal.com>
To: <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: [SDA_friends] 'Fluoride' and the Dumbing Down of America



Your article regarding sodium fluoride is interesting, but there seems to be a "logical disconnect" between the symptoms your article predicts and the actual results. If, as your article indicates, Massachusetts has been "fluoridating" its water supply for nearly fifty years now, one would expect a large portion of the population of Massachusetts to exhibit the symptoms described in your article. But in fact, that hasn't happened. Massachusetts is one of the most economically successfully states in America, and it's economic success is based not on large military contracts or large corporations, but primarily on small "high tech" businesses headed by entrepreneurs who have a "track record" of innovation and intelligent risk taking.

I drank Massachusetts water for nearly 14 years, and I  can hardly be considered a "docile conformist." I'm fairly sure that most other residents and former residents of Massachusetts would tell you essentially the same thing.

In my opinion, the best argument you have (if in fact it is true) is that no "double-blind" study has ever been performed to actually measure the effects of fluoridated drinking water (at 1 part per million).

CC Currie
dba

____________________________________________________________

From: "Sterling D. Allan" <sterlingda@greaterthings.com>
To: "True Ott" <tott@mountainwest.net>
Cc: "Chris Currie" <christopher.currie@fmglobal.com>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 9:58 AM
Subject: Fw: [SDA_friends] 'Fluoride' and the Dumbing Down of America



My reply would be that Massachusetts is one of the most socialist states in the Union and perhaps that could be attributed in some small measure to the dumbing down or making more docile due to the drinking water. Of course my bias coming out there!

Sterling

_______________________________________________________

Fluoride the Modern Day DDT

“This information is important because this substance may harm you” 
[From a document about fluorides] 
[Prepared by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry,] 
[A subsidiary of the U.S. Public Health Service] 
[1997-8]

DDT was once thought to be a wondrous substance. Troops were being sprayed from the air during World War II with it, The Australian government was advising the population to spray it onto window ledges to stop those nasty flies, just at the height that a small child could reach. Old newsreels show trucks driving down the streets spraying it onto children and passers by. With the power of hindsight, these actions were, to say the least, moronic. DDT has now been found to be a VERY hazardous substance, and in turn has been banned from use or its use restricted. 

Fluoride is still thought of by the mainstream, TV dulled population to be a non-hazardous, helpful substance. For far to long it has been thought the mass medication of the population by the fluoridation of drinking water is something that every government for its people. In reality, 96% of the world’s population does not have fluoridated water. The remaining 4% of the world’s population who have fluoridated are in America (currently 62% fluoridated), 10% of England, Australia, New Zealand and Europe (currently only 2% [2]).

There are many countries that once had fluoridated water supplies, but have since stopped - in most cases because the toxicity of the substance has come to light [1]. 

The Beginning of Fluoridation 1940: Both Germany and The Soviet Union added sodium fluoride to the drinking water in their Prisoner Of War (POW) camps. A Belgian gentleman called Joris who was active during the war in shipping sodium fluoride to the Soviet Union told a fluoride researcher, Dr. Hans Moolenburgh, that “they [the ‘Soviets’] said it kept the Germans calm.” [2 + 3]

1945, The end of World War II: The United States Government immediately sends a chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology research worker by the name of Charles E. Perkins to Germany (with an entourage of staff) to take charge of the I.G. Farben Chemical plants. 
    During his time there, Mr Perkins learned of a scheme developed by German chemists during the war, and adopted by the German General staff, to medicate the populations of the occupied countries by introducing sodium fluoride to the drinking water. The German chemists had discovered that fluoride slightly damages the Hippocampus. This caused, over time with repeated dosages, the effected person to become more submissive. On a larger scale, making the populations of fluoridated areas easily governable and less likely to defend their freedom. [4 + 5] 

1945, Shortly after World War II: The Grand Rapids Study, U.S. Experimental fluoridation plants were established in selected areas, one of those being the City of Grand Rapids. A 10-year study was undertaken between the fluoridated city of Grand Rapids and a non-fluoridated control city. After 5 years, it was found that the population of the control city had better teeth than that of Grand rapids. The Control City was quickly fluoridated to stop any further comparison. [1]

1945 + Onwards, during The Presidency of Harry S. Truman: Oscar Ewing, who was the legal counsel to ALCOA aluminum, was appointed director of Social security, in charge of the U.S. Public Health System (P.H.S.). Soon after this, Mr. Ewing was appointed to President Truman’s cabinet. Mr. Ewing committed the P.H.S. to the promotion of (read: creating propaganda about) fluoride. [4]

It is very interesting also to note that not only was fluoridation being pushed publicly by a man who had obvious links to Alcoa Aluminum, but behind the scenes fluoridation was being pushed along by the aluminum smelting industry in America (Alcoa, Alcan and others) [1+ 2] As we delve deeper into the fluoridation issue, it will become apparent why it is so suspect that a major aluminum manufacturer was linked to fluoridation in America and why the events surrounding its insertion correlate in such a disturbing way.

Why Fluoride Isn’t a Pair Of Rose Coloured Glasses

FLUORIDE HAS A CUMULATIVE EFFECT [8]. A lot of the proponents of water fluoridation will say that at the recommended levels, fluoride does not cause any side effects, which may be the case for a singular isolated dose. (The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has set a maximum at 4mg/L of drinking water or 4ppm [Parts Per Million] and recommends that fluoridation of drinking water be limited to 2mg/L, or 2ppm)[9] 

    What we are talking about here however is continuous repetitions of dosage, each time you have a glass of water, or ingest any other substance that contains fluoride. Fluorides accumulate in the bones and in the brain (as discussed earlier with the hippocampus) [1+7]. As people get older, their kidney efficiency decreases, causing fluoride to be stored more and more in the body, in effect making the cumulative nature of fluorides increasingly dangerous as people age [1]. Fluoride is not biodegradable and as such it accumulates in the biosphere, resulting in a continual increase of fluoride levels [7].

There is NO VERIFIABLE PROOF THAT FLUORIDE STOPS TOOTH DECAY [1].

There has been absolutely no correlation found between the level of fluoride in drinking water, and the reduction of tooth decay [10].

Inversely, a study involving 26 000 primary school students done during 1992 in Tuscan, Arizona in the US found that the more fluoride a child consumes, the more cavities appear [5].

The study was headed by Professor Emeritus Cornelius Steelink, and was conducted by the University of Arizona [5].

On the home front, Australia’s own governmental figures show that children’s teeth in Brisbane (currently non-fluoridated) are BETTER than children in the fluoridated cities of Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide [1] 

DENTAL FLUOROSIS appears as mottled opaque white spots or stained enamel on the teeth and is the first sign of fluoride poisoning [2].

According to the U.S. Public Health Service [P.H.S.] “high fluoride exposure can cause dental fluorosis” [9], but then, the National Research Council (US) has found that in America, fluorosis effects 8% to 51% of children growing up in areas in which water supplies contain only 1ppm of fluoride [7]. It seems that what the U.S. P.H.S. would like people to believe is a “high fluoride exposure” is in reality the dosage that their government sets. In Melbourne, varying levels of dental fluorosis effect at least half the children [1].

In what is hopefully the first in a long line of compensation cases involving fluorosis, in Essex, England the parents of a 10 year old boy, who was diagnosed with Dental Fluorosis, were given a “good will” payment of 1000 pounds from Colgate-Palmolive after the mother phoned the company. This case is directly related to fluoride toothpaste as the area the family lives in does not have fluoridated water and the mother never used fluoride tablets [2]. Already, more than 200 parents in England are attempting to sue toothpaste manufacturers [2].

FLUORIDE BRITTLES AND STRUCTURALLY EFFECTS BONES by attacking calcium [1]. In high doses, fluoride causes the mass of the bones to increase, while it decreases the strength [1]. This coupled with joint pain and limited join movement is sometimes referred to as skeletal fluorosis [9]

At the recommended level (1ppm), fluoride thins and brittles the bones [1] and it doubles the number of hip fractures in older men and women in fluoridated communities [10]. Increases in hip fractures are found at even 1/10th the recommended level [7].

The occurrence of CANCER HAS INCREASED BY 5% IN FLUORIDATED COMMUNITIES [7]. The U.S. National Cancer Institute Toxicological program found fluoride to be an equivocal carcinogen [10]. The New Jersey Health Department did further studies and found that cases of osteosarcoma (cancer of the bone) increased dramatically by 6.9 fold in men 20 years old or younger in fluoridated communities [3+10].

FLUORIDE SETTLES IN THE BRAIN WHERE IT CAUSES LISTLESSNESS, DROWSINESS, AND CONFUSION [2].
The net result of this, and the reason why Nazi Germany so liked the idea, is that it turns the person into a virtual couch potato, not caring too much about anything and less likely to resist authority. Fluoride is known to be able to numb tooth pain [6].

When it gets into the bloodstream, either by ingestion or entering the gums via toothpaste or mouth rinses, it then moves its way to the brain where it settles. Could it be that this numbing effect also happens to the brain? [6] (In scientific terms, fluoride blocks acetylcholine. When in the brain it could do the same by interfering with acetylcholine neuron communication [6]) In recently declassified documents brought to light on October 24th, 1996, Scientists in America have known about the mental side effects of fluoride since 1944 [2].

In Australia, parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson raised the issue in the Victorian Legislative council, which is recorded in the official Hansard report on August 12th, 1987 [4].

FLUORIDE INCREASES THE INFANT MORALITY RATE.
Chile abolished fluoridation in 1976 after Professor Albert Shaltz showed that infant mortality rates had significantly increased in fluoridated areas [4].

FLUORIDE ADVERSELY EFFECTS FERTILITY RATES IN MOST SPECIES OF ANIMAL, INCLUDING HUMANS [10].
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.) reported a very close correlation between increasing infertility in women aged 10 to 49 and increasing fluoride levels [10]. Even Americas own Public Health Service stated “We don’t know the effects of fluoride on reproduction or developing foetuses” [9]. Again, we see governmental bureaucracy at it’s finest, the F.D.A. says fluoride is lowering fertility rates, then the health service says “I dunno…”, the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing.

IT SEEMS THE ARMY HAS FOUND A USE FOR FLUORIDE AS WELL.
The Australian Journal of Public Administration reported in Vol. 38, No.3 in 1978 reported that Puckapunyal army camp had been fluoridated since 1972 “Under directions of the Commonwealth Government”. Another army camp at Bandiana has a fluoridated water supply, although it draws its water from the non-fluoridated Wodonga [4]. These are only a few examples; most of the main bases in the U.S. and Australia are supplied with fluoridated drinking water [4]. This is interesting when one takes into consideration the “dociling” effect of fluoride, and how much this would help when training/ brainwashing new recruits.

UNCONTROLLED DOSAGES.
Exact measurements and dosages closely control the administration of other drugs. To administer fluoride however, governments put it into the water and allow people to take as much as they want. It is a dosage measured by thirst. [1]

Apart from fluorosis, FLUORIDE ADVERSELY EFFECTS CHILDREN in other ways. Fluoride ingestion in children is extremely hazardous to biological development and lifespan [6]. It can also have a deleterious effect on bone growth [7]. Professor Carlson, professor of pharmacology at the University of Sweden, stopped fluoridation in Sweden after he showed that the learning capabilities of children were effected and the I.Q. levels of children were much lower in fluoridated areas [1].

Sources and Levels of Fluoride 

The fluorides that occur in nature are at low levels. This fluoride is taken up into plants and stored. When superphosphate is applied to edible plants ( fluoride levels are about 3% in superphosphate), these levels increase dramatically. Celery has a high fluoride content because high levels of superphosphate are used during its growth. Tea also has naturally occurring high levels of fluoride [1]. However, these levels are always on the increase. Fluoride accumulates in the environment, it doesn’t biodegrade, and levels are now on the increase in the food chain. The more we put in, the higher the levels get. People who support fluoridation seem to think that they have a watertight argument when they say that 1ppm in the drinking water doesn’t hurt you. This may be true if it was only one dose, they seem to neglect the fact that we ingest fluoride everyday in our diet, which adds up over time. Grape Juice for example may have up to 6.8ppm of fluoride [7].

Store bought juices can contain up to 2.8ppm. In total, exposure to dietary fluoride can easily exceed 100ppm [8]. The fluoride that is put into drinking water, the fluoride your dentist smears you teeth with, the tablets kids are forced to eat and the fluoride put into salt (salt fluoridation occurs in Mexico and 6 other parts of the world [5]) all contain manufactured fluoride. This fluoride comes from the aluminum industries and also the superphosphate industries as a waste product [1]. Because of the toxicity of fluoride, these industries are not allowed to dump the fluoride into the environment [1].

 The main sources and levels (in Parts Per Million) of manufactured fluoride are given below: 
- Fluoridated Drinking Water 1ppm Dental Fluoride 20 000ppm [1] 
- Fluoride Toothpaste 500ppm -1500ppm [1+8] 
- Mouth Rinses 230ppm – 900ppm [8] 
- Anaesthetics used in hospitals are mostly fluoride based [1] 
- Any beverage or food which contains water from fluoridated areas will also contain fluorides (ie. beers, soft drinks, tinned soups etc.)[7]. 
- Distilled water doesn’t contain fluoride, however filtered water usually does (depending on the source) [6]. 
- The only way to successfully remove fluoride from water is to use a reverse osmosis filter [11].

Fluoridation in Australia

Discussions about fluoridating water supplies in Sydney, Canberra and Hobart began in the 1960’s. Beaconsville just outside Hobart was the first area in Australia to be fluoridated. Hobart followed soon after. [1] Currently every major city in Australia except Brisbane is fluoridated. All up, 86% of Australia’s population drinks fluoridated water. Tasmania has one of the most intensive fluoridation schemes, with 48 fluoridation plants for ½ a million people in comparison to Melbourne’s 6 plants for 4 million people. The fluoride for the Melbourne metro area comes from China (as does the fluoride for some other areas in Australia), costing us AU$500 per Tonne. It’s fairly ironic that we pay for another countries industrial waste to put into our water supplies. China doesn’t fluoridate it’s own water supplies. [1]

In Victoria, at the end of the parliamentary session in 1994, the Victorian government passed a new fluoride act that altered the constitution of Victoria (a state can alter it’s own constitution, federal parliament can’t) prohibiting the Supreme Court of Victoria from hearing any cases against fluoride. This means that no case against fluoride will ever make it to the High Court of Victoria because it would have to go through the Supreme Court first. No newspapers, TV or radio reported any of this. [1] 

In Tasmania during 1995, the state government's Lower House put a bill through that would prohibit public meetings and groups of people gathered and talking about fluoridation. When it got to the upper house, they knocked it back and pretended nothing ever happened as it had caused a bit of a panic throughout the Tasmanian government. In the words of Glen Walker (see references) “Why would they go to these extremes if it’s safe?” [1]

Brisbane is one of the only major cities in Australia that doesn’t have a fluoridated water supply, yet [11]. On Thursday 30th of January 1997, the Brisbane city council announced it would set up a committee to decide if Brisbane’s water supply was to be fluoridated. This announcement was made after Liberal candidate Cr. Bob Mills announced earlier that week that if the Liberal party won the local government elections that were held on March 15th, they were going to fluoridate Brisbane’s water. Suffice to say that Mr Mills didn’t win, but the committee still exists.

