Showing posts with label ADA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ADA. Show all posts

Everything You Need Know About Mercury Amalgam Fillings - Repost from 2008

I was at a friend's party and the subject of mercury fillings came up. This reminded me of the recent ruling against the FDA and ADA. If you have mercury fillings, or have a loved one who has mercury fillings, or might someday have or know someone who will get mercury fillings, you must read this.

Be well,
Sifu Marcus

Mercury Fillings Shattered!
FDA, ADA Conspiracy to Poison Children
with
Toxic Mercury Fillings
Exposed in Groundbreaking Lawsuit

By Mike Adams - Natural News - June, 2008

The FDA has, for decades, ridiculously insisted that mercury fillings pose no health threat whatsoever to children. While dismissing hundreds of studies showing a clear link between mercury amalgam fillings ("silver fillings") and disastrous neurological effects in the human body, the FDA denied the truth about mercury and effectively protected the mercury filling racket that has brought so much harm to so many people. For over a hundred years, a cabal of "mercury mongers" made up of the American Dental Association, mercury filling manufacturers and indignant dentists have reaped windfall profits by implanting toxic fillings into the mouths of children, all while insisting that mercury -- one of the most toxic heavy metals known to modern science -- posed no health threat whatsoever.

Today, that reign of toxicity is about to end. Thanks to the tireless, multi-year efforts of people like Charles Brown, National Counsel for Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org), the FDA has now been forced to acknowledge a fact so fundamental that, by any measure of honest science, it should have adopted the position decades ago. What position is that? Simply that mercury is toxic to humans.

Why the FDA has to be sued to do its job of protecting consumers?

The FDA's stonewalling on this issue has been nothing less than a circus of politically-motivated denials, much like the Big Tobacco executives swearing under oath that "Nicotine is not addictive." In similar style, the FDA insisted for decades that "Mercury is not toxic." Both statements, as any sane person can readily conclude, are the outbursts of lunatics. Sadly, those lunatics somehow remain in charge of our nation's food, drugs and cosmetics (and dental care), meaning that any real progress to protect the People must come from outside the FDA.

And that's exactly what just happened. Consumers for Dental Choice teamed up with Moms Against Mercury (www.MomsAgainstMercury.org) to sue the FDA and its commissioner whose name sounds like an evil-minded villian right out of a Marvel comic book: Von Eschenbach. The lawsuit, entitled, Moms Against Mercury et al. v. Von Eschenbach, Commissioner, et al was concluded earlier this week with a reluctant agreement by the FDA to both change its website on the issue of mercury and to reclassify mercury within one year, following a period of public comment (which the agency will no doubt try to drag out as long as possible in order to avoid actually sticking to the terms of the lawsuit agreement).

Remarkably, the FDA's website no longer claims mercury is harmless. The language has now been changed in dramatic fashion, reading: "Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetus."

There's still a lot of fudging there. Note the careful use of the word "may," which means the FDA still isn't sure whether mercury is neurotoxic, but it might be. This is the FDA's way of continuing to stonewall this issue, even as it lost its lawsuit. For any FDA officials who don't yet think mercury is toxic to the human nervous system, I invite them to chug a few milliliters of the substance themselves and find out what the effects might be. It certainly couldn't make them any more mad than they are already!

Why the FDA is as mad as a hatter?

Speaking of people going mad with mercury, that's the history of the term "as mad as a hatter." As explained by Wikipedia:

There is scientific evidence behind the meaning of insanity. Mercury was used in the process of curing felt used in some hats. It was impossible for hatters to avoid inhaling the mercury fumes given off during the hat making process. Hatters and other men in working mills died early due to the residual mercury caused neurological damage, as well as confused speech and distorted vision. As the mercury poisoning progressed to dangerously high levels, sufferers could also experience psychotic symptoms, such as hallucinations. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_hatter... to read more.

Interestingly, the symptoms of mercury toxicity quite accurately describe the mental state of the top decision makers at both the FDA and the American Dental Association, both of which have hallucinated for decades that mercury was safe for children to swallow! These people also exhibit symptoms of serious neurological damage such as malfunctioning frontal lobes -- the part of the brain responsible for reasoning. They also seem to lack proper functioning in the part of brain responsible for empathy and compassion towards fellow human beings.

Perhaps top FDA and ADA officials have been chemically lobotomized in some way, and there's no question that the leaders in conventional dentistry suffer from advanced stages of psychosis, too. This could very well be due to the fact that their ongoing use of mercury fillings has exposed them to decades of mercury vapors and airborne particles which have entered their nervous systems and damaged their brains, making them appear quite mad.

Thus, the modern version of "mad as a hatter" might be, "mad as a dentist." Not all dentists are mad, mind you, but the ones that still work with mercury no doubt suffer very real neurological damage as a result.

What's next for the FDA?

Despite this lawsuit victory, please keep in mind that the FDA has not agreed to immediately ban toxic mercury fillings. They have merely agreed to consider reclassifying mercury at some future date -- a commitment they will probably break, given their history of lying about mercury and refusing to do what they've agreed to do on this subject (see the interview, below, for more details on that).

At every opportunity throughout recent history, the FDA has gone out of its way to censor the truth about the toxicity of mercury fillings, thereby directly supporting the continued exposure of literally hundreds of millions of children, adults and senior citizens to a substance that every reasonable scientist in the modern world knows to be highly toxic to the human nervous system. And in this way, the FDA is guilty of crimes against the People. To know that a substance is highly toxic, and yet to continue allowing it to be implanted into the mouths of children, teens and adults (even when you have the power to ban it) is not merely irresponsible, it is downright criminal.

I can only hope that a nationwide class action lawsuit against the ADA, the FDA, local dentists and mercury manufacturers will emerge from this action. Countless Americans have been poisoned by mercury fillings, and the whole scam has been orchestrated by the usual suspects: Powerful corporations and industry groups that sought to exploit the People for profits, regardless of the harm it might cause them. The fact that a substance as toxic as mercury has been allowed to be implanted into the mouths of children for so long reveals precisely how corrupt, outdated and downright dangerous our system of modern dentistry has really become. Much of what comes out of the mouths of dentists, it turns out, is pure poison... and not coincidentally, that's exactly what those same dentists put into the mouths of their own patients!

But I don't want to give the impression that all dentists are evil. In fact, more and more dentists are now practicing mercury-free dentistry, and I strongly recommend that if you need to see a dentist in the future, insist on seeing one that has given up using mercury. This is more than a personal health issue, it's also an environmental issue. Where do you think all the mercury goes after you chew on those silver fillings and swallow little mercury bits? The mercury molecules that aren't absorbed by your body and lodged in your brain cells are eliminated from the body and flow right into the environment. Ever wonder why all the seafood bring harvested from the ocean these days is contaminated with mercury? Well now you know: It's due to all the toxic consumers peeing away the mercury they've swallowed from their silver fillings!

See my related CounterThink Cartoon, Seafood Mercury Warning at http://www.naturalnews.com/021690.html

The FDA remains steadfastly clueless about mercury

So now, thanks to this lawsuit, the FDA has changed its website to read: "Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner."

This sentence says nothing conclusive of course, and it doesn't urge consumers to avoid mercury in any way, but it does at least imply that perhaps there is a link between dental care and mercury poisoning. If you're interested in being amused, you can read all this distorted language yourself at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html

This document, by the way, reveals the outright stupidity of FDA "experts" as they stumble from one topic to the next. For example, one question asked on the page is: Should pregnant women and young children use or avoid amalgam fillings?

The FDA's answer to that is: The recent advisory panel believed that there was not enough information to answer this question.

In other words, the FDA advisory panel selectively chose to avoid all the evidence showing mercury to be extremely harmful to the nervous system of a fetus or a child, and they have decided to pretend to be uninformed on the subject rather than take any real stance on protecting human beings from the toxicity of mercury. Wow, and to think, these are the people running our national food supply and drug approval processes, too! Is it any wonder so many drugs are deadly? If the FDA thinks mercury is safe, no wonder they think deadly pharmaceuticals don't harm people either!

Exclusive interview
with
Charles Brown,
Consumers for Dental Choice

In the days leading up to this lawsuit with the FDA, I spoke to Charles Brown over the phone and explored the timeline of events involving the FDA and mercury. This interview, published below, is nothing short of astonishing! In it, you'll learn about the FDA's stonewalling tactics, the lies and deceptions of the American Dental Association, and why it took an outside consumer group suing the FDA to get the agency to do its job of protecting consumers from toxic mercury.

Here's the full interview. Be sure to learn more at www.ToxicTeeth.org

Mike: The story here is that you and the organization – Consumers for Dental Choice are now suing the Food & Drug Administration to seek removal of mercury fillings from the U.S. marketplace. Can you give us some details about this lawsuit? Why you think suing the FDA is the best way to go here?

Charlie: Well sure Mike, the FDA is the spoke of the wheel here. I mean they are the ones that make decisions on whether products should be on the market or should not be on the market. They approve, they classify. In the case of devices – a device is something that is used in healthcare and it is separately regulated under a set of rules. One category of devices is implants. Implants are what goes in the body but does not dissolve. It stays in the body at least six months and does not dissolve.
Dental fillings are an implant. The FDA is deciding instead of classifying, instead of regulating it, it will do nothing and it has done nothing on mercury amalgam – encapsulated mercury fillings - decade after decade. They continue to promise to act and actually, last year they made me a written promise and I foolishly believed them. I actually thought when they promised, in writing, that they would begin the classifying process and put together the first step.

They promised me specifically what the step would be, I naively thought, "Well, gee maybe these people are honorable and telling the truth." Actually, once again, they have just pretended. Under pressure, they will say they are going to do something – pressure from Congress, pressure from the Courts, pressure from petitioners, pressure from the press.

They will say, "Sure, we are going to do something." They do nothing. They have left this mercury amalgam out there unclassified, unregulated with no warnings and just a few news releases, which have nothing to do with what they are supposed to be doing.

Mike: So mercury fillings – let me just get this straight from the beginning here, have never been classified by the FDA, which means they have never been really approved by the FDA, correct?

Charlie: Correct, this is a primitive filling in the first place but the pre-primitive – the pre-historic system in the 19th and early 20th Century was where was the dentist mixed the mercury with a powder. That lasted until the 20th Century with the old-fashioned offices. It is now prohibited in several states but that was the way where the dentists would mix a bottle of mercury and powder. That has been classified – not together, but the powder has been classified and the bottle of mercury.
No dentist does that anymore. They are not allowed to do it that way where the ADA tells them not to do it. The state government tells them not to do it. Everybody tells them they cannot do it that way and they do not do it that way. They take the capsule that they receive in the mail. The capsule has never been classified. The FDA knows to classify. Any step that the FDA takes, that the Food & Drug Administration takes toward addressing mercury fillings they know it is the beginning of the end.

Mike: That is my next question. Do you think there will be a cascading effect here? I mean if the FDA honestly begins to apply the law; it would then have to mean the end of mercury.

Charlie: It is the end of the mercury fillings if they apply law so they have intentionally done nothing. If they classify amalgam, they know they are going to have to classify it similar to other mercury devices so they do not do it.

Mike: They just try to delay this and hope no one notices.

Charlie: They will delay until they retire – not delay until next week. They will delay until they retire. Then they will get the golden retirement egg from the American Dental Association. They also know that if they did an Environmental Impact Statement it is the end of mercury fillings.

Mike: Well, that is my next question. The environmental impact of mercury fillings in dentistry

Charlie: Environmental... yes, sure – the Environmental Impact Statement says it does not require you to go a certain step but if you say if we use mercury fillings, it is the largest source of mercury in the wastewater. Its cremation is the largest source of mercury in the air except in communities that have many power plants is something.In communities with no other industrial mercury uses it is the largest source of mercury in the air and is the largest source of mercury in the water in every community in America -- the huge contributor in coming out of cemeteries and so on. So you say if we continue mercury fillings, it is an environmental disaster. If we ban them, it is environmentally the right thing to do. Once they have done that the logical step since you could go either way is to take the environmentally friendly move. They will not do an Environmental Impact Statement. It is a conscious decision inside FDA of protectors of mercury fillings – people like Susan Runner, people like Norris Alderson who have decided that they will protect the use of these fillings on behalf of organized dentistry and they will defy the laws of the land to do so.

Mike: I have so many questions to ask you about this. Let us start with one that I think any intelligent reader would be asking himself or herself and that is if this mercury is so toxic to human biochemistry and if it has such a detrimental impact on the environment, how could so many dentists and the American Dental Association be in such strong support of it.

Charlie: Yes, it is amazing. It is amazing. It really goes to the foundation stone. Clearly if we had it to do over again we would not build the combustion engine. The invention of the combustion engine may have been the decision that destroys our planet unless we can reverse that. I mean clearly that is the main reason we are turning our planet into a heat box.

However, the foundation stone is the combustion engine in which Henry Ford put us. The foundation stone of dentistry is mercury fillings. If there had been no mercury fillings, there would have been no dental profession. That is a certainty. We now have physicians of the ear, nose, and throat. In the 19th Century, there were physicians of the mouth. They said to use mercury is malpractice.

The barbers put the mercury in. It worked better than gold, which was very hot then. It hurt you to go in. Whereas, the mercury was nice and smooth and people were drinking mercury for syphilis so they were able to put it in there because medicine had not yet pushed it out of their profession. They pushed it out again not counting vaccines but they pushed it out of medicine around 1900, but dentistry was something different.

By then dentistry had gotten their market niche. Their market niche was we are going to take care of the mouth. They created an entirely different profession – one that basically is not related to healthcare. They take the position the mouth is so different from the rest of the body we will just worry about the mouth and nothing else and you doctors will not worry about the mouth at all. We have the most grotesque healthcare system where physicians even refuse to look at the mouth. People in the hospital – you can be in the hospital, you can be so sick and nobody is going to look at your mouth except the dentist.

It is like a division of labor where they both make their money and the person harmed is the public, so organized dentistry took the position since mercury is safe by definition because we use it and we are doctors, anything we put in the mouth is safe. They just put in... they put beryllium in there.
They put anything in there with the idea of we are immune because we are doctors. We know what we are doing and it is just a tragedy. It is just unbelievable that we ended up with a profession so wedded to the most neuro-toxic element on the planet. Why dentists are walking away from mercury fillings?

Mike: Well, you hinted at the arrogance of the professionals who continue to support this mercury and you mentioned the history quite a bit there. I have to wonder that given that nearly a hundred years have passed since this was being widely introduced into dentistry and with all the information about mercury's toxicity over the years, how could dentists still say that this substance is not harmful? What is their argument now?

Charlie: Well, half of them do not use it now. See half of them have walked away from it. Here is what happened – enter the institutional powerhouse, the American Dental Association, to impose a top down system. The ADA realizing that they had a secret. The ADA became the whole player on the field. The ADA is opposite the AMA in many ways and I am not – believe me I am not a supporter of the American Medical Association. I do not mean to say that but in this one area the AMA has a set of ethics that make sense, which is we do not endorse products for money. The AMA ventured into that I think in about the '30s and decided they had better stop and then they ventured into it again in the '90s and they realized they could not.

They promised their membership. They had to fire their executive director, break this contract with Sunbeam, and promise they will never endorse products for money. That is the AMA's ethical position and it is an ethical position. The ADA – the American Dental Association has no such ethics,

Mike. They endorse products for money. The ADA, starting in the '50s really, the 1950's, they really took off at that point. A product endorsement system, business studies show that Crest was a minor toothpaste product compared to Colgate. Crest surpassed Colgate because the they poured money into the ADA coffers and the ADA, in turn, gave their name to Crest to say we endorse this Crest toothpaste. It became such an advantage for Crest that the other toothpaste makers decided they would slop money to the ADA too, which they did.

The ADA was not only unethically telling the public a product is safe when they did not know if it was safe. They were not testing it. The ADA was even taking money from their members for joining and then turning around and saying to their members you should use this product because we endorse it, because it is safe and effective when they had no idea if it was safe and effective.

They were serving two masters but the corporate master to ADA was paramount and so they took these sums of money from every dental products manufacturer, became a dental products endorsement machine more than a professional group – much more than a professional group. You had that basic powerhouse – the ADA saying go buy these products.

Then the ADA saw the criticism of mercury amalgam coming in the 1980's and they knew they had to do something because they were getting money from the manufacturers and they had dentists that did not want the public to know. The ADA adopted a gag rule in their code of ethics in 1987 and it said that dentists should not tell anybody about the toxicity of mercury.

Mike: Really?

Charlie: Yes, absolutely.

Mike: They adopted a gag rule about mercury fillings?

Charlie: They adopted a gag rule. In the Goldwater Center, the Phoenix based Goldwater Center wrote an essay condemning the gag rule in 1998 – a decade later. They were the first ones to do it.
They are a think tank, kind of a libertarian think tank I guess you would call it – the Goldwater Center. Modeled after the thinking of their namesake of the group, of course, Senator Goldwater... he did not found it but it was founded on his principles and Congressman Flake was the executive director. He is now a Congressman.

When he was executive director, Mark Gingrich – a former reporter at the Arizona Republic, who joined that group, wrote a whole report on the gag rule and how bad it was. That was the libertarian from the right if you will. The libertarian on the left – the American Civil Liberties Union, took the same position. They sued the Connecticut Dental Board here on the other coast, said you cannot have this gag rule, and won.

Then the attorney general of Oregon, the attorney general of Iowa said you have to stop the gag rule so bit by bit, piece by piece, the gag rule has been dismantled but the value of it was the ADA protecting its product.

I will tell you something else when they adopted the gag rule, I left this out: the ADA had patents on mercury amalgam. Not only did they get money for promoting the product. They even got patents on amalgam to protect its use, then told dentists do not talk about this product.

Mike: This sounds like just a financial racket here.

Charlie: The ADA is a financial racket. There is no question about it. To break the control over mercury fillings you not only have the history, they have to protect their profession, which was founded on mercury. I mean it is not that now but it was founded on mercury – the foundation stone. They have to protect their own history and their own pocketbooks.

Now with the gag rule crumbling they have many problems. The ADA has huge problems with this. They are in retreat. Mike, the one thing is they are definitely this year they began retreating. We gave them an exit strategy. December of 2006 I sat down in the ADA headquarters and said you guys know you have to get out of this and I have a cost-free exit strategy that will not destroy your reputation. We presented – Consumers for Dental Choice presented the ADA – the American Dental Association with an exit strategy on mercury fillings based on the environment where the ADA could say they would not have to concede any health issues. They would say we recognize that mercury amalgam is an environmental problem. Alternatives exist, therefore, we are announcing a phase out over the following number of years.

I asked for one year and they said it would have to be longer and I said okay, but I said we have to have an end. People have said to me well let us take them on like cigarettes and I will tell that is about the worst prototype I can think of where the lawyers became billionaires and kids are still smoking.

I am not going to tolerate that kind of end where a bunch of people get rich and the kids are still harmed... because poor kids are still getting mercury fillings and poor Latino pregnant women and Native American children and so on are getting this. We are not going to accept that. There has to be an end date.

They were willing to do it. The lawyers were willing to do it at this discussion – December 14, 2006 at the ADA offices in Chicago but they just could not pull the trigger with the ADA. They just could not have a second meeting. They have decided instead through 2007 they are doing a gradual retreat. There is no question they are. It is coming, but the gradual retreat continues to harm millions of people in America and around the world. Their gradual retreat is not acceptable. We are not going to have a Vietnam ending where we have eight years to withdraw.

Mike: Right, now, I mean obviously the ADA does not want to admit that mercury fillings were ever a hazard because then they could open themselves up to huge class-action lawsuits, right.
Charlie: Absolutely and I told them I hope they do get huge class-action lawsuits and some day they will because they would not walk away from it. They had their chance and they continued to give this nonsensical stuff about how mercury exposure is okay as long as they do it. It is just outrageous. It is morally outrageous and they know it.

The scientific reports that they produce are cooked. They are unethical. They have no scientific aspect. They are simply PR machines where they find some dentist – not a real scientist but just their fellow dentists to write reports. It is an effort to say we are going to protect ourselves, we are going to have our government do it, the government is going to do it for us, and the FDA is about as compliant a government agency as ever existed.

Mike: Now, what happens if your lawsuit succeeds with the FDA? I mean essentially, what has to happen next for the FDA to ban mercury fillings?

Charlie: Well, they could take many routes. They could just ban it. They could start doing their job. If they start the classifying process then amalgam is gone. The ADA has admitted that. The ADA warned its members the FDA is probably going to put restrictions on amalgam. That process has started. They promised us they were starting then the FDA just stopped. They just stopped because within the organization they reversed the course and decided effectively that dentists are more important to them than consumers. It is just so tragic that dental economics out-trumps children's health but that is the way the FDA operates.

Mike: Well but that cannot be a surprise to anyone who follows the FDA...

Charlie: Well it is a surprise to those of us that had an assumption that we actually believed what we were told. I know if you follow FDA, it is not a surprise. The FDA needs to be totally reorganized. They need to stop having a system where those with a self-interest in the product are the ones that get to make the decisions.

The idea that Susan Runner, a practicing dentist, is at the FDA doing the work for the ADA and has actually had a sort of agenda to cover up mercury decade after decade and it is still being covered up in the Dental Devices Branch. The fact that Dan Schultz – the physician who's head of Devices will not remove her or allow anybody but a dentist to be in charge, this shows the professional courtesy that physicians give to dentists. Schultz simply closes his eyes.

He knows it is a problem but he is a physician. He wants dentists in charge because that is the deal they made a hundred years ago that dentists are in charge of the mouth and the public is shut out and physicians are to blame as well on this for shutting their eyes. Dan Schultz is as morally culpable and legally culpable at the FDA as Susan Runner is. That is why we sued him and sued her both and several other people. Arresting top FDA officials and charging them with crimes against the People

Mike: Now, I am on the record saying that I believe the FBI should march into the FDA offices and arrest these individuals and we should prosecute them for criminal behavior against the American people. Do you think that is going way too far or do you think that's quite reasonable?

Charlie: That is probably not going too far. We filed a series of complaints with the Inspector General. We filed complaints with the in-house FDA Inspector and then filed a complaint with the U.S. Inspector General last Fall. They have decided they will not comply with the law. They know they have to classify mercury amalgam. They will not do it.

They know environmental impact statements are required or environmental assessments are required – the first step. They will not do it. They know that they warn about all of the mercury exposures such as fish or they warn against as a matter of precaution mercury exposure to children from all other sources. They banned mercurochrome years ago. They took it out of childhood vaccines – actually not of them but they said they would take it out of all of them.

They gave warnings on fish for children and pregnant women. They have decided that they will stand silent on mercury and it is truly a conspiracy of silence. That is why our lawsuit did not just sue the FDA. We sued five deep into the bureaucracy. We know whom the players are who are ignoring their duty and we have named them because we are tired of the FDA having a system where they all can hide behind each other. I hope that system ends and our lawsuit plays a role in exposing it.

Mike: Now, you just mentioned mercury in fish and that is a great point. Do you happen to know how many times more mercury there is in a typical filling than would be found in a serving of fish?

Charlie: Well, it is a more severe exposure because in the fish it is locked in. The mercury from the fish is mainly going through the body. It is a lesser exposure. The mercury in the amalgam is implanted. The mercury in the fillings is thousands of times more because it is half a gram. That is 500,000 micrograms per filling.

Mike: Where we are talking micrograms in the fish, right?

Charlie: Yes, yes we are. We are so I mean it is so much more but it is a way for medicine and dentistry to change the subject and to blame the fish. It is the fish's fault.

Mike: So the FDA says well, mercury in fish is dangerous to you but mercury in your mouth, in your teeth is harmless.

Charlie: Well, the FDA has said that. You know the FDA does not speak through its news releases. The FDA speaks through its regulations and its warnings. It has never officially said anything about mercury amalgam. They know it cannot stand the light of day. Yes, they make off-the-cuff comments.
They come out with a white paper, which has nothing to do with a regulation – and they refuse to say who wrote it. If FDA staff has furtively sneaked out interviews, white papers, other ways to say mercury fillings are safe but officially, FDA is not saying that at all. Officially, FDA is taking the position that they have never taken a position that it is safe.

When forced by the Court to say is mercury safe or not in the first lawsuit we filed, the first bombs against mercury versus FDA, the FDA admitted five times that it does not know if mercury fillings are safe. I can give you all five quotations from their brief or I can give people the website to look it up. Meet Consumers for Dental Choice

Mike: Can you tell us a little bit, about where your passion comes from on this topic and people would like to know a bit about your background and your organization – Consumers for Dental Choice.