It is very strange that electioneering on the fluoridation of Brisbane’s water supply instantly turned into a committee which was going to come up with a one-and-for-all “yes” or “no” answer. Soon after the announcement of the committee was made, the local council called for public opinion on the subject by placing a singular advertisement in The Courier Mail. At the date of this writing (Saturday, March 29, 1997) not a word has been heard from the committee. It seems as though the committee has been stacked so that the decision will be for fluoridation. The committee is going to include representatives from The Australian Dental Association (everybody should know their point of view, and anyone who saw the TV propaganda stirred up from this will defiantly know their point of view), The Australian Medical Association (tending towards fluoridation), Natural Health Practitioners and parent groups (who would have jumped on the fluoridation bandwagon after seeing TV the propaganda turn fluoride into a godsend). It’s strange how a local council can get what they want by stacking committees. The final nail in the coffin is that Mr Mills himself will be asked to be deputy chair for the committee. [11]

Under The Thin Yellow Veil of Fluorine Gas

But why would our wonderful governments be doing something like this that is so bad for the people? The more fluoride they pump into us, the more docile we become and easier we are to control, as if TV wasn’t enough. A low birth rate means fewer people that governments have to control. The more cancer they can create means that people die younger stopping all these old people from clogging up the system and draining resources, why do you think smoking hasn’t been banned? (Apart from the money it generates in taxes). Conspiracy theories aside, one of the main reasons is money. Whole empires have been built upon fluoridation, people are getting very rich off of it and their money will make sure that they stay where they are [1].

The only way it will ever be stopped is if the truth gets out to the larger population. The one power that Governments still fear is that which lies in the people. “They are still guilty, and can be found guilty of poisoning the community” [Glen Walker] References: (Please note: Original articles contain full referencing)

1. Taped interview done with Glen Walker on 12.8.96. for 4ZzZfm 102.1 in Brisbane. Glen is the Chairperson for the Freedom From Fluoridation Federation of Australia. Ph: 03-95925444 Fax: 03-95925088

2. Search Net’s mailing list (email)from the Santiago Business Wire Nov. 29, 1996. Original email titled “ Fluoride and IQ’s. Original sender may be contacted by email at: http://us.f535.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=rlawler@dfw.net

3. Search Net’s mailing list (email). Part 2 of article described in reference # 8

4. Original article titled “Fluroides and Population Behavior Modification in Literature and Government.”. Original sender was Steve Wingate, who can be contacted by email at steve@linex.com Original posting date was: Sunday 28th of July 1996.

5. Search Net’s mailing list (email). Part 3 of article described in reference # 8

6. Original article titled “The Biological Effects of Fluorides”. Original sender was Steve Wingate who can be contacted by email at: steve@linex.com Original posting date was: 4th of August 1995.

7. Extracted from the World Wide Web Site: <htttp://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/ fluoride/blunder1.htm> Original article was titled “Blunder”. Date of extraction was March 10th, 1997

8. Original article titled “Behavioural Effects of Fluorides on Mass Populations”. Author: Valdamar Valerian. Written: July 20th 1996. Extracted from the World Wide Web site of “Leading Edge International Research Group” at: <http://www.cco.net/~trufax/>. Part 1 of article, parts 2 and 3 are references #3 and #5

9. Original article titled “Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride, and Fluorine”. Extracted from the World Wide Web site of the “Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry”. Original date: April 1993. Further contact: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Division of Toxicology, 1600 Clifton Rd NE, Mailstop e-29, Atlanta, GA 30333.

10. Extracted from the World Wide Web Site: <htttp://emporium.turnpike.net/P/PDHA/ fluoride/blunder1.htm> Original article was titled “Adverse Health Effects Linked to Fluoride”. Originally posted by Search Net’s mailing list (email).

11. The Courier mail, January 31st 1997, page 4. Article titled “Soorley sets up fluoride inquiry” Document info – Written By: BELGRAVE zarkon Finished On: Sunday, March 30, 1997 Word Count Before References: 2989 (not including this) Word Count After References: 3333

____________________________________________________

Proven effects of fluoride
http://www.mizar5.com/waterfluoridation.htm

TOXIC SECRETS, During the ultra-secret Manhattan Project, a report was commissioned to assess the effect of fluoride on humans. That report was classified "secret" for reasons of "national security".
http://www.nexusmagazine.com/fluoridebomb.html
Relevant pages of fluoride report missing. Reference to missing classified version of a fluoride safety study by bomb program scientists reveals a coverup:

* The secret version reports that most of the men had no teeth left. The published version reports only that the men had fewer cavities.
* The secret version says the men had to wear rubber boots because the fluoride fumes disintegrated the nails in their shoes. The published version does not mention this.
* The secret version says the fluoride may have acted similarly on the men's teeth, contributing to their toothlessness. The published version omits this statement and concludes that "the men were unusually healthy, judged from both a medical and dental point of view".

 

Suppression of data documenting fluoride's adverse health effects and lack of benefit is wide-spread. Scientists and professionals have been persecuted, censored, or harassed when they oppose water fluoridation.
http://www.fluoridation.com/censor.htm

Neurotoxicity of brain
http://www.fluoridation.com/brain.htm
The carefully designed animal experiment which they report revealed subtle but very real changes in behavior patterns following fluoride ingestion: hyperactivity after prenatal exposure, and cognitive deficits after weanling and adult exposure. Fluoride accumulation in important regions of the rat brain, especially the hippocampus, was found to increase as the drinking water fluoride levels increased. These effects, and the sex differences observed, corresponded to those observed in other studies of hippocampal brain damage.

 

WHY I CHANGED MY MIND ABOUT WATER FLUORIDATION
by JOHN COLQUHOUN*
Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 41, 1, Autumn 1997
http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.htm

Why Americans Are SHEEPLES: FLOURIDE
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sheeples.htm
While a member of the Communist Party ...we were trained on how to dismantle and assemble mimeograph machines, to use for propaganda purposes during the revolution; how to work on guide wires and fuel lines of airplanes so that they would either burst into flames or crash to the ground because of lack of control; how to work on ties and rails to wreck trains; and also the art of poisoning water supplies. We discussed quite thoroughly the fluoridation of water supplies and how we were using it in Russia as a tranquilizer in the prison camps. The leaders of our school felt that if it could be induced into the American water supply, it would bring-about a spirit of lethargy in the nation; where it would keep the general public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism.  see also psychopolitics by the same author.

 

Recent disclosures show the danger of fluoride and the suppression of damaging information from the public
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/sheeples.htm
Friday May 15, 1992, William Marcus, PHD, chief toxicologist and senior advisor at the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) was fired for his disclosures of hip fracture, carcinogenic, and other health and life threatening effects of fluoridation.

Top fluoride expert apologizes for pushing poison 05/28/00
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/fluoride-expert.htm
Dr. Limeback is Canada's leading fluoride authority and until recently, the country's primary promoter of the controversial additive. In a surprising newsmaker interview this past April, Dr. Limeback announced a dramatic change of heart. "Children under three should never use fluoridated toothpaste," he counseled. "Or drink fluoridated water. And baby formula must never be made up using Toronto tap water. Never."
"Your well-intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong."
 

Fluoride - The Lunatic Drug
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/water.htm
The first occurrence of fluoridated drinking water on Earth was found in Germany`s Nazi prison camps. The Gestapo had little concern about fluoride's supposed effect on children's teeth; their alleged reason for mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was to sterilize humans and
force the people in their concentration camps into calm submission. (Ref. book: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" by Joseph Borkin.)
 

 

FLUORIDATION
Everything you need to know about the dangers of fluoride and water fluoridation.
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/30/fluoridation_facts.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/2/fluoride_safety.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/6/fluoride_safety2.htm
http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/9/fluoride_safety3.htm
http://www.nofluoride.com/a_bomb_%26teeth.htm

 

Scientific Facts on the Biological Effects of Fluorides ©1996
Val Valerian, Leading Edge Research Group
http://www.lef.org/fda-museum/8_water/intarticles/fleffect.html

 

Val Valerian's
Chronologies of Fluoride 
1931-1997

http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~dcandmkw/fluoride/vchron18.htm

 

______________________

Fluorine (Fluorides)
Nutritional Almanac 3rd ed., Lavon J. Dunne

Description

FLUORINE is an essential trace mineral that is present in minute amounts in nearly every human tissue but is found primarily in the skeleton and teeth. Fluorine is found primarily in the skeleton and teeth. fluorine occurs in the body in compounds called fluorides. There are two types of fluorides: sodium fluoride is added to drinking water and is not the same as calcium fluoride [essential cellsalt], which is found in nature.

Fluorine inhibits the activities of other important enzymes and appears to be especially antagonistic toward brain tissues.

Fluoridated water supplies are by far the most common source of this mineral, although this form (sodium fluoride) may be toxic. Toxic levels occur when the content of fluorine in drinking water exceeds 2 parts per million. Calcium is an antidote for fluoride poisoning. Other rich sources of fluorine include seafood's, cheese, meat and tea. The fluorine content in plant foods varies according to environmental conditions such as type of soil, intensity of prevailing winds, and use of fertilizers and sprays that contain fluorine.

_____________________________

Largest double-blind study in the world shows no correlation
http://www.trunkerton.fsnet.co.uk/fluoride_fantasies.htm

A computer analysis of the data from the largest dental survey ever done - of nearly 40,000 school children - by the National Institutes of Dental Research revealed no correlation between tooth decay and fluoridation. In fact, many of the non-fluoridated cities had better tooth decay rates than fluoridated cities. The city with the lowest rate of tooth decay was not fluoridated. Of the three with the highest rate of decay, two were partially fluoridated.

 

The Missouri State Bureau of Dental Health "had conducted a survey of more than 6,500 lifelong resident second- and sixth-grade children in various parts of Missouri and found that overall.. 'there were no significant differences between children drinking optimally fluoridated water and children drinking suboptimally fluoridated water."

Albert W. Burgstahler, PhD., Professor of Chemistry, University of Kansas


NEWS TO CHEW ON: DENTISTS AWARD THE TOOTHLESS
http://doctoryourself.com/

"Fluoridation honors" were bestowed upon many communities (1), which happen to have the highest cavity and tooth loss rates, by the American Dental Association (ADA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (AASTDD).

Fluoride added to water supplies, usually at taxpayers' expense, is publicized to save money and prevent tooth decay. Conspicuously absent are data supporting these claims.(2) In fact, government statistics reveal worse or less teeth in residents of fluoridation-honored communities than in their non-fluoridated counterparts. For example:

A) Dentists gave Fifty-Year Awards to fluoridating water systems including:

* Seven West Virginia and Five Kentucky water districts. Yet, 42% of mostly fluoridated (3) West Virginians and Kentuckians are edentulous (completely toothless) - the country's worst toothless rates.(4)

* The Tulsa, Oklahoma, water department, where 19% of residents lost six or more teeth.(5) Compare that to New York State's two largest non-fluoridated counties, Suffolk and Nassau, where only 16% lost six or more teeth. Nassau and Suffolk received no kudos for retaining their natural choppers.

Further, an Oklahoma Department of Health Report reveals an "Alarming Prevalence of Tooth Decay Among Oklahoma's Children," where nearly 70 percent of third graders have cavities (6) although 75% drink fluoride-laced water.

* Nashville, Tennessee, where 20  lost 6 or more teeth. Contrast: Wichita, Kansas refused fluoridation repeatedly over the years (7)(8). Results: more teeth for Wichita - only 14% lost 6 or more, less than most fluoridated cities. Yet, no awards for Wichita!

B) "State Fluoridation Quality Awards" were given to:

* 96% fluoridated Indiana, where 25% have lost all their teeth; 45% have lost 6 or more teeth.(4)
 
* 96% fluoridated North Dakota where 5,262 children participate in fluoride mouth rinse/tablet school programs and 44% of eight-year-olds participate in sealant programs. Yet, 51% of 6 to 8-year-olds and 70% of 14-year-olds olds have tooth decay. (9)

C) "State Fluoridation Reaffirmation Award" given to Monticello, Arkansas. "The state of Arkansas children's dental health is in crisis and needs immediate attention" reports the Arkansas Department of Health (10). 72% of Arkansas third-graders have cavities despite 60% state-wide fluoridation (11).

D) "Community Initiative Awards" given to recently fluoridation-adopting communities, such as Pinellas County, Florida, over the strong objections of its citizens. (Citizens for Safe Water
http://www.aquasafe.us/AquaSafe-Action.htm )

E) The "State Fluoridation Initiative Award" to Utah with the most teeth but least fluoridation of all the states (2%), not for their good dental health, but because "Utah has the most new systems fluoridating." This despite vigorous citizen opposition.

(http://www.stopfluoridation.homestead.com/ )

"The Surgeon General declared tooth decay a silent epidemic (12). Yet, two-thirds of Americans drink fluoridated water," says lawyer Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation. "The truth is, most American children are fluoride over-dosed (13), and the poorly
nourished get more cavities (14) regardless of fluoridation."


http://www.fluorideaction.org/fan-contacts.htm

Contact: Paul Beeber, President, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc., PO Box 263,Old Bethpage, NY 11804  http://us.f535.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=nyscof@aol.com

http://www.orgsites.com/ny/nyscof

http://tinyurl.com/ad9k

References:

1) 2003 COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION AWARDS, ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND
TERRITORIAL DENTAL DIRECTORS, ANNUAL MEETING and NATIONAL ORAL HEALTH
CONFERENCE, May 3, 2004.  http://www.ada.org/public/topics/fluoride/fluoridation_awards.pdf

2) "What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found," 28 October 2003, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluoridnew.htm

3) February 2002, CDC: Populations Receiving Optimally Fluoridated Public Drinking Water, United States, 2000.  http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5107a2.htm

4) CDC: Public Health and Aging: Retention of Natural Teeth Among Older Adults --- United States, 2002 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5250a3.htm

5) CDC: SMART: Selected Metropolitan/Micropolitan Area Risk Trends, Oral Health: Lost 6 or more teeth due to decay or gum disease 
http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/brfss-smart/ListMMSAQuest.asp?yr2=2002&MMSA=
All&cat=OH&qkey=6605&grp=0


6) COMANCHE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, February 26, 2004 http://www.health.state.ok.us/chds/comanche/Press-Media/2004/Tooth%20Decay%20
and%20Oklahoma%20Children.htm

7) "The Ayes Have It! Wichita Water Department: A History 1882-1982", chapter 8, page 098
http://www.wichita.gov/CityOffices/WaterAndSewer/WWDHistoryBook/Chapter8/8-98.htm

8) The Wichita Eagle, May 9, 2004, "What the Legislature Did" 
http://www.kansas.com/mld/eagle/news/local/8625104.htm

9) Overview of Oral Health in North Dakota Power Point Presentation
http://www.health.state.nd.us/ndhd/prevent/mch/dental/summit2000/Oral%20Health%
20Access%20in%20North%20Dakota.ppt


10) Dental health of state's children said 'in a crisis.' By Anthony Childress, 4/20/2004 
http://www.jonesborosun.com/archivedstory.asp?ID=9010

11) CDC: "Percentage of 3rd Grade students with Caries Experience (treated or untreated tooth decay) " http://www.cdc.gov/nohss/caries_experience/byState.htm

12) "First-ever Surgeon General's Report on Oral Health Finds Profound Disparities in Nation's Population" http://www.nidr.nih.gov/news/052500.asp

13) J Am Dent Assoc. 2002 Feb, Prevalence and trends in enamel fluorosis in the United States from the 1930s to the 1980s, Beltran-Aguilar ED, Griffin SO, Lockwood SA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=
11868834&dopt=Abstract

14) "The relationship between healthful eating practices and dental caries in children aged 2-5 years in the United States, 1988-1994," Journal of the American Dental Association, January 2004
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=
Abstract&list_uids=14959875=3>
 

[The Navigation Bar feature is not available in this web]


Links

The fluoride file - poisoning humanity
http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/health/fluoridefile.htm

Fluoride causes cancer
http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr.html?content=articles/water.html

Chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Dean Burk when confronted with mountains of data, stated before Congress:

"In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical."  -- Congressional Record 21 July 1976

FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK (NZ) Inc.

Fluoridation everywhere is a political matter and the dental profession has to be prepared to treat it as such.
- British Dental Journal 1972

"We cannot escape the fact that fluoridation has been wrested from the hands of the scientist and deposited squarely in the middle of the political arena. Fluoridation is now a political problem.
- Journal of the American Dental Association 1961

A History of Fluoridation

A more detailed history follows the following summary, which encapsulates the essence of the issue.

Right click here to download a pdf version of this file.

A Fatal Error
The mistaken assumption that led to the misguided practice of water fluoridation

The early observations which eventually led to fluoridation were made from 1901 in communities where inhabitants showed an unsightly brown staining on the teeth, known as “Colorado Brown Stain”, now know as dental fluorosis. It was also observed that those parts of the teeth not affected by this condition seemed particularly resistant to decay. In fact later review of such communities showed that the improved dental health was related to calcium and phosphorus levels, not the fluoride level. (Tooth enamel is made of calcium and phosphorus, not fluoride)

It wasn’t until 1931 that analytical techniques determined that all these communities had fluoride levels in drinking water of 2.5 ppm or more, some as high as 8ppm.

The understandable assumption was made that these phenomena were due to the ingestion of the water. After all, all nutrients were assimilated into the body by ingestion, digestion, uptake into the blood, and incorporation into the bodily tissue: there was no reason to believe that fluoride was any different.

From 1931 H Trendley Dean surveyed many US towns to determine the maximum level at which the dental fluorosis did not occur. Although he in fact observed the condition in areas as low as 0.3ppm, in general the critical point appeared to be 1ppm.

The assumption was subsequently made that if the level in water was limited to 1ppm there would be minimal fluorosis (since proven incorrect) but with a significant level of benefit continuing, by way of hardening the tooth enamel to resist decay. This, as said, was on the mistaken but understandable assumption that both phenomena were caused by ingesting the fluoride: both effects would simply be scaled back. This was half right: dental fluorosis is caused by ingestion of fluoride, and subsequent interference with the enamel formation process. Mineralisation of the tooth enamel so as to resist decay, however, is not, as is now known.

It wasn’t until 1999 and 2000 that it was accepted by dental authorities that the beneficial effect of fluoride is topical (by surface contact) not systemic (by ingestion). In 1989 it had been proved that a minimum fluoride level of 2ppm was required to produce this topical effect.

As recorded above, those early towns had 2.5ppm fluoride or more. Hence there was sufficient fluoride to give a beneficial topical effect, following the 1989 findings, which researchers at the time could not have known. This is what was causing the resistance to decay; the topical effect, not the swallowing.

The mistaken assumption that water at 1ppm would still give beneficial resistance to decay led to the proposal for water fluoridation. The error would, nevertheless, have been proven had the fluoridation experiments Grand Rapids and Newburgh been conducted scientifically. But of course they were not. More importantly, the dentists Frisch and Bull pushed the US PHS into premature endorsement of fluoridation before these experiments were even 5 years into their 10-15 planned duration (in 1949-1950). Once this premature commitment was made, the experiments had to show the desired results, no matter what. As proof of the lack of benefit, as would be expected from the 2 ppm minimum, all European countries who did complete 10-20 year studies without political interference, found no benefit and rejected fluoridation. In fact the Health Ministry of Sweden published an official statement in 1972 stating that although the early results seemed promising, the results from the full 10 years showed no benefit.

There can be no excuse, however, for the Dental Associations of the English-speaking Western world subsequently deliberately suppressing any research which (correctly) contradicted the fluoridation theory, and launching character assassinations against those scientists who sought to reveal the truth about this misguided practice.

The problem today is that promoters have been claiming that fluoridation at 1ppm is “safe and effective” for so long, in the face of unequivocal scientific evidence to the contrary, that they do not know how to get off the roller coaster without facing law suits and loss of all credibility.

But just as the “authorities” who insisted in ancient times that the earth was flat and the centre of the universe, had, eventually, to bow to scientific proof to the contrary, so, eventually, will today’s flat-earthers who likewise cite “authorities” in the face of the clear scientific evidence: the promoters of the misguided practice of water fluoridation.

1855. Smelters in Freiburg, Germany first paid damages to neighbours injured by fluoride emissions.

1901. A young dental school graduate named Frederick McKay left the East Coast to open a dental practice in Colorado Springs, Colorado. McKay was astounded to find scores of Colorado Springs natives with grotesque brown stains on their teeth. This became known as "Colorado brown stain", now known as dental fluorosis.

1909. Independently, Dr. F. L. Robertson, a dentist in Bauxite, Arkansas, noted the presence of mottled enamel among children after a deep well was dug in to provide a local water supply.

The same year, renowned dental researcher Dr. G.V. Black came to Colorado Springs and collaborated with McKay on the mysterious ailment.
Black commented "This is much more than a deformity of childhood. If it were only that, it would be of less consequence, but it is a deformity for life."
Black investigated fluorosis for six years, until his death in 1915. During that period, he and McKay made two crucial discoveries:

  1. Mottled enamel resulted from developmental imperfections in children's teeth.
  2. Teeth afflicted by Colorado Brown Stain were surprisingly and inexplicably resistant to decay.

1923. McKay travelled to Oakley, Idaho to meet with parents who had noticed peculiar brown stains on their children's teeth. This began appearing shortly after Oakley constructed a communal water pipeline to a warm spring five miles away. McKay analyzed the water, but found nothing suspicious in it. Nonetheless, he advised town leaders to abandon the pipeline altogether and use another nearby spring as a water source. McKay's advice did the trick. Within a few years, the younger children of Oakley were sprouting healthy secondary teeth without any mottling. But it remained a mystery as to what was in the water.

The answer came when McKay and Dr. Grover Kempf of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) travelled to Bauxite, Arkansas-a company town owned by the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA)-to investigate reports of the familiar brown stains. The two discovered that the mottled enamel disorder was prevalent among the children of Bauxite, but nonexistent in another town only five miles away.

McKay and Kempf published a report on their findings that reached the desk of ALCOA's chief chemist, H. V. Churchill, who had spent the past few years refuting claims that aluminum cookware was poisonous. He became worried that this report might provide fresh fodder for ALCOA's detractors.
Using photospectrographic analysis in 1931, Churchill found that the water was high in fluoride.

1931. Drs. Smith determined that even 0.9ppm can cause fluorosis. "The Cause of Mottled Enamel, a Defect of Human Teeth" Univ Ariz Agric Exp Sta Tech Bull No 32, (1931).

  In 1940 they determined that this did not in fact reduce dental problems, contrary to claims by the PHS researchers: "Although mottled teeth are somewhat more resistant to the onset of decay, they are structurally weak; when decay does set in, the result is often disastrous."



 

Credit was however given to ALCOA’s researchers: Churchill "The Occurrence of Fluorides in Some Waters of the United States" Journal of American Water Works Assn 23: 1399 (1931)

Churchill wrote to McKay on this new revelation. Samples from Colorado were collected and also proved high in fluoride.

This revelation led to the establishment in 1931 of the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health headed by Dr. H. Trendley Dean who began investigating the epidemiology of fluorosis so that new restrictive standards could be set for natural fluoride levels. First developing an analytical method accurate to 0.1ppm, from 1932-1937 Dean conducted surveys to determine the prevalence of dental fluorosis in various States of the USA. He observed fluorosis in communities with as little as 0.3 ppm. Dean was a public dentist, not a medical doctor, yet without any research into toxicology he stated in 1937: "Amounts of fluoride not exceeding 1ppm are of no public health significance" without quoting a total daily intake.

Meanwhile, throughout the 1930’s Aluminium and Superphosphate companies, like ALCOA and Reynolds Metals, were successfully sued for millions of dollars for damage to crops, pastures, and livestock from fluoride fumes.

Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA's Pittsburgh industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. There, biochemist Gerald J. Cox immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: "The case should be regarded as proved." In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims and burdened by the odious expense of disposing of tons of toxic industrial waste. Cox began touring the country, stumping for fluoridation. Dean would go on to carve out a nice career for himself as the "father" of public water fluoridation.

1933. McClure, who later became a leading proponent of fluoridation, shows enzyme interference from fluoride. ("A review of Fluorine and its Physiological Effects" Physiol Rev 13:289 (1933))

1936. HT Dean promotes the theory that fluoride makes teeth more resistant to decay.

  In 1955 Dean admitted that the graphs and charts on which he based his theory that fluoride makes teeth decay-resistant were invalid. (see below)



 

1937. Acknowledgement of the importance of other minerals, apart from fluoride, in dental health :Mills CA "Factors affecting the incidence of Dental Caries on Population Groups" J Dent Res 16:417 (1937)

1938. HT Dean acknowledged that other mineral content of water, especially calcium and phosphorus, may be as relevant as fluoride: “Endemic Fluorosis and its relation to Dental Caries” Public Health Reports 53: 1452 (19 Aug 1938)

Two scientists at New Mexico University (Clark and Mann) conduct the first State-wide survey of drinking water in New Mexico, identifying fluoride contents up to 12ppm. Of 157 communities 35 showed fluoride content “above the danger point of 0.9 ppm." The authors set the dividing line of toxicity between 0.8 and 1ppm. A university release classified this as "hopelessly out of date", with no further research evidence to support this claim, once the Newburgh experiment at 0.9-1.2ppm was initiated.

Dr Wallace D Armstrong and PJ Brekhus claimed their analysis of tooth enamel showed less fluoride in decayed teeth than healthy teeth.

  This was contradicted in South Africa and the US in 1943, by FJ McClure in 1948 (US), Australia in 1952. McClure repeated his studies in 1951 and claimed now to support Armstrong’s findings.
In 1963, Armstrong re-examined his original research and admitted he had misinterpreted his data: age was the factor, not fluoride. This was the sole study on which Cox later recommended adding fluoride to water for strengthening teeth: the basis for Cox’s theory was simply false!



 

The Mellon Institute was founded by Andrew and Richard Mellon in 1911 while owners of ALCOA. It was described by Life in 9 May 1938 as an institution designed to assist businesses with research to solve their business problems. They can hire a research scientist for a year for $6000. The scientist’s job is to improve the product or find a new use for it. ALCOA and other companies, notably Reynolds metals (search Westlaw legal database for the cases) had a problem: fluoride. They could not dump it due to toxicity, and litigation abounded, with settlements ranging up to $3M. When the research is complete, the results are the property of the company, thus incriminating findings need not be disclosed.

For studies into dental decay GJ Cox received grants from the Buhl Foundation at the Mellon Institute, and from the Sugar Institute. Up until this point in 1939, fluoride had been targeted for removal from food and water supplies because of its recognised toxicity. (GJ Cox "New Knowledge of Fluorine in Relation to Dental Caries" J Am Waterworks Assn 3: 1926 (1939). Cox was the first to promulgate the idea that fluoride may be necessary for tooth formation.

From being a troublesome industrial pollutant, fluoride suddenly became a desirable medication, and the fluoride-producing industries had a market for their toxic wastes.

In the early 1940’s Cox promoted fluoridation like crazy, becoming a member of the National Research Council, compiling several summaries of fluoride research, becoming one of "the experts".

Cox had already completed research showing no benefit to the teeth of rat offspring at up to 20.6 ppm in the water of pregnant and lactating mother rats, and that humans are more sensitive to fluoride toxicity than rats:
 

  1. GJ Cox, MC Matuschak, SF Dixon. ML Dodds, WE Walker "Experimental Dental caries IV Fluorine and its Relation to Dental Caries" J Dent Res 18: 481-90 (1939)
  2. GJ Cox, MC Matuschak, SF Dixon, WE Walker "Mottled Enamel in rat Molars": Science 90: 83 (1939)
  Cox advocated fluoridation of Johnstown Pa. more than 5 years before the Newburgh and Grand Rapids experiments. He prepared several summaries for the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council, and from 1944-48 was funded as a research chemist, at the Mellon Institute, by Corn Products Refining Ltd, a sugar company. In 1962 he was appointed to the Pennsylvania Drug, Device, and Cosmetics Board, which had jurisdiction over licensing fluoride distribution, and which advised the State Health Department.



 

1939. New York water authorities propose a maximum level of 0.1 ppm based Dean’s 1937 statement (thast 1ppm was safe) and a safety factor of 10. However the fluoridation movement adopted 1ppm as a safe level, without any toxicological studies.

1940. Drs Mr &Mrs Smith: "Although mottled teeth are somewhat more resistant to the onset of decay, they are structurally weak; when decay does set in, the result is often disastrous." Smith M, Smith H "Observations on the Durability of Mottled Teeth" American Journal of Public Health 30:1050 (1940)

The study was conducted in St David Arizona. Water fluoride levels were 1.6 – 4 ppm. Very few persons over 21 were free of dental caries. There was a high incidence of extracted teeth in all age groups with over 50% false teeth at ages 24-26.
Fillings would not anchor in the structurally weakened teeth, which had then to be removed.

1943. Tooth decay studied in Hereford and Colorado Springs. Both had 2.5 ppm fluoride, but there was high tooth decay in Colorado Springs yet low rates in Hereford. There were, however, high phosphorus levels in Hereford foods. Phosphorus is an important mineral for bones and teeth. This recognition that Hereford's other minerals were involved was again confirmed in 1965.

Dr Ast, main investigator of the Newburg experiment: "[dental fluorosis is] the first objective indication of chronic fluoride poisoning."

FA Arnold, NIDR advocated fluoridation in the Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol 30:499-508 (1943) "Role of Fluorides in Preventive Dentistry" on the basis of Cox’s experiments and the invalid Armstrong-Brekhus analysis. He acknowledged the possibility of cumulative toxic effects but casually dismissed it as "rather remote".
 

  In 1955 Dr Arnold acknowledged on the witness stand that he had no proof of fluoridation’s safety and "could not possibly have".



 

Meanwhile, the "Manhattan Project" had produced the atomic bomb. The radioactive Uranium was separated by first turning all the Uranium ore into Uranium Hexafluoride. The fluoride fumes caused serious health problems in workers, notably Central Nervous System damage, later to be confirmed by Dr Phyllis Mullinex in laboratory trials in 1995, at Forsyth Dental School. The US Government was facing law suits over fluoride exposure and was looking for a way of denying harm in such actions. Its subsequent involvement in the Newburgh-Kingston experiment was revealed in documents released under the US Official Secrets Act in 1997.

Journal of the American Medical Association describes fluoride as:

"Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify cell metabolism, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine.

1945. Cox's hypothesis was also a godsend for those interested in dental health which, in contrast to the great medical advances made in the 20th century, had made no such advances. This led to four initial experiments: Grand Rapids, Newburgh, Evanston, and Brantford.
 

Grand Rapids

The fluoridation experiment in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but taken over by the NIDR (a unit within the PHS) shortly after the Institute's inception in 1948. This was planned as a 15 year project, but the control city, Muskegon, was fluoridated in 1951 (the same year as the infamous Conference, and the year following the PHS' premature "go-ahead" for fluoridation) . It had shown the same rate of dental improvement as Grand rapids, which was not politically acceptable, so the experiment was reported as a success by quoting only the "before and after" results of Grand Rapids, and excluding the Muskegon figures.