Charlie: Well, sure. Consumers for Dental Choice were founded a decade ago. Came up with the idea in 1996 – it was an idea of Bob Jones who is an inventor from Colorado and now in Texas. He is a former airline pilot, former U2 pilot earlier than that. He is just an outstanding man and inventor and an engineer. He has many patents.

He got very sick from mercury fillings and realized the impact of them was severe. He got to know many of the pioneering dentists like Hal Huggins and Scott McAdoo. He was out west and in the east Sue Ann Taylor, a journalist in Atlanta came up with the idea that we really need a consumer movement to fight this. Bob Jones had a conference, which he paid for and sponsored in Denver in 1996.

I was in a law firm that represented a lot of alternative health practitioners and interests and consumer groups in the kind of cutting edge alternative health issues many of which no longer were cutting edge because of the work of the senior partner, Jim Turner.

Anyway so Jim Turner and I went to that and we decided we would start up the group but Jim came up with the idea we called it the Consumers for Dental Choice and it became a project of another non-profit and then became its own organization in 1999.

Then it became a spin off, I left the law firm with it in 2002 to become a full-time consumer group with an office and so on. It has been around for 12 years. It has been a stand-alone organization for six. I got into it representing alternative health groups. I represented many alternative health ideas. I have been a state attorney general of West Virginia in the 1980's. I have been a political activist in the past and had interesting kinds of legal challenges I think.

This has just appealed to me and I guess the more I get into it the more I realize how many children are being hurt and how many animals are being poisoned and we have to do something. The way to do it is to have a very aggressive activist organization. It needs to get right in the face of federal or state regulators or the private sector interests like manufacturers or the ADA.

Mike: What about your funding? Where does your funding come from?

Charlie: We get some money from foundations – the Garfield Foundation is a wonderful funder, has funded us for seven years. For a long time we were funded by the Wallis Research Foundation, a family foundation. The patriarch was H. B. Wallis, an inventor from Iowa. He then lived in Scottsdale near you Mike.

He died a couple of years ago and that funding ended at that point from the Wallis Research Foundation but Garfield funds us and then individual dentists and that number grows each year... dentists who have decided to give money off their credit card every month or give an annual contribution and it is very exciting. These people are mercury-free. They are the people who know the ADA is wrong and know we need to fight and they are so much a part of our team that quite a few of them give money. It is terrific.

Mike: How quickly is that movement accelerating towards mercury-free dental care?

Charlie: Well, fast. The number of mercury-free dentists, if that is any measurement, was 9% in 1995. This is according to the Clinical Research Associates run by the preeminent dentist scholar, very neutral. He has no dog in our fight – Gordon Christensen out of Orem, Utah.

One of the things he surveys in dentists is who is mercury-free and it was 9% in 1995. Then 27% of dentists were mercury-free by 2001; by 2005, it was 32%. In 2007, a different survey – this was by a dental magazine said that 52% of the dentists are now mercury-free. It may have reached that number. It may have reached half. It may have reached the tipping point. The progress on dentists is huge. The progress of consumers, the number of mercury fillings was far over 50% when we started, like 60% or something like that I believe or more.

The ADA says it is fewer than 30%. I am sure it is but that is the good news. The bad news is it could well get frozen at that number where we have two-tier dentistry where middle-class adults get no mercury but the poor, the children, the working class people, minorities, children, they keep getting mercury and that is absolutely both immoral and unacceptable.

Mike: How much mercury is actually released into the environment or put into people's mouths each year through dentistry?

Charlie: Well, I do not have that but the expert is the Mercury Policy Project and Michael Bender. They are really the experts. Their website is www.MercuryPolicy.org. Michael has written just some seminal reports on this. About every two years, he writes another one. If the folks want to go to www.MercuryPolicy.org they will definitely see what they need to do.

Mike: While we are mentioning websites, I want to mention yours again. It is www.ToxicTeeth.org

Charlie: Yes it is.

Mike: Can consumers also financially support your organization with a donation?

Charlie: Sure, our address is 316 F Street Northeast, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20002 and again our website is www.ToxicTeeth.org. Why conventional dentists are so arrogant about mercury and fluoride

Mike: Okay and I will check out www.MercuryPolicy.org too. I will take a close look at that. Getting back to the dentists themselves it is encouraging to see that perhaps as many as half of practicing dentists are now shunning the use of mercury. You have to wonder what the other half are thinking though.

I have had numerous conversations, debates, arguments with dentists. I find that those who are still using mercury also still support mass fluoridation of the water supply. They are some of the most arrogant people I have ever met. It is infuriating because his or her position is that no one has any right to question mercury or fluoridation. It makes you wonder. Where are these people coming from that they think they already know so much about mercury that they have declared it to be harmless and no one can challenge that?

Charlie: Albert Einstein once said it is always unusual to find someone for whom curiosity survives a formal education. There are so many dentists and they are not alone in this among professionals who get that degree and now they can turn off their brain and make money. These people have decided just to read the ADA propaganda and that is it.

You hear that these pro-mercury dentists defend their use of mercury fillings and they will not use the word "mercury" they will give false information as if it is inert. It is not. They know it is not. If they read anything, they know it is not inert.

They may just decide to believe it themselves and their big rationale and every pro-mercury dentist that you talk to will give this rationale within the first two minutes. We know it is safe because we have used it for 150 years. Now, I guess the first response to that is what other part of pre-civil war medicine do you endorse?

The second point is that it is the most absurd scientific reasoning to say something has been used a long time and therefore is safe. I mean cigarettes must be safe. I have this article, a copy of it, from the British Lancet. Lancet is the British equivalent of the American Medical Association Journal but it is much better. It is much less sleazy in its connection to special interest groups, which the AMA Journal certainly is.

The Lancet had an article in 1860, an editorial in 1860 that said cigarettes are the universal product around. If it were dangerous as if its critics said people would be dropping dead in the streets, and clearly its universal use proves that it is safe and it is time to quit criticizing it. That is what things are with amalgam. They make jokes. Well, nobody dropped dead in my office, they say.

Well, if somebody gets sick later he or she does not go back to the dentist. The dentist says I am just in charge of the mouth and just the metals I put in the mouth. I do not have any other role. If I cut you while I am putting it in, well I know I have to deal with that because then I have done something that is in the mouth.

Any total body effect of what I do leaves with the patient. They get that patient out of the office. They are done with them and then they have this wall of silence and nobody can get back in and beat them in court, although we are going to beat them in court soon. Dentists literally say it is safe because we have done it for 150 years. Does that make it good? – is this good if we do it for 150 years?

It was the same argument for slavery. It was the same argument for cigarettes. It is the same argument for everything. If we do it long enough it must be good. That is just the most absurd thing for a man of science or a woman of science to say but by goodness, they do.

Mike: Yes, they do. I know you are not focusing on fluoridation but of course, this issue extends to fluoridation where I personally find many of the same similarities – a complete lack of scientific evidence supporting it, a denial of the dangers of fluoridation and the extreme arrogance and unwillingness to consider any possibility that they might be wrong.

Charlie: Yes, absolutely, absolutely and I think that is why you would say well how could this continue for so long. I mean how segregation could continue for a hundred years. I mean how could it take 70 years to ban lead in gasoline?

In the early 1920's as they started to mass produce gasoline with lead in it the people started dying. Workers died. Workers died in large numbers and everyone knew lead was the culprit... I mean everyone knew. Just as everyone knows mercury is toxic. Everyone knew lead in the 1920's knew lead was toxic.

The gasoline industry and the oil industry came up with two solutions. One is they thought of the funny word that said we have added ethyl to the gas. It means lead but they thought just as the dentists say silver fillings or amalgam. To protect the workers they raised the steam stacks in the plants where the gasoline was made.

In other words, rather than the workers getting sick and dying immediately from the lead exposure, the chimneys were raised so high that the lead went into the higher atmosphere and started just polluting the whole country. The workers were semi-saved in the sense they were not dying on the spot and the whole country was getting to the point of huge toxicity.

The study showed that as we took the lead out of gasoline in the '70s the level of violence committed by teenagers started going down immediately because each year they were less lead-toxic and the ones growing up were not starting out with lead toxicity. Lead toxicity like mercury toxicity causes people to be violent because they are poisoned. They just strike out.

It took from the '20s to the late '70s and everybody knew it was toxic and again with mercury fillings because the oil industry had such well-placed lobbyists and they were able to revert the question, saying we do not have to prove it is safe, you have to prove it is unsafe. That is what the dentists keep doing. We have done it for 150 years so prove it. Well, okay we can prove it. But they say, now you are not going to prove it with us having the government in our pocket.

The government people are in their pocket. Randall Luter, who had a lot of promise, he was Deputy Commissioner. He has just decided to sleep on it. Let the dentists and the bureaucrats' be back in charge of this issue at FDA; those people have decided we do not care. We are going to protect special interest groups or we are going to let others at FDA protect special interest groups so we have a similar resolve. How to stop the FDA with a lawsuit

Mike: To conclude this – getting back to the lawsuit itself, if you win the lawsuit can it force the FDA to rule on this? Why cannot the FDA just say we will deal with it later? I mean can they not just continue to delay even if you win the lawsuit?

Charlie: Well, that is a challenge. You pointed to that. I mean if a court just looks at the FDA and says hurry up and do it, the FDA will nod, oh your honor we certainly will. We will hurry as fast as we can. In that sense, it may not do anything. We are trying to build accountability of public officials and that is why we have asked for the remedy that the court should simply take it off the market until FDA does its job.

Then I will bet they start moving fast. That is a challenge – a challenge to get that kind of remedy. Nonetheless, we have to begin. We sued them in the U.S. Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals gave us a roadmap to go to district court. We were all set to file in May of 2007 and the FDA said no they would like a meeting. Please do not file. They would like a meeting. We had a meeting. We said we need an answer in 30 days.

In 30 days, the FDA answered and said yes, we will do an advanced notice and a proposed rule. I got a letter from the lawyer for the FDA, Wendy Vincente saying speaking for the FDA we will do this... we assumed that the FDA was telling us the truth. We were wrong so we waited and waited and waited because we would have filed this suit in June.

The FDA just bought six, seven months of time simply by telling another bald faced lie, which was that they were going to start moving forward to classify amalgam when... I think some people at the FDA probably have that intention. I think there was good faith from some people but the bureaucrats – the ones that want to keep mercury fillings unclassified, protected for dentistry like Susan Runner - have won out.

The FDA is so badly organized, its lead scientist – the Associate Commissioner for Science, the top science person of the agency, degree is in veterinarian medicine.

Mike: Their degree is in veterinarian medicine?

Charlie: Veterinarian medicine – not a toxicologist, not a chemist, the top person has a degree in veterinarian medicine.

Mike: Well, let me just say right here let me offer that when it comes time to apply grassroots pressure give me a call because we can put out an action alert to our reader base, which is now over one million people.

Charlie: That is fantastic.

Mike: If we coordinate it with what you are doing then we can create this real surge of grassroots pressure because I think what you are finding out is that if you take the FDA's word on anything, then nothing is done. If we can pressure them from another angle that can really assist your lawsuit effort or other efforts in applying pressure. What we need is a re-launch of a campaign as you had "Mothers Against Mercury." We need, what I call, a Web sticker – like a bumper sticker on the Web. We need a little graphic, name like that "Mothers Against Mercury", launch this campaign, and let it go viral all across the Web tied to action items such as grass roots complaints or protests – those kinds of things.

Charlie: Well, I will tell you where we are going to work grass roots and I am happy because I have already told the company we are, Dentsply, is the second largest manufacturer of mercury fillings. They make others. They make resin. They make composite.

They also make the alternatives – porcelain and so on I think. I know they make a resin composite. They make many other dental products and Wall Street report said Dentsply would be better off if amalgam was banned, they would be more profitable. Dentsply nonetheless has dug in its heels and said we are going to keep making mercury fillings. Basically, Dentsply has turned its back on its own shareholders.

The Wall Street has said stop and they said we are not going to stop. Now whether this is just some kind of backroom deal with the ADA or pressure from the ADA that they cannot stand or some other reason that they will not explain to me. I have written them and their counsel wrote me back a "back of the hand" letter... about a two-paragraph letter or three paragraphs saying [nothing substantial]. Dentsply is not only harming consumers and dentists – dental employees, dental workers, the environment all of which they could be sued for.

They have an easy exit route. They could make the non-mercury fillings. That is an area we are going to work on – they are based in York, Pennsylvania. I think their day is going to come.

Mike: Well, what if we can organize all kinds of protests around that company even maybe not in person but phone calls, faxes, emails...

Charlie: Well, why not in person? Anybody who is listening to this and wants to contact me or anybody around the York, PA area or anybody in Pennsylvania that wants to help us ought to contact me that want to go in person. My email is Char...@ToxicTeeth.org We would like to get people to write but we want folks that are somewhere in the Maryland, eastern half of Pennsylvania...

Mike: We have readers all over the country and I know we could get people there. I do not know how many. I do not know if it is ten, 100, or what but I know we have people emailing us all the time asking what we can do. What can we do to fight these evil corporations? If we get some people out there protesting with signs – "Mercury poisoned my child" on their sign. If we get that up on YouTube this could have just a huge domino effect not only make more people aware of your organization but also the mercury toxicity issue.

Charlie: Okay, I will. Thank you sir.

Prologue

Following this interview, Charles Brown won a significant court victory over the FDA, and now the FDA has promised it will reclassify mercury by June, 2009. Between now and then, NaturalNews will be working closely with ToxicTeeth.org to rally grassroots support for an outright ban on mercury amalgam fillings.

Stand by for action alerts on internet protests, petitions, and perhaps even in-person protests. We must work together to demand that toxic mercury fillings be banned. Then we will end the hundred-year reign of neurotoxic terror that has been orchestrated by the ADA, the FDA and the conventional dentistry industry. We will also support a national class-action lawsuit against not just the ADA and FDA, but even against the individual dentists who have installed these toxic mercury fillings into the mouths of children over the last ten years, despite the incredible amount of scientific evidence proving that mercury fillings cause irreparable harm to human health.

It is time to stop poisoning our children and our planet with mercury. The era of mercury poisoning must come to an end. NOW. And those responsible for this chemical attack against our people must be made to compensate for the harm they have unleashed and serve time for their crimes against the People.

The revolution will be announced via e-mail.

If you're not already subscribed to NaturalNews, get on our e-mail list right now by signing up here: www.NaturalNews.com/readerregistration.html

In the months ahead, we'll announce key action items via e-mail. Join us in protesting against the ADA and FDA about the toxicity of mercury fillings, and be prepared to hammer your Senators and other lawmakers in Washington to urge them to support an outright ban on mercury in dental care.
This poison must be stopped! And it is up to you to help us achieve this important goal for the future of the human race. Literally, it is that important. We are talking about the future of human life on this planet. If we hope to live, if we hope to have seafood, or ocean ecosystems, or fully-functioning brains and healthy babies, we must stop mercury now.

Join the revolution. Stay tuned to NaturalNews. Watch your e-mail for important announcements from us.

And be sure to visit www.ToxicTeeth.org and join their e-mail list, too. Stay informed. Empower yourself. Demand real change. And when the day comes, I ask for your support in urging the arrest and prosecution of the criminals at the ADA the FDA who have orchestrated this mass poisoning of the American people. It is time to arrest, prosecute and imprison these criminals who are, in every sense, an imminent threat to the health and safety of the American people.

I do not believe in using violence to resolve problems, and I do not believe that these people should be dragged out of their offices and hanged in a public forum, as some other writers have suggested, but I do believe that we must strip them of their power and influence, and we must hold a public court session so that all the world can see the degree of evil that has been operating inside the ADA and FDA for so many years. We must bring this issue into the light, and let the truth be told about this hundred-year lie so that future generations can learn what happens when you allow corporate profits to dictate health regulatory decisions in any society.

About the author: Mike Adams is a holistic nutritionist with a mission to teach personal and planetary health to the public He is a prolific writer and has published thousands of articles, interviews, reports and consumer guides, reaching millions of readers with information that is saving lives and improving personal health around the world. Adams is an independent journalist with strong ethics who does not get paid to write articles about any product or company. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming. He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also the CEO of a highly successful email newsletter software company that develops software used to send permission email campaigns to subscribers. Adams volunteers his time to serve as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, and enjoys outdoor activities, nature photography, Pilates and adult gymnastics.


Fluoride - Good or Bad

Everyone knows I'm kind of a health nazi. And most people have heard from one of their vegan, organic, granola friends on how bad fluoride is. So inevitably I get questioned about it. Is fluoride good? If not, what the hell should I brush my teeth with? Well, the simple answers are... No, its terible and baking soda with hydrogen peroxide. But if you want to know why read these articles.

They are a bit long, but it is the full story.

To your fantastic health and wellness,
Sifu Marcus


Fluoride
The Drugging of America With Fluoride
Includes A Wide Range Articles
&
A Chronological History of Fluoride

by Joel Griffiths & Chris Bryson

American soldiers who entered Germany at the end of World War 2 made the liberating of POW camps a priority. At camp after camp, they found stockpiles of fluoride stored near the water supply. When they asked what the fluoride was used for, they were told that the Germans used the substance as an additive to the prisoners water, to make them docile. This is the first known incidence of intentionally fluoridating drinking water.
This practice was soon adapted to American use. By the time General Patton took his Third Army to Berlin, the US Army was adding it to the soldiers water to keep them calm and passive. Patton strenuously objected, and refused to allow fluoridation of his troops. (Patton was later killed when his jeep was struck by an Army truck. This accident injured the General, but it didn't kill him. On the way to the hospital, another Army truck hit him, this time resulting in his death. The mysterious death of America's great General Patton will be the subject of a future story here.)
Within a few years, most of the drinking water in the United States had been fluoridated, in the interests of preventing tooth decay. All of our major brands of toothpaste contain fluoride. Most beverages and foods contain sodium fluoride. This is not a naturally-occurring phenomenon - it is intentionally introduced. The most important question becomes "does fluoride do what it claims to do - prevent tooth decay?" The answer is that it does not.
Not only is there no proof that fluoride prevents tooth decay, there is powerful evidence to the contrary. The largest study ever taken on the matter was conducted in Tucson, Arizona in 1992. 26,000 elementary school students were involved in the study, which produced empirical evidence that the more fluoride a child consumes, the more cavities will appear! The study was conducted by the University of Arizona under the supervision of world-renowned Professor Emeritus Cornelius Steelink.
Of course, most of the countries on Earth rejected fluoridated water years ago. Only the United States and a small handful of countries under our influence continue to add this toxin to their public drinking water supplies. China discontinued the practice after finding that fluoride in the water lowers the ability of children to learn. There is also scientific evidence that osteoporosis, Alzheimers Disease, and other aluminum-related diseases are caused by fluoride - an aluminum by-product.
Research chemist Charles Perkins said, "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. 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."
So, what is fluoride anyway? 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.
The proof that it is a toxic poison can be found by reading the warning label on any tube of toothpaste. Sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in both Prozac and Sarin Nerve Gas, as well as a host of anti-depressant drugs and commercial insecticides. Sodium Fluoride is a hazardous waste by-product of the nuclear and aluminum industries. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poison, it is also a main ingredient in anaesthetic, hypnotic, and psychiatric drugs as well as military nerve gas!
Historically, this substance was quite expensive for 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 - sold the FDA and our government on the insane but highly profitable idea of buying this poison at a 20,000% mark-up and then injecting it into our water supply as well as into the nation's toothpaste. 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. The chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system - but we have also paid them millions of dollars 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. Honest scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on fluoride have consistently been professionally black-listed, and their valid points never have received the ink they deserve.
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 emotion attached to the topic of fluoride usage - but I can't find even one objective, double blind study that even remotely links fluoride to healthy teeth at any age. Instead, I hear "9 out of 10 dentists recommend 'fluoride' toothpaste".
Truly independent scientists who've spent a large portion of their lives studying this subject have been hit with a surprising amount of unfair character assassination from strong vested-interest groups who profit from the public's ignorance and illnesses.

TOXIC SECRETS

Fluoride & the A-Bomb Program
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".
by Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson
Some 50 years after United States authorities began adding fluoride to public water supplies to reduce cavities in children's teeth, recently discovered declassified government documents are shedding new light on the roots of that still-controversial public health measure, revealing a surprising connection between the use of fluoride and the dawning of the nuclear age.
Today, two-thirds of US public drinking water is fluoridated. Many municipalities still resist the practice, disbelieving the government's assurances of safety.
Since the days of World War II when the US prevailed by building the world's first atomic bomb, the nation's public health leaders have maintained that low doses of fluoride are safe for people and good for children's teeth.
That safety verdict should now be re-examined in the light of hundreds of once-secret WWII-era documents obtained by these reporters [authors Griffiths and Bryson], including declassified papers of the Manhattan Project-the ultra-secret US military program that produced the atomic bomb.
Fluoride was the key chemical in atomic bomb production, according to the documents. Massive quantities-millions of tons-were essential for the manufacture of bomb-grade uranium and plutonium for nuclear weapons throughout the Cold War. One of the most toxic chemicals known, fluoride emerged as the leading chemical health hazard of the US atomic bomb program, both for workers and for nearby communities, the documents reveal.
Other revelations include:
Much of the original proof that fluoride is safe for humans in low doses was generated by A-bomb program scientists who had been secretly ordered to provide "evidence useful in litigation" against defence contractors for fluoride injury to citizens. The first lawsuits against the American A-bomb program were not over radiation, but over fluoride damage, the documents show.
Human studies were required. Bomb program researchers played a leading role in the design and implementation of the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoridating public drinking water, conducted in Newburgh, New York, from 1945 to 1955. Then, in a classified operation code-named "Program F", they secretly gathered and analysed blood and tissue samples from Newburgh citizens with the cooperation of New York State Health Department personnel.
The original, secret version (obtained by these reporters) of a study published by Program F scientists in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association1 shows that evidence of adverse health effects from fluoride was censored by the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)-considered the most powerful of Cold War agencies-for reasons of "national security".
The bomb program's fluoride safety studies were conducted at the University of Rochester-site of one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. The fluoride studies were conducted with the same ethical mindset, in which "national security" was paramount.

EVIDENCE OF FLUORIDE'S ADVERSE HEALTH EFFECTS

The US Government's conflict of interest and its motive to prove fluoride safe in the furious debate over water fluoridation since the 1950s has only now been made clear to the general public, let alone to civilian researchers, health professionals and journalists. The declassified documents resonate with a growing body of scientific evidence and a chorus of questions about the health effects of fluoride in the environment.
Human exposure to fluoride has mushroomed since World War II, due not only to fluoridated water and toothpaste but to environmental pollution by major industries, from aluminium to pesticides, where fluoride is a critical industrial chemical as well as a waste by-product.
The impact can be seen literally in the smiles of our children. Large numbers (up to 80 per cent in some cities) of young Americans now have dental fluorosis, the first visible sign of excessive fluoride exposure according to the US National Research Council. (The signs are whitish flecks or spots, particularly on the front teeth, or dark spots or stripes in more severe cases.)
Less known to the public is that fluoride also accumulates in bones. "The teeth are windows to what's happening in the bones," explained Paul Connett, Professor of Chemistry at St Lawrence University, New York, to these reporters. In recent years, paediatric bone specialists have expressed alarm about an increase in stress fractures among young people in the US. Connett and other scientists are concerned that fluoride-linked to bone damage in studies since the 1930s-may be a contributing factor.
The declassified documents add urgency: much of the original 'proof ' that low-dose fluoride is safe for children's bones came from US bomb program scientists, according to this investigation.
Now, researchers who have reviewed these declassified documents fear that Cold War national security considerations may have prevented objective scientific evaluation of vital public health questions concerning fluoride.
"Information was buried," concludes Dr Phyllis Mullenix, former head of toxicology at Forsyth Dental Center in Boston and now a critic of fluoridation. Animal studies which Mullenix and co-workers conducted at Forsyth in the early 1990s indicated that fluoride was a powerful central nervous system (CNS) toxin and might adversely affect human brain functioning even at low doses. (New epidemiological evidence from China adds support, showing a correlation between low-dose fluoride exposure and diminished IQ in children.) Mullenix's results were published in 1995 in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal.2
During her investigation, Mullenix was astonished to discover there had been virtually no previous US studies of fluoride's effects on the human brain. Then, her application for a grant to continue her CNS research was turned down by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), when an NIH panel flatly told her that "fluoride does not have central nervous system effects".
Declassified documents of the US atomic bomb program indicate otherwise. A Manhattan Project memorandum of 29 April 1944 states: "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect... It seems most likely that the F [code for fluoride] component rather than the T [code for uranium] is the causative factor." The memo, from a captain in the medical corps, is stamped SECRET and is addressed to Colonel Stafford Warren, head of the Manhattan Project's Medical Section. Colonel Warren is asked to approve a program of animal research on CNS effects. "Since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure... This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties."
On the same day, Colonel Warren approved the CNS research program. This was in 1944, at the height of World War II and the US nation's race to build the world's first atomic bomb.
For research on fluoride's CNS effects to be approved at such a momentous time, the supporting evidence set forth in the proposal forwarded along with the memo must have been persuasive. The proposal, however, is missing from the files at the US National Archives. "If you find the memos but the document they refer to is missing, it's probably still classified," said Charles Reeves, chief librarian at the Atlanta branch of the US National Archives and Records Administration where the memos were found. Similarly, no results of the Manhattan Project's fluoride CNS research could be found in the files.
After reviewing the memos, Mullenix declared herself "flabbergasted". "How could I be told by NIH that fluoride has no central nervous system effects, when these documents were sitting there all the time?" She reasons that the Manhattan Project did do fluoride CNS studies: "That kind of warning, that fluoride workers might be a danger to the bomb program by improperly performing their duties-I can't imagine that would be ignored." But she suggests that the results were buried because of the difficult legal and public relations problems they might create for the government.
The author of the 1944 CNS research proposal attached to the 29 April memo was Dr Harold C. Hodge-at the time, chief of fluoride toxicology studies for the University of Rochester division of the Manhattan Project.
Nearly 50 years later at the Forsyth Dental Center in Boston, Dr Mullenix was introduced to a gently ambling elderly man, brought in to serve as a consultant on her CNS research. This man was Harold C. Hodge. By then, Hodge had achieved status emeritus as a world authority on fluoride safety. "But even though he was supposed to be helping me," said Mullenix, "he never once mentioned the CNS work he had done for the Manhattan Project."
The "black hole" in fluoride CNS research since the days of the Manhattan Project is unacceptable to Mullenix who refuses to abandon the issue. "There is so much fluoride exposure now, and we simply do not know what it is doing. You can't just walk away from this."
Dr Antonio Noronha, an NIH scientific review advisor familiar with Dr Mullenix's grant request, told us that her proposal was rejected by a scientific peer-review group. He termed her claim of institutional bias against fluoride CNS research "far-fetched". He then added: "We strive very hard at NIH to make sure politics does not enter the picture."