Later the methodology was found so poor that no conclusions could validly be drawn, yet this was one of the experiments quoted worldwide, even today, as "conclusive proof" of the alleged benefits of fluoridation: Lack of standardisation of data gathering methods, personal examiner bias, inadequate control of studies, relatively short exposure when a lifetime exposure is contemplated. In related studies, there was an 89% deviation in  the average number of caries recorded in 33 teeth by 8 dentists. JC Boyd, NE Wessels: "Epidemiological Studies in Dental Caries III: The interpretation of Clinical Data Relating to Caries Advance" Am J Public Health 41: 967-986 (1951).
Examination of the data also showed that the claimed 53% improvement over the first 4 years was an alleged 80% improvement in the first year, and and worsening over the next 3. The 80% improvement in 1 year is of course impossible. It was then discovered that only a selection of the original children were studied after the initial survay. Further, at one point the figures for 11 year olds were better than the figures for the previous yearfor 10 year olds, when (supposedly) the same children were a year younger. Again this is impossible, proving the statistcial base was so corrupt as to be useless.

  1956. The Grand Rapids data is published after 7 years. It is analysed by KK Paluev, a professional statistician. he concludes that no permanent improvement was achieved but only a 1-3 year delay. The results are also analysed by a New York professional statistics company: Standard Audit and Measurement Service Inc. 89 Broad St NY: Data was described as "raw" "not capable of being checked", sampling design of the experiment was "embarrassingly conspicuous by its absence", "variations were not accounted for", and that the authors "gave no attention" to possible other (confounding) factors involved.
  After 17 years 19.3% of white and 40.2% negro children had dental fluorosis. After only 4 years deaths from heart disease cancer brain disease diabetes hardening of arteries had increased 25-50% over Michigan as a whole. (1950 census) The population increase was 7.8% 1940-1950. (published in The Press Grand Rapids 28 July 1955.) The PHS published bogus figures, disproved by official records, to cover this up. (A Struggle With Titans p173.)

Note that this experiment was supervised by Arnold, who advised T Ludwig on how to run the Hastings experiment in New Zealand. In 1986 Dr John Colquhoun of Auckland uncovered National Archive documents which revealed precisely the same flaws in methodology, leading to equally false conclusions, and the claim of 60% improvement, still promoted today by the NZ Ministry of Health.



 

Newburgh

The same year a second experiment began in Newburgh, NY, with Kingston as the control city, planned as a 10 year study into both the possible benefits and possible adverse effects of fluoride. At the 1951 State Dental Directors Conference, Dr Bain, who was on the technical committee, acknowledged that it had hoped to keep its findings secret until the 10 years was up, only then advising if any adverse health effects had been found. This aspect of the study was controlled by a group from the Manhattan project, who wanted to keep quiet any adverse effects which could be used against them in the pending court actions mentioned earlier.

The people of Newburgh were also given dental hygiene information, and topical treatments, in addition to fluoridating the water, invalidating the comparison with Kingston. The published results after 7 years of the trial were analysed by independent statisticians who, aside form identifying "embarrassingly" inadequate methodology or sampling techniques, concluded that no permanent improvement was evidenced in Newburgh, and predicted that shortly the decay rates would exceed those of Kingston. This in fact happened and today Kingston continues to have less tooth decay than the fluoridated Newburgh, a result consistent with the New Zealand Hastings-Napier experiment.

Fluoride levels varied by up to 900% between individuals, hence averages as the basis of safety conclusions were not only worthless, but dangerous. FA Smith, DE Gardner, HC Hodge "Investigation on the Metabolism of Fluoride, Fluoride Content of Blood and Urine as a Function of the Fluoride in Drinking water" J Dent Res 29: 596-600 (1951)

The Newburgh experiment director, Dr Ast, originated the idea of fluoridating without citizen’s knowledge. (see 1969, Michigan.)

1946. JJ Frisch launched a campaign to fluoridate his home town of Madison, Wisconsin, 1 year after the Newburgh and Grand Rapids studies began; 9 years before adverse health data was expected to be available.
Frisch enlisted Frank Bull, who immediately launched a political campaign to adopt fluoridation in Madison.

The council composed a committee which, after studying the evidence, advised against fluoridation, largely because of the time the experiments were to run.( EB Hart., Professor Emeritus, Wisconsin University, before a Congressional Committee, 6 years later)

Bull and Frisch persisted. The council approached the US PHS who advised "many years of research are needed before fluoridation can be implemented on a general basis. [The studies may take 12-15 years to determine a final answer].Mass fluoridation cannot yet be recommended."

  Leonard Scheele, however, decided it was time for the PHS to back fluoridation, in spite of the lack of any evidence of benefit or safety.

 

At the State Dental Directors 1950 Conference, Bull and two other State Dental Officers challenged HT Dean, now Director of Dental Research at the (PHS) NIH, and B Forsyth, Assistant Surgeon General, to endorse fluoridation without further delay. Dean refused to do so until the experiments were complete.

Forsyth and Scheele overruled Dean, presumably approached Oscar Ewing (see below) and on 1 June 1950, the PHS announced "Communities desiring to fluoridate their communal water supplies should be strongly encouraged to do so."



 

1947. Oscar Ewing took a leave of absence form his law firm of Hughes, Hubbard, and Ewing, solicitors for ALCOA, where he was earning approximately $750,000 annually. He became Director of the US Federal Security Agency directing, amongst others, the US PHS, on a salary of $120,000. Although the PHS had initially taken a cautious approach to fluoridation, it was lobbied by a Wisconsin group, including J Frisch and Dr Frank Bull, who argued that there was no need to wait 10-15 years for the results of the Grand Rapids experiment because there were generations of experience with naturally high fluoride areas.
Ewing promoted fluoridation before the permanent teeth of the children in the test cities had erupted. Ewing was later confirmed as the committer of PHS to fluoridation: Hearings on Res  74 and 447 House Select Committee to investigate the Use of Chemicals in Foods and Cosmetics  82nd US Congress 1952.

1948.

Dr Weaver was a pro-fluoridation medical officer who had been studying dental decay in Shields England, half of which had high fluoride levels. He went to great lengths to ensure there were no demographic differences when claiming that there was less decay in the high fluoride area.
His results, however, supported the delay theory: there was no difference in decay of 15 year olds in South Shields UK at 1.4 ppm fluoride and 12 year olds in N Shields at 0.25ppm: R Weaver "The Inhibition of Dental caries by Fluorine" Proc Royal Soc Med 41: 284 (1948)
 

He subsequently published in the British Dental Journal his comparison of general medical health. The records showed a significantly higher mortality in the 1.4 ppm area, especially infant mortality (as also shown 1977 by Dr Albert Schatz in Chile). Weaver refused to accept that fluoride was the cause, claiming there must have been some other factor, even though he had ensured there was no other possible factor.

 

20 people died in Donora Pa. An independent investigation showed this was due to fluoride 12 -25 times higher blood plasma levels than normal. (public health Bulletin 306, 1959) The US PHS covered this up, supporting industry in denial, but never offered an alternative explanation.

1948. Dr Leo Spira Acta Medica Scandinavia showed the presence of fluorine in cigarette smoke.

  1965 Okamura and Matsuhisa, Japan Cigarettes:
 
 
Type ppm fluoride mcg/cig
Japanese 163 157
American 236 244



 

  1977 Rose and Marier, NRC Canada: cigarettes may be another significant source of fluoride.
  NZ Med J 10 July 1985, reports a study showing uptake of approximately 0.48 mg fluoride per 10 cigarettes. At 30 a day (2 subjects) this is 1.44 mg per fluoride per day: already over the "optimal" amount.



 

1949. US promoter Dr Rowlett began lobbying the World Health Organisation to adopt fluoridation as policy, without success.

Dr AP Black Florida, is personally responsible for introduction of fluoridation, 3 years before it becomes official PHS policy. (Testimony before Florida State Board of Health Aug 20 1955.) He was a collaborator with HT Dean. As president of the American Water Works Association Black obtained the Association's permissive resolution at its 1949 Convention.

1950. January 1950. ALCOA advertised fluoridation for improving children’s teeth. Journal of the American Water Works Association Vol 42. Advertising was discontinued once the PHS started doing so.

US PHS survey in American Samoa, conducted by USN Capt FL Losee. It reveals almost perfect teeth amongst inhabitants of low to near-zero fluoride areas.

1 June 1950, the PHS announced "Communities desiring to fluoridate their communal water supplies should be strongly encouraged to do so." This endorsement was followed 5 months later by the American Dental Association, and others.

The Sugar Research Foundation with 130 sugar company members 7th annual report: at p23 - its aim is "To discover effective means of controlling tooth decay by methods other than restricting carbohydrate (sugar) intake."

  Two of the most vociferous institutions in fluoride promotion were the Rochester and Harvard Dental Schools, both of whom received Foundation grants.

In 1957 the Foundation withdrew support of Harvard after providing $57K to biochemist JH Shaw who concluded "all sugars cause decay"; "we should cut down on sugar consumption, particularly candy"



 

January 1950. ALCOA advertised fluoridation for improving children’s teeth. Journal of the American Water Works Association Vol 42. Advertising was discontinued once the PHS started doing so.

The NSW branch of the Australian Dental Association, the Faculty of Dentistry Sydney University, and the Sydney Institute of Dental research, submitted a report to the Australian Government urging that fluoridation begin.

1951. Ewing persuaded Congress to release $2M for the promotion of artificial fluoridation.

The infamous Conference of State Dental Directors was held, where the main strategist, Dr Frank Bull, told attendees how to get fluoridation into communities by subversive means, against public opposition, and particularly how to deal with concerns over adverse health effects, which had at that time not been sufficiently researched. In particular it was stated that fluoride must be promoted as "absolutely safe" yet was admitted that this was unknown.
Right click here and select "Save Target As" to download pdf file.

Bull’s promotional tactics were taken up by the American Dental Association, whose representative, Philip Phair, had attended the conference.

The US Surgeon General, Dr Leonard Scheele, became president of WHO, paving the way for its later fluoridation policy.

The American Medical Association is pressured to "fully endorse" fluoridation as safe and effective. The chairman of the AMA’s Public Health Committee, Dr Farrell, proposed that the AMA support fluoridation "in principle" as there was insufficient research on adverse health effects was available. In fact the main protagonist, F J McClure, who insisted fluoride was absolutely safe, had published articles in 1933 and 1946 stating that the possibility of adverse anti-enzymatic activity could not be disregarded. Once fluoridation was approved "in principle," promoters within the AMA pushed it as hard as they could, with no regard for possible adverse effects.
Note that, similarly, in its correspondence with the NZ Human Rights Commission, the NZMA also stated it supported fluoridation "in principle", rather than the outright commitment to compulsion proposed by the NZDA.

A 63% reduction in decay is shown by brushing with a non-fluoride dentifrice: LS Fosdick "Reduction of Incidence of Dental Caries" JADA 40:133 (1951).

Dr A Taylor PhD, biochemist, Biochemical Institute, Texas University: Original tentative studies showed a shortening of the life of cancer-prone mice fed 0.44ppm fluoride. Two PHS officials visited him (HT Dean, H Andervont). Although Dr Taylor had stated these were preliminary findings, the PHS declared the experiments invalid because there was measurable fluoride in the feed pellets.

  Taylor eliminated this source of fluoride and confirmed a 9% reduction in lifespan in 1954: ( A Taylor "Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of mice" Dental Digest 60: 170 (1954).
Proponents continued to quote the "invalidity" of the 1951 study, ignoring the valid 1954 study. Further, research by WD Armstrong and JJ Bittner, using too few mice to be conclusive, was quoted in rebuttal of Taylor (ie: we found no evidence of life –shortening) Taylor had used 645 mice, 1ppm fluoride, in 12 experiments.

At the 1951 State Dental Director's Conference Dr Johns, referring to this study, states: "The university is now sorry it happened and doesn't know how to stop the 'rumour'... We are preparing a refutation statement of three or four pages. Is that a good technique?" (Dr Frank Bull replies: "Yes. Anything you can do is a good technique... when they say 'yes', you say 'no'.")

Oct 1 1951, the university Vice President dissociated the university from this perfectly valid and valuable research.



 

McClure repeats his 1933 findings of enzyme interference from fluoride, stating "Anti-enzymatic effects of trace quantities of fluoride cannot be disregarded." ("Non-dental Physiological Effects of Trace Quantities of Fluorine. Dental Caries and Fluorine" a Symposium ed: FR Moulton Am Soc for Advancement of Science p89 Wash DC (1951)). McClure then assures AMA Councils on Pharmacy and Chemistry and on Foods and Nutrition that fluoridation is completely safe.

The National Research Council reports. Its 9 member committee to consider fluoridation was guided by 3 men: promoter Dr Basil Bibby, had carried out research for the Sugar Research Foundation, Dr FF Heyroth assistant director of the Kettering laboratory, financed by ALCOA and other industries with serious fluoride problems, and HT Dean of the PHS. Their final report in 29 November 1951 referenced papers by about 30 authors, all but 2 of whom were closely linked with either the PHS or industry.

By the end of 1951, the US PHS and American Association for the Advancement of Science were apparently endorsing fluoridation. The ADA used these endorsements to gain others, without any subsequent organisations investigating safety or asking for evidence. The more organisations that endorsed it, the more the campaign snowballed. The ADA, as is still the primary tactic, avoided answering the science and simply quoted the endorsements.

Foreign countries established study groups. Their representatives visiting the US were hosted around the Newburgh and Grand Rapids experiments by Scheele, Dean, and Knutson (now Assistant Surgeon General)

Around this time the US Government enlists Edward L. Bernays, since dubbed "the original spin-doctor", to launch amassive public reelations campaign. Bernays promoted the tactic of vigorous character assassination of opponents, in the absence of scientific argument.

1952. ALCOA had offered research grants for disposal of its aluminium waste. The USPHS was collaborating closely with industry to in the disbursement of these research funds. (Conflict of interest).(Seattle Times 16 December 1952.)

  May 30 1960, Seattle Times: branch director of PHS, Dr. Henry Welch, was obliged to resign due to acceptance of $260,766 derived from the industries he was sworn to regulate.



 

A. Kantorowicz a German scientist observes no correlation between fluoride and caries in 18 German cities: "Caries Incidence in Communities of North Rhein-Westfallen and the Fluorine Content of their Drinking Water" Deutsch. Zahn. Zeitschrift 7:1017-20 (1952).

Dr L Matthews promoting dentist in Chester, Virginia said "tooth decay among Chester children is about as bad as anywhere else." (New York Herald, 15 May 1952). Chester’s water had 2ppm, unbeknown to Matthews. (See 2001: the same statement is made about Kentucky: promoters don't appear to check their facts any more today than they did 50 years ago.)

The same occurred in Fort Worth Texas in 1953 (see below).

US Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics: Examined a wide range of chemicals, many of which were proven carcinogenic but which no one had bothered to check. The Committee had 7 days of hearings on fluoridation, with many scientists expressing concern that the safety of fluoridation was not sufficiently demonstrated.

The National Research Council’s report on fluoridation states regarding the Grand Rapids – Muskegon experiment:

  "Concurrently there has been a slight decline in the caries rate reported by Muskegon with its fluoride-free water supply, 22 % in 6 year olds and 28% in 7 yr olds. This is unexplained"! Yet it still recommended fluoridation.

 

US Select Committee hearing held on the Newburgh, Grand Rapids, and Evanston experiments. "In none of these experiments is the effect on the adult or old age population being studied [regarding] physiological effects."

"The Committee is of the view that a sufficient number of unanswered questions concerning the safety of this program exist as to warrant a conservative attitude."

The data on 6 and 7 year old children showed no difference in dental caries at that time. Bone-density studies were planned, but the director advised that none had been conducted due to non-availability of the necessary equipment. (Newburgh) Recognised that one proponent acknowledged that it was "a calculated risk"

"Medicine deals with the prevention, cure, and alleviation of disease. It is safe to say that fluoridation is mass medication without parallel in the history of medicine."

Comparing fluoridation with compulsory vaccination and the risk of contagion in epidemics: "Community health [in those cases] requires the wishes of the individual to be submerged [in the safety of the community]. Even so a physician administers the medication and watches the patient. Fluoridated water however, must be drunk by everyone and without personal medical supervision and guidance. Furthermore, dental decay is not contagious, nor can it be said to constitute a serious danger to health."

Appendage by AL Miller of Nebraska: "[T]he United States Public Health Service has been premature in urging universal use of fluorides in water … without knowing the results of the experiments now in progress." It also acknowledged that the AMA approval was qualified, not unqualified. The AMA said that question about fluoridation of the water supplies "should be answered by the dental profession". (P1709.)

"In reading through the testimony we find that the very people of the US Public Health Service who now so earnestly urge the use of fluorides in drinking water were, as late as 1950, saying, and I quote: 'The evaluation of the effects of fluorides in water has not been established and must wait until the experiments now in progress are completed.'”



 

Research by M Massler and I Schour shows that the nutritional status of the population, especially calcium intake, affects the prevalence and degree of mottling caused by [water fluoridation]. The poorer the nutritional status and the lower he calcium intake, the more prevalent and more severe the mottling.

1953. The basis of 1ppm fluoride in the water in temperate climates is established on the basis that 4 glasses of water per day gives 1 mg. This is recommended by NIDR (PHS) based on: FJ McClure "Ingestion of Fluorine and Dental Caries. Quantitative Relations Based on Food and Water Requirements of Children, 1-12 Years Old." Amer J Diseases of Children 66: 362 (1953)

Hastings, New Zealand, becomes the first city to fluoridate outside the USA.

The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC ) assisted in a study of children at the Hopewood Home, Bowral, NSW. The children were fed a healthy diet, and used water with no measurable amount of fluoride. 78% had perfect teeth. The average DMFT was 0.58.

In spite of the Hopewood study the NHMRC first endorses fluoridation. Its task is to advise the Australian government on all matters concerning health of people. Its recommendation was based on the advice of the Dental Research Advisory Committee. It was, nevertheless, conditional:

Promoters claimed this to be an unequivocal endorsement. Deliberations were held in secret, the same as the 1979 Hamer Committee. Even the conditional endorsement was based on the uncompleted US studies. As at 1982 the NHMRC had conducted no research in Australia, but simply kept repeating its original endorsement.

Chile also begins fluoridation, banning it in 1977 due to proven adverse health effects and increased death rates amongst its poor.

Most countries in Europe set up fluoridation trials. All eventually abandon them.

For example Sweden, in 1972 stated publicly that although the results from the first 5 years looked hopeful, the results from the full 10 year study showed no benefit. The early termination of the US trials is interesting to note in this context.

Fort Worth Texas, Council voted for fluoridation in August 1953, yet water already contained up to 1.8 ppm (different supplies). It was listed as "naturally fluoridated" by the PHS in a nationwide release in 1963. Yet dentists started promoting fluoridation again in September 1964. (Fort Worth Star Telegram 20 Sept 1964.)

1954. Canadian Medical Association studies fluoridation and states:

"We don’t know enough about:

Evanston Illinois. PHS studies by JR Blayney, well known promoter of fluoridation, reported before the International Association for Dental Research, 1954: persons with kidney disease eliminate only 60% as much fluoride as healthy person with water at 1ppm, but the same amount with water at 0.1ppm. Abstract: J Dent Res 33: 691 (1954)"Evanston Dental Caries Study XIII. Preliminary Report on Comparative Fluorine Retention in human Tissue." The research was never allowed to be published in full.

Dr GF Lull, Secretary AMA "I am aware of the fact that the American Dental Association may only publish what it desires on the subject" Letter to Dr George Waldbott, April 23 1954.

Dr George Waldbott seeks to submit article against fluoridation to AMA for publication. Response: "[The AMA has] endorsed fluoridation. Any contribution on this subject must therefore first clear the policy making body of our organisation." The same response from the New England Journal of Medicine: "the profession hereabouts is pretty much sold on fluoridation."

The ADA publish a booklet ( "How to Obtain Fluoridation in your community" May 1954) based on Bull’s tactics as preached at the 1951 Conference (see above). They add a section "Downgrading the Public Image of opponents of Fluoridation"

It also advocated that dentist promoters not answer technical questions, but insist that it is unnecessary to do so because US health authorities had endorsed fluoridation therefore any objections had already been addressed. Also that fluoridation be represented as correcting a fluoride deficiency in the water, not as adding medication. This tactic is still followed in New Zealand in 2003). The booklet contained not one single piece of scientific data.

  These tactics, including the incessant attacks on the competence and intellectual honesty of opponents, were officially promoted by the ADA and its sister organisations around the world, as noted by Dr. George Waldbott, and as seen here in NZ in the Ministry of Health’s statements regarding Drs Burk and Yiammouyannis many years ago, and Dr. Paul Connett on his visit to New Zealand in 2002.



 

A New York scientist (who asked to remain anonymous) opposed fluoridation over the radio. The following day the Dean of the New York University Dental School advised him that his services were no longer require. When the scientist threatened to publicise the matter it was dropped.

The Fleming Whitfield experiment is the standard reference to the teratogenicity of sodium fluoride.

1955. At the State Public Utilities Commission hearing 20-22 October 1955, FA Arnold, supervisor of the Grand Rapids experiment and leading promoter of fluoridation, admitted on the witness stand that he had no proof of the safety of fluoridation and that he "couldn’t possibly have".

HT Dean admitted that the graphs and charts on which he based his theory that fluoride makes teeth decay-resistant were invalid. (Original research: HT Dean, E Elvove "Some Epidemiological Aspects of Chronic Endemic Fluorosis" Am J of Public Health 26: 569 (1936).)

Dr Elmer Hess, President AMA : "I think most of us in the AMA have to depend on the ADA and the PHS 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". Letter to Dr George Waldbott August 9 1955.

Journalist George Sokolsky: letter in Journal of the American Dental Association 50:567 1955:

"I find that as many of those whom I interviewed who are members of your association are opposed to the process as favour 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 to be un-American. I should like to see a Congressional Committee investigate this whole subject." (Note that it is currently a breach of the ADA's code of ethics for dentists to oppose fluoridation, in contravention of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution.)

4 March 1955, the ADA publish a smear letter regarding Dr George Waldbott, who by now is a well known figure in revealing the truth about fluoridation, alleging intellectual dishonesty an incompetence, and that he was associated with a mental institute escapee and an imposter. This was also distributed by the PHS wherever Dr Waldbott spoke or submitted information adverse to fluoridation, for example the NZ Commission of Inquiry. It was also distributed to journal editors or program organisers where Dr Waldbott was likely to speak. (G Waldbott A Struggle With Titans 1965, p66.)

Fluoride toothpaste first marketed. PHS required the following warnings, due to the danger of double dosing with fluoride from the toothpaste and water:

(Ref: Chemical Week 6 July 1957)
Both regulations were abandoned in 1958 even though no adequate safety studies had been done.>

1955. Journal of the North Carolina Dental Society Vol 38 p 144 Aug 1955. Dentists RP and DHE Greensboro were suspended from membership for openly opposing fluoridation. The Boston Daily Record 28 Sept 1961: Dr M Ginns was "dropped" from the Massachusetts Dental Society for the same reason.

1956. The New Zealand Commission of Inquiry sits, and the antifluoridation movement becomes national. Not one of the 3 Commissioners was in a position to evaluate scientific medical data in his own. They had to rely on "advisors". A National Archive document shows that this "Inquiry" was "established and guided" by the Health Department, in conjunction with the NZ Dental Association.

Dr JR Herman New York City Urologist, found 1795ppm fluoride in a kidney stone. He was immediately provided with a PHS grant and PHS scientists as “collaborators”, to conduct a second study. This purported to show that fluoride has no bearing on kidney stones.(Se p290) JR Herman "Fluorine in Urinary Tract Calculi" Soc Exp Biol Med 91: 189 (1956).

Dr Ionel Rappaport, analysed PHS statistics from Wisconsin, Illinois, North and South Dakota. Significantly higher levels of Mongolism occurred in levels of high natural fluoride than areas of low natural fluoride: I Rappaport "Mongolism and Fluoridated Drinking Water" The Bulletin of the National Academy of Medicine of France 140: 529 (1956).

  Following attempts at refutation by fluoridation promoters, Rapport repeated his studies on a much larger scale, in Illinois. PHS officials “assisted” but the results ere even more certain. (1/1000 possibility of statistical chance: 5.5 million people. 335,000 births 148 cases of mongolism.)

This is confirmed in 1963 by Dr Chas Curry, senior dental surgeon Middlefield Hospital, Knowle England, who found an unusually high incidence of mottled teeth among mongoloid babies (25-50%) of tooth surface. (Testimony in High Court Dublin 1 May 1963: reported Irish Times 2 May 1963.)



 

Dr Hornung, one of Europe’s most fanatical proponents of fluoridation, was sponsored to come to the US by the American Council on Education to "study" fluoridation in 1955 and 1956, visiting the main battle sites. He stayed with DR Waldbott, a leading opponent of fluoridation, pretending professional interest and friendship. Waldbott writes "I showed him my case studies, and explained that I first used a questionnaire in order to eliminate and which to carefully investigate. The questionnaire served solely for screening purposes." (p229 A Struggle With Titans) Hornung subsequently promulgated the lie that Waldbott accepted any positive answer as proof of fluoride poisoning, along with an unconscionable character assassination. These lies were printed in the Journal of the American Dental Association September 1956.

1957. WF Ramsayer, CAH Smith, CM McCay, "Effect of Sodium Fluoride Administration on Body Changes in Old rats" J Gerontology 12:14 (1957) at Cornell University demonstrated that rats fed throughout their lives with 1ppm water eventually developed periodontoclasia (gum disease) and kidney disturbances. JW Knutson, Asst Surgeon General PHS Dental Division claimed this must have been due to 20-30 times the fluoride level used in fluoridation (9 August 1956) on what basis, since the water was 1ppm, is not known. A new team under the PHS reproduced the same abnormal changes, did not test for fluoride levels, and reported that these effects were due to "old age".(1962)

11 December 1957: 4 of the 6 Michigan delegates of AMA's “House of Delegates” – the AMA's political arm - advise Dr George Waldbott verbally or in writing that they were opposed to fluoridation but stated that to openly oppose fluoridation "was political suicide."

WHO adopt the report of their Expert Committee, favouring fluoridation. 5 of the 7 man Committee were known fluoridation promoters (Expert Committee on Fluoridation, Technical Report 146, WHO, Geneva, 1958). WHO resolved to commission a monograph "Metabolism of Fluorides and their Utilisation in Medicine, Dentistry, and Public Health." Professor Ynge Ericsson of Sweden, a well known ardent proponent of fluoridation (who later acted as advisor to the profluoridation side in the Irish case of Ryan, 1965), acted as special consultant. He commissioned 28 pro-fluoridation scientists of international standing to contribute. Not one scientist involved in research adverse to fluoride was asked to contribute, in fact many requested that they be allowed to submit papers and were refused. This resulted in the 1970 report Fluorides and Human Health.

The typical scenario throughout this era, and still today, is for a committee to be "guided" by 1-3 experts, who are always pro-fluoridation and ensure most of the information put before the committee is pro-fluoride, and that any adverse research is accompanied by a proponent "critique".

1958. New Zealand holds a "fluoridation symposium" along the same lines as the 1951 US conference. It determines to implement fluoridation by "back door" methods and avoid public consultation, like the US. The New Zealand Health Department claims the statements, published in a local newspaper in 1959, were not the views of the department but of an individual participant. That participant was a member, and later chairman, of the department's fluoridation promotion committee. (Col. J Ferris-Fuller)

US OHS study: EF Geever NC Leone, P Geiser, JE Lieberman "Pathological Studies in Man after prolonged Ingestion of Fluoride in Drinking Water" Public Health Reports 73: 721 (Aug 1958). Reported on microscopic examination of bones of subjects in areas of 1-4 ppm fluoride, compared with communities at 0.5ppm. The study found "no significant differences" concluding no harm to bones from fluoride. However on p722 it states "those persons with chronic illness and diseases known to affect the bone structure were excluded". Among the diseases specified, two are associated with chronic fluoride poisoning: namely parathyroid and kidney diseases. Thus the proof of harm was specifically excluded from the study, which then found "no evidence of harm".

US PHS grants to countries where fluoridation is being promoted:

  1958 1960 1963
Canada $8,640 $810,621 $1,237,365
Denmark $27,297 $101,067 $439,704
Eire $19,078 $62,250 $78,730
Netherlands $56,945 $175,436 $289,320
Norway $14,875 $129,286 $258,528
Sweden $87,600 $507,570 $1,509,011
Switzerland $5,259 $44,288 $892,606
UK $232,035 $900,048 $2,751,326


 

1958: PHS pub 621(1958)
1960: PHS pub 777 part I (1960)
1963: PHS pub 1079 part I(1963)

1958. Drs D Jackson and SM Weidmann recorded that water with as little as 0.8ppm could result in a bone concentration of 5000ppm. (J Path Bact 76: 451, 1958))

Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines fluorosis as: Fluorosis – chronic poisoning with fluorine… enamel, mottled – a chronic endemic dental fluorosis found in communities using a drinking water that contains one part or more of fluorine per million.

Dr R Soggnaes found on Tristan da Cunha 30% of 6-9 year olds had dental fluorosis of their upper incisors. The water contained 0.2 ppm fluoride.

Dr VO Hurme observed mottling among Negro children in New Haven, Connecticut (0.25ppm)

1959. Research shows only 1/3 fluoride ingested is eliminated, far from the 75-90% claimed by the PHS based on the work of Largent and McClure: Muhler JC, Wagner MJ "Fluoride Ingestion and Urinary Calcium" Journal of Dental Research Vol 38 p 1078 (1959).

Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials is published by PRN Sutton. It highlights the total inadequacy of the methodology of the early fluoridation studies. In the same year it is reviewed by the UK National Health and Medical Research Council, Dental Research and Advisory Committee. After 3 years they were forced to produce their report, but its contents were never disclosed. The WHO, in 1960, do not mention Sutton's critique, but refer to the 3 studies of Newburgh, Grand Rapids, and Evanston as "well planned".

 

1960. HT Dean, "the father of fluoridation", is honoured  by Irish Dental Society. Dean personally persuaded the Minister of Health to introduce compulsory fluoridation.

Drs R Feltman and G Kosel conclude a 14 year single blind study commissioned by Abbott Laboratories. They gave fluoride tablets to a large population of children and pregnant women. Use of placebos proved that 1% had adverse reactions. (Published J Dent Med 1961). Abbott subsequently put a warning on their fluoride tablets.

TheLancet 1960. "Fluorides occur naturally in water with a high calcium content, and the effects of fluoride may well be modified in soft water."

 

  Gabovich and Ovrutsky, USSR 1977, found calcium to have a measurable protective effect against fluoride where the fluoride level was 1-1.5 ppm. 1ppm was considered "high".