THE NEW JERSEY FLUORIDE POLLUTION INCIDENT

The documentary trail begins at the height of World War II, in 1944, when a severe pollution incident occurred downwind of the E.I. DuPont de Nemours Company chemical factory in Deepwater, New Jersey. The factory was then producing millions of pounds of fluoride for the Manhattan Project whose scientists were racing to produce the world's first atomic bomb.
The farms downwind in Gloucester and Salem counties were famous for their high-quality produce. Their peaches went directly to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City; their tomatoes were bought up by Campbell's Soup.
But in the summer of 1944 the farmers began reporting that their crops were blighted: "Something is burning up the peach crops around here." They said that poultry died after an all-night thunderstorm, and that farm workers who ate produce they'd picked would sometimes vomit all night and into the next day.
"I remember our horses looked sick and were too stiff to work," Mildred Giordano, a teenager at the time, told these reporters. Some cows were so crippled that they could not stand up; they could only graze by crawling on their bellies.
The account was confirmed in taped interviews with Philip Sadtler (shortly before he died), of Sadtler Laboratories of Philadelphia, one of the nation's oldest chemical consulting firms. Sadtler had personally conducted the initial investigation of the damage.
Although the farmers did not know it, the attention of the Manhattan Project and the federal government was riveted on the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret documents obtained by these reporters.
A memo, dated 27 August 1945, from Manhattan Project chief Major-General Leslie R. Groves to the Commanding General of Army Service Forces at the Pentagon, concerns the investigation of crop damage at Lower Penns Neck, New Jersey. It states: "At the request of the Secretary of War, the Department of Agriculture has agreed to cooperate in investigating complaints of crop damage attributed...to fumes from a plant operated in connection with the Manhattan Project."
After the war's end, Dr Harold C. Hodge, the Manhattan Project's chief of fluoride toxicology studies, worriedly wrote in a secret memo (1 March 1946) to his boss, Colonel Stafford L. Warren, chief of the Medical Section, about "problems associated with the question of fluoride contamination of the atmosphere in a certain section of New Jersey".
"There seem to be four distinct (though related) problems:
"1. A question of injury of the peach crop in 1944.
"2. A report of extraordinary fluoride content of vegetables grown in this area.
"3. A report of abnormally high fluoride content in the blood of human individuals residing in this area.
"4. A report raising the question of serious poisoning of horses and cattle in this area."

FLUORIDE DAMAGE: THE FIRST LAWSUITS

The New Jersey farmers waited until the war was over before suing DuPont and the Manhattan Project for fluoride damage-reportedly the first lawsuits against the US atomic bomb program. Although seemingly trivial, the lawsuits shook the government, the secret documents reveal.
Under the personal direction of Major-General Groves, secret meetings were convened in Washington, with compulsory attendance by scores of scientists and officials from the US War Department, the Manhattan Project, the Food and Drug Administration, the Agriculture and Justice departments, the US Army's Chemical Warfare Service and Edgewood Arsenal, the Bureau of Standards, as well as lawyers from DuPont. Declassified memos of the meetings reveal a secret mobilisation of the full forces of the government to defeat the New Jersey farmers.
In a memo (2 May 1946) copied to General Groves, Manhattan Project Lt Colonel Cooper B. Rhodes notes that these agencies "are making scientific investigations to obtain evidence which may be used to protect the interest of the Government at the trial of the suits brought by owners of peach orchards in...New Jersey".
Regarding these lawsuits, General Groves wrote to the Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy in a memo of 28 February 1946, advising that "the Department of Justice is cooperating in the defense of these suits".
Why the national security emergency over a few lawsuits by New Jersey farmers? In 1946 the United States began full-scale production of atomic bombs. No other nation had yet tested a nuclear weapon, and the A-bomb was seen as crucial for US leadership of the post-war world. The New Jersey fluoride lawsuits were a serious roadblock to that strategy. "The spectre of endless lawsuits haunted the military," wrote Lansing Lamont in Day of Trinity, his acclaimed book about the first atomic bomb test.3
"If the farmers won, it would open the door to further suits which might impede the bomb program's ability to use fluoride," commented Jacqueline Kittrell, a Tennessee public interest lawyer who examined the declassified fluoride documents. (Kittrell specialises in nuclear-related litigation and has represented plaintiffs in several human radiation experiment cases.) "The reports of human injury were especially threatening because of the potential for enormous settlements-not to mention the PR problem," she added.
Indeed, DuPont was particularly concerned about the "possible psychological reaction" to the New Jersey pollution incident, according to a secret Manhattan Project memo of 1 March 1946. Facing a threat from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to embargo the region's produce because of "high fluoride content", DuPont dispatched its lawyers to the FDA offices in Washington, DC, where an agitated meeting ensued. According to a memo sent next day to General Groves, DuPont's lawyer argued that "in view of the pending suits...any action by the Food and Drug Administration...would have a serious effect on the DuPont Company and would create a bad public relations situation". After the meeting adjourned, Manhattan Project Captain John Davies approached the FDA's Food Division chief and "impressed upon Dr White the substantial interest which the Government had in claims which might arise as a result of action which might be taken by the Food and Drug Administration".
There was no embargo. Instead, according to General Groves' memo of 27 August 1946, new tests for fluoride in the New Jersey area were to be conducted not by the Department of Agriculture but by the US Army's Chemical Warfare Service (CWS)-because "work done by the Chemical Warfare Service would carry the greatest weight as evidence if...lawsuits are started by the complainants".
Meanwhile, the public relations problem remained unresolved: local citizens were in a panic about fluoride. The farmers' spokesman, Willard B. Kille, was personally invited to dine with General Groves (then known as "the man who built the atomic bomb") at his office at the War Department on 26 March 1946. Although diagnosed by his doctor as having fluoride poisoning, Kille departed the luncheon convinced of the government's good faith. Next day he wrote to the general, expressing his wish that the other farmers could have been present so that "they too could come away with the feeling that their interests in this particular matter were being safeguarded by men of the very highest type whose integrity they could not question".
A broader solution to the public relations problem was suggested by Manhattan Project chief fluoride toxicologist Harold C. Hodge in a second secret memo (1 May 1946) to Medical Section chief Colonel Warren: "Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester counties through lectures on F toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of F in tooth health?" Such lectures were indeed given, not only to New Jersey citizens but to the rest of the nation throughout the Cold War.
The New Jersey farmers' lawsuits were ultimately stymied by the government's refusal to reveal the key piece of information that would have settled the case: how much fluoride DuPont had vented into the atmosphere during the war. "Disclosure would be injurious to the military security of the United States," Manhattan Project Major C. A. Taney, Jr, had written in a memo soon after the war's end (24 September 1945).
The farmers were pacified with token financial settlements, according to interviews with descendants still living in the area.
"All we knew is that DuPont released some chemical that burned up all the peach trees around here," recalled Angelo Giordano whose father James was one of the original plaintiffs. "The trees were no good after that, so we had to give up on the peaches." Their horses and cows acted and walked stiffly, recalled his sister Mildred. "Could any of that have been the fluoride?" she asked. (The symptoms she detailed are cardinal signs of fluoride toxicity, according to veterinary toxicologists.) The Giordano family has also been plagued by bone and joint problems, Mildred added. Recalling the settlement received by the family, Angelo Giordano told these reporters that his father said he "got about $200".
The farmers were stonewalled in their search for information about fluoride's effects on their health, and their complaints have long since been forgotten. But they unknowingly left their imprint on history: their complaints of injury to their health reverberated through the corridors of power in Washington and triggered intensive, secret, bomb program research on the health effects of fluoride.

"PROGRAM F": SECRET FLUORIDE RESEARCH

A secret memo (2 May 1946) to General Groves from Manhattan Project Lt Colonel Rhodes states: "Because of complaints that animals and humans have been injured by hydrogen fluoride fumes in [the New Jersey] area, although there are no pending suits involving such claims, the University of Rochester is conducting experiments to determine the toxic effect of fluoride."
Much of the proof of fluoride's alleged safety in low doses rests on the post-war work done at the University of Rochester in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury.
For the top-secret Manhattan Project to delegate fluoride safety studies to the University of Rochester was not surprising. During WWII the US Federal Government became involved for the first time in large-scale funding of scientific research at government-owned labs and private colleges. Those early spending priorities were shaped by the nation's often-secret military needs.
The prestigious upstate New York college in particular had housed a key wartime division of the Manhattan Project to study the health effects of the new "special materials" such as uranium, plutonium, beryllium and fluoride which were being used in making the atomic bomb. That work continued after the war, with millions of dollars flowing from the Manhattan Project and its successor organisation, the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). (Indeed, the bomb left an indelible imprint on all of US science in the late 1940s and 1950s. Up to 90 per cent of all federal funds for university research came from either the Department of Defense or the AEC in this period, according to Noam Chomsky in his 1997 book, The Cold War and the University.4)
The University of Rochester Medical School became a revolving door for senior bomb-program scientists. The post-war faculty included Stafford Warren, the top medical officer of the Manhattan Project, and Harold C. Hodge, chief of fluoride research for the bomb program.
But this marriage of military secrecy and medical science bore deformed offspring. The University of Rochester's classified fluoride studies, code-named "Program F", were started during the war and continued up until the early 1950s. They were conducted at its Atomic Energy Project (AEP), a top-secret facility funded by the AEC and housed at Strong Memorial Hospital. It was there that one of the most notorious human radiation experiments of the Cold War took place, in which unsuspecting hospital patients were injected with toxic doses of radioactive plutonium. Revelation of this experiment-in a Pulitzer Prize-winning account by Eileen Welsome-led to a 1995 US presidential investigation and a multimillion-dollar cash settlement for victims.
Program F was not about children's teeth. It grew directly out of litigation against the bomb program, and its main purpose was to furnish scientific ammunition which the government and its nuclear contractors could use to defeat lawsuits for human injury. Program F's director was none other than Dr Harold C. Hodge- who led the Manhattan Project investigation of alleged human injury in the New Jersey fluoride pollution incident.
Program F's purpose is spelled out in a classified 1948 report. It reads: "To supply evidence useful in the litigation arising from an alleged loss of a fruit crop several years ago, a number of problems have been opened. Since excessive blood-fluoride levels were reported in human residents of the same area, our principal effort has been devoted to describing the relationship of blood fluorides to toxic effects."
The litigation referred to and the claims of human injury were of course against the bomb program and its contractors. Thus the purpose of Program F was to obtain evidence useful in litigation against the bomb program. The research was being conducted by the defendants.
The potential conflict of interest is clear. If lower dose ranges were found hazardous by Program F, this might have opened the bomb program and its contractors to public outcry and lawsuits for injury to human health.
Lawyer Jacqueline Kittrell commented further: "This and other documents indicate that the University of Rochester's fluoride research grew out of the New Jersey lawsuits and was performed in anticipation of lawsuits against the bomb program for human injury. Studies undertaken for litigation purposes by the defendants would not be considered scientifically acceptable today because of their inherent bias to prove the chemical safe."
Unfortunately, much of the proof of fluoride's safety rests on the work performed by Program F scientists at the University of Rochester. During the post-war period, that university emerged as the leading academic centre for establishing the safety of fluoride as well as its effectiveness in reducing tooth decay, according to Rochester Dental School spokesperson William H. Bowen, MD. The key figure in this research, Bowen said, was Dr Harold C. Hodge-who also became a leading national proponent of fluoridating public drinking water.

THE A-BOMB AND WATER FLUORIDATION

Program F's interest in water fluoridation was not just "to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents", as Hodge had earlier written to Colonel Warren. The bomb program required human studies of fluoride's effects, just as it needed human studies of plutonium's effects. Adding fluoride to public water supplies provided one opportunity.
Bomb-program scientists played a prominent, if unpublicised, role in the nation's first-planned water fluoridation experiment in Newburgh, New York. The Newburgh Demonstration Project is considered the most extensive study of the health effects of fluoridation, supplying much of the evidence that low doses are allegedly safe for children's bones and good for their teeth.
Planning began in 1943 with the appointment of a special New York State Health Department committee to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburgh's drinking water. The chairman of the committee was, again, Dr Harold C. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project. Subsequent members of the committee included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Project's Medical Section, and John W. Fertig, in 1944 with the Office of Scientific Research and Development-the super-secret Pentagon group which sired the Manhattan Project. Their military affiliations were kept secret. Hodge was described as a pharmacologist, Barnett as a paediatrician. Placed in charge of the Newburgh project was David B. Ast, chief dental officer of the New York State Health Department. Ast had participated in a key secret wartime conference on fluoride, held by the Manhattan Project in January 1944, and later worked with Dr Hodge on the Project's investigation of human injury in the New Jersey incident, according to once-secret memos.
The committee recommended that Newburgh be fluoridated. It selected the types of medical studies to be done, and it also "provided expert guidance" for the duration of the experiment.
The key question to be answered was: "Are there any cumulative effects, beneficial or otherwise, on tissues and organs other than the teeth, of long-continued ingestion of such small concentrations?" According to the declassified documents, this was also key information sought by the bomb program. In fact, the program would require "long-continued" exposure of workers and communities to fluoride throughout the Cold War.
In May 1945, Newburgh's water was fluoridated, and over the next 10 years its residents were studied by the New York State Health Department.
In tandem, Program F conducted its own secret studies, focusing on the amounts of fluoride Newburgh citizens retained in their blood and tissues-information called for by the bomb program in connection with litigation. "Possible toxic effects of fluoride were in the forefront of consideration," the advisory committee stated. Health department personnel cooperated, shipping blood and placenta samples to the Program F team at the University of Rochester. The samples were collected by Dr David B. Overton, the department's chief of paediatric studies at Newburgh.
The final report of the Newburgh Demonstration Project, published in 1956 in the Journal of the American Dental Association,5 concluded that "small concentrations" of fluoride were safe for US citizens. The biological proof, "based on work performed...at the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project", was delivered by Dr Hodge.
Today, news that scientists from the A-bomb program secretly shaped and guided the Newburgh fluoridation experiment and studied the citizens' blood and tissue samples is greeted with incredulity.
"I'm shocked...beyond words," said present-day Newburgh Mayor Audrey Carey, commenting on these reporters' findings. "It reminds me of the Tuskegee experiment that was done on syphilis patients down in Alabama."
As a child in the early 1950s, Mayor Carey was taken to the old Newburgh firehouse on Broadway which housed the public health clinic. There, doctors from the Newburgh fluoridation project studied her teeth, and a peculiar fusion of two finger bones on her left hand which she's had since birth. (Carey said that her granddaughter has white dental-fluorosis marks on her front teeth.)
Mayor Carey wants answers from the government about the secret history of fluoride and the Newburgh fluoridation experiment. "I absolutely want to pursue it," she said. "It is appalling to do any kind of experimentation and study without people's knowledge and permission."
When contacted by these reporters, the now 95-year-old David B. Ast, former director of the Newburgh experiment, said he was unaware that Manhattan Project scientists were involved. "If I had known, I would have been certainly investigating why, and what the connection was," he said. Did he know that blood and placenta samples from Newburgh were being sent to bomb-program researchers at the University of Rochester? "I was not aware of it," Ast replied. Did he recall participating in the Manhattan Project's secret wartime conference on fluoride in January 1944, or going to New Jersey with Dr Hodge to investigate human injury in the DuPont case, as secret memos state? He told these reporters he had no recollection of any such events.
Bob Loeb, a spokesperson for the University of Rochester Medical Center, confirmed that blood and tissue samples from Newburgh had been tested by the University's Dr Hodge. On the ethics of secretly studying US citizens to obtain information useful in litigation against the A-bomb program, he said: "That's a question we cannot answer." He referred inquiries to the US Department of Energy (DOE), successor to the Atomic Energy Commission.
Jayne Brady, a spokesperson for the Department of Energy in Washington confirmed that a review of DOE files indicated that a "significant reason" for fluoride experiments conducted at the University of Rochester after the war was "impending litigation between the DuPont company and residents of New Jersey areas". However, she added: "DOE has found no documents to indicate that fluoride research was done to protect the Manhattan Project or its contractors from lawsuits."
On Manhattan Project involvement in Newburgh, Brady stated: "Nothing that we have suggests that the DOE or predecessor agencies-especially the Manhattan Project-authorised fluoride experiments to be performed on children in the 1940s."
When told that these reporters have several documents that directly tie the AEP-the Manhattan Project's successor agency at the University of Rochester-to the Newburgh experiment, DOE spokesperson Brady later conceded her study was confined to "the available universe" of documents.
Two days later, Brady faxed a statement for clarification. "My search only involved the documents that we collected as part of our human radiation experiments project; fluoride was not part of our research effort."
"Most significantly," the statement continued, "relevant documents may be in a classified collection at the DOE Oak Ridge National Laboratory, known as the Records Holding Task Group. This collection consists entirely of classified documents removed from other files for the purpose of classified document accountability many years ago [and was] a rich source of documents for the human radiation experiments projects."

SUPPRESSION OF ADVERSE HEALTH FINDINGS

The crucial question arising from the investigation is whether adverse health findings from Newburgh and other bomb-program fluoride studies were suppressed. All AEC-funded studies had to be declassified before publication in civilian medical and dental journals. Where are the original classified versions?
The transcript of one of the major secret scientific conferences of World War II-on "fluoride metabolism"-is missing from the files of the US National Archives and is "probably still classified", according to the librarian. Participants in the January 1944 conference included key figures who promoted the safety of fluoride and water fluoridation to the public after the war: Harold Hodge of the Manhattan Project, David B. Ast of the Newburgh Demonstration Project, and US Public Health Service dentist H. Trendley Dean, popularly known as "the father of fluoridation".
A WWII Manhattan Project classified report (25 July 1944) on water fluoridation is missing from the files of the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project, the US National Archives, and the Nuclear Repository at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The next four numerically consecutive documents are also missing, while the remainder of the "M-1500 series" is present.
"Either those documents are still classified, or they've been 'disappeared' by the government," said Clifford Honicker, Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project in Knoxville, Tennessee, which provided key evidence in the public exposure and prosecution of US human radiation experiments.
Seven pages have been cut out of a 1947 Rochester bomb project notebook entitled "DuPont Litigation". "Most unusual," commented the medical school's chief archivist, Chris Hoolihan.
Similarly, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests lodged by these reporters over a year ago with the DOE for hundreds of classified fluoride reports have failed to dislodge any. "We're behind," explained Amy Rothrock, chief FOIA officer at Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
So, has information been suppressed? These reporters made what appears to be the first discovery of the original classified version of a fluoride safety study by bomb program scientists. A censored version of this study was later published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association.6 Comparison of the secret version with the published version indicates that the US AEC did censor damaging information on fluoride-to the point of tragicomedy. This was a study of the dental and physical health of workers in a factory producing fluoride for the A-bomb program; it was conducted by a team of dentists from the Manhattan Project.
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".
After comparing the secret and published versions of the censored study, toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix commented: "This makes me ashamed to be a scientist." Of other Cold War-era fluoride safety studies, she asked: "Were they all done like this?"
Asked for comment on the early links of the Manhattan Project to water fluoridation, Dr Harold Slavkin, Director of the National Institute for Dental Research-the US agency which today funds fluoride research-said: "I wasn't aware of any input from the Atomic Energy Commission." Nevertheless, he insisted that fluoride's efficacy and safety in the prevention of dental cavities over the last 50 years is well proved. "The motivation of a scientist is often different from the outcome," he reflected. "I do not hold a prejudice about where the knowledge comes from."
---------------------------------

About the Authors:

Joel Griffiths is a medical writer based in New York City. He is the author of a book on radiation hazards that included one of the first revelations of human radiation experiments, and has contributed numerous articles to medical journals and popular publications.
Chris Bryson, who holds a Master's degree in journalism, is an independent reporter for BBC Radio, ABC-TV and public television in New York City, and writes for a variety of publications.
The authors wish to thank Clifford Honicker, Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project, Knoxville, TN, for his indispensable archival research.
Resources:
Copies of 155 pages of supporting documents, including all the declassified papers referred to in this article, can be obtained from the following contacts for a small fee to cover copying and postage:
Australia: Australian Fluoridation News, GPO Box 935G, Melbourne, Victoria 3001, phone (03) 9592 5088, fax (03) 9592 4544.
New Zealand: New Zealand Pure Water Association, 278 Dickson Road, Papamoa, Bay of Plenty, phone (07) 542 0499.
UK: National Pure Water Association of the UK, 12 Dennington Lane, Crigglestone, Wakefield, WF4 3ET, phone 01924 254433, fax 01924 242380.
USA: Waste Not newsletter, 82 Judson Street, Canton, NY 13617, phone (315) 379 9200, fax (315) 379 0448, e-mail wast...@northnet.org.
· © Joel Griffiths and Chris Bryson 1997
4 West 104th Street
New York, NY 10025, USA

Fluoride and the Phosphate Connection
by George C. Glasser

Cities all over the US purchase hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh pollution concentrate from Florida - fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) - to fluoridate water.
Fluorosilicic acid is composed of tetrafluorosiliciate gas and other species of fluorine gases captured in pollution scrubbers and concentrated into a 23% solution during wet process phosphate fertilizer manufacture. Generally, the acid is stored in outdoor cooling ponds before being shipped to US cities to artificially fluoridate drinking water.
Fluoridating drinking water with recovered pollution is a cost-effective means of disposing of toxic waste. The fluorosilicic acid would otherwise be classified as a hazardous toxic waste on the Superfund Priorities List of toxic substances that pose the most significant risk to human health and the greatest potential liability for manufacturers.
Phosphate fertilizer suppliers have more than $10 billion invested in production and mining facilities in Florida. Phosphate fertilizer production accounts for $800 million in wages per year. Florida's mines produce 30% of the world supply and 75% of the US supply of phosphate fertilizers. Much of the country's supply of fluoro-silicic acid for water fluoridation is also produced in Florida.
Phosphate fertilizer manufacturing and mining are not environment friendly operations. Fluorides and radionuclides are the primary toxic pollutants from the manufacture of phosphate fertilizer in Central Florida. People living near the fertilizer plants and mines, experience lung cancer and leukaemia rates that are double the state average. Much of West Central Florida has become a toxic waste dump for phosphate fertilizer manufacturers. Federal and state pollution regulations have been modified to accommodate phosphate fertilizer production and use: These regulations have included using recovered pollution for water fluoridation.
Radium wastes from filtration systems at phosphate fertilizer facilities are among the most radioactive types of naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) wastes. The radium wastes are so concentrated, they cannot be disposed of at the one US landfill licensed to accept NORM wastes, so manufacturers dump the radioactive wastes in acidic ponds atop 200-foot-high gypsum stacks. The federal government has no rules for its disposal.
During the late 1960s, fluorine emissions were damaging crops, killing fish and causing crippling skeletal fluorosis in livestock. The EPA became concerned and enforced regulations requiring manufacturers to install pollution scrubbers. At that time, the facilities were dumping the concentrated pollution directly into waterways leading into Tampa Bay.
A Phosphate Worse than Death
In the late 1960s, EPA chemist Ervin Bellack worked out the ideal solution to a monumental pollution problem. Because recovered phosphate fertilizer manufacturing waste contain about 19% fluorine, Bellack concluded that the concentrated "scrubber liquor" could be a perfect water fluoridation agent. It was a liquid and easily soluble in water, unlike sodium fluoride - a waste product from aluminum manufacturing. It was also inexpensive.
Fate also intervened. The aluminum industry, which previously supplied sodium fluoride for water fluoridation, was facing a shortage of fluorspar used in smelting aluminum. Consequently, there was a shortage of sodium fluoride to fluoridate drinking water.
For the phosphate fertilizer industry, the shortage of sodium fluoride was the key to turning red ink into black and an environmental liability into a perceived asset. With the help of the EPA, fluorosilicic acid was transformed from a concentrated toxic waste and a liability into a "proven cavity fighter."
The EPA and the US Public Health Service waived all testing procedures and - with the help of the American Dental Association (ADA) - encouraged cities to add the radioactive concentrate into America's drinking water as an "improved" form of fluoride.
The product is not "fluorine" or "fluoride" as proponents state: It is a pollution concentrate. Fluorine is only one captured pollutant comprising about 19% of the total product.
By 1983, the official EPA policy was expressed by EPA Office of Water Deputy Administrator Rebecca Hanmer as follows: "In regard to the use of fluosilicic (fluorosilicic) acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them."
A Hot New Property
In promoting the use of the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent, the ADA, Federal agencies and manufacturers failed to mention that it was radioactive. Whenever uranium is found in nature as a component of a mineral, a host of other radionuclides are always found in the mineral in various stages of decay. Uranium and all of its decay-rate products are found in phosphate rock, fluorosilicic acid and phosphate fertilizer.
During wet-process manufacturing, trace amounts of radium and uranium are captured in the pollution scrubber. This process was the subject of an article by H.F. Denzinger, H. J. König and G.E. Krüger in the fertilizer industry journal, Phosphorus & Potassium (No. 103, Sept./Oct. 1979) discussed how radionuclides are carried into the fluorosilicic acid.
While the uranium and radium in fluorosilicic acid are known carcinogens, two decay products of uranium are even more carcinogenic: radon-222 and polonium-210.
During the acidulation process that creates phosphoric acid, radon gas contained in the phosphate pebble can be released in greater proportions than other decay-rate products (radionuclides) and carried over into the fluorosilicic acid. Polonium may also be captured in greater quantities during scrubbing operations because, like radon, it can readily combine with fluoride.
In written communications to the author, EPA Office of Drinking Water official Joseph A. Cotruvo and Public Health Service fluoridation engineer Thomas Reeves have acknowledged the presence of radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid.
Radon-222 is not an immediate threat because it stops emitting alpha radiation and decays into lead-214 in 3.86 days. Lead-214 appears to be harmless but it eventually decays into bismuth-214 and then into polonium-214. Unless someone knew to look for specific isotopes, no one would know that a transmutation into the polonium isotope had occurred.
Polonium-210, a decay product of bismuth-210, has a half-life of 138 days and gives off intense alpha radiation as it decays into regular lead and becomes stable. Any polonium-210 that might be present in the phosphate concentrate could pose a significant health threat. A very small amount of polonium-210 can be very dangerous, giving off 5,000 times more alpha radiation than the same amount of radium. As little as 0.03 microcuries (6.8 trillionths of a gram) of polonium-210 can be carcinogenic to humans.
The lead isotope behaves like calcium in the body. It may be stored in the bones for years before turning into polonium-210 and triggering a carcinogenic release of alpha radiation.
Drinking water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid contains radon at every sequence of its decay to polonium. The fresher the pollution concentrate, the more polonium it will contain.
As long as the amount of contaminants added to the drinking water (including radionuclides in fluorosilicic acid) do not exceed the limits set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA has no regulatory problem with the use of any contaminated products for drinking water treatment.
Big Risks: No Tests
Despite the increased cancer risk from using phosphate waste to fluoridate drinking water, the EPA nor the Centers for Disease Control have never commissioned or required any clinical studies with the pollution concentrate - specifically, the hexafluorsilicate radical whose toxicokinetic properties are different than the lone, fluoride ion.
Section 104 (I) (5) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) directs the Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the EPA, the Public Health Service and the National Toxicology Program to initiate a program of research on fluoride safety. However, after almost 30 years of using fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate to fluoridate the drinking water, not one study has been commissioned.
The fluoride ion only hypothetically exists as an entity in an ideal solution of purified water - and tap water is far from pure H2O. All clinical research with animal models is done using 99.97% pure sodium fluoride and double distilled or deionized water. Among the thousands of clinical studies about fluoride, not one has been done with the pollution concentrate or typical tap water containing fluorides.
Synergy Soup
The fluorosilicic acid is also contaminated with small traces of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, lead, sulfates, iron and phosphorous, not to mention radionuclides. Some contaminants have the potential to react with the hexafluorosilicate radical and may act as complex ionic compounds. The biological fates and toxicokinetic properties of these complex ions are unknown.
The reality of artificial water fluoridation is so complex that determining the safety of the practice may be impossible. Tap water is chemically treated with chlorine, soluble silicates, phosphate polymers and many other chemicals. In addition, the source water itself may contain a variety of contaminants.
The addition of a fluoridation agent can create synergized toxicants in a water supply that have unique toxico-kinetic properties found only in that particular water supply. Consequently, any maladies resulting from chronic ingestion of the product likely would be dismissed as a local or regional anomaly unrelated to water fluoridation.
Technically, artificially fluoridating drinking water is a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Under statutes of the SDWA, federal agencies are forbidden from endorsing, supporting, requiring or funding the practice of adding any chemicals to the water supply other than for purposes of water purification. However, the Public Health Service (PHS) applies semantics to circumvent Federal law in order to promote and fund the practice.
PHS states that they only recommend levels of fluorides in the drinking water, and it is the sole decision of a state or community to fluoridate drinking water.
Federal agencies are forbidden from directly funding or implementing water fluoridation but Federal Block Grants are given to States to use as they see fit. Through second and third parties (such as the American Dental Association, state health departments and state fluoridation coordinators), PHS encourages communities to apply for Federal Block Grant funds to implement fluoridation.
The legality of using of Federal Block Grant funds to fund water fluoridation, a practice prohibited by Federal law, has never been addressed in the courts.
Vendors selling the pollution concentrate as a fluoridation agent use a broad disclaimer found on the Material Data Safety Sheet that states: "no responsibility can be assumed by vendor for any damage or injury resulting from abnormal use, from any failure to adhere to recommended practices, or from any hazards inherent to the product." [Emphasis added.]
The next time you turn on the tap and water gushes out into a glass, reflect on the following disclaimer from the EPA's 1997 Fluoride: Regulatory Fact Sheet: "In the United States, there are no Federal safety standards which are applicable to additives, including those for use in fluoridating drinking water."
George Glasser is a Florida-based writer whose work has appeared in Newlife, Whole Life Times, the Sarasota ECO Report and the Tampa Tribune.

--------------------------
An Interview with Christopher Bryson 
Author of 
The Fluoride Deception

AMY GOODMAN: Today we will talk about this new book "The Fluoride Deception" by Christopher Bryson. It looks at the background of the fluoride debate. According to Chris, research changing fluoride safety was either suppressed or not conducted in the first place. He says it is a triumph not of medical science, but of U.S. Government spin. He joins us in the studio. Welcome to Democracy Now!

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Thank you for having me.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you just give us the history? Is it all over this country and why is it there?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: It's in about two thirds of the water supply in the united states. However, the united states is virtually alone in the addition of fluoride to its water supplies and 98% of western Europe, for example, don't add fluoride to the water supplies in many communities. Countries there which have fluoride in the water have taken it out. The theory behind fluoride is that the addition of fluorides to water supplies will give you less cavities in your mouth. And that's been the prevailing wisdom of the public health establishment since 1950 when they signed off on that. My book "The Fluoride Deception," challenges you or requires you to think of fluoride differently. The book under the secret history of this book is premised on 10 years of investigative work going into the archives of the United States Manhattan Project, going into --

AMY GOODMAN: The making of the atomic bomb.

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Yes, the Manhattan Project with the World War II, very secret project to make the atomic bomb. I went to industry archives, a very large, significant industry archive out at the University of Cincinnati and found that the very same health researcher , Dr. Robert Kehoe who headed up the laboratory at the University Of Cincinnati, he spent his entire career telling the United States 'S public health community that adding lead to gasoline was safe. That's now being discredited. He was also one of two leading public health scientists saying that adding fluoride to water was safe and good for children. So, that's the -- some of the material that this book gets into.
JUAN GONZALES: The common understanding that many of us have in this country is that there's been sort of a persistent, anti-fluoridation move independent this country, but it has been considered like the fringes of American society. Could you talk a little bit about how the development of the atomic bomb would involve in the whole fluoride campaign?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, that's -- it's a media swirl, Juan, as the grassroots citizen movement against water fluoridation of t hat fact came into being almost immediately .... the public health service had been against adding fluoride to water for years. In 1950, they did a complete about-face, a flip flop. And the citizens across the country were outraged that this rat poison was going to be added to the water supplies. Today the fluorides that goes in our drinking water is almost exclusively raw industrial pollution from the Florida Phosphate Industry. It's a waste that's scrubbed from the smokestacks and trucked in tankers and dumped into reservoirs. That is a raw industrial poison.

AMY GOODMAN: Wait a second. Rat poison?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Yes. Sodium chloride is used as a rat poison for a long time.

JUAN GONZALES: But, again, the connection to the atom bomb.

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Sure. Atom bomb. Yeah. Sure. Let me get back to the -- in fact, the movement against fluoridation is a precursor to the movement of today. It has many political hues, many different groups, conservatives, liberals, republicans across the board and it was led not by nut cases, but by scientists and doctors with long-established pedigrees safe guarding public health . The leading scientist opposing water fluoridation was a man by the name of Dr. George Waldbott. He warned the United States about the dangers of cigarette smoking and the allergic reaction to penicillin. This is the background. It is not a fringe movement. It is being marginalized by the media and hasn't been well reported on. My book attempts to address that. The Manhattan Project, I mentioned one leading fluoride researcher, scientist, Robert Kehoe, the second was the name, a fellow a scientist by the name of Dr. Harold Hodge. For most of the Cold War , Dr. Hodge was the leading scientist assuring the nation of the safety and effectiveness of adding fluoride e to water supplies. Dr. Hodge had his public hat, he had his private hat. He was the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project to build the world's first atomic bomb. Fluoride is a key ingredient in industry used for making aluminum. It's used for making steel. It is used for producing high-octane gasoline, to name a few industries the dental story is a minor story. The real issue is pollution outside these industrial plants and pollution inside the plants. Industries are on the hook for millions and millions of dollars for potential damage for injuries to workers. There's a medical study commissioned by industry at the University Of Cincinnati . In the 1950's which shows that fluoride is profoundly injurious to lungs and lymph nodes in experimental animals. That study was buried. The significance of that study, had it been shown to the standard setters, the fluoride that men and women workers in these industrial plants breathe, the threshold levels would have been set much lower. That is a crime. What that means is that tens of thousands of workers in factories have been injured as a result of this suppression of this medical information. Anyway, to return to your question. The Manhattan Project needed fluoride to enrich uranium . That's how they did it. The biggest industrial building in the world, for a time, was the fluoride gaseous diffusion plant in Tennessee the Manhattan Project and Dr. Hodge as the senior toxicologist for the Manhattan Project, were scared stiff less that workers would realize that the fluoride they were going to be breathing inside these plants was going to injury them and that the Manhattan Project, the key -- the key of U.S. Strategic power in the Cold War Era, would be jeopardized because the Manhattan Project and the industrial contractors making the atomic bomb would be facing all these l lawsuits from workers, all these lawsuits from farmers living around these industrial plants and so Harold Hodge assures us that fluoride is safe and good for children. Very hard to get a public doctor, an expert witness in a court to say if it's good for children. How can it be harmful for workers?

JUAN GONZALES : In essence, the uranium and fluoride that was necessary for enriching of the uranium and produced this by-product and obviously this waste of fluoride in my mind it sounds very similar to the issue of depleted uranium , again, being a by-product of the nuclear industry and the need then to sanitize these waste products from our nuclear industry, for the public to get rid of them in other words , right? So, it's -- could you talk a little bit about the role of Edward Béarnaise, ,the father of propaganda or public relations in America in convincing the public about this?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Yeah. Edward Béarnaise is a legendary figure in the 20th century. He was Sigmund Freud's nephew and Béarnaise, he was married to a feminist and he was very attune to the liberal currents in the 20th century and he was a Machiavellian genius. He is the father of public relations. He understood that you could harness that liberal sentiment for commercial gain and he had women march in 1916, he had Suffragettes march in The 1916 Easter Parade In New York City holding cigarettes as torches of liberty. He was working for the American Tobacco Company and George Hill. He was -- so, my book "The Fluoride Deception," uncovers for the first time correspondence between Béarnaise and the New York City Health Commissioner, Dr. Leona Baumgartner in which he says that helping out on the fluoride campaign in New York in the early 1960's interested him because it related to problems of engineering consent. So he was the Wizard of Oz behind the curtain.

AMY GOODMAN: We only have a minute to go. I wanted to ask how fluorides ended up in the water of each community where did the decision get made and how did those debates play out?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: The public health service endorsed it in 1950 and by and large, it is not given over to referendum. This is a democracy issue. When it is submitted to the votes, far more often than not, voters give it the thumbs down. Mostly it is by fiat or dictate. In New York City, for example it was the board of estimates that signed up for it, that gave it the green light. So, that's --

AMY GOODMAN: Where does it come from?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Fluoride?

AMY GOODMAN: Where do they ship it in from? Do they have to dump it on a regular basis in the reservoirs?

CHRISTOPHER BRYSON: Yeah the fluoride comes up -- we were talking about 9/11. Since 9/11, there has been a lot of concern about the safety of these fluoride tankers. So toxic are the contents of the fluoride tankers coming from the Florida Phosphate Industry to New York City or all over the country that there is a fear that the tankers hijacked.

AMY GOODMAN: Christopher Bryson, we have to leave it there. Author of "The Fluoride Deception." This is Democracy Now!

--------------------


The Sunday Tribune
Sunday 30 June 2002

Nuclear plant to supply fluoride for water
by Tony Carnie

The nuclear energy establishment wants to cash in on South Africa's controversial chemical "tooth medicine" plan, writes TONY CARNIE
THE Pelindaba nuclear/chemical complex - set up by the apartheid government in the 1960s to produce atomic bombs and enriched uranium fuel - is set to become the major supplier of hundreds of tons of fluoride which will be added to drinking water throughout the country from next year.
In terms of health department regulations, water suppliers like Umgeni Water will be compelled to add fluoride to tap water in towns and cities nationwide, in a bid to reduce tooth decay.
In its concentrated form, fluoride is highly toxic. Yet it has been added in diluted form to the drinking water of many Americans for fifty years, to harden tooth enamel.
However, most European countries do not allow fluoridation of water, and many dentists and scientists around the world are back-tracking on their earlier support of fluoridation because of mounting evidence that it may do more harm than good to human health.
In America, most of the fluoride added artificially to water supplies originates from chimney stacks, as a waste by-product of the fertilizer industry.
This week, the health department declined to reveal where South Africa's fluoride would come from. Oral health director Dr Johan Smit argued that the quality of the fluoride was more important than its origin.
When pressed by The Tribune, he disclosed that most chemicals would most likely come from Pelchem, which is a subsidiary of the Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (NECSA), located in the Pelindaba nuclear complex west of Pretoria.
Though aluminium smelting and fertilizer companies in South Africa produce large quantities of fluoride as a waste-product, Pelchem is believed to be the only local company able to supply enough fluoride for the nationwide water-dosing campaign.
The company's ability to provide this highly-corrosive chemical stems from its long history of producing and handling the vast quantities of hyrdro-fluoric acid needed for the enrichment of uranium nuclear fuel. Fluoride, in acid form, was a raw material which helped Armscor and the old Atomic Energy Corporation produce highly-enriched uranium for its top-secret atomic weapon programme. Between 1977 and 1989, at least six "gun-type" nuclear devices were built, and an underground explosion test site was prepared in the Kalahari desert.
However, large quantities of fluorine products from the Pelchem facility were also sold to local and foreign industries - for use in glass-etching, insecticides or leather preservatives.
Pelchem commercial manager Eddie Valkenbergh, was at pains this week to stress that fluoride produced at Pelindaba was a raw material, rather than a radioactive by-product of nuclear fuel. It was produced from locally-mined fluorspar, mixed with sulphuric acid.
To get additives for drinking water, the Pelchem acid stocks would be treated with silica sand to produce fluorosilicic acid - which would be added to water at a diluted concentration of 0,7 parts per million. Pelchem stands to boost annual revenue of about R130 million by at least 10% if it corners the local water fluoridation market.
Valkenbergh said his company's fluoride would meet American water works standards, and was a "purer" form of the chemical than fertilizer or aluminium industry supplies.
But Dr Hardy Limeback, former president of the Canadian Association for Dental Research, and head of preventive dentistry at the University of Toronto, says the Pelchem supplies could not be regarded as pharmaceutical grade medicine.
Limeback, one of several former fluoride advocates who have changed their minds, has written to President Mbeki urging him to set up a fluoridation panel to review whether or not South Africans are especially susceptible to the harmful effects of fluoride.
Limeback - who apologized to his campus and students some years ago for his previous support of fluoride - says fluoride is a known poison if ingested over a long period of time, even in small daily doses.
He said 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.
------------------

QUOTES

"I USED to be an ardent advocate of fluoridation . . . I had been taught, and believed, that there was really no scientific case against fluoridation, and that only misinformed lay people and a few crackpot professionals were foolish enough to oppose it . . . By 1983 I was thoroughly convinced that fluoridation caused more harm than good."
 - Dr John Colquhoun, former pro-fluoride advocate and principal dental officer of Auckland, New Zealand.

"These people who oppose fluoridation are basing their arguments on emotion, not science . . . but I think it would do more harm than good for me to get into a public debate with them."
- Dr Johan Smit, South African head of oral health.

"THOSE who believe fluoride works are entitled to their opinion. That is their right. But they have no right to force others to drink or use fluoride against their will, especially in the face of so much credible evidence of harms . . . The only people who truly benefit from the widespread use of fluoride for "dental" purposes are the big industries that generate fluoride as a waste product.
- Prof David R. Hill, University of Calgary, Canada

"THE evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body . . . Prior to my hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little if any, thought but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impugn the objectivity of those who oppose fluoridation."
 - Supreme Court Justice J.P. Flaherty and former chairman of the Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, who granted a court interdict against fluoridation in 1978.

Fluoride Adverse Health Effects

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.
Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological

A Chronology of Fluoridation
By Val Valerian


"Fluoridation is not a Communist Plot; it is an attempt by industry to camouflage their deadliest pollutant, with government officials and Madison Avenue advertisers beating the drums. The fluoridation empire is like a castle built on quicksand." Gladys Caldwell, author, "Fluoridation and Truth Decay", 1974.