1942 Dr DC Deatherage: "It is soft waters which cause the most severe mottled enamel."

NRC Canada No. 16081(Rose and Marier). There is no doubt that inadequate nutrition increases the severity of fluoride toxicosis.



 

1961. Dr FJ Stare, very powerful due to his position at the Harvard School of Public Health, denigrated every opponent of fluoridation as "misinformed, stupid, or dishonest". (JAMA 2 Dec 1961). He pushed and repeated propaganda in "rebuttal" of every article published against fluoridation. Yet he admitted before the committee of the Ottawa legislature in 27 Feb 1964 "I don’t pretend to be an expert on fluoride metabolism."
In fact he had not published any original research at all for 25 years at this point.

Dr George Waldbott organises a conference in Rome to discuss fluoride research (adverse).(19-22 March 1961.) The Italian government had agreed to underwrite the conference costs. Meanwhile an uninvited scientist , a top official in the Canadian government, appeared and was anxious to serve on the organising committee. 3 weeks before the conference the Italian government withdrew support. The Eastman Dental Institute in Rome was funded from the US. Italian scientists received over $1M in research grants from the US PHS in 1960-62.

Letter by the chairman of the Fluoridation Committee of a dental society in Pennsylvania, 6 October 1961 to Mrs WS, Ketchikan, Alaska: "We now have spies in most of the established national organisations opposed to fluoridation and can anticipate the moves they are making, and we can really hit hard now. Of course this is not for publication."

1962. Australia: a 9 year old boy experienced gastric haemorrhages, requiring removal of a large portion of the stomach. After his return home he suffered another, requiring removal of part of the upper bowel. Several hours before the second incident he had taken a 1 milligram fluoride tablet.

1963. The Kettering Institute, funded by vested commercial interests and supported by US PHS grants, published a "selected bibliography" on fluoridation. (a copy of which is in the Otago Dental School Library). All references to adverse research were either omitted or presented in such a way as to infer they were groundless.

The New Zealand case of Lewis v Lower Hutt City begins, eventually going to the Privy Council, who make the opposite decision to that of the Canadian Supreme Court and rule that Local Councils can put anything they like in the water, including medication, so long as the water remains "wholesome".
The Australian case of Kelberg in 1964 and the Scottish case of McColl in 1983 ruled that fluoridation was unlawful on exactly the same wording, as the Candian Supreme Court had already done. The latter cases "distinguished" Lewis which, in the circumstances, was a polite way of saying the judgment was plainly wrong.

The US PHS issued a public health warning in Drug News Weekly Nov 14 1963. "In areas supplied with fluoridated water use of added supplements is not only unnecessary but definitely contraindicated."

1964. The case of Kelberg v City of Sale in Victoria Australia, adopts the Canadian interpretation, rejecting the New Zealand approach. Australian States simply pass legislation instead.

January 1964. A US Sociology student surveyed 400 local members of the medical society. She found 49% for fluoridation, 34% against, and 17% undecided. The assistant dean, prompted by the local fluoridation promotion committee chairman, wrote a letter berating the student as besmirching the good name of the university. A threatened libel suit by the student resulted in a retraction.

1965. The Irish case of Ryan v Attorney General is heard, challenging the constitutionality of fluoridation. Ministry of Health stenographers made transcripts so that the case could be prepared for the following day, including phone correspondence with the US PHS. Witnesses we supplied by the US PHS: most admitted to active involvement in promotion. The defence attacked the status of plaintiff witnesses after they had returned overseas. The Court needed explanation of even the simplest scientific and medical matters yet held fluoridation acceptable and Ireland became compulsorily fluoridated.

Dr. George Waldbott, an allergy specialist and independent fluoride researcher, publishes A Struggle with Titans, detailing:
 

Dr Waldbott writes "For eleven years I have been engaged in medical research on the effect of fluoride on the human organism. While exploring the subject I have observed many practices usually not encountered in medical research."

January 1965 several Detroit dentists told a newspaper editor, who had published facts unfavourable to fluoridation, that $27,000 was available for advertising to win the vote for fluoridation in Detroit, and that some of it would be spent on his paper if he cooperated.

March 24, 1965, two prominent fluoridation promoters representing themselves as a newspaper editor and a member of "The Antigo Freedom from Fluoridation Committee" gained the confidence of Mrs JWP of W, Wisconsin, whose physician had recognised that she was poisoned by fluoridated water and had advised her to eliminate it for cooking and drinking. Having convinced her that they were genuinely interested in assisting her in proving her case valid, she divulged her physician’s name and granted them permission to contact him for details. Subsequently the physician Dr S was visited by five fluoridation promoters. After their visit he had no choice but to remain silent. The following day, the profluoridation committee "Antigo Citizens for Better Health" declared in the local Antigo Daily Journal while this so-called "legal and medical investigation" was "in process" (sic) that the case of Mrs P was "a flagrant abuse of truth, in fact a hoax."

This is typical of the way the PHS suppressed the truth, by threatening doctors who diagnosed fluoride poisoning.

May 13 1965, every member of the Detroit District Dental Society was notified of a $20 levy to support this campaign. Any dentists not complying within 4 months were threatened with loss of membership.

Patient deaths ensued from using fluoridated water in dialysis treatment. The AMA quietly arranged to advise hospitals to use unfluoridated water for this process, without revealing the death cases specifically.

1966. The US Food and Drug Administration bans the sale of fluoride tablets to pregnant women, due to evidence that it caused birth deformities.

1967-68. WHO Report #482 expresses concern over safe use of drugs.
It finds the following categories of existing drugs should be high priorities for updated testing (fluoride meets all categories):

WHO definition of a drug: "any substance used to alter or influence a physiological system for the benefit of the recipient."

WHO resolution 13 July 1969:

Recommends fluoridation where total intake from all sources is below "optimal", and that further research be conducted into dental caries. But it never specified the "optimal" dose. Similarly the US PHS have never specified an "optimal" dose as a daily intake.

1968. Smith and Hodge, 2 proponent experts state: "No large scale epidemiological studies are available comparing the health of fluoridated communities with that of communities where the water [contains] only traces of fluoride." Dental associations worldwide, and the US PHS, continue to promote fluoridation as "safe and effective."

Tasmanian Inquiry into fluoridation supports fluoridation
Tasmania bans local councils form holding referenda on fluoridation, making it compulsory. (In 1995 the lower House passes a Bill making it illegal to hold public meetings to discuss fluoridation, which was overturned by the upper House.)

Dr George Waldbott founds the International Society for Fluoride Research, dedicated to independent scientific research on fluoride, free of political influence or position.

1969. Jan 21 1969, Dr F Wertheimer, Michigan State Dental Director of health boasted that 7 communities had been secretly fluoridated during that year. He recommended public discussion be avoided until fluoridation had been "sold to citizens".

The World Health Organisation endorses fluoridation of water supplies on July 23, 1969, despite cautions from G.Penso of the Italian delegation, who warned about "possible genetic damage to future generations".
During the final hours of the session, when only 45 of the 1,000 delegates from 131 countries were still present, all bills that had not been accepted, including the one on fluorides, were collected and voted upon (no quorum), including the statement on fluoridation.
The Health Minister of Luxembourg later describes the earlier debate as heated, at times violent (as between proponents and opponents).

1970. WHO publishes Fluoride and Human Health recommending fluoridation but only if the total intake from all sources is taken into account. It also acknowledges: "fluorides accumulate in the aorta and possibly the kidney."

WHO also acknowledge that skeletal fluorosis can occur with as little as 2 mg fluoride per day - we get at least this much today if our water is fluoridated:

"At higher levels of ingestion - from 2 to 8 mg daily, skeletal fluorosis may arise ... Whereas dental fluorosis is easily recognised, the skeletal involvement is not clinically obvious until the advanced stage of crippling fluorosis ... early cases may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid or osteoarthritis.?
- Fluorides and Human Health, 1970 pages 239-240

 

1970 Dr Arvid Carlsson, Head of Pharmacology, Gothenburg University, advisor to the Swedish government, in the Swedish Medical Association Journal: “There is no proof that fluoride is an essential nutrient. All the talk of water fluoridation as being merely a "restoration of the natural balance" is groundless."

1971. Punjab province, India: Professor SS Jolly demonstrates by X-ray 1320 cases of skeletal fluorosis. The water contains 1-5ppm fluoride. The majority of subjects also demonstrate rheumatic arthritic, or neurological symptoms.

FJ McClure and others found 8400ppm fluoride in the aortas of two men.

Sweden abandoned fluoridation in 1969. WHO pressures it to resume and Sweden asks for research proof of safety. WHO fails to provide any and backs down. Throughout the 1970’s European countries abandon fluoridation due to ineffectiveness, and health and civil liberties concerns.
 

* This was following the discovery by researchers that people who lived for 10 years or more in the fluoridated city (Kuopio) had accumulated dangerously high levels of fluoride in their bones.(Acta Orthopaedica Scandinavia 51:413-420, (1980))

1972. Sydney, Australia. Dental promoters claim a significant improvement in tooth decay due to fluoridation. The actual figures, when broken down, show that there was 60% improvement in tooth decay from 1961 to 1967. Sydney was fluoridated in 1968. By 1972 the improvement was only another 2%, with a backslide of 1% until 1970. That is, the rate of improvement declined after fluoridation commenced. Dental promoters then selected children from the affluent northern Sydney, with less than average tooth decay, to claim a better improvement than reality. (A similar technique appears to have been used in Grand Rapids).

The Netherlands: A double blind study by 10 physicians, biologists, a pharmacologist, an allergy specialist, a dermatologist, and a notary (to ensure objectivity) demonstrated the same adverse (allergic) symptoms as already described in the literature. Water was supplied from drinking bottles with secret codes, changed every 2 weeks, known only to the notary. After 16 weeks the reports were delivered, sealed, to the notary. They were opened with two witnesses. The study found 1-5% of subjects showed adverse symptoms. The validity of the study was subsequently upheld in court. (31 August 1976, by Royal decree, fluoridation was banned in the Netherlands.)

1973. Australia NSW Health Department Policy, stated in the Medical Journal of Australia "It has been conventional practice to give a fluoride supplement during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy at a rate of 1.5mg of fluoride per day." In fact the US FDA had banned fluoride tablets for pregnant women in 1966.

During the 1973 Victorian election (Australia) Premier Hamer undertakes to honour the wishes of Ballarat people over fluoridation. 1978: the Council conducted an opinion poll on fluoridation: 2922 against, 186 for. The Victorian Government ordered the Ballarat Water Commission to proceed with fluoridation regardless. A petition to the Queen ensued, signed by 12,500 people, about 1/3 of the adult population. Unions put a black ban on the fluoridation plant installation. Due to an unexpected by-election, Hamer agreed to suspend work and establish an independent inquiry. (See 1979) However of the 3 commissioners appointed without consultation, one was past president of the Victorian branch of the Australian Medical Association, who supported fluoridation. (VD Pleuckaham. The other two were DM Myers, and ALG Rees.) It undertook to hold public meetings: they never did. All proceedings were in secret. The Ballarat people made many in depth submissions on the science involved. One went to Europe at his own expense to gather information. Not one reference could be found in the report. The petition was sent from the Queen back to the Australian Governor-General, who then referred it to the Victorian Governor. It then went back to the Victorian Premier’s department. The people of Ballarat were then informed that it did not meet standing Orders and hence could not be tabled before parliament. On 11 November 1980 it was presented unaltered to the House by the member for Ballarat North. It was not debated. On 11 Feb 1981 it was sent to the relevant Minister. The union bans continued in the face of this deliberate political manoeuvring by Hamer.

1975. 16 December 1975: Dean Burk and John Yiammouyannis published analysis of the US Cancer statistics for fluoridated and unfluoridated cities, showing a 5% increase in cancer deaths. The study covered 18 years and 18 million people. This led to court action in 1978 (see below).

The National Cancer Institute hastily prepared a rebuttal, and sent this to Drs M Sheppard, R Doll, and/or LJ Kinlen, who submitted it to the New Scientist, published 5 February 1976, as their own work, claiming that they showed no increase in cancer in fluoridated communities. The NCI also claimed their own analysis showed no difference, and quoted the supposedly independent Kinlen and Doll study in support. They had used the same erroneous figure as the NCI. (14,487 instead of 14,272), revealing the conspiracy to deceive. This was admitted on oath before the court. In the US, PD Oldham and DJ Newell published the erroneous NCI data also, again claiming it as their own independent work, which was also claimed in support by the NCI. Oldham and Newell disclaimed responsibility for theNCI data in Applied Statistics 28(2) 184, 1979. They acknowledged that the data contained errors and claimed they were only to provide independent appraisal of the data provided, not search for new data. Yet they presented this to the courts (Aitkenhead v West View and McColl v Strathclyde) as an independent study showing the Burk-Yiammouyannis analysis to be incorrect.

Kinlen also published a paper on Birmingham cancer rates from 1961 to1968 (Fluoridated in 1964. Published in the British Dental Journal 1975. There was no adjustment for age; it was a static study only with no time trend data from before fluoridation to after. Kinlen admitted the results were estimates only. In the report he claimed there was no evidence of increased cancer in Birmingham. This was also presented in the Aitkenhead case in rebuttal of the Burk-Yiammouyannis claim of increased cancer rates. Under cross-examination (11 May 1978) Kinlen admitted that the fluoridated cancer rate was in fact 5% higher (1.03 v 0.98). The statement in the Journal was simply a lie.

In 1976 the (UK) Royal College of Physicians repeated the claim, (see below) based on Kinlen's work, with no reference to the Burk-Yiammouyannis study.

The validity of the Burk-Yiammouyannis conclusion was admitted on 1 Dec 1976 by D S Fredrickson MD, Director, NIH, after consultation with the NCI over the Burk-Yiammouyannis analysis.

The NZ Medical Journal 27 Aug 1980 No 666 pp164-167 claims that all the international studies show that fluoridation does not increase cancer death rates, citing the statement of the Royal College of Physicians which in turn relied on Kinlen’s report in the British Dental Journal.

RN Hoover et al "Fluoridated Drinking water and the Occurrence of Cancer" presented to Congress 14 Nov 1975, republished in J of the National Cancer institute 57 (4) 1976. pp757-768. 16 Texas towns were compared. The authors claimed no difference in the cancer rates. The study was found inadequate for the following reasons:

T Hirayama Cancer Res 35 3460, 1975. Elevated levels of dietary fluoride were found to be related to increased cancer death rates.

Sir Arthur Amies, Dean of the faculty of Dental Science, Melbourne University, after 20 years study of fluoride and being one of the world’s experts: "In my opinion the claim for complete medical safety of fluoride is entirely false."

1976. The Royal College of Physicians England, publishes Fluoride Teeth and Health endorsing the safety of fluoridation. Lord Douglas of Barloch describes this as "not an original contribution to research, but merely an evaluation of pre-existing information. Careful perusal reveals that it does not conform to the scientific standard [of skill and impartiality] required. Much of it reads like a piece of propaganda in favour of fluoridation. The Report does not attempt to specify what daily intake from all sources is important. Its [data on intake from food] is 30 years out of date."

There is a stormy WHO General Assembly vote over fluoridation: "the vote on this resolution had been preceded by dramatic discussions, at times extremely violent, between followers and the adversaries of fluoridation of drinking water, which proves to society that the last word has certainly not been said in this complex and complicated domain". (Health Minister of Luxembourg)

W Klein et al, Report of the Austrian Society of Atomic Energy Sabetsdorf research Centre 1 May 1976: Fluoride ions can inactivate DNA repair mechanisms.

27 April 1976. Feingold Association USA (care of hyperactive children) “Fluoride is one additive that cannot be tolerated by children in this group. It has a severe adverse reaction upon the nervous system." (Compare the work of Mullinex in 1995, showing central nervous system damage, as also shown by Manhattan Project files released in 1997.)

1977. USA Congressional Inquiry into the USA National Cancer Institute (part of the USPHS) and fluoridation. Washington DC 1977. The purpose was to determine whether the NCI had “done its job” before endorsing fluoridation. NCI admit that although it had endorsed fluoridation as "completely safe" for 27 years, it had never done a single study, and only was only planning animal studies at the time because of pressure, otherwise it "probably still would not do it." Testimony of Dr Newell pp243-245 of the report. The NCI started experiments on mice in 1979. It is a standard requirement that the test last for the natural life of an animal. (3 yrs) So until at least 1982 no one could have known whether fluoride caused cancer or not.

Chile discontinues fluoridation following research by Dr Albert Schatz, Nobel laureate and discoverer of the antibiotic streptomycin, that the poor were suffering adverse health effects and higher infant mortality due to fluoridation.

Melbourne, Australia, fluoridated February 1977. Over 100 statutory declarations were filed by persons suffering adverse health effects whenever they drank the water. The Victorian "Hamer" Commission of Inquiry (1979-1980) claimed no adverse health effects had been observed.

The ADA state: "No evidence is available to support the claim that the use of dietary fluoride supplements by adults will provide dental benefits in adults."

The Council on Dental Therapeutics of the ADA recommended that the maximum daily dose of fluoride for children 2-5 years old be reduced to 0.5 mg, and that this be decreased if the water contained more than 0.3 mg. Also that the daily dose for less than 2 years be 0.25 mg, reduced if the water contained more than 0.3 mg.

1978. Bacchus Marsh Australia. Promoters stated that the percentage of children with no decay had increased (1963-1978) by 15.8% due to fluoridation. In fact the total number had increased from 2 to 3 individuals (Bacchus Marsh population was approx 5000).

The landmark case of Aitkenhead v Borough of West View (16 November 1978) Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Civil Division, Pennsylvania, is heard. This was an application for injunction to prevent the city from fluoridating the water. It revolved around the Burk-Yiammouyannis study of National Cancer Institute data showing a 5% increase in cancer death rates following fluoridation. Dean Burk was a former head of the NCI and one of the world's leading experts in cancer. The NCI called in every expert they could find to challenge the Burk-Yiammouyannis findings. The trial lasted 5 1/2 months; the transcript covered 2500 pages. The judge held that every objection by the NCI was met and even turned against them by Burk and Yiammouyannis. Sadly, the injunction against the City of West View was stayed on appeal on purely jurisdictional grounds.

1979. Quebec Ministerial Inquiry into Fluoridation rejects fluoridation as being unsafe. Bill 88 had been put before parliament to implement fluoridation. The Inquiry concluded fluoride was mutagenic and cancer-causing. "We should be more concerned about possible intoxication than with deficiencies of fluorides."

John Yiammouyannis visits Australia. Proponents are invited to publicly debate with him. NHMRC put up their expert at a meeting at Canberra University, 27 June. The debate was publicly described as a complete walkover for Yiammouyannis.

 

The Official Physician’s Desk Reference (Australia): Fluoride supplements should not be administered to persons who are hypersensitive to fluoride. Side effects [include] Eczema, atopic dermatitis, urticaria, skin rashes, gastro-intestinal upsets, headache, nausea, and vomiting.

HC Hodge: "The most important and widely disregarded fact about dental fluorosis is this: no safe established daily intake exists." Hodge was an ardent proponent of fluoridation, operating out of Rochester University.

Weatherell et al 1979 quoted in British Dental Journal 19 May 1981. "In recent years, views about the mechanism of fluoride action have changed. The action of fluoride post-eruptively … is now considered to be of equal if not more importance than its pre-eruptive effect." i.e. this contradicts the long-standing claim that fluorides benefit is systemic - the justification for fluoridation. This topical effect is confirmed definitively in 1999 and 2000 by the Centre for Disease Control and the American Dental Association.

1979-1980. The "Hamer" Commission of Inquiry sits in Victoria Australia. To support its predetermined outcome it repeats lies and deceptions throughout its report, and omits much adverse evidence put before it. A detailed analysis of this, referencing original documents "quoted" by the Commission, is available in Fluoridation: Poison on Tap by G Walker, Magenta Press, Melbourne, 1982.

100 statutory declarations, some with doctor’s certificates were provided regarding hypersensitivity. All stated the symptoms cleared up upon using distilled water for drinking and cooking. The Commission never called in for medical testing. One woman was just out of Melbourne public hospital and had been given a wristband warning nurses not to give fluoridated water to the patient. Evidence was given that doctors had no hesitation in ordering unfluoridated water to be supplied from the dispensary for that purpose.

Re fluoride ions, the Commission finds, contrary to proponent's usual claims, that although in water the formation of HF and HF2- is quite insignificant, at pH 4,( and below) some F- would be converted to HF2-. Note the stomach acidity is often pH2-3, (pH1 without food) hence some HF2- would be expected. Formation of both had been shown by one of the leading experts Kaj Roholm, with the stomach’s hydrochloric acid. (HF (hydrofluoric acid) is the most corrosive acid known, and causes burns which get worse, rather than heal.)

Brisbane. A boy ingested between 4 and 6 fluoride tablets. The cause of death was listed as fluoride poisoning. Queensland Health Administration claimed that he had swallowed half a bottle – 92 tablets. No evidence was forthcoming to substantiate this. The mother said 6; his stomach had 4. (pumped at hospital) Reported 3 Nov 1979. The hospital doctors refused to believe the cause was fluoride poisoning because they were unaware that fluoride had a lethal dose (in spite of being used as rat poison for years) No inquest was ever held.

Dental fluorosis in Queensland (Australia) school children. March 1979, Dr G Smith took up a position of dentist at Prosperine Hospital, Queensland. He encountered a large number of children with dental fluorosis. He reported this to Brisbane authorities who told him to forget about it. He did not, but had the information published in Victoria. He was immediately asked to resign. Two investigators were sent. They were both employed by the school dental service, one taught the female dental therapists to apply fluoride .They advised they would do no more than classify the degrees of fluorosis. Smith advised that this was a superficial and cynical approach to the issue which he would not be associated with. He was classified as "unco-operative" in justifying the request for his resignation. The level of fluorosis was only marginally below the level considered a "public health problem". The equipment was obsolete, no one monitored the fluoride levels. Subsequent tests averaged 0.93 ppm: the recommended level was 0.6. (hot climate, high water consumption) School dental therapists were giving fluoride treatments and recommending fluoride tablets. They had never been taught about fluorosis. Two of the children were suffering from chizzola maculae: a possible symptom of fluoride poisoning resembling small bruises. The dentist were totally unqualified to address this, which is in the area a of clinical pharmacology and toxicology. Smith officially requested they be properly examined. No response to this request was received.

December 1979. Michigan Governor’s scientific task force: "Most studies which comprehensively review the topic [of fluoridation] are able to identify areas in need of further research."

1980. Australian Prescribing Manual 1980: recommended fluoride doses: expectant mothers in fluoridated areas: 0.75 mg per day fluoride; non-fluoridated areas: 1.5 mg/day. The 1966 US FDA ban is still in force.

Dr John Colquhoun of New Zealand visits the US NIDR, who tell him about their research into the US statistics on tooth decay. They advise that they are confident that this will prove once and for all the benefits of fluoride. The report, when published, failed to mention these results. Dr Colquhoun enquired why. He was told that a different statistical analysis was going to be used. When published this new analysis claimed a 33% improvement, but neither the calculations nor the original data was ever published. Obviously the anticipated improvement was not shown by the statistics.

1981. American Chemical Society Journal Vol 3 Issue 1 pp84-88. Research results unexpectedly showed that the fluoride ion can form an amide-fluoride hydrogen bond as the strongest heteronuclear hydrogen bond known. Many components within the living cell contain amide groups- hydrogen bonds between amides are the most important weak hydrogen bonds in biological systems. These can be disrupted by the formation of the much stronger N-H-F bond, explaining how the fluoride ion could interfere with healthy cellular systems.

 

1982. By this time fluoridation is compulsory in all Australian military camps.

1983. In the case of McColl v Strathclyde Regional Council Lord Jauncey held that the Council had no authority to fluoridate the water supply. The Water (Scotland) Act required the local authority "to provide a supply of wholesome water to every part of their limits of supply." Lord Jauncey also held that there was no proof of harmful effects, a finding which is untenable in light of the admissions before the Aitkenhead Court in Pennsylvania in 1978.

1986. Dr John Colquhoun proves that the Hastings experiment was a fraud. This study had been cited around the world, along with the US experiments. The Ministry of Health simply stops citing it as authority. Dr Colquhoun becomes persona non gratis and the Ministry of Health attempts to silence him and to disparage his work.

1989. Arends et al show that 2ppm fluoride is required to remineralise tooth enamel: the 1ppm level in water is useless as a topical application. See admission by the CDC and ADA in 1999/2000 that it is a topical effect that allegedly prevents tooth decay.

Dr John Colquhoun in New Zealand seeks to publish NZ school dental statistics which show that tooth decay was the same if not better in unfluoridated areas. Dr Colquhoun was the chief dental offcier in Auckland, and for 2 years had been the chairman of the NZ Government's Fluoridation Promotion Committee. The Director-General of Health refused permission. (Fluoridation was, and still is, a strongly promoted Government policy in NZ). Dr Colquhoun retired shortly after and published it anyway. He notes that although these were official figures he could not get his analysis published in either the medical or dental journal in NZ: he had to get it published by a body which was not politically aligned with fluoridation. He supported Dr George Waldbott's observation that such journals regularly refuse to publish adverse research on fluoride.

Dr Colquhoun stated in a sworn affadavit:
 

"I was shocked to discover, when the statistics were sent to me, they revealed no such benefit. In fact, in most Health Districts the percentage of children who were "caries-free" was higher in the non-fluoridated areas than in the fluoridated areas. I disagreed sharply with my superiors' action in circulating a document, "overview of fluoridation statistics," which omitted the above information, disgracefully "doctored" the remaining statistics, and claimed that a marginal benefit existed. When, in addition, I discovered that dental fluorosis prevalences (a sign of fluoride toxicity) were much higher than expected in fluoridated areas, I publicly changed my stance on fluoridation in 1983."

1990. Brunelle and Carlos publish the US National Institute of Dental Research study, the largest in US history, showing minimal difference between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. (0.6 dmfs out of 128 in the mouth. Refer also Spencer et al, 1996, below)

1992. The US EPA is ordered to reinstate Dr William Marcus, with $50,000 damages, for firing hime over whistleblowing regarding NTP's coverup of cancer dangers from fluoridation.

1993. According to the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR, 1993), large cohorts of the public will be at considerable risk of adverse health effects from fluoridation. To quote from the Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine (p 112): "Populations that are unusually susceptible: the elderly, people with calcium deficiency, magnesium and vitamin C deficiencies, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems."

1994. WHO publishes Fluorides and Oral Health again reiterating that the total fluoride intake from all sources must be taken into account.

1995. Tasmania attempts to ban public meetings held to discuss fluoridation. The Bill passes the Lower House but is rejected by the Upper House.

Dr Phyllis Mullinex demonstrates Central Nervous System damage in rats at the same blood-fluoride levels as humans drinking fluoridated water. Her funding grant is withdrawn, she is sent to a children’s hospital with no research funding, and her laboratory and all equipment and records are destroyed 3 days later.
Click here for Mullinex's story: it is typical of the history of fluoridation, and now GE research as we saw with Aberdeen University.

1996. Philip RN Sutton publishes The Greatest Fraud Fluoridation.

Spencer et al publish their Australian study showing insignificant difference in lifetime dental figures as between fluoridated and unfluoridated communities. (0.12-0.3 dmfs. Refer Brunelle and Carlos, 1990, above)

1997. Jennifer Luke, UK, demonstrates accumulation of up to 22,000ppm fluoride in the pineal gland.

"Manhattan Project" documents released under the US Official Secrets Act reveal that Central Nervous System damage was evident in refinery workers, working with fluoride, and was covered up by the US Government. The documents also revealed that the scientists overseeing the adverse health effect research aspect of the Newburgh - Kingston fluoridation experiment from 1945 were appointed by the Atomic Energy Commission to supress any adverse data, and collect information useful in defending litigation by workers for health damage.

1998. Betty De Liefde publishes a paper in the NZ Dental Journal revealing that it had been demonstrated that:
 

1999. Drs Masters and Coplan demonstrate an increased uptake in Lead with silicofluorides now used in water fluoridation, as opposed to the original sodium fluoride. At first dismissed by the US EPA, this is later accepted and in part leads to the EPA's change in position in 2002.

In November 1999, Professor Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto, President of Canadian Association of Dental Research, and the country's leading fluoride authority, publicly apologised to his faculty members and the media for mistakenly promoting water fluoridation for over 15 years.
His apology included the following:" Skeletal fluorosis is a debilitating condition that occurs when fluoride accumulates in bone making them extremely weak and brittle. The earliest symptoms are mottled and brittle teeth. In Canada, we are now spending more on dental fluorosis than we do treating cavities." He added: "Dentists have absolutely no training in toxicity. Your well- intentioned dentist is simply following 50 years of misinformation from public health and the dental association. Me, too. Unfortunately, we were wrong. Poisoning children was the furthest thing from my mind."
He was dismissed by the university, but was subsequently reinstated with $150,000 damages on a wrongful dismissal action.

The US Center for Disease Control admits that any benefit from fluoride is topical, not systemic: the whole basis of fluoridation is proven wrong.

2000. Journal of the American Dental Association: "Fluoride works primarily via topical mechanisms. Fluoride incorporated during tooth development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries protection."

The York Review, in spite of being established by the British Ministry of Health to prove the case for fluoridation, finds that all epidemiological studies are unreliable, and that there is no evidence of significant benefit, social equity, or safety. Proponent organisations, including the NZ Ministry of Health, lie about the outcome, claiming the report supported fluoridation. This led the review board chairman, Dr Trevor Sheldon, to make a public statement, presented to the House of Lords, regarding these lies and the true findings of the review. (See on this site)

2001. US promoters pressure the South African government to adopt fluoridation, in spite of endemic fluorosis throughout Africa. The usual farce Inquiry follows. The government decides to fluoridate. The fluoride is to be supplied by the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA), located in the Pelindaba nuclear complex west of Pretoria, though not as a waste product. This promises an annual income to the company of R13 Million.

  In a 90 page report entitled "Endemic Goitre in the Union of South Africa and some Neighbouring Territories", prepared for the Department of Nutrition for the South African government, Dr. Douw Steyn and colleagues concluded that there were two separate causes for endemic goiter. In their summary, they state: "In the Union of South Africa endemic goitre is caused by: (1) a primary iodine deficiency in the drinking water and soil, and most probably in the food; and (2) excessive quantities of fluorine in subterranean drinking-water in spite of super sufficiency of iodine in the waters."

Research by University of Stellenbosch researchers (Loue AJ and Grobler SR (2002, J Dent Res) reported that in some regions already containing fluoride naturally, dental decay rates increased with increasing dental fluorosis.

The government's controversial plan is delayed, pending further research on several issues from cost to the effects on human health and the environment: "Several questions have been raised to which there are no answers."