1855 Smelters in Freiburg, Germany first paid damages to neighbors injured by fluoride emissions. (See 1893)
1893 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany paid out 80,000 marks in damages for fluorine contamination injuries and 644,000 marks for permanent relief. (See 1855, 1900, 1907).
1900 The existence of the smelting industry in Germany and Great Britain is threatened by successful lawsuits for fluorine damage and by burdensome laws and regulations.
1907 The smelters in Freiburg, Germany (see 1893) are identified as the cause of crippled cattle in the area since 1877, and fluorides are identified as the culprit.
1916 The first evidence of brown mottling of teeth is reported in the United States, and would be eventually found to be caused by fluorides in water.
1922 Aluminum production (along with production of toxic by-product sodium fluoride) increases. Aluminum cookware is mass introduced in the US, beginning the gradual accumulation of aluminum in the brains of Americans. Additional aluminum is injected into society in "antacids" and toothpaste tubes, which aggravate the action of toxic fluorides.
1928 The equivalent of the U.S. Public Health Service is under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA aluminum, a major producer of toxic fluoride wastes. Mellon would step down from control of the Public Health in 1931.
1928 Edward L. Bernays, nephew to Sigmund Freud, writes the book Propaganda, in which he explains the structure of the mechanism which controls the public mind, and how it is manipulated by those who wish to create public acceptance for a particular idea or commodity. Says Bernays, "those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. Our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, largely by men we have never heard of." Bernays represents another connection to Germany and would be essential in the fluoride campaign in the United States. Wrote Bernay's, "if you can influence group leaders, either with or without their conscious cooperation, you automatically influence the group which they sway." (See Bernay's, 1947, and the fluoride campaign).
1930 Kettering Laboratory is founded from gifts from Ethyl Corporation, General Electric and DuPont (all who have interlocking relationships with I.G. Farben in Germany) to "investigate chemical hazards in American industrial operations" under contract, with provision that research "shall not be released to the public without the consent of the contracting company." During the mid-20th century, Kettering dominated the medical literature on the toxicology of fluorides, but information was not released into the public domain.
1931 A considerable portion of Kettering Laboratory's facilities are dedicated to the study of fluorides. Under contract, the studies are not releasable to the public. (See also 1939, Mellon Institute)
1931 Three independent groups of scientists determine that fluoride in the water is the cause of dental mottling. Research teams from ALCOA Aluminum (who have fluorides as a hazardous by-product of aluminum manufacture) and the University of Arizona. Also shown by North African investigators and others. Dr. Gerald Cox of the Mellon Institute, owners of ALCOA, would later solve the expensive disposal problem with toxic fluorides by convincing others that it could be dumped in the public water supply as a "preventative" for tooth decay.
1931 Under an agreement with I.G. Farben, ALCOA accepts a restriction on the production of magnesium in the U.S, hampering the war effort, while Germany itself stepped up production. Most of the U.S. production was shipped out of the country to Germany.
1931 Public Health Service dentist H. Trendley Dean is dispatched by ALCOA founder Andrew Mellon to certain remote towns in the Western U.S. where water wells have a naturally high concentration of calcium fluorides. Dean's mission would be to find out how much fluoride people could physically tolerate before obvious visible damage to their teeth. Dean publishes a purposely skewed and deceptive study which purports to show that at 1ppm, fluorides result in the "reduction of tooth decay". (See Gerald Cox, 1939)
1931 The Mellon Institute is ALCOA's Pittsburgh research lab.
1931 From 1931 to 1939, the U.S. Public Health Service seeks to remove fluorides from water supplies because of endemic mottled teeth. ALCOA's fluoride proposals have not been bought into by the public or government yet.
1931 I.G. Farben and Alcoa Aluminum sign Alted Agreement pooling patents, which would continue through 1939 and beyond. I.G. Farben complex begins large contributions to fund Nazi cause.
1933 A study is published in which it is shown that fluorides inhibit the action relative to lipase on ethyl acetate in vivo 50 percent at a concentration of one part in 15 million. (McClure, F.J., "A Review of Fluorine and its physiological effects", Physiological Review, 13: 295-297, July 1933).
1933 According to a study by Freni in 1994 (71), in 1933 and again in 1984 that fluorides produce cumulative generational effects on biological organisms.
1937 U.S. Public Health Service publishes material indicating that fluoride concentrations in many U.S. cities varied between 0.6 ppm to 8.0 ppm. A concentration of 0.9 ppm means that over 10% of children have mottled teeth and tooth deformities.
1937 A clinical hygienic study by K. Roholm in 1937, Fluoride Intoxication, published by H.K. Lewis, London. Roholm is convinced that fluorides cross the placental barrier into the foetus. (70). This realization is echoed in 1951 by an M.D. and chemist from the University of Oregon Medical School.
1938 Dr. Wallace Armstrong and P. J. Brekhus at the University of Minnesota Department of Biochemistry publish a study in which they claim that the enamel of sound teeth had a significantly greater fluoride content than the enamel of teeth with cavities. Armstrong was to admit that these results were false. In a follow-up study in 1963, Dr. Armstrong found no difference in the fluoride contents of the enamel of sound or decayed teeth.
1938 The University of Mexico Bulletin, August 1, 1938, in an article entitled "Menace of Fluorine to Health", states "Solutions of sodium fluoride with a fluoride content as low as one part in 15 million may inhibit the action of the lipase (pancreatic juice) as much as 50 percent."
1939 The ALCOA company, the world's largest producer of sodium fluoride, transfers it technology under the Alted Agreement to Germany. Dow Chemical follows suit.
1939 ALCOA-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox fluoridates rats in his lab and mysteriously concludes that "fluoride reduces cavities". He makes a public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies. Cox begins to tour the United States, stumping for fluoridation.
1939 Scientists at I.G. Farben prepare the first sample of fluorinated nerve gas Sarin.
1939 On September 29, 1939, Mellon Institute scientist Gerald J. Cox plays a major role in the promotion of fluoridation by saying "the present trend toward removal of fluorides from food and water may need reversal. Water engineers had been recommending a maximum allowable fluoride contaminant level of 0.1 part per million (ppm), maintaining a tenfold margin of safety. (When fluorides were eventually added to water through corporate pressure, that safety factor would be thrown out and the level raised tenfold beyond the engineering recommendations in 1939, when fluoride was properly recognized as a toxic contaminant. Note: Mellon Institute was founded by Andrew and Richard Mellon, former owners of ALCOA Aluminum, plagued by disposal problems of toxic fluoride by products. ALCOA also had a relationship with I.G. Farben in Germany)
1939 U.S. Public Health Service regulations state "the presence of fluorides in excess of 1 ppm shall constitute rejection of the water supply." (Yet, when water fluoridation is instituted, levels are set at a minimum of 1 ppm)
1939 Volume 9 Report to the House Un-American Activities Committee delves deeply into the alleged use of fluoridation to keep the American people docile, so they would accept the changing of their system of government to a socialist state.
1940 "Fluoride inhibits neuromuscular activity". Ref: Russo, G. Att.Acad. Sci. Nat.., 1940.
1940 Soviet concentration camps maintained by fluoride administration to inmates to decrease resistance to authority and induce physical deteriorization.
1942 "Fluorine may cause anoxia in the newborn and shorten the period of their survival" Ref: Himwich, H.E., et al., American Journal of Physiology, 1942.
1942 Germany becomes worlds largest producer of aluminum (and Sodium Fluoride). Fluoride is used in the concentration camps to render the prisoners docile and inhibit the questioning of authority.
1943 Researchers from the US Public Health Service examine the health of residents of Bartlett, Texas to see if the 8ppm fluoride in the drinking water was affecting their health. It was checked again in 1953. They find that the death rate in Bartlett was three times higher than a neighboring town which contained 0.4 ppm fluoride.
1943 A special New York State Health Department Committee is appointed to study the advisability of adding fluoride to Newburg's drinking water, chaired by Dr. Hodge, then chief of fluoride toxicity studies for the Manhattan Project.
1943 The Journal of the American Medical Association on September 18, 1943, contains an article, "Chronic Fluorine Intoxication", which states, "fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanism of such actions, it was said, are obscure. The sources of fluorine intoxication are drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine, fluorine compounds used as insecticidal sprays for fruits and vegetables (cryolite and barium fluoro- silicate) and the mining and conversion of phosphate rock to superphosphate, which is used as a fertilizer. That process alone releases approximately 25,000 tons of pure fluorine into the atmosphere annually. Other sources of fluorine intoxication is from the fluorides used in the smelting of many metals, such as steel and aluminum, and in the production of glass, enamel and brick."
1943 Environmental pollution by toxic metals, including fluorides, affects forests, livestock, and urban residents, but coverage remains on local levels.
1944 "Even at 1ppm, fluoride in drinking water poisons cattle, horses and sheep" (Moules, G.R., Water Pollution Research and Summary of Current Literature, 1944.
1944 The city manger of Grand Rapids, Michigan announces that the Michigan State Department of Health is planning a long range experiment with fluoridated water and that Grand Rapids was selected as the location for the experiment. The city commission approves a motion to fluoridate on July 31, and decides it is to begin in January 1945, despite the warning issued three months earlier, ironically, by the American Dental Association. Grand Rapids becomes the first city in the United States to conduct this experiment. It was to serve as the test city to be compared against un-fluoridated Muskegon for a period of ten years relative to tooth decay, "at which time it would be determined whether or not fluoride was "safe and effective." Dr. H. Trendley Dean was put in charge of the project. The experiment was terminated early, after the control city was fluoridated, ruining the validity of the experiment, with the pronouncement that fluorides in public water supplies was "safe". See 1945.
1944 The Pentagon Scientific Research and Development Group further pursued the project to fluoridate the drinking water of Newburg, New York. Members included Henry L. Barnett, a captain in the Manhattan Project medical section, John W. Fertig, SRDG, Dr. Hodge, and David Ast, chief dental officer of the New York State Health Department, who was placed in charge of the Newburg Project. The group sought information on cumulative effects, which was also a goal of the Manhattan Project. (See below)
1944 Through 1948. Previously classified documents from Manhattan Project which indicate the government knew the physiological and psycho-behavioral effects of fluorides, as a result of studies connected with determining the effect of uranium hexafluoride processing on workers, as well as studies in defense of litigation against the project by tree growers who experienced fluoride damage from airborne pollutants connected with the project. Ref: Declassified documents from the National Archives published in 1997.
1944 An April 29, 1944 Manhattan Project memo, released in 1997, states "Clinical evidence suggests that uranium hexafluoride may have a rather marked central nervous system effect, with mental confusion, drowsiness and lassitude as the conspicuous features... it seems that the fluoride component is the causative factor....since work with these compounds is essential, it will be necessary to know in advance what mental effects may occur after exposure, if workmen are to be properly protected. This is important not only to protect a given individual, but also to prevent a confused workman from injuring others by improperly performing his duties". Ref: Previously classified SECRET Manhattan Project Memo, 29 April 1944, declassified and released from the National Archives.
1944 Oscar Ewing is put on the payroll of the Aluminum Company of America ALCOA), as an attorney, at an annual salary of $750,000. In 1947, Ewing was made Federal Security Agency Administrator, with the announcement that he was taking a big cut in salary. The US Public Health Service, then a division of the FSA, comes under the command of Ewing, and he begins to vigorously promote fluoridation nationwide. Ref: May 25-27 Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. A by-product of aluminum manufacture is toxic sodium fluoride. Ewings public relations strategist for the fluoride campaign was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward L. Bernays. Bernays conducts a public relations campaign to promote fluorine ingestion by applying Freudian theory to induce public acceptance. It was one of Bernays most successful campaigns.
1944 The October 1944 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association cautions that "knowledge of the subject does not warrant the introduction of fluorine in community water supplies generally. Sodium fluoride is a highly toxic substance, and while its applications in safe concentrations, and under strict control by competent personnel, may prove to be useful therapeutically, under other circumstances it may definitely be harmful. To be effective, fluorine must be ingested into the system during the years of tooth development, and we do not yet know enough about the chemistry involved to anticipate what other conditions may be produced in the structure of the bone and other tissues of the body generally. We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 ppm of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteosclerosis, spondylosis, and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurements among children ... because of our anxiety to find some therapeutic procedure that will promote mass prevention of caries, the seeming potentialities of fluorine appear speculatively attractive, but, in the light of our present knowledge or lack of knowledge of the chemistry of the subject, the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good."
1945 An FDA Chief inspector discovers that fluorides are being added to beer by the Commonwealth Brewing Company of Massachusetts (the same state where they did experimental fluoride treatments on institutionalized children). The owner of the brewery was arrested and subjected to a Federal jury trial for poisoning the beer. The indictment charged that the beer contained "an added poison or deleterious poison, fluoride, which was unsafe within the meaning of the statute (Section 301a of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act), since it was a substance not required in the production of the beer, it could have been avoided by good manufacturing practice." The fact was established that the fluoride was added in the concentration of 0.5 ppm. The jury was instructed that fluoride was established to be harmful and poisonous, and that it was unimportant to show how much beer it would take to demonstrate harmful effects. Beer was classified as a food and fluoride as a poison in 1945. The Commonwealth Brewery Company was slapped with a $10,000 fine, and Kaufmann, the owner, was given a 6 month suspended jail sentence and a three year probation period.
1945 Newburgh, New York has their water supply fluoridated in May 1945. Subsequent exams of the children by x-ray reveal that almost 14% have cortical defects in bone, compared to the nearby unfluoridated town of Kingston, where 7.5% have bone defects. The data is suppressed. In tandum, Project F (connected with the Manhattan Project) conducted their own studies of Newburg residents, focusing on the amounts of fluoride Newburg residents retained in the tissues and blood - key information sought by the bomb program, according to previously classified documents released in 1997. See 1956.
1945 The newspaper Philadelphia Record, 18 October 1945, reveals an article entitled "First Bomb Suit for Ruined Peaches filed by Salem County Growers for $400,000" details suits against chemical manufacturers connected with the Manhattan Atomic Bomb Project for hydrogen fluoride damage to peach groves. Companies involved were DuPont de Nemours (which has been interacting with I.G. Farben in Nazi Germany), the Sun Oil Company and the General Chemical Company.
1945 The government does a public test case of fluoridation, comparing fluoridated Grand Rapids with unfluoridated Muskegon, Michigan. The study is to last ten years. After one year, it becomes obvious to the government that fluorides do not conform to their public propaganda, and the study is terminated. The city of Muskegon is then fluoridated in 1947 to conceal the difference in effect. Other experiments are performed covertly on population areas, without the knowledge of the subjects.
1945 Covert experiments with fluorides are conducted in Massachusetts and in Connecticut between 1945 and 1946 on indigent, mentally retarded children at state-run schools. According to 1954 testimony of Florence Birmingham, a trustee of the Wrentham State School in Massachusetts, her schools administration learned only by accident that fluorides were being put in the drinking water.
1945 A study reveals that fluoride's affinity for magnesium and manganese ions enables it to deplete their availability for vital enzyme functions. (Borei, H., "Inhibition of Cellular Oxidation by Fluoride", Arkiv.Kemi,Mineral,Geol., 20A, No. 8, 1945).
1946 A letter from the U.S. Engineer Office, Manhattan District, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, to Colonel Warren, Manhattan Project, 1 May 1946, regarding a trip to the DuPont plant, discusses the fluoride damage to the environment. The letter also states "Would there be any use in making attempts to counteract the local fear of fluoride on the part of residents of Salem and Gloucester counties through lectures on fluoride toxicology and perhaps the usefulness of fluoride in tooth health?" Letter signed by Harold C. Hodge, who was also involved in the Newburgh, New York experiments. Ref: Previously classified SECRET Manhattan Project Letter, 1 May 1946, declassified and released from the National Archives in 1997.
1946 An issue of Medical Biochemistry contains a research study by Everetts which indicates that blood clotting may be affected by fluorides.
1946 Reports from the House Committee on Un-American Activities in the Armed Forces for 1946 and 1947 reveal the dociling effect of fluorides in the water supplies at military bases on American troops.
1946 Water fluoridation proponents claim no benefits for people over 9 years of age, promising the magic effect of fluorides occurred prior to eruption of teeth. Despite this claim, all U.S. military reservations, populated by adults, were heavily fluoridated.
1946 Six more U.S. cities "allowed" to fluoridate their water supplies.
1947 ALCOA lawyer Oscar Ewing is appointed head of the Federal Security Agency, later HEW, a position that places him in charge of the Public Health Service. Under Ewing, a national fluoridation campaign rapidly materializes, spearheaded by the Public Health Service. Over the next three years, 87 additonal cities were fluoridated, including the control city of Muskegon in the original Michigan experiment, thus wiping out the most scientifically objective test of safety and "benefit" before the test was half over. Ewing's public relations strategist for the fluoride campaign was Edward L. Bernays, Sigmund Freuds nephew, who pioneered Freudian theory toward advertising and government propaganda. (See Bernay's, 1928 and his book Propaganda). Because of Bernay's people would be induced to forget that fluorides were toxic poisons. Opponents to the fluoride program were painted as "deranged". In 1996 they would be painted as "civil rights activists".
1947 Forrestal appointed Secretary of Defense. Asked to resign in 1949 after noting forces planning the war in Korea. See 1949. Later murdered. Forrestal was very much opposed to the use of fluorides on military bases to keep the troops docile. (York Daily Times, Letters to the Editor from former FBI agent Wesley C. Trollope, Omaha, Neb., March 17, 1967).
1948 Study done in England where bone defects in three groups of school boys were studied. Two groups were from districts where the water supply was practically free of fluorine. The third group was from the town of Launton, where the natural water supply contains 1ppm of fluorine (the same as the level deemed "safe" by the U.S. Public Health Service). X-ray examination revealed that 20 percent of the first two groups had mild non-specific spinal irregularities. In the third group, the one consuming 1ppm fluoride in their water, 64% were found to have spinal defects, and lesions were more severe.
1948 A censored version of the Manhattan Project fluoride safety study is published in the August 1948 Journal of the American Dental Association. Comparison with the previously classified version in 1997 indicates that the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission did censor damaging information on fluorides. Ref: Fluorides, Teeth and the Atomic Bomb, 1997.
1948 John McCone becomes Secretary of Defense of the United States. McCone gives contracts to Standard Oil and Kaiser Aluminum, in which he already has financial interests. Aluminum manufacture by-products, fluorides, would be added to the population water supplies to induce submission by damaging the brain and stem resistance to domination by global socialism.
1950 The 24th edition of the U.S. Dispensatory (pp 1456-1457)defines fluorides as "violent poisons to all living tissue because of their precipitation of calcium. They cause fall of blood pressure, respiratory failure, and general paralysis. Continuous ingestion of non-fatal doses causes permanent inhibition of growth ... the use of fluoride-containing dentifrices and internal medicants is not justified." In subsequent editions, the editors removed this entire portion. Why? Science and biology doesn't change. Political agendas do.
1950 The publication Science features research by C.W. Sheppard which indicates that fluorides "lower haemoglobin and may cause irreversible loss of potassium from the red cells."
1950 Alcoa Aluminum's Vancouver, Washington plant is found guilty of dumping 7,000 pounds of toxic fluorides each month into the Columbia River. According to the December 15, 1952 Seattle Times, "the fluoride contaminated the grass and forage and resulted in injury and death to cattle." See 1957 (Alcoa).
1950 The U.S. Public Health Service officially publicly endorses the concept of the addition of fluorides to public water supplies.
1950 The Seventh Annual Report of the Sugar Research Foundation recognizes sugar as the major cause of tooth decay. The SRF furnishes grants to the Harvard Department of Nutrition to "solve the tooth decay problem without restricting sugar consumption". The result of these grants was the advocating of water fluoridation.
1950 From 1950 to 1951, ALCOA advertises sodium fluoride for addition to water supplies.
1950 The Seventh Annual Report of the Sugar Research Foundation (130 corporations) expresses its "aim in dental research" : to discover means of controlling tooth decay by methods other than restricting sugar intake. Two institutions most aggressive in promotion of water fluoridation, the Dental Schools of Harvard and the University of Rochester, receive large grants for fluoride research from the sugar industry.
1950 Soviets add fluorides to water in prison system to maintain subservience in the inmate population, affect the central nervous system and produce compliance with authority. Fluorides shipped from the US via Alaska, starting in the 1940's, to the Soviets for use in their Gulag prison system. The U.S. continues to promote addition of fluorides to public water supplies.
1950 In the Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol 40:440, April 1950, was a study by G.J. Cox and H.C. Hodge, "Toxicity of Fluorides in Relation to Their Use in Dentistry", which says, "Some of the basic and necessary metabolic processes in the cell are stopped by concentrations of fluorides such as are found in acute poisoning. These changes are comparable to those seen in high-grade anoxia and are the basis for describing fluorides as general protoplasmic poisons." Study also quoted in JADA Nov 1962, pp.687-688.
1951 The February 10, 1951 issue of JAMA Medical Literature reports the following symptoms of chronic fluoride poisoning, stating "Chronic intoxications resulting from prolonged intake of smaller amounts of fluorides include dental fluorosis. Fluoride also tends to accumulate in bones, leading to hypercalcification and brittleness. Ligaments and tendons also become calcified. Serious symptoms may ensue, such as loss of mobility of joints, easy fractures and pressure on the spinal chord. Other effects include baldness in young men, accompanied by increased fluoride concentrations in hair and nails, anaemia and decreased blood clotting power due to the binding of calcium. Dysmenorrhea, alterations in growth and weight, lowered birth rate, high incidence of fractyre, thyroid alterations and liver damage have been observed in regions of endemic fluorosis."
1951 The U.S. Public Health Service, with the cooperation of the American Dental Association, holds a meeting of state dental directors at which the methods for promotion of fluoridation were outlined. Thus the USPHS formed an alliance with medical trade unions and industry to promote the addition of toxic fluorides to the public water supplies. A concentration of 1.2 ppm was suggested, and state dental directors were instructed to lie to the public about the toxic effects of sodium fluoride, deliberately misinform the public by relating the presence of "high-fluoride areas" to "less cancer and less polio" - an entire public relations campaign meant to convince the public to allow themselves to be medicated - just like the inmates in Soviet and German prisons and camps. Their technique was not to refute the thing but to show that the opposite was true, even if the opposite was not true. Ref: Proceedings of the 1951 meeting in Washington D.C.
1952 After Dr. A.L. Miller, former Nebrasks Health Commissioner, became a Congressman, and found he had been bamboozled by the former highly paid attorney for Alcoa Aluminum, Oscar Ewing (who later founded Triangle Research Park) into helping fluoridate the water of Washington, D.C., Miller revealed at a Congressional Hearing, reported in the March 24, 1952 Congressional Record, how he had been misled. He wondered aloud about how Mr. Ewing became Federal Security Administrator and whether Alcoa "might not have a deep interest in getting rid of the waste products from the manufacture of aluminum products". Miller asked Dr. John D. Porterfield of the U.S. Department of Agriculture if studies had been done to see what fluorides might do to pregnant women. Porterfield replied, "They have different objectives in mind, sir. There is more money available for matters that have economic value than there is for health."
1952 The American Dental Association publishes an issue of its Journal instructing its dentists not to discuss their personal opinions about fluoride.
1952 From 1952 to 1956, the cities on the "fluoridation list" began to fluoridate their water supplies. As the process of water fluoridation continued, the cancer death rate of the fluoridated cities began to far exceed the rate of the unfluoridated cities.
1952 San Francisco begins to fluoridate its public water supplies.
1952 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania begins to fluoridate its water supplies. On Oct 15, 1967, the Pittsburg Press would report that 98% of the school children 13-15 years of age had crooked teeth in Pittsburgh.
1952 During February through April 1952, dental officers from England visit the United States, including the National Institute of Dental Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and the ADA headquarters in Chicago. Host of the visit are Surgeon General Scheele and Assistant Surgeon General Knutson. All four members of the British committee are "convinced", and return to England.
1952 U.S. "Public Health" officials Dr. Dean, Dr. Arnold and McClure concentrate their efforts to introduce fluoridation into Australia and New Zealand.
1952 Congressional representative from Nebraska, Dr. A. L. Miller, who was also the Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals and Foods, comments on the fact that within 3 months the USPHS, who did not endorse fluoridation of public water supplies, suddenly reversed course and promoted it very heavily. Dr. Miller said he could not find any public evidence that the AMA, the ADA and other health agencies had done any work at all on researching the safety, but were in fact just endorsing each other's opinions in support of the program. Miller noted that all scientific experts in biochemistry had advised the "go-slow" sign relative to fluoridation of public water. Dr. Miller expressed the fact that he wondered whether of not ALCOA and its subsidiary companies might not have a deep interest in getting rid of waste products from the making of aluminum. Dr. Miller also stated that it was interesting to note that Oscar Ewing, who headed up the Federal Security Administration (at the time the parent organization for the U.S. Public Health Service) was connected with the legal firm of Hubbard, Hill and Ewin, who also represent ALCOA. [Later, dentists who opposed administration of toxic fluorides to patients were censured or lost their membership to the ADA (beginning around 1960); scientists who came out with evidence of fluorides dangerous nature were personality and publicly denigrated by the ADA and USPHS, and the research (often far better and more rigorous) was portrayed by the ADA and USPHS as being faulty or irrelevant; those who opposed fluoride could not get or keep USPHS grants; public health officials who disagreed lost their jobs. Meanwhile, the ADA, USPHS and fluoride producing industry continued in the conspiracy to defraud the public by claiming fluoridation was "absolutely safe". It is estimated that since the time fluorides have been added to the food, water and air in the early 20th century, over 130 million Americans have suffered chronic fluoride poisoning, accelerated aging and degenerative disease - all due to fluoride products which they are encouraged to consume. It continues, despite the evidence, because fluorides also are behavior modifiers for the population - chemical mind control with built-in money-making degenerative capabilities.]
1952 82nd Congress, 2nd Session, Hearings of the Select Committee to Investigate Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics. Dr. Miller "The US Dental Assn made some examination and recommended to the farmers that fluorine not be added to the water of pregnant sows because it did something to the pigs that were unborn" Dr. Porterfield "There is more money available for matters that have economic value than there is for health."
1953 Dr. Max Ginns of Worchester, Massachusetts, circulates a petition against water fluoridation, signed by 119 dentists and 59 medical doctors who oppose the use of fluorides. Ginns was dropped from the state dental society in 1961 because of this effort.
1953 It is learned by Miss Florence Birmingham, who testified before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce hearings on the fluoridation of water, that the state of Massachusetts has been doing fluoride experiments at state institutions for the feebleminded, including Wrentham, Fernald and Belchertown on the orders of the state health department. All of this a clear violation of the Nuremberg Pact.
1953 The May 14, 1953 issue of the AMA publication Today’s Health contains an editorial in which it is stated, "Because the matter of water fluoridation is so exclusively a dental project, no experimental work has been carried out on this by medical professions. It is our understanding that this matter has been gone into extensively by the American Dental Association..."
1954 Charles E. Perkins, the scientist sent by the U.S. to Germany after World War II to supervise the breakup of I.G. Farben, states, "the real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control, and loss of liberty."
1954 Denver begins fluoridation of its public water supplies.
1954 A study is published which links fluorides and the development of cancer in animals. Ref: A Taylor, "Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice", Dental Digest, Vol 60, pp170-172.
1954 C. E. Perkins, I. G. Farben chemist, admits fluoride is to reduce resistance in people to authority.
1954 In 1954, the Christian Science Monitor surveyed all 81 Nobel Prize winners in the fields of chemistry, medicine and physiology on their opinion regarding water fluoridation. Seventy-nine percent failed to endorse water fluoridation, which the promoters claim is endorsed by all "reputable" scientists.
1955 An Oregon Federal Court tries the case of Martin v. Reynolds Metals, in which the Martin farm had been contaminated by fluorides from the aluminum plant. ALCOA and six other metals and chemical companies join Reynolds as "friends of the court" to get the decision reversed when the court finds in favor of the Martins. The Reynolds attorney contends "if allowed to stand, the verdict would become a ruling case, making every aluminum and chemical plant liable to damage claims from fluoride and heavy metal pollution simply by operating. Despite all this, the Martins won, and Reynolds finally made the case moot by buying the Martin's ranch for a large sum.
1955 Dr. Heinrich Hornung, a German health officer and one of Europe’s most dedicated advocates of water fluoridation, comes to the U.S. in an attempt to refute evidence of fluoride toxicity.
1955 From 1955 to 1957, K.K. Paluev, a brilliant General Electric Company research and development engineer, was the first to point out that the statistics relative to the studies done in Grand Rapids, Michigan; Newburgh, New York and other cities touted as "reducing decay by 65%" those promoting fluoridation show a delay in eruption of teeth, due to the fluoridation, and that the claimed "65 percent reduction in tooth decay" were obtained partially by tabulating unerupted teeth as "sound" teeth. According to a statistical analysis later in 1959, paid for by the University of Melbourne, every fluoridation experiment done, as far as statistics are concerned, abound in contradictions, discrepancies, and omissions of pertinent data, and lack of adequate controls. (Fluoridation Errors And Omissions in Experimental Trials, by Philip R.N. Sutton, D.D.Sc., L.D.S. (Senior Research Fellow, Department of Oral Medicine and Surgery, Dental School, University of Melbourne, in collaboration with Sir Arthur B.P. Amies, Dean of the Dental School, University of Melbourne, Australia). In other words, every experimental trial in the world claimed to justify the belief that fluorides prevent dental caries is fraudulent, and can be proved fraudulent. For extreme detail on this matter, consult "The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation", by Philip R. Sutton, 1996, Kurunda Pty, Ltd, P.O. Box 22, Lorne, Australia 3232. ISBN 0-949491-12-8.
1955 Fluoride toothpaste is marketed with the warning that "fluoridated toothpaste should not be used where the water supply is fluoridated." A later decision stipulated that "children under 6 should not use Crest". Both warnings were instituted by the Public Health Service, but in 1958 both regulations were abandoned, even though no research was available to show that the fluoride overdose hazard no longer existed.
1955 Dr. William Wolf, a clinical professor at New York University School of Dentistry, observes four cases of poisoning from drinking fluoridated water. After verifying the diagnosis, he warns colleagues. The Dean of the University then informs him that his teaching services will no longer be required. Wolf informs the Dean that he will go public with this, and the Dean drops the matter.
1956 Maurice Natenburg, medical writer and managing editor of Regent House, publishes a pamphlet entitled The Fluoride Curtain, in which he states "The AMA endorsed fluoridation just after their successful fight against an Ewing-sponsored bill to introduce socialized medicine in the United States. The AMA made a special assessment on its members, spending some $3 million in the battle to defeat the bill. After the battle was over, the AMA suddenly saw the 'merits' of water fluoridation." See 1961 AMA disapproval of fluoridation.
1956 March 1956 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, H.C. Hodge remarks, "skeletal deposition of fluoride is a continuing process in which a considerable portion of the ingested fluoride, perhaps 25 to 50%, is deposited in the skeleton."
1956 The final report of the Newburg, New York demonstration project is published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, concluding that "small concentrations" of fluoride were safe for U.S. citizens. The biological "proof", based on work performed at the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project, was delivered by Dr. Hodge.
1956 Ionel Rapaport, French endocrinologist at the Psychiatric Institute of the University of Wisconsin, ascertains the birthplace of all mongoloid children in Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota and Illinois, and grouped them together according to the published fluoride content of the municipal drinking water. Tabulating the 687 urban cases, he finds a two-fold statistically significant greater prevalence or risk of mongoloid births in communities with 1 ppm or more in the water. Using Van Valens formula reveals a combined statistical probability of less that 1 in 125,000 that the correlations from all four states are due to chance. The incidence of the birth defect increases as the fluoride content of the water increases. This is the only study of its kind to include maternal data. See 1959, second study on Down's Syndrome and fluoridated areas). [Bulletin of the Academy of National Medicine, Paris, Vol 140, pp.529-531].
1956 American Psychoanalytical Association study on sleep disturbances was convened, showing how the profession responded to various neurological disturbances emerging in society. Since the connection between changes in brain chemistry and external substances had been replaced by psychology, it made it extremely difficult (according to Gershwind in 1982) to accept that there are instances in which difficulties in emotional adjustment are the primary result of alterations in the brain.
1957 The American Medical Association announces "no evidence has been found since the 1951 statement to prove fluoridated water at the recommended concentration of fluoride is harmful to the general health.". See JAMA Medical Literature, 1951.
1957 Feltman and Kosel find that 34 of 38 leading Vitamin and mineral supplements have as much as 286 micrograms of fluoride in them. [Feltman R., et al, "Fluoride in Pharmaceutical Preparations", NorthWest Medicine, Vol 55, pp.663-1664, June 1956.]
1957 The FDA tolerance for insect sprays on 60 fruits and vegetables allows 7 ppm fluorides. DeEds writes, " it is a well-established fact that chronic intoxication may manifest itself in man as recognized abnormalities only after constant, or frequent exposure to fluorides. " [ Official FDA Tolerances for Residues of Pesticide Chemicals, National Agricultural Chemicals Assn News and Pesticide Review, Vol 15, pp.5-14, May 1957 ].
1957 Controversial statement from Oliver Kenneth Goff, June 22, 1957, a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League from May 2, 1936 to October 9, 1939, reveals he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1939, as to the implementation of the fluoridation of American public water supplies in the same way they used it as a brain tranquillizer at Soviet prison camps. Goff reflected that the Party leaders felt that it would bring about lethargy in the U.S, and keep the public docile during a steady encroachment of Communism. Also discussed, says Goff, was keeping a store of deadly fluoride near the water supplies where during a time of revolt it could be dumped wholesale into the water supply and either kill off the populace, or threaten them with liquidation, so that they would surrender to obtain fresh water. (See Ref#64,65). Sworn statement in Arapahoe Country, Colorado, notarized. (Ref: Fluoridation, by Isabel Jansen, R.N, 1990, ISBN 0-932298-73-7, page 128, Tri-State Press, Antigo, Wisconsin 54409)
1957 An experiment is done at the Montreal Neurological Institute by William Scoville and Brenda Miller removed the hippocampus from a man suffering from epilepsy in an attempt to stop the attacks. (See 1994 scientific report on the effect of sodium fluoride on the brain and behavior, and the hippocampus). The subject in this historical case, H.M., lost the ability to remember recent events. Almost 28 years after the operation, for H.M. a typical day's activities included doing crossword puzzles and watching television, although he does not remember where he lives, who cares for him, or what he ate at his last meal. (Neurobiology, 1994)
1957 In a 1957 AMA report it was stated " It is too early to know what the effects of artificial fluoridation will be. What is reported as a reduction in dental decay may in fact be a delay in recognition of decay, and reasons given for believing that artificially fluoridated water will have the same effects as water with natural fluoride are not valid."
1957 The September 1957 issue of Northwest Medicine featured an article by Thomas E. Douglas, M.D., entitled "Fluoride Dentifrice and Stomatitis", where Dr. Douglas explains his puzzlement over the increasing frequency of patients with oral lesions. He discovered that all patients with lesions used fluoridated toothpaste.
1957 Alcoa Aluminum Company announces the sale of sodium fluoride (rat poison) directly to municipalities for fluoridation of drinking water. When it became obvious that phosphate fertilizer companies could sell toxic fluorides cheaper, Alcoa was priced out of the fluoride dumping market.
1957 Records for New Britain, Connecticut (where the use of industrial fluorides had been in use for 6 years) showed that some of the children's teeth had been damaged beyond repair where the water is fluoridated, even when the percentage of industrial fluorine is kept at or below 1 ppm, mottling is produced in 10-15% of the children examined. Mottled teeth are teeth showing symptoms of fluorosis, and the enamel of mottled teeth is brittle and subject to mechanical injury which is difficult or impossible to repair.
1958 In April 1958, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, with more than 15,000 members, most of whom are also members of the American Medical Association, pass a resolution in opposition to fluoridation, which states "The Association condemns the addition of any substance to the public water supply for the purpose of affecting the bodily or mental function of the consumer."
1958 Dr. F.J. Stare of Harvard University gives a speech in Needham, Massachusetts, promoting "fluoride as a nutrient", citing the research done by Maurer and Day. Dr. Fred Exner takes him to task, pointing out that the study by Maurer and Day was called "The Non-Essentiality of Fluoride in Nutrition", and that animals fed a fluoride-poor diet could produce no symptoms of "fluoride deficiency". Journal of Nutrition, 62, 561-573,1957. Dr. Stares' fraudulent claims are still be quoted as 'facts", although he recanted his claim that "fluorides will benefit or cure bone disease" in the April 6, 1972 Boston Herald Traveler.
1958 Fluoridation is introduced experimentally in the West German town of Kassel by special dispensation of the Minister of Health. The fluoridation plant would be taken out of service in April 1, 1971 as a result of legal and health considerations.
1958 Renowned geneticist H.J. Muller reveals that fluorides produce primary damage by injuring the genetic material of the cells they enter. [Muller, Symposium on Emphysema and Chronic Bronchitis: "Do Air Pollutants Act as Mutagens?", Aspen, Colorado, June 13-15, 1958]
1958 In October 1958, Dr. J.F. Montague, a medical doctor, published material reflecting his growing concern over fluoridation in the Journal of the International College of Surgeons connecting the presence of fluorine in the human body to cancer. Also in 1958, an interesting piece of work was done by Dr. James Kerwin, a dentist, in which it was shown that the simultaneous presence of fluorine and strontium 90 in the human body may result in a greater accumulation of both substances in which compounds like strontium fluoride are formed. Because of the low solubility of these substances, the body has a very hard time getting rid of them. His report was published in Dental Digest in February 1959.
1958 The World Health Organization (WHO) establishes an Expert Committee in Geneva to study fluoridation. At least 5 out of 7 members of the committee had promoted fluoridation in their respective countries. [The deck was already stacked]. Two well-known American proponents were Dr. J.W. Knutson and Professor H.C. Hodge. Hodge had some of his research financed by the Atomic Energy Commission, which was confronted with serious fluoride disposal problems from uranium processing. Another member promoting fluoridation, Professor Yngve Ericsson from Sweden, a prominent advocate of fluoridation in Europe, was the recipient of a U.S. Public Health Service grant and received royalties from Sweden's toothpaste industry. Research documenting poisoning from fluoridated water was rejected. See 1969, WHO Endorsement of fluorides]
1959 Rapaport does a second study on fluoridation and birth defects in Illinois from 1950 to 1956. The study is reported in 1959. The data indicated a highly significant association between the frequency of Down's Syndrome and the fluoride content of the mother's drinking water.
1959 In the report of the proceedings of the 3rd Medical-Dental Conference on the Evaluation of Fluoridation, held on March 7, 1959 in New York City, the committee concluded that "It is apparent that the practice of fluoridation is not the simple is not the simple, trustworthy procedure that the promoting authorities have given the profession and the public to believe. Added to the lack of control of fluorides at the consumers tap are these major uncertainties: the gross variation in individual water consumption, the varied intake of fluorides in food and the fluoride intake from atmospheric and occupational exposure. These unpredictable issues make meaningless any talk about "controlled individual fluorine intake." Most, if not all of this research has been buried by the authorities, who maintain glibly that "fluoride compounds are safe in the water supply". Wilful criminal negligence and conspiracy.
1959 Fluorides were used as an enzyme inhibitor in a study by J.D. Ebert that was published in 1959 on the metabolic pathways by which organs in an embryo are formed. In low concentrations, he found that sodium fluoride blocked almost completely the regions destined to form muscle, primarily affecting the heart muscle. In higher concentrations, it caused the entire embryo to disintegrate in a clear-cut pattern, starting with the heart-forming region.
1959 As early as 1959, the knowledge existed that the presence of fluoride in human bodies hastens the absorption of radioactive substances present in the environment. In a report to the Atomic Energy Commission's Division of Biology and Medicine entitled "The Metabolism of Alkaline Earth Metals by Bone" by F.W. Lengemann, professor of chemistry at the University of Tennessee on March 23, 1959, it was scientifically shown that the presence of fluorine and other environmental substances such as lead and cyanide in the human body increased the ratio of strontium 90 to calcium in bone - caused the body to absorb radioactives.
1959 In 1959, the Ontario Minister of Health, Dr. Dymond, announced that no further fluoridation would be permitted there, because "no one knows for sure what the effect is to persons given fluoride throughout a lifetime."
1959 In research conducted on the incidence of Mongolism in cities in Wisconsin, Illinois and the Dakotas published in 1959 in the official publication of the French Academy of Medicine, it was found that as the percentage of fluorides in the water rose, there was a parallel rise in the incidence of Mongoloid births the age of the mothers giving birth to Mongoloid babies also declined with rising fluoride levels. It is interesting that in the first three years of fluoridation, New Britain, Connecticut experienced a 150% rise in still births.
1960 In 1960, the American Dental Association issued a pamphlet for public consumption called Fluoridation Facts: Answers to Criticisms of Fluoridation. In defense of the use of toxic fluoride compounds in public water supplies (which is a grievous crime against humanity, since it means mandated involuntary public medication), they used the logic that "people have been known to live to a ripe old age" in areas where the water supply is fluoridated. Unfortunately, they neglected to mention that the addition of fluoride to the water supply correlated directly with the number of still births, mongoloid children, brittle teeth and enlarged dental root structures, adverse spinal conditions, osteomalacia (softening of the bones) and osteoporosis (abnormally porous and spaced structure inside bone) in the medicated population as opposed to control populations that were unmedicated. People die young "at a ripe old age".
1960 A study is done in Japan that involved examination of fluoride deposition in the foetuses of dogs. It was found that the quantity of deposited fluorine was especially large in bones, largest in the cranial bone as well as the lower leg bone. The quantity of fluorine deposition was parallel with the progression of the calcification. They also proved that the deposit of fluorine on teeth and bones starts through the placenta as early as the embryo period, and then takes place through the mothers milk through the infancy period, and through food, as well as directly through the inside of the oral cavity. As fluorine is a known active enzyme poison, it is known to affect cell division (mitotic) in the foetus, resulting in anatomical anomalies (teratism).
1960 The committee on fluoride meets in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Dr. G.E. Hall guides the deliberations. His daughter was employed by an aluminum corporation with fluoride pollution problems, he was himself serving as honorary advisory director for a leading fluoridation promotion organization, and his university (University of Western Toronto) was the recipient of grants from the U.S. Public Health Service. (three conflicts of interest). Fluoridation of all public water supplies in Canada was advocated.
1960 In San Francisco on November 29, 1960 a 200-foot portion of a 50-foot wide street collapsed after an almost-new water main burst. After an analysis of the pipe by Griffin-Hasson laboratories in Los Angeles, it was discovered that fluoridation chemicals had corroded the pipe, which showed a fluoride concentration of 22,000 ppm on the pipe.
1961 Sweden's Supreme Court declared fluoridation illegal.
1961 The legal department of the American Medical Association issues a letter stating, "The AMA does not engage in the approval, endorsement, guarantee or acceptance of unfluoridated water or fluoridated water."
1961 In Great Britain, Dr. R. A. Holman of the Royal Institute of Pathology discussed fluoride poisoning in an article in the April 15, 1961 issue of the British Medical Journal. He noted that the long-term effects of sodium fluoride ingestion needed much more investigation, and continued, "Fluoride is a well-known inhibitor of several enzyme systems, and can form spectroscopically recognizable compounds with the enzyme catalase, resulting in its inhibition. Catalase poisoning has been linked with the development of viruses and the causation of a number of diseases, including cancer. Many observers have suggested that the agents (fluorides and other toxic environmental substances) which decrease the catalase the cells may predispose those cells to tumor formation. Voisin has said, "the method most likely to solve the problem of cancer is to ask why the cancer cell is lacking in catalase and try to prevent its impoverishment from taking place.
1962 A study in Portugal revealed that fluoride at 1ppm concentration caused a 25% decrease in activity of the enzyme succinic dehydrogenase in liver tissue, both in test tubes and in animal experiments. In vivo, fluoride at 1ppm inhibited liver activity by 6.4 percent. In kidneys this enzyme activity was reduced by 47.8 percent by fluoride at 1ppm in drinking water. The authors concluded, "significant enzyme inhibition due to prolonged fluoride administration demonstrates the impairment of an important step in cellular metabolism". (Sullivan, W.D.,S.J., and Von Knobeledorff, A.J., Broteria Serie de Ciencias Naturais, Lisbon, 21, No.1, 1962).
1962 Dr. John Knutson of the U.S. Public Health Service examines cancer death rates following the fluoridation of the public water supplies of Grand Rapids, Michigan. He found a 22% increase in cancer death rates, contrasted to the unfluoridated control city of Muskegon, itself fluoridated 5 years into the "15 year test" in order to conceal the greater caries prevalence in Grand Rapids. Ref: Fluoride Drinking Waters p.213 (1962).
1962 According to the 1962 Revision of Drinking Water Standards, the safety factor for fluoride in drinking water was listed as "zero". (Water and Its Impurities, Thomas Camp: Reinhold, New York). According to the author, "the threshold for mottled enamel overlaps the recommended concentration for artificial fluoridation".
1962 According to the November 1962 Journal of the American Dental Association, from 10% to 20% of the children in fluoridated Grand Rapids, Michigan, developed mottled or fluoresced teeth.
1962 Noted cancer researcher Dr. Ludwig Gross, whose work on leukaemia is invaluable in cancer research and whose findings prompted a governmental crash program, was put on report after writing: "The plain fact is that fluoride is an insidious poison - harmful, toxic, and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amount, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that 'fluoridation of the water supply is safe'". This 'defection' was pointed out to Dr. Gross' superiors in the US Public Health Service. However, a Veterans Administration official replied on September 24, 1962: "Dr. Gross is free to offer his opinion in any relation he may desire, but he does not speak for the Veterans Administration on the subject of fluoridation. This agency is not opposed to the fluoridation of public water supplies."
1963 American Academy of Sciences study shows low fluoride levels increase tumors.
1963 A study is published which links fluorides and development of cancer in animals. Ref: Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton "Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors...Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride", Genetics, Vol 48, pp307-310.
1963 J.R. Shapiro, M.D., National Institute of Arthritis and Metabolic Diseases, in the October 31, 1963 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, observed that the concept of extending low-dose fluoride "currently employed in preventing dental caries in children 'to include adults in the hope of preventing future osteoporosis' is largely unsupported by available data". See 1971.
1964 The Ministry of the Interior of Denmark issues a public announcement "fluoridation of public water supplies as well as of all consumables is prohibited". Denmark bans fluoride supplements in January 1964.
1964 As of April 1964, accounts in local newspapers showed that 200 cities had discontinued fluoridation after they found that fluoridation did cause harmful effects to humans, animals and fish; that it did corrode plumbing; and that the cost was more than stated by proponents.
1964 A report in the British Dental Journal carried in the Philadelphia Bulletin on November 8, 1964, stated that a four-year experiment involving 1,000 English children had been abandoned because no significant differences were found in terms of caries between fluoride toothpastes and non-fluoridated ones. The British test was an independent trial by university professors, and all statistics were treated by independent statisticians. In contrast, in the United States, those experimental trials which used statistics featured statistical work done by the toothpaste manufacturers or by firms which were paid by the manufacturers, or by dental organizations. Such experiments are invalid.
1964 Scientific information is published on the Paradoxical Effect of the biological effect of chemical toxins, in an article by Shatz et al. That is the response increases with time and then diminishes with even higher doses. In other words there is not a linear relationship between dose and effect. This means that there is no threshold below which fluorides and radiation, for example, are harmless. This also applies to the electromagnetic effects on human biology. [Shatz, A., et al, "The Occurrence and Importance of Paradoxical Concentration Effects on Biological Systems", Compost Science, Vol 5, p.22-30, Spring 1964; Shatz, A., "Low Level Fluoridation and Low-Level Radiation - Two Case Histories of Misconduct of Science", by A. Schatz, Ph. D, Philadelphia, 1996]
1965 The November 1965 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association, contains a section listing the names of individuals who oppose fluoridation, along with denigrating information, charging that people are distributing leaflets misrepresenting sodium fluoride as rat poison ... which of course it is.
1965 The President's Science Advisory Committee designates fluoride as "a highest priority pollutant". See 1967.
1965 A study is published which links fluorides to cancer in animals. Ref: A. Taylor and N. C. Taylor, "Effect of Fluoride on Tumor Growth", Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol 65, pp252-255.
1965 Researchers at the University of Texas, Drs. Alfred and Nell Taylor, find that fluoride in the drinking water at levels between 0.5 and 1.0 ppm increased tumor growth rate in cancer-prone mice by 15-25%, inhibiting the efforts of the immune system to attack tumors.
1965 When asked about the advisability of adding sodium fluoride to table salt, the FDA on July 12, 1965 answered, "We would consider the addition of sodium fluoride to table salt as a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act."
1966 The National Health Federation publishes a book entitled Fluoridation, in which it is reported "the effect on fluorides on trout was toxic. In water samples with fluoride levels between 0.5 and 4.6 ppm from airborne fumes, trout eggs were worthless...there were malformations ... loss of adult fish was very great." Based on August 25, 1961 case in which the Meader Hatchery near Pocatello, Idaho, obtained a judgment in the U.S. Court of Appeals against the Simplot Company, which was releasing airborne fluorides, polluting fish production.
1966 A study at Texas A&M University demonstrates that fluoride causes genetic damage to onions and tomatos.
1966 Scientific report reveals that "at concentrations too low to cause visible tissue injury, fluorides induce significant mitotic and meiotic chromosome alterations in tomato plants." [Mohamed, A. H., et al, "Cytological Effects of Hydrogen Fluoride on Tomato Chromosomes" Canadian Journal of Genetic Cytology, Vol 8, p.575-583,1966]
1966 The International Society for Research on Nutrition, Vital Substances and the Diseases of Civilization (founded by Dr. Albert Schweitzer in 1954) approves a strong resolution (No.39) advising local and state governments against fluoridation. The resolution stated, among other things, that "fluoride is an enzyme poison which can cause irreversible and unpredictable diseases." The action is supported by more than 98 percent of the Society's 400-member Scientific Council, of which more than half hold appointments in major world academic institutions in over 75 countries. [ Fluoridation and Truth Decay, 1974, Caldwell, p.285 ]. After Schweitzers death, Linus Pauling attempts to get the Society to reverse its position on fluorides, but the Society responded by reaffirming its antifluoridation position in two succeeding years. Despite this effort by hundreds of world scientists not beholding to the USPHS for grant money, the U.S. Public Health Service continued its fluoridation propaganda on American citizens.
1966 In May 1966, the Los Angeles Water and Power Department took it upon itself to call a meeting in an effort to get Los Angeles water fluoridated. The effort ended when legal counsel informed the water department that they had no jurisdiction over fluoridation. Word of the meeting brought throngs of people protesting the addition of toxic fluorides to the water supply. After the meetings ended, the City Council then called for a fluoridation hearing to begin on July 21, 1966 at which councilman Tom Bradley (later mayor of Los Angeles) was to introduce the fluoridation resolution. Dr. Louis Bullock, president of the Los Angeles branch of the American Cancer Society touted the new cancer drug 5-Fluoracil as "one of the most effective drugs used to treat and control cancer", stating that they 'safely' gave cancer patients 150 to 500 mg of fluoride a day", and that "it strengthened the bones". [Yet, the 1965 Modern Drig Encyclopaedia and Therapeutic Index Pharmaceuticals, Biologicals and Allergens contains a three-column listing of disastrous effects from 5-Fluoracil, one of them being "fatalities may be encountered occasionally in patients in relatively good condition". In March 31, 1972, the Los Angeles Herald Examiner headlined a story "Scientist Hots Cancer Drug 'Overkill' ", which stated that 5-Fluoracil as a cancer treatment represents a case of classic overkill which does more harm than the cancer itself." In other words, Bullock was either naive or he lied at the July 21, 1966 meeting ]. See 1969 LA Times.