 

"The 2001 Kentucky Childrens Oral Health Survey: findings for children ages 24 to 59 months and their caregivers."
Hardison JD, Cecil JC, White JA, Manz M, Mullins MR, Ferretti GA. Pediatr Dent. 2003 Jul-Aug;25(4):365-72.
In this article it is revealed that for children in Kentucky, "43% had untreated caries, 47% had caries experience (early childhood caries), and 31% had severe early childhood caries."

CONCLUSIONS of the report:

"Dental caries is a major health and early childhood development problem in high-risk preschool children in Kentucky"

Kentucky is 100% fluoridated!

 

2002. There is a major push from the US to compulsorily fluoridate its own communities. A similar push to recover lost ground begins in Australia, New Zealand, and the UK.

The US Environmental Protection Agency, a traditional promoter of fluoridation (though opposed by its Union of Scientists, who actually do the research) acknowledges that no human health safety tests have ever been done on silicofluorides used in water fluoridation, and calls for such research. It holds a scientific forum, and includes a 1 1/2 hour time slot for a fluoridation debate. Dr Paul Connett and Dr Hardy Limeback put the case against fluoridation. Not one federal agency, claiming fluoridation to be one of the 10 great medical achievements of the 20th century, is prepared to debate with these experts. The media, and Congressional aides present, begin asking why proponents cannot apparently support their claims.

Belgium bans all fluoride supplements citing that excessive use of fluoride increases the risk of osteoporosis, could damage the nervous system and, even Belgian dentists agree, is ineffective when ingested.
Belgian health minister at the time, Magda Aelvoet, said she was now pressing for a Europe-wide ban, hinting that the removal of supplements was just the first step towards removing the chemical from the food chain

The Irish Fluoridation Forum reports its "findings". It is unable to answer even one of the questions put to it by Dr Paul Connett, in spite of a special committee having been established for that express purpose and sitting for 2 years. It fails to mention any of the adverse research presented to it, rather like the Hamer Inquiry in Victoria in 1979, and simply repeats the endorsements of promoters instead of addressing the science.

The US pressure Israel, "the US of the Middle East", to adopt fluoridation. The Israeli parliament passes compulsory legislation: in 2003 the Israeli Supreme Court stands down the law, ruling it unconstitutional.

In January, 2002, the South Korean Medical Association official statement announced that "we are not in definitely positive position about water fluoridation since there are not enough scientific and medical evidences on its effects on human health" and expressed their wish to withdraw their name from the list of professional groups endorsing water fluoridation. This movement was followed by another announcement from the Korean Pharmaceutical Association in May, 2002, in which the latter said that the Pharmaceutical Association will not support the practice of water fluoridation until clear scientific evidence on its effects is available.

2003. Four South Korean city councils -Chongju, Pohang, Gwacheon, Uiwang- decide to stop the fluoridation of public water supplies.

The town of Basel, the only fluoridated town in Switzerland, ends fluoridation citing "lack of any perceptible benefit". In 1975 the Health Department had recommended discontinuing fluoridation because of "lack of any perceptible benefit".

 

Tony Blair in the UK introduces a Bill to make fluoridation compulsory. The House of Commons passes the Bill, in spite of the Government's own York Review finding no justification for fluoridation.

Dr Sam Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, author of "The Politics of Cancer", and "The Politics of Cancer Revisited", publicly opposes fluoridation.

Local councils of Pierce-Tacoma County, USA, file for injunction against the health boards who are trying to force councils to fluoridate water supplies against their wishes. The case goes to the Washington State Supreme Court, on the constitutional issues only. The health boards claim that dental caries is a dangerous disease allowing them to invoke their "police powers". One of the judges asks "If dental caries is dangerous, tell me: how do I catch it?" The decision of the court is awaited.

An international petition is launched calling for aan independent evaluation of fluoridation

The Mayor of London calls for an "independent" review of fluoridation

The Welsh nationalist party opposes fluoridation.

...

That is a brief summary of the history -
whether we will tolerate this indefensible practice, promoted by commercial and political interests, in the future, is in our hands.

#724 - Fluoridation: Time For A Second Look?, May 10, 2001

  

by Paul, Ellen and Michael Connett*

In 1997 the union representing scientists, engineers and lawyers at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C., voted to support a California citizen initiative to stop fluoridation of public drinking water. In 1999 the union's vice-president released a paper explaining the union's opposition to fluoridation.[1]

Fluoridation is the practice of adding fluoride to the public water supply to reduce dental decay. U.S. fluoridation trials began in 1945 and by 1992 approximately 56% of the U.S. public received its water from fluoridated systems.[2]

Typically, fluoride-containing (or -generating) compounds are added to water to bring the level up to 1 milligram of fluoride ion per liter (1 part per million). In 1986 EPA set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in drinking water at 4 ppm.[3] The MCL was based on only one adverse health effect: skeletal fluorosis, a crippling bone disease.

Fluoridation of public water supplies has stirred passionate debate for over 50 years. Now new data is refining the debate. It appears that some of the early claims for fluoridation's benefits were inflated. In recent years tooth decay has declined in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. In fact, the largest U.S. survey indicates that the benefit to fluoridated communities amounts to 0.6 fewer decayed tooth surfaces per child, which is less than one percent of the tooth surfaces in a child's mouth.[4]

The public health community justified medicating whole communities via public drinking water using certain arguments that recent research has now shown to be false. For example, in 1945 scientists believed that fluoride had to be swallowed to be effective. However, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has recently acknowledged that fluoride's mechanism of action is primarily topical, not systemic.[5] This means that you don't need to swallow fluoride to reap its tiny benefits.

A second early belief, now known to be false, is that fluoride is an essential nutrient. There is no evidence of any disease related to fluoride deficiency. Natural levels of fluoride in human milk (0.01 ppm) are approximately a hundred times less than baby formula reconstituted with fluoridated water.[6]

A third early belief was that dental fluorosis (a defect of the tooth enamel caused by fluoride's interference with the growing tooth) would occur in only about 10% of the children drinking water fluoridated at 1 ppm and would occur only in its mildest form. Today fluorosis occurs on two or more teeth in 30% of children in areas where the water is fluoridated, and not all in its mildest form.[7]

A fourth early belief was that 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water provided an ample margin of safety against toxic effects. Not only is there no safety margin for dental fluorosis but there is growing evidence that there may be no safety margin for changes to bone structure and impacts on the brain, thyroid, and other soft tissues, especially when it is coupled with nutrient deficiencies, particularly iodide.

THE EVIDENCE

1) In 1998 the results of a long-term, low-dose rat study were published.[8] Two groups of rats were exposed to two different kinds of fluoride at 1 ppm in distilled water. A third group received only distilled water. Amyloid deposits (associated with Alzheimer's Disease and other forms of dementia) were elevated in the brains of both fluoridated groups compared to the control group. The authors speculate that fluoride enables aluminum to cross the blood-brain barrier.

2) Millions of people in India and China suffer a crippling bone disease called skeletal fluorosis, caused by moderate to high natural levels of fluoride (1.5 to 9 ppm) in their water.[9] Skeletal fluorosis has several stages of severity, with the less severe being chronic joint pain. "Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed."[3] Arthritis is now at epidemic levels in the U.S. Fluoride's plausible contribution has been ignored, but needs to be taken seriously.

3) Since fluoridation began in 1945 our exposure to other sources of fluoride has increased substantially. These include processing food and beverages with fluoridated water; air pollution from fluoride emitting industries; pesticide residues; vitamins; and dental products. If 1 ppm in drinking water were the only source of fluoride, the average person would ingest 2 milligrams (mg) of fluoride each day, though some may get less because they use bottled water, or they drink less water than the average adult. In 1991, the federal Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) estimated that the range of exposure in communities with approximately 1 ppm fluoride in the water was 1.58 to 6.6 mg per day.[10]

4) The dose of 1.58 to 6.6 mg per day overlaps the dose found to depress the functioning of the human thyroid gland. At 2.27 to 4.54 mg/day, fluoride has been found to "completely relieve" the symptoms of hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid).[11] With fluoride's known capacity to depress thyroid activity, it seems that there may be a link between current fluoride consumption and the prevalence of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid). More than twenty million people in the U.S. receive treatment for thyroid problems and many others are thought to go undiagnosed.[12]

5) Fluoride is a hormone disrupter. It mimics the action of many water-soluble hormones by interacting with G proteins, which transmit hormonal messages across cell membranes.[13] Additionally, fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and may reduce melatonin production.[14]

6) Fluoride (50-75 mg per day) given to osteoporosis patients to strengthen bones has actually increased their rate of hip fractures.[15,16] Of 18 studies conducted since 1990, 10 have found an association between water fluoridation and hip fractures in the elderly.[17] According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR): "If this effect is confirmed, it would mean that hip fracture in the elderly replaces dental fluorosis in children as the most sensitive endpoint of fluoride exposure."[18] Hip fracture is not a minor problem: in the U.S. up to 50,000 people die each year of osteoporosis-related hip fractures.[19]

7) Some evidence suggests that fluoride causes bone cancer in male rats and perhaps in young men.[20, 21]

8) A recent report by the Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility reviews studies showing that fluoride interferes with brain function in young animals and in children, reducing IQ.[22]

Most European countries have rejected fluoridation. Recognizing that there are simple and effective alternatives, they have applied the precautionary principle. Their children's teeth have not suffered as a consequence. Parents willing to expose their children to fluoride can simply purchase fluoridated toothpaste (which contains 1000 to 1500 ppm fluoride -- read the warning label on the package).[23] The American policy of giving fluoride to children by medicating whole communities with a potent drug that may harm some people seems a dubious practice at best. At worst it violates the primary principle of medical ethics: First do no harm. Furthermore, it violates the ethical principle of informed consent.

In May 2000 the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) was formed by a coalition of activists and scientists from 12 countries (see: http://www.fluoridealert.org/). FAN's goal is to end fluoridation and minimize exposure to fluoride. FAN's founding members include the late David Brower; Teddy Goldsmith; Michael Colby; Gar Smith; Terri Swearingen; the union representing professional employees at EPA headquarters; and Dr. Hardy Limeback, Canada's leading dental authority on fluoridation who in 1999 apologized for having promoted fluoridation for 15 years.

We urge our colleagues working on public health and environmental issues to become involved and take a second look at fluoridation.

=====

* Paul Connett is professor of chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton N.Y.; Ellen Connett is editor of WASTE NOT , 82 Judson, Canton N.Y. 13617; Michael Connett is FAN's webmaster <http://www.fluoridealert.org>/

[1] J. William Hirzy, "Why the union representing U.S. EPA's professionals in Washington D.C. opposes fluoridation," WASTE NOT #448 ( May 1, 1999), pgs. 1-4. And see http://www.fluoridation.com/epa2.htm.

[2] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Prevention Services, Division of Oral Health, "Water Supply Statistics" (Atlanta, Georgia: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1993). Available at http://www.cdc.gov/nohss/FSSupplyStats.htm.

[3] Bette Hileman, "Fluoridation of water. Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years," CHEMICAL & ENGINEERING NEWS Vol. 66 (August 1, 1988), pgs. 26-42. Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/hileman.htm.

[4] J.A. Brunelle and J.P. Carlos, "Recent Trends in Dental Caries in U.S. Children and the Effect of Water Fluoridation," JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH Vol. 69, Special Issue (February 1990), pgs. 723-727 and discussion pgs. 820-823.

[5] Centers for Disease Control, "Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries," MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY WEEKLY REPORT Vol. 48, No. 41 (October 22, 1999), pgs. 933-940.

[6] C.J. Spak and others, "Fluoride in Human Milk," ACTA PAEDIATRICA SCANDINAVICA Vol. 72, No. 5 (September 1983), pgs. 699-701.

[7] Keith E. Heller and others, "Dental Caries and Dental Fluorosis at Varying Water Fluoride Concentrations," JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH DENTISTRY Vol. 57, No. 3 (Summer 1997), pgs. 136-143.

[8] Julie A. Varner and others, "Chronic administration of aluminum-fluoride and sodium-fluoride to rats in drinking water: alterations in neuronal and cerebrovascular integrity," BRAIN RESEARCH Vol. 784, No. 1-2 (February 1998), pgs. 284-298.

[9] S.S. Jolly and others, "Human Fluoride Intoxication in Punjab," Fluoride Vol, 4, No. 2 (1971), pgs. 64-79.

[10] Ad Hoc Subcommitttee on Fluoride of the Committee to Coordinate Environmental Health and Related Programs, Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. REVIEW OF FLUORIDE: BENEFITS AND RISKS, REPORT OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON FLUORIDE OF THE COMMITTEE TO COORDINATE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND RELATED PROGRAMS (February 1991), pg. 17.

[11] Pierre-M. Galletti and Gustave Joyet, "Effect of fluorine on thyroidal iodine metabolism in hyperthyroidism," JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY Vol. 18 (October 1958), pgs. 1102-1110.

[12] Beth Ann Ditkoff and Paul Lo Gerfo, THE THYROID GUIDE [ISBN 0060952601] (New York: Harper, 2000), cover notes.

[13] Anna Strunecka and J. Patocka, "Pharmacological and toxicological effects of aluminofluoride complexes." FLUORIDE Vol. 32, No. 4 (November 1999), pgs. 230-242.

[14] Jennifer Anne Luke, THE EFFECT OF FLUORIDE ON THE PHYSIOLOGY OF THE PINEAL GLAND , Ph.D Thesis, University of Surrey, United Kingdom (1997). See also Jennifer Luke, "Fluoride Deposition in the Aged Human Pineal Gland," CARIES RESEARCH Vol. 35 (2001), pgs. 125-128.

[15] L.R. Hedlund and J.C. Gallagher, "Increased incidence of hip fracture in osteoporotic women treated with sodium fluoride," JOURNAL OF BONE MINERAL RESEARCH Vol. 4, No. 2 (April 1989), pgs. 223-225.

[16] B.L. Riggs and others, "Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rates in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis," NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE Vol. 322, No. 12 (March 22 1990), pgs. 802-809.

[17] Paul Connett and Michael Connett, "The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Critique of the CDC's Promotion of Fluoridation," WASTE NOT #468 (October 2000), pgs. 27-28. Available at http://www.fluoridealert.org/cdc.htm.

[18] Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, TOXICOLOGICAL PROFILE FOR FLUORIDES, HYDROGEN FLUORIDE, AND FLUORINE (F) [ATSDR/TP-91/17]. (Atlanta, Ga.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, April 1993), pg. 57.

[19] K. Phipps, "Fluoride and bone health," JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH DENTISTRY Vol. 55, No. 1 (Winter 1995), pgs. 53-56.

[20] National Toxicology Program, TOXICOLOGY AND CARCINOGENESIS (December 1990). This NTP study is summarized in reference 10, pgs. 71-73.

[21] Perry D. Cohn, A BRIEF REPORT ON THE ASSOCIATION OF DRINKING WATER FLUORIDATION AND THE INCIDENCE OF OSTEOSARCOMA AMONG YOUNG MALES. (Trenton, N.J.: New Jersey Department of Health, November 8, 1992).

[22] Ted Schettler and others, IN HARM'S WAY: TOXIC THREATS TO CHILD DEVELOPMENT (Cambridge, Mass.: Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility [GBPSR] , May 2000). Available at http://www.igc.org/psr/ or from GBPSR in Cambridge, Mass.; telephone (617) 497-7440.

[23] Paul Connett and Ellen Connett, "The Fluoridation of Drinking Water: a house of cards waiting to fall. Part 1: The Science," WASTE NOT #373 (November 1996). See Table 2 pgs. 6-7.