1966 In February 1966, Dr. Robert Felix, former Director of the National Institute of Mental Health, addresses a fluoridation conference of 500 national leaders. He doesn't speak of the dental health of children, but instead about the "mental health of opponents of fluoridation". In his speech, "The Care and Handling of Extremists", Dr. Felix offered the "fact" that "all opponents of fluoridation are mentally deranged, one way or another". He instructed proponents of fluoridation on "how to recognize and cope with the various categories of opponents". The Proceedings of this mad Symposium can be found in the February 10th and 14th, 1966 issue of the Congressional Record. Dr. Arthur Fleming, former Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, was at the meeting. He suggested that "we need a 365-day-a-year educational program for schools", and suggested that "students might go home and talk fluoridation up at the dinner table". Programs in schools were then implemented where children were used as shills and messengers of propaganda for fluoridation. Several superintendents of schools in the Los Angeles area indicated that they would not take part in such a program.
1966 Testimony presented by John J. Miller, Ph. D, Chicago, Illinois at fluoridation hearings in San Jose, California on March 11, 1966, included the following statement: "Fluoride acts to tie up magnesium - forming magnesium fluoride - an insoluble compound which thus prevents the essential enzyme from using magnesium. As a result, mental processes are seriously interfered with, and nerve reactions throughout the body depressed ... this sort of toxicity is shown by research to play a role in epileptic seizures and other convulsions." [Ref: Fluoridation and Truth Decay, 1974, p.93]
1966 On April 22, 1966, Dr. F.J. McClure of the National Institute of Dental Research stated that according to their studies, "neither fluoridated toothpaste not topical application with stannous fluoride is found to be of benefit in reducing the incidence of children's cavities".
1966 The Federal Drug Administration bans fluoride pills for pregnant women in October 1966, according to Drug News Weekly. The FDA ban was accompanied by the statement that "fluorides use did not impart stronger teeth or prevent tooth decay in the newborn" and that "there is scientific debate as to whether fluorides might aggravate mental retardation and Mongolism in the offspring". Prior to this ban, millions of fluoride supplement tablets were used by pregnant women on recommendation of the Public Health Service and promoters of fluoridation.
1967 Fluoride pills are generally available free to children from dentists. See 1971.
1967 The U.S. Surgeon General, testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Air Pollution and Water Pollution, declares that an investigation of environmental fluoride was urgent "to determine whether health is indeed threatened and what control measures may be necessary."
1967 An FDA statement dated June 19, 1967, informed that "the treatment of community water supplies is not subject to regulations under laws administered by the Food and Drug Administration, nor by any other Federal Agency. It is strictly a matter for decision by the community officials or under local ordinances."
1967 The July 1967 Annals of Allergy reported dermatitis and gastro-intestinal conditions from fluoridated toothpaste; and headaches, fever, and blood in stools from Tri-Vi-Flor given to children.
1968 In the January 1968 issue of the Journal of the Louisiana State Medical Society, Dr. C.C. Bass writes, "I now believe that continued ingestion of fluoride actually increases the activity of the already existing periodontoclasia."
1968 Emmanuel Landau, Ph.D., Statistical Advisor for the Center of Air Pollution Control, admits that fluoride pollution poses a potential danger to humans, saying "anything we don't know about constitutes a potential hazard. We know almost nothing about fluoride pollution. There is a great need for more research." [Note: Here we see the repeated lie that "little is known about fluoride pollution", despite the fact that there are probably more studies and more articles written on fluoride toxicity than on any other poison.]
1968 A study at the University of Missouri shows that fluoride causes genetic damage to tomatoes.
1968 The U.S. Department of Health Educational and Welfare, in a May 31, 1968 letter to Congressman William C. Kramer, states, "The 1ppm fluoride in drinking water poses no safety problem if it is the only source of fluorides". However, American and Canadian research alone shows that water fluoridation accounts for only part of the daily fluoride consumption.
1968 In the October 1968 issue of the Journal of the Indiana Dental Association, Dr. J.C. Muhler, who holds patents on the fluoride topical paste used in school "brush-ins", reported 11 cases of gum damage.
1968 Scientists at the University of Holland, Drs. Mukherjee and Sobels, find that fluorides increase the frequency of genetic damage in sperm cells of lab animals exposed to X-rays. Fluorides inhibited the repair of DNA damaged by radiation.
1968 For one year, the CIA begins chemical warfare experiments relative to the poisoning of water systems by injecting a chemical substance into the water supply of the FDA building in Washington.
1968 The Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. VI, boasted: "Puerto Rico - First to Enact Fluoridation Law". Some cities in Puerto Rico were fluoridated in 1954, before any data were in on the so-called "10 year experiment" in the continental United States. A report of the condition of the teeth of children in PR was made by Dr. U.L. Monteleone of Allentown, Pennsylvania, who visited PR. According to Dr. Monteleone in May 1969, the children in PR had rampant dental decay, rampant malocclusion and rampant fluorosis. Monteleone was suspended for making the report. The June 1968 issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported similar findings on the children in fluoridated Puerto Rico: "Dental caries are common ... dental fluorosis was particularly prevalent among school and adolescent boys in the 10-14 year old age group."
1968 Thomas R. Camp, Minority Report, Legislative Study Commission, 1968: "In view of the facts, it is recommended that legislation be passed in Massachusetts prohibiting the sale of fluorides for human ingestion whether in the drinking water, food or tablets."
1969 In the May 3, 1969 issue of the Washington Post, Nobel Laureate Dr. Joshua Lederberg, Genetics Department, Stanford University School of Medicine, says he would question those who claim fluoridation is "absolutely safe".
1969 The February 4, 1969 Los Angeles Times publishes a news story entitled "Expert estimates $12 billion in 30 years will be saved if water is fluoridated", authored by the Times Medical writer, Harry Nelson, quoting Dr. William Burton, Chief, Division of Health, State Department of Public Health. The material was a total fabrication.
1969 The World Health Organization endorses fluoridation of water supplies on July 23, 1969, despite cautions from Gapes 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, just like the Federal Reserve Bill in 1913), including the statement on fluoridation. The resolution urged member states to "examine the possibility of introducing fluoridation" where "fluoride intake is below optimum levels". [WHO Chronicles, Vol 23, p.512, 1969]
1969 The July 7, 1969 issue of the Columbus Citizen-Journal, Ohio, contained an article entitled "The Costs of Fluoridating Water", in which the following facts were published follow a one year review of world literature on fluoridation completed in June 1969: Fluoride increases the incidence of mongolism, depresses the growth rate of human cells in culture, causes dermatitis, affects thyroid function, alters the concentration of metabolites in blood and urine, inhibits many important enzymes, affects reproduction, may incorporate itself into naturally occurring compounds to form others, is capable of producing cancer and giving rise to deformed babies, reduces fertility in female rats by more than 60 percent, and mimics the effects of some hormones - disturbing the hormonal balance."
1969 By 1969, the fluoridated cities had an average cancer death rate of 225 per 100,000 people, while non-fluoridated cities had an average cancer death rate of 195 per 100,000. The data indicates a fluoride-linked increase of cancer of 10% in only 13-17 years. These figures were checked and confirmed in 1979 by the United States National Cancer Institute. The increase in cancer death observed in fluoridated cities occurred primarily in people ages 45 and over; this fact is explainable because both the immune system and the normal DNA repair process (the two major defense systems against cancer) decline with age.
1970 In the October 1, 1970 Los Angeles Times, it was reported that the California State Board of health threatened to revoke the water license in San Gabriel if they continued to dispense water with 2ppm fluoride.
1970 A study at the University of Missouri demonstrates that fluoride causes genetic damage to corn and fruit flies.
1970 A spokesman for Reynolds Aluminum Company is quoted in the April 1970 Environmental Handbook Prepared for the First National Environmental Teach-In as stating that "it is cheaper to pay fines for polluting the environment than to control fluorides" (pay for the destruction of fluoride hazardous wastes).
1970 Dr. John D. Erickson of the CDC examined the cancer death rates of all U.S. cities with a population of 250,000 or more, and found that people in fluoridated areas experienced an age-sex-race corrected cancer death rate which was 4% higher than that of people in unfluoridated areas. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, Vol 298, pp 1112-1116, 1978, eight years later.
1970 Psychologist James V. McConnel writes in Psychology Today that, " the day has come when we can combine sensory deprivation with drugs, hypnosis and astute manipulation of reward and punishment to gain almost complete control over individual behavior...we should reshape society so that we all would be trained from birth... no one owns his own personality."
1970 The U.S. Department of Agriculture Research Service releases Handbook No. 380, which summarizes some of the devastating effects of fluoride pollution: "A literature review was presented to indicate that fluoride was one of the industrial poisons that lowered the immunobiological response of man, pigeons, rabbits and other animals against certain diseases, such as typhoid fever, anthrax, tuberculosis and Staphylococcus aureus (p.52: Ref: Fridlyland, I.G.,1959, The Effect of Industrial Poisons on the Immunological State of the Organism, Gigiena i Sanitariya 24 (8): 55-61 (p.56).
1970 The 1970 World Health Organization book Fluorides and Human Health contained an article written by Dr. P. Venkateswarlu entitled "Effects on Body Fluids and Soft Tissues", which stated "Recently, the development of fairly dependable micro methods for fluoride determination and the availability of radiofluoride have given impetus to the study of fluoride metabolism in the soft tissues and body fluids."
1971 A study at Texas A&M University demonstrates that fluoride causes genetic damage to fruit flies. The study is repeated in 1973.
1971 An article in the scientific journal Nature revealed a study done by D.B. Ferguson of the University of Manchester Medical School which showed that the activity of the human serum enzyme alkaline phosphatase is measurably reduced by either dietary fluoride or fluoridated drinking water. According the Dr. Ferguson, "It can no longer be said that low levels of fluoride do not affect in vivo enzyme activity in man." (Nature, Vol. 231, pp.159-160, June 2, 1971).
1971 The November 12, 1971 Framingham, Massachusetts News Local carried an announcement from the board of health. Fluoridation was stopped in order to cure a green hair problem which had cropped up, due to the fluoridation chemicals leaching out copper from the pipes. It would be necessary to add another toxic chemical, sodium hydroxide, to counteract the problem.
1971 In the AMA's Drug Evaluation News, physicians are advised not to give children fluoride and vitamin pills together. [Note: Children do not retain as much fluoride when they are also given essential nutrients such as calcium, which acts as an antidote to fluorides. It leads one to wonder why the AMA would want children to accumulate more fluorides.]
1971 The August 22, 1971 National Enquirer reviews British claims on how the new drug fenfluramine (Fen-Phen) burns up fat and is appropriate for obese people. [In 1997, 26 years later, it is revealed that fenfluramine damages the heart and brain, which might indicate that the original "safety" studies were faked]. Dr. John Sedgewick, one of Britain's leading authorities on obesity pushes the drug in 1971. The article stated that the fenfluramine pill contains fluoride, and is an amphetamine type of drug which Dr. Sedgewicj intended to request the FDA to approve for sale in the U.S. Whereas Dr. Sedgewick claims that fluoride acts like a sedative, "it is also likely that it causes lack of appetite." Research performed on farm animals shows that when cows eat fluoride-poisoned forage from industrial sources, nature protects them by curbing their appetite, causing loss of weight. According to an article in the April 15, 1973 Los Angeles Times, fenfluramine caused side effects of drowsiness and stomach/bowel complaints in patients.
1971 A study conducted by Dr. S. H. Cohn and his associates at the Medical Research Center, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Long Island (reported in the January 1971 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, concluded that fluorides cannot be considered an effective treatment for osteoporosis.
1971 Germany bans water fluoridation.
1971 The January 15, 1971 issue of the Journal of the American Veterinary Association states "air pollution damage to agricultural production in the United States in 1967 was estimated at $500 million, and that fluoride damage to livestock and vegetation comprised a substantial part of this damage."
1971 An 11-member board of the American Academy of Allergies amazingly declares "no evidence of allergy or intolerance to fluorides as used in the fluoridation of communal water supplies." The statement was requested from the AAA by the U.S. Public Health Service, who was attempting to neutralize reports of fluoride poisoning. None of the scientists at the AAA ever carried out any research on fluorides. After the "statement" the U.S. Public Health Service "awards grants" to four of the scientists on the AAA board amounting to $780,621. Other members of the board had been previous recipients of such grants for research on various phases of allergy. In 1976, the British Royal College of Physicians would refer to the AAA statement (bribed statement) in order to deny reports of fluoride poisoning in England. [ Fluoride, Walbott, 1978, pp.287-288].
1971 In 1971 alone, fluoridated toothpastes added 116,000 pounds of fluoride to the environment.
1971 The Swedish Parliament repeals the country's fluoridation law on Nov 18, 1971, and in doing so stated "valid evidence to support the claims widely quoted by fluoridation proponenys simply does not exist". The American news media maintained silence in not reporting this notable event. [Fluoridation and Truth Decay, Caldwell, 1974, p.287 ] See 1961.
1972 Sweden bans water fluoridation.
1972 A scientific study published in the AMA publication Archives of Environmental Health (July 1972) showed "dangerous levels of lead (above 5 percent) in the outer coatings of tubes of Crest, Fresh Breath, Macleans, Craig Martin and Worthmore toothpastes". The article also stated that "potentially hazardous amounts of lead in the toothpaste itself were found in Crest, Fresh Breath and Worthmore toothpastes". As expected, toothpaste makers denied these findings, but presented no documentation to justify their denial. These disclosures are additional reasons for attaching little scientific merit to an ADA endorsement, including its endorsement of fluoridation.
1972 Consumer advocate Ralph Nader wrote to chairman Miles Kirkpatrick of the Federal Trade Commission that studies in the United States and England have shown that toothpastes with fluorides leave a brown stain on teeth four times as often as toothpaste without fluoride. In answer to Nader's question of the efficacy of these fluoridated toothpastes, a spokesman for the FDA answered that his department disallowed any claims a toothpaste "helps harden and strengthen the structure of tooth enamel on contact."
1972 On February 22, 1972, opponents of water fluoridation in Massachusetts appeared before the Legislative Social Service Committee to speak in favor of a bill asking for an impartial study commission to evaluate the dental and medical effects of fluoridation in communities fluoridated for 10 or more years. However, not surprisingly, dentists and public health officials fought desperately to prevent this bill from appearing before the legislature.
1972 In the Australian Medical Journal, an article by Dr. Stephen Boyd, of the Urban Biology Group, Australian National University, states, "it is important to appreciate that the first symptoms of exposure to many toxic chemicals (see fluorides) are not physiological, but psychological, and include such European Research, Vol 3, No.2, pp99-104, 1981.
1972 The February 24, 1972 issue of the Washington Post featured an article by Jay Mathews, who reported that "Mongolism, thought by doctors to occur in 1 out of 600 births, is today the most common cause of severe mental retardation."
1972 On May 17, 1972, a letter from the National Institute of Dental Research Director Dr. Samuel Kreshover stated, "Official approval of water fluoridation continues and special health studies beyond those that have already been completed are not contemplated."
1972 A letter from the Environmental Protection Agency, dated March 31, 1972, announced, "The EPA, in addition to its pollution abatement activities, supports and promotes the fluoridation of public water supplies through its water supply program ... this practice has been and is being thoroughly researched and safety is our prime consideration."
1972 The prestigious journal Science, July 14, 1972, requested doctors "Perform Tests and/or Examinations on People Who Have Shown Sensitivity to Fluorides from Fluoridation", and to send the results to a Fact Finding Committee in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, chaired by Dr. R. J. H. Mick in Laurel Springs, New Jersey. The project consisted of a double-blind study using the provocative sub-lingual testings with varying dilutions of a fluoride solution up to a concentration of 1 ppm. The project, held at the Red Carpet Inn in Milwaukee on August 5 and 6, 1972, was a 'continuing study to determine the immediate side effects of individuals extremely sensitive to fluorides'. A number of individuals developed immediate symptoms of headache, burning in the throat, dizziness, nausea and vomiting to test solutions whose concentration were much less than 1 ppm, whereas the placebo (unfluoridated tap water) elicited no reactions.
1973 Russian Research Institute of Industrial Health and Occupational Diseases discovers fluorides cause genetic damage in rats.
1973 A study at the Central Laboratory for Mutagen Testing in West Germany shows that fluorides cause genetic damage to fruit flies.
1973 Netherlands bans water fluoridation on June 22, 1973. Holland's Supreme Court ruled that "In its judgment, the High Court considered the fluoridating of a public water supply to be a medical measure and outside the purpose of the Dutch waterworks law which obligates a water board to ensure a supply of wholesome drinking water without the addition of any medical substance."
1973 A study at Texas A&M University shows that fluorides cause genetic damage to barley.
1974 Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons discovers fluoride causes genetic damage, in rodents, sheep and cows.
1974 The Safe Water Drinking Act is passed. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximum contamination levels (MCL) for various water pollutants, including sodium fluoride. The EPA sets the fluoride contamination level at an unbelievable 1.4 ppm for "warmer climates" and up to 2.4 ppm for "colder climates". Furthermore, the American Dental Association begins pressuring the EPA to raise the MCL for fluoride in public water to 8 ppm, when it is fully known that systemic damage occurs below 1 ppm. The former US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop is among those who join the drive to increase the MCL for fluoride, even doing television ads proclaiming that fluoridation was "absolutely safe". Shown slides of severe fluorosis damage to a child’s teeth at 4ppm, ADA spokesperson Lisa Watson maintains that it does "not involve health effects but is only a cosmetic problem". The National Drinking Water Advisory Council refuses to recommend raising the fluoride MCL, and came close to recommending its lowering, but the EPA farmed out research work to ICAIR Life Systems, which issues a fraudulent report (confirmed by ICAIR employee Dr. John Beaver) that is woven into the US EPA report on fluoride, resulting in the EPA recommendation of MCL for sodium fluoride in public water to be 4 ppm.
1974 Mass fluoride spill in public water system in North Carolina.
1975 Dr. John Yiamouyiannis publishes a preliminary survey which shows that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempts to refute the studies. Later in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joins with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which are then included in the Congressional Record by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption. Both reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer. (Note: Obviously Dr. Burk felt free to agree with scientific truth only after his tenure at NCI ended, since his job depended on towing the party line).
1976 Dr. D. W. Allman and co-workers from Indiana University School of Medicine feed animals 1part-per-million (ppm) fluoride and notice the urinary levels and tissue levels of a substance called cyclic AMP (adenosine monophosphate) increased by more than 100%. They also found that in the presence of aluminum in a concentration as small as 20 parts per billion, fluoride is able to cause an even larger increase in cyclic AMP levels. Cyclic AMP inhibits the migration rate of white blood cells, as well as the ability of the white blood cell to destroy pathogenic organisms. Ref: Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55, Sup B, p523, 1976, "Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Tissue Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo". (Note: It is no small accident that toothpaste tubes containing fluoride are often made of aluminum, nor is it an accident that aluminum cookware and fluoride use were injected into the population virtually simultaneously.)
1976 A research dentist at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Dr. J. Gabrovsek, recognizes the significance of the effects of fluoride-induced increases in cyclic AMP levels, and the effect this might have on the immune system. (See 1980).
1977 Fluoride Symposium of the 143rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science reports that 0.5mg fluoride supplement tablets were causing dental fluorosis in children.
1977 The Congressional Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations convenes two (2) full Congressional Hearings on the subject of fluorides. During the hearing, it was proven that (1) The "scientific efforts" of those promoting fluoridation were fraudulent, and (2) That other existing studies proved beyond a doubt that approximately 10,000 excess cancer deaths per year could be attributed to fluoridation in the United States.
1977 Mass fluoride spill in Marin County California. Ref: San Rafael Ind Journal 11/25
1977 Congressional representative L.H. Fountain, chairman of the 1977 Sub-Committee Hearings on Fluoride, states that "the carcinogenic nature of fluoride remains unanswered" and orders the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS - who is in on the fluoride conspiracy anyway) "to conduct animal studies to see if fluoride causes cancer". Dr. Herman Kraybill, from the National Cancer Institute (who in 1972 had been chosen by NCI to write a memo saying that fluorides do not cause cancer) was placed in charge of these studies. Kraybill boldly states, "this will be the final study to confirm negativity of fluoride ions in carcinogenesis." He cites 13 studies having nothing to do with the subject of fluorides and cancer in order to support his claim that "no link between fluorides and cancer existed." (NCI Director Dr. Arthur Upton later admitted the 13 studies had nothing to do with the subject of the study). (See 1982, 1985,1988) Congressman Fountain showed that Dr. Hoover and other National Cancer Institute officials had purposely withheld information and had purposely sent fraudulent data to professors at Oxford, who published data as their own, defending the use of fluorides.
1977 In 1977, Congressional Hearings were held in which Dr. Yiamouyiannis and Dr. Burk were able to show that the increase in deaths were due to water fluoridation. At the conclusion of the hearings, Representative Fountain and his committee instructed the United States Public Health Service (well known by now for questionable and dangerous medical advisory practices which benefit the medical and pharmaceutical industries) to conduct animal studies to "determine whether or not fluoride causes cancer". As a result, the USPHS retained Battelle Memorial Institute (also well known for NWO technical activities and is considered by many to be part of the cancer cover-up) to perform a study on mice and rats - unfortunately, rodent physiology differs considerably from humans, making the transfer of data between species relatively meaningless.(See1989,Battelle Study).
1978 Pomeranian Medical Academy in Poland discovers that fluorides cause genetic damage in human blood cells.
1978 Consumer Reports publishes a two part article in July and August 1978 which includes the claim "the simple truth is that there is no ‘scientific controversy over the safety of fluoridation." Later in 1990, the Technical Director for Consumer Reports disputes the claim, saying "the proponents of fluoridation insist that there are no grounds for controversy at all, and with that I totally disagree. The point is that this is a legitimate scientific controversy." The technical director in 1990 is Dr. Edward Groth III.
1978 Mass fluoride poisoning in Michigan. Ref: USPHS/CDC, EPI 78-24-2 pp12.
1978 Physicians Desk Reference states "a daily fluoride intake of .5 mg from birth to age three years is recommended."
1978 The German magazine Stern reports on the Turkish village of Kizilcaoern, where the drinking water contains 5ppm fluorides. All of the children have brown teeth. Women produce dead babies after only four months of pregnancy. All the inhabitants suffer from tremendous premature aging. The same fluoride-related brittle-bone disorders have been observed among people drinking water with as little as 0.7 ppm fluoride.
1978 A court case was won in Pennsylvania that proved fluoridation was harmful and resulted in a ban. It received great publicity, much to the concern of the American Dental Association and the industry. (See 1979)
1979 General research seems to begin in an attempt to understand how fluorides in the body disrupt collagen synthesis.
1979 In order to counteract the tide of truth on fluorides, the American Dental Association (ADA) issues a "white paper" on fluoridation characterizing opponents of putting fluorides in the public water supply as "uninformed, self-styled experts whose qualifications for speaking out on such a scientific issue as fluoridation were practically nonexistent or whose motivation was self-serving." (Highly ironic, since this is instead the position of the ADA and the medical industrial complex in the first place). In addition, the ADA paper maintained "the lifelong benefits of fluoridation" and encouraged responses to opponents to begin with, "there is no evidence...", "investigators have observed...". The ADA recommended that "the advice of behavioral scientists should be sought with regard to rebuttals". This ADA paper resulted in collusion between the ADA,CDC,EPA,NCHS,NIDR, state dental societies and directors to "identify those communities where the timing is favorable". A planning committee was formed to plan a symposium for the future. (See 1983).
1979 The January 20th edition of the New York Times carried a story in which a child was killed because of a lethal dose of fluoride at a city dental clinic. The parents were awarded $750,000.
1979 In the U.S., the National Institute of Dental Research publishes altered research claiming fluorides do not cause genetic damage in mice. The fraud is discovered.
1979 Dr. W. L. Gabler and Dr. P. A. Long at the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center find that as little as 0.2 ppm fluoride in the body (the "safe" level for public water supplies is 1.0 ppm, 8 times higher) stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, seriously depressing the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents. Superoxide in the bloodstream also gives rise to tissue damage and acceleration of the aging process. Ref: "Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonuclear Leukocytes", Journal of Dental Research, Vol 48, No.9, p1933-1939, 1979.
1979 Mass fluoride spill into the Annapolis, Maryland public water system, which resulted in a concentration up to 50 parts per million, boosting the heart attack rate five times and acutely affecting 10,000 people.
1979 In a book released in 1979 entitled "Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides", a chapter was written by Dr. Hodge, who was instrumental in the Newburg experiments running parallel to the Manhattan Project work on fluorides. With regard to the "safe" dosage, Hodge wrote: "The most important and widely disregarded fact about dental fluorosis is that no safe established daily intake exists,, i.e., the maximal amount in mg fluoride which consumed daily does not produce cosmetically damaging white areas or brown stain in some areas has not been fixed." Hodge also corrected his previously published figures for crippling skeletal fluorosis he made in the 1950's where he had neglected to convert pounds to kilograms. As a result, most reviews which contain the "crippling daily dose of fluoride", including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 1991 document Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, as well as the current RDA and new Dietary Reference Intakes published by the Institute of Medicine in 1997, use 20-80 mg/day figures. At currently reported intake levels 5mg per day will cause crippling deformities of the spine and major joints.
1979 John Curnette and co-workers from Tufts University find that when blood cells are exposed to fluoride at a concentration that simulated vigorous superoxide production by the cells, phagocytosis was virtually abolished.
1979 Research at the University of Oregon Health Sciences Center by Drs. Gabler and Leong find that as little as 0.2 ppm stimulated superoxide production in resting white blood cells, the same concentration would affect active white blood cells if they were at the same time challenged by a foreign body.
1979 On November 11th, up to 50ppm fluoride was dumped into the Annapolis Maryland water supply, resulting in the poisoning of 50,000 people. Many died of heart failure during the week following the spill.
1979 A child in Melbourne, Australia dies after eating six fluoride tablets. (11/3/79)
1980 Dr. J. Gabrovsek, a research dentist (See 1976) publishes a paper which states, "Because of the inhibitory effects of sodium fluoride on phagocytosis and leukocytosis (migration of white blood cells), which are basic defense systems, I have doubts about the absolute safety of water fluoridation on a long-term basis."
1980 Mass fluoride poisoning in New Mexico Elementary School. Ref: Pediatrics v65.
1981 Drs. Susheela and Sharma and co-workers from the India Institute of Medical Sciences find that fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen in the body and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin cartilage, lung, kidney and trachea. It appears that fluoride disruption of collagen synthesis in cells responsible for laying down collagen leads these cells to try and compensate for their inability to put out intact collagen by producing larger quantities of imperfect collagen and/or non-collagenous protein. Ref: "Fluoride poisoning and the Effects of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Non-osseous Tissue", Toxicological European Research, Vol 3, No.2, pp99-104, 1981.
1981 Institute of Botany in Baku, USSR, does three studies which indicate fluoride causes genetic damage in rats.
1981 Research is done at the Department of Toxicology at the Central University of Venezuela by Dr. A Iares showing fluoride added to drinking water of rats caused birth defects. Repeated in 1982 in China, with same results.
1981 Dr. John Emsley and co-workers at King's College in London find that fluoride reacts strongly with the bonds which maintain the normal shapes of proteins in the body. The work is subsequently confirmed by Dr. Steven Edwards and co-workers from the University of California in San Diego, and by Drs. Froede and Wilson from the University of Colorado at Boulder. By distorting the configuration of the body's own protein, the immune system attacks its own protein , resulting in an autoimmune or allergic response. Fluroides contribute to the development of an Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, which is covered up by the media and medical community, which maintains a public focus on a viral cause for the problem, promoting the harmless HIV virus as the "cause" for "AIDS", covering up the pharmo-chemical sensitization of the population which has complex legal ramifications.
1981 Research at the Kanagawa Dental University in Japan by Dr. K. Ishida indicates that as little as 1ppm fluoride in the body interferes with collagen metabolism and leads to collagen breakdown, causing osteoporosis, bone cancer, brittle bones and teeth, an loss of connective tissue which hold organs in place.
1981 Dr. Robert Clark from the Boston University Medical Center shows that fluorides (as in fluoridated water supplies, toothpaste, etc) stimulate granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells when they were not challenged with a foreign agent, but inhibited these processes when the white blood cell needed them to fight off foreign agents. Ref: "Neutrophil Iodination Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation" Blood, Vol 57, pp913-921, 1981.
1981 Mass fluoride spills in Jonesboro, Maine (Oct) and Potsdam, New York (Aug).
1981 Dr. Martin Drozdz at the Institute of Bioanalytical and Environmental Studies in Katowice, Poland found that rats fed 1ppm fluoride in their water had increased levels of hydroxyproline and hydroxylysine levels in the blood and urine, as well as a decrease in skin and lung collagen levels. Ref: Drozdz et al., "Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue Metabolism in Growing Rats", published in Toxilogical European Research, Vol 3, No.5, pp.237,239-241, 1981.
1982 A study at the University of Missouri concludes that fluoride causes genetic damage in mice.
1982 The U.S. Public Health Service conducts its first group of studies on animal cancer and fluorides, mandated by the 1977 Congressional Hearings. The study lasts until 1984, and then is scrapped because of flaws in design and progress. (See 1985, Batelle Memorial Institute).
1982 A study at the Institute of Botany in Baku, USSR, demonstrates that fluorides cause genetic damage in onions. Repeated in 1983.
1982 Peter Wilkinson at the University of Glasgow testifies before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in a legal case entitled "Inhibition of the Immune System with Low levels of Fluoride" which revealed that fluoride decreases the migration rate of human white blood cells. At a concentration of .2ppm (which is .8ppm below the "approved" level of 1 ppm), relative white cell migration rate is reduced 8%. A concentration of 1ppm would produce a physiological decline of around 10%. Fluoride added to water supplies, tooth paste, school dental washes, supplement pills and dentists visits are increased and promoted, contributing to a further co-factor in the decline of the immune capability of the population. Fluoride confuses the human immune system and causes it to attack the body's own tissues, cumulatively resulting in accelerated aging.
1982 In Science magazine, Vol 217 p26-32, Dr. Dennis Leverett of the University of Rochester states, "if there are increasing concentrations of fluoride in the food chain, particularly food for infants, then we should expect fluorosis to be increasing in the population as well. The widespread use of fluorides might have created a situation in which we are approaching a critical mass of fluoride in the environment. There needs to extensive research done." Later in 1983 he would contradict himself at the University of Michigan symposium.
1983 Zhang and Zhang publish a study which shows that fluorides cause birth defects in fish.
1983 Researchers at Loma Linda University in California, led by Dr. John Farley, show that treatment of bone cells with less than 1ppm fluoride increased collagen formation by 50%, leading to formation of irregular bone. (But also leads to collagen breakdown. See 1981, Ishida).
1983 Research is done at the Kunming Institute of Zoology in China which indicates that fluoride causes genetic damage in deer and in human blood cells.
1983 Physicians Desk Reference states "the recommended fluoride dosage for children between birth and two and a half years old is 0.25 mg. (Compare with 1978,1992)
1983 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deputy assistant administrator Rebecca Hammer points out that fluoride-polluting industries can get paid for using public drinking waters as a sewer for their toxic waste products when she says "this agency regards the use of fluosilic acid as a source of fluorides for water fluoridation an ideal environmental solution to a long standing problem of contamination of the water and air from fertilizer manufacturing."
1983 A symposium takes place at the University of Michigan after years of planning between the US Dept of Health and Human Services, the USPHS Michigan state health plans, the Kellogg Foundation, CDC, Medical Products Labs and others to "discuss the status of organized opposition to fluoridation, to analyze probable motives influencing the anti-fluoride movement, to develop political and legal strategies for the defense and promotion of fluoridation, and to access the need for a national fluoridation strategy." Dr. Dennis Leverett of the University of Rochester reported that his committee felt that fluoridation was a "political issue and not a scientific situation". See 1982,1988. The Symposium was a taxpayer-supported event. Also attending were members of the ADA National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, John Small (the government's pro-fluoride czar), the American Association of Dental Schools, members from the Illinois and Ohio State Departments of Health, and the Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health and Human Services. The proceedings were published in a 129-page book titled "Fluoridation: Litigation and Changing Public Policy." (See ADA Nat'l Fluoridation Committee address in 1988). Dr. William T. Jarvis, a member of the board of the American Council of Science and Health ( a front group for the junk food industry), speaks on "The Psychology of Anti-fluoridation", noting that debates on fluoride always "seems to result in people becoming anti-fluoridationist." Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS suggested that a mandatory State Fluoridation Law be developed, and a Dr. Easley suggested processes be initiated to deny those seeking relief through the courts their right to due process. Dr. D. Scott of Blue Cross/Blue Shield suggested that the cost of litigation defending fluoridation should be borne by taxpayers! Ms. Colleen Wulf of the Ohio Department of Health reported that her committee suggested formation of a non-profit organization which would coordinate with CDC and ADA, and pointed out that CDC has already drafted promotional materials for fluoride, and that the ADA and the USPHS had already formed the Ad Hoc Committee to Plan for the Legal Defense of Community Water Fluoridation. She suggests the name of the new group might be something like "Coalition for Improved Dental Health, or something similar". NOT ONE SCIENTIST ATTENDED the University of Michigan Symposium: ten who attended were dental hygienists, two were dentists, five had degrees in Public Relations, Education, Psychology, or Public Health, one had no degree at all and a introduction was written by psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, who ironically would maintain a website in 1997 on "medical quackery".
1983 Dr. John R. Farley and co-workers from Loma Linda University show that treatment of bone cells with less than 1ppm fluoride increases collagen formation by 50 percent (unstable collagen. See 1981 Susheela). Ref: "Fluoride Directly Stimulates Proliferation and Alkaline Phosphatase Activity of Bone Forming Cells", Science, Volume 222, pp330-332, 1983.
1984 Research work at Nippon Dental University in Japan prove that fluorides cause genetic damage in hamster cells, human embryo and blood cells. Research also indicated that fluoride was also capable of transforming normal cells into cancer cells. The level of fluoride that could do this were the same level that the National Cancer Institute suggested should be used to determine whether or not fluoridation of public water supplies causes cancer. Ref: Dr. Takeki Tsutsui, NDU. Cancer Research, Vol 44,pp938-941, 1984, "Sodium Fluoride Induced Morphological and Neoplastic Transformation, Chromosome Aberrations and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis..." Also supported in Carcinogenesis, Vol 9, pp2279-2284, 1988; Cell Biology Toxicology, Volume 4, pp311-324, 1988; Genetics, Vol 48, pp307-310, 1963.
1984 The 1984 issue of Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products indicates that 1/10 oz of fluoride in the human body is lethal for a 100 pound adult human. Fluoride toothpaste contains up to 1mg/gram of fluoride. A whole tube contains about 199 mg of fluoride - enough to kill a 25-pound child. Tooth brushing causes ingestion of 0.25 mg/day.
1985 Research is conducted by the Edinburgh Medical Research Council in England which indicates that fluoride causes genetic damage in human blood cells.
1985 Based on a report on fluorides altered by Surgeon General Koop, the EPA recommends a raising of the amount of fluorides allowed in drinking water from 2 ppm to 4 ppm.
1985 Study by the World Congress of Biological Psychiatry finds that in a study of 321 violent individuals, most of them white and middle class, 95% of them showed evidence of brain dysfunction and neurological disabilities. The age of the individuals and symptoms coincide with degeneration caused by vaccination programs. Ref: Vaccination, Social Violence and Criminality.
1985 The U.S. Public Health Service contracts a second set of studies on animal cancer and fluoride, mandated by the 1977 Congressional Hearings. The USPHS contracts Batelle Memorial Institute in Ohio, which conducts a study lasting until 1987. The results are released in 1988. (See 1988).
1985 Dental hygienists, psychiatrists, public relations experts, education specialists and psychologists (no scientists) form "The American Oral Health Institute" and release a book "Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet", in which they attack scientific data relative to fluoride and those who oppose its use in the public water supply. An examination of the book, ironically, revealed "abuse of scientific literature" on the part of the authors, who demonstrated their lack of scientific expertise and themselves were guilty of deception and misrepresentation of scientific fact.
1985 Research at the University of Oregon by Gabler demonstrate that low levels of fluorides in the body delayed white cell response to foreign agents.
1985 The work of Takuya Saito in Japan demonstrates that even micromolecular amounts of fluoride, below 1ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents in the body.
1986 Research is conducted at the University of Sussex in England which indicates that fluoride causes genetic damage in mouse lymphoma (white) cells.
1986 Study by Kay, A.R., et al, is published in the Journal of Neuroscience, Vol 6, pp.2915-2920,1986, "Fluoride in cerebrospinal fluid of patients with fluorosis", in which it was shown that intracellular fluorides can alter the kinetic properties of calcium currents in hippocampal neurons, which can affect behavior.
1986 The Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center reports 87 cases of fluoride poisoning . Two cases involved fluoride treatment by a dentist. One 13 month old child died. Twenty five suffered gastrointestinal symptoms. Sodium fluoride is the most frequent single cause of acute poisoning in children.
1987 Paterson Institute for Cancer Research in England demonstrates that fluoride causes genetic damage to human cells.
1987 In the United States, research is conducted at the National Institute of Environmental Health which indicates that fluoride causes genetic damage to mouse lymphoma cells.
1987 Research is conducted at Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) in England which indicates that fluorides cause genetic damage in human blood cells.
1987 A study is done at the Institute of Pitaniia in the USSR which indicates that fluoride causes genetic damage in rat bone marrow cells.
1988 Dr. Joel Boriskin, chairman of the ADA National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, gives an address before the Calgary Health Department, in which he claimed, "1500 mg of fluoride per day (a lethal dose) is prescribed to older people than have progressive hearing loss." Ref: Journal of the American Dental Association, May 1990.
1988 Affidavit sworn by Dr. Robert J. H. Mick (formerly a Lt. Colonel in the Dental Corps, U.S. Army Reserves, who states that he was "...threatened by General Gorby in Germany with a possible court-martial and other penalties in 1954 if I did not discontinue my activities opposing fluoridation and the fluoridation of military posts."
1988 Battelle Memorial Institute releases its studies on fluorides and animal cancer for the USPHS which, ironically, report highly specific fluoride-related cancers. The data is turned over to the National Toxicology Program (NTP), who gives the data to the Experimental Pathology Labs, who reclassify and delete items damaging to the pro-fluoridation faction. The altered data is then submitted to the "pathology working group" on December 6, 1989, after a year of reworking. All this with the full knowledge of EPA and USPHS. (See 1990).
1988 Dr. Joel Boriskin, chairman of the ADA national fluoridation advisory committee, in an address before the Calgary Health Department, claims that "1500 mg of fluoride per day is prescribed to older people that have progressive hearing loss". (Note: 1500 mg/day is a lethal dose).
1988 Researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory discover that fluoride promotes and enhances the carcinogenicity of other cancer-causing chemicals in the food and environment. Interestingly, this work confirmed studies sponsored by the United States National Cancer Institute conducted back in 1963 by Herskowitz and Norton at Saint Louis University. More than 30 years ago, these scientists showed that low levels of fluoride increased the incidence of melanotic tumors in living organisms from 12 to 100% - often these tumors were induced by fluoride over a period of days. These studies were further amplified by work done by the Taylor's at the University of Texas which found that 1 ppm fluoride in drinking water increased tumor growth rate in mice by 25%.
1989 On March 30, 1989, the California Department of Health Services reported that Niagara brand bottled water was found to contain 450ppm fluoride. The state health director, Kenneth Kizer, warned residents that consumption could be fatal.
1989 In New South Wales, Australia, a law is passed prohibiting town councils from stopping the fluoridation of their water supplies without the permission of the health department.
1989 In 1989 Dr. Yiamouyiannis used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain carcinogenicity studies conducted by Proctor and Gamble (one of the makers of fluoridated toothpaste) that were submitted to (and covered up by) the United States Public Health Service. These studies showed dose dependent cell abnormalities caused by fluoride. These results were reported in the February 22, 1990 issue of the Medical Tribune. Additional studies by Proctor and Gamble scientists confirmed the link between oral precancerous growth and fluoride, as well as an increase in osteomas (bone tumors) and osteosarcomas (bone cancer). In fact, the National Cancer Institute found in 1991 that the incidence of bone cancer was 50% higher in men ages 0-19 years of age exposed to fluoridated water compared to those who were not.
1989 A study by Hildebolt, et al. on 6,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefit from the use of fluorides.
1989 Research studies are conducted at Nippon University in Japan which shows that fluorides causes genetic damage to human cell cultures.
1989 Fluoride concentrations of 0.3 - 0.5 ppm, half that used for fluoridation, put into the Columbia River in Washington by an aluminum plant, have a very pronounced effect on the migration time and survival of adult salmon. [Damkaer, D.M, and Dey, D.B., "Evidence for Fluoride Effects on Salmon Passage at John Day Dam, Columbia River, 1982-1986", North American Journal of Fisheries Management, Vol 9, 1989, pp.154-162].
1989 On February 23, 1989, Battelle released the results of its study of fluorides on mice. A most curious result of the study, from the USPHS point of view, was that fluoride induced the occurrence of an extremely rare form of liver cancer, called hepatocholangio carcinoma, in fluoride-treated male and female mice. Two months later in April of 1989, Battelle released the results of its study of fluorides and rats. The study showed a dose-dependent relationship between the incidence of oral cancerous tumors and fluorides. It is interesting to note that mice and rats yielded different The results with fluoride - different types of cancer. As a response to the Battelle study, the National Cancer Institute from examined the incidence of oral cancer in fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries over the period from 1973 to 1987. The National Cancer Institute study found that as exposure to fluoridation increases, so does the incidence of oral cancer; sometimes as much as a 50% increase in oral cancer rates occur in fluoridated areas - this translates to 8,000 new cases of oral and pharyngeal cancer per year, needless pain and suffering and a financial windfall to the medical and pharmaceutical factions that concern themselves with treatment.
1989 The 12 year study the National Cancer Institute was ordered to do in 1977 is finally compete. It finds evidence that fluorides cause cancer in male rats. Directed to examine cancer trends in the U.S. population, the NCI finds nationwide evidence of "a rising rate in bone and joint cancer of all ages combined, due mainly to trends under the age of 20 (cultural programming on what to eat and drink and how to live), was seen in the fluoridated countries but not the unfluoridated countries.
1990 The National Toxicology Program issues a Press Release with data confirming findings of a link between fluoride and osteosarcomas as well as higher rates of oral cancer in rats. (January 1990)
1990 The American Dental Association issues a Press Release which states "water fluoridation remains the safest, most effective, and most economical public health measure to reduce tooth decay."
1990 The National Toxicology Program in February 1990 releases its pathological data tables with a cover letter which, in a turnabout, claims "there has not been any evidence that shows a relationship between fluoridation and cancer or any other diseases in humans", and "water fluoridation has proven highly effective in improving the nation's dental health by markedly reducing tooth decay". The NTP final report, issued in March, omitted all studies which showed genetic damage from fluorides, and important studies showing that fluorides induce tumors and cancers were ignored. Kraybill, head of the NTP study, becomes a consultant to the American Council of Science and Health (ACSH), who threatens to sue the EPA if it "tries to undermine public confidence in fluoride."
1990 The American Dental Associations ADA News reports that Proctor and Gamble (who make fluoride-based toothpaste) has "unpublished findings" which "refute the carcinogenicity of fluoride". Proctor and Gamble in March 1990 publish their paper on fluoride and bone cancer (rats) and leave out their data on mice. The rat studies confirm an earlier study that proved that fluorides in food resulted in precancerous growth in the mouth. In contradiction to their own results, P&G declares that fluoride "does not cause precancerous or cancerous changes.
1990 A study by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis on 39,000 school children contradicts any alleged benefits from the use of sodium fluorides.
1990 Two scientific studies reveal that "experience with other developmental neurotoxicants will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats." Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 12, pp.261-267, Stanton et al, pp.285-292, Francis et al, 1990, "Workshop on the qualitative and quantitative comparability of human and animal developmental neurotoxicity", "Comparability measures of developmental neurotoxicity in humans and laboratory animals."
1990 Dr. John Colquhoun in New Zealand is forced into early requirement in New Zealand after he conducts a study on 60,000 school children and finds no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. He additionally finds that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas suffered from dental fluorosis. He makes the study public.
1990 The September 14th issue of Newsweek reports that the study performed by Battelle Memorial Institute under Congressional mandate to look into fluorides and animal cancer (that found a connection) was refused for publication by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
1991 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) again engages ICAIR Life Systems to perform a "literature search on fluorides". A researcher for ICAIR, Dr. John Beaver, admits that he was instructed to select only certain reports and ignore others. The final series of reports was sent to EPA, who forwards them to the Subcommittee on Risk Assessment of Ingested Fluoride of the National Academy of Sciences as an "independent" report. Five out of eight members of the Subcommittee are historically pro-fluoridation.
1991 National Cancer Institute finds that the incidence of bone cancer was about 50% higher in men up to 19 years old exposed to fluoridated water, composed to those not exposed.
1991 A report surfaces that fluoride-containing pesticides on fruit increase human fluoride intake. Some juices contain 6.8 ppm fluoride. [Stannard, J.G., et al, "Fluoride levels and fluoride contamination of fruit juices", Journal of Clinical Paediatric Dentistry, Vol 16 No 1, 1991, pp.38-40 ; "Assessing Fluoride Concentration of Juices and Juice-Flavored Drinks", Journal of the American Dental Association, JADA Preview, 1996, Kiritsy et al.]
1991 An examination of the effect of fluorides by Freni (see 1994) is performed in a complicated study comparing the total fertility rate in countries whose water supplies had at least 3 ppm fluoride. He found a negative total fertility rate (TFR) association that fit with similar toxicology data for animals. Freni hypothesized that fluorides lowers protein synthesis in osteoblasts and that fluorides inhibit the adenylyl cyclase system in human spermatozoa. (See 1994, Narayana and Chinoy).
1992 Chinese research at the Department of Pathology, Guiyang Medical College, finds cellular anomalies in foetal brain tissue exposed to fluorides.
1992 Canadian Dental Association Proposed Fluoride Guidelines states "Fluoride supplements should not be recommended for children less than three years old."
1992 Government figures reveal that over 144 million Americans are medicated with fluoridated water in the United States. (For implications, see Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats, fluoride effect on the hippocampus in the brain, which governs ability to respond to new situations, behavior and decision-making.
1992 Michael Perrone, a legislative assistant in New Jersey, contacts the FDA requesting all information regarding the safety and effectiveness of fluoride tablets and drops. After 6 months of stalling, the FDA admitted they had no data to show that fluoride tablets or drops were either safe or effective. They informed Perrone that they will "probably have to pull the tablets and drops off the market."
1992 Another scientific study reveals that fluorides suppress the immune system. [Gibson, S., "Effects of Fluoride on the Immune System", Complimentary Medical Research, Vol 6, No.3, October 1992, pp.111-113.]
1992 Scientific report reveals the connection between fluorides and non-ulcer dyspepsia (epigastric pain after eating). [ Gupta, I.P., et al, "Fluoride as a Possible Etiological Factor in Non-Ulcer Dyspepsia", Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Vol 7, 1992, pp.355-356 ; also, Susheela, A.K., "Fluoride Ingestion and Its Correlation with Gastrointestinal Discomfort", Fluoride, Vol 25 No.1, 1992,pp.5-22] Note: Since fluorides are cumulative in the body, the general level in the population where large gastric problems arise may be occurring. Thus, the large marketing effort for "acid controllers" in the 1990's, which may also be covering up the prevalence of helicobacter pylori infection as well as approaching fluoride toxicity in the population.
1992 A scientific study reveals that fluorides in the water supply to 1 ppm is associated with an increase in the hip fracture rate of women, and that fluoride accumulates with age, and may reach toxic levels in a person's lifetime. [ Danielson, C., et al, "Hip Fractures and Fluoridation in Utah's Elderly Population", Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol 286, No.6, August 1992, pp.746-748]
1992 The EPA is ordered to reinstate a senior scientist, William Marcus, and pay him $50,000 for emotional distress, after firing him because he publicly questioned and opposed EPA policy on the use of fluorides in water supplies.
1993 In July 1993, fluoridated water kills three people on dialysis. Chicago Tribune, "Fluoride Blamed in Dialysis Deaths", July 31, 1993.
1993 Another study demonstrates that fluoride is genotoxic (indicating chromosome damage), including those at concentrations of 1.0 - 5.0 ppm. [Ziegler et al, Experimental Carcinogenesis and Mutagenesis Branch, National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, "Genetic Toxicity of Fluoride", Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, Vol 21, 1993, p.309-318.
1993 Associated Press releases article on August 18, 1993 claiming "no health risk for fluoridated water", as stated by the National Research Council and Dr. Bernard M. Wagner from the New York University School of Medicine. A statement that "132 million Americans drink water with .7ppm fluoride".
1993 Because of pressure from New Jersey legislative aide Michael Perrone, the Food and Drug Administration is forced to admit they have no studies which show fluoride tablets or drops were either safe or effective, and that the sale of fluoride drops was illegal.
1993 In July 1993, a scientific study of the effect of fluoride on rats links behavior changes and brain damage with aluminum and fluoride. [ Varner, J.A. et al, "Chronic Aluminum Fluoride Administration: II. Selected Histological Observations" Neuroscience Research Communications, Vol 13 No.2, 1993, pp.99-104 ; Chase, M., "Rat Studies Link Brain Cell Damage with Aluminum and Fluoride in Water", Wall Street Journal, October 28, 1992.]
1994 A study by Narayana and Chinoy comments on "the wide prevalence of infertility in fluorosis-affected human populations in India and other parts of the planet. [Narayana and Chinoy, "Effect of Fluoride on Rat Testicular Steroidogenesis", Fluoride, Vol 27, No. 1, pp.7-12, 1994.]They found that fluorides interfere with androgenesis and adversely impair the target organ structures. There was the suggestion that fluorides may alter the configuration of cellular receptors, thereby inhibiting the action of testosterone in the same way that hormone-disrupting chemicals (chemicals that mimic estrogens) do.
1994 A study on the physiological and behavioral effects of Sodium Fluoride is published on October 12, 1994. The study is done by Mullenix, Denbensten, Schunior and Kernan, from the Toxicology Department, Forsyth Research Institute in Boston, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, the Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Eastman Dental Center, and the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at Iowa State University. According to the study, published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No. 2, pp. 169-177, 1995, while fluorides have a great number of effects on the body, the effect on the brain and central nervous system structures were examined, and it was found that fluorides affect the hippocampus, which is the central processor which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli to produce behavioral decisions and modify memory. Note: Now it can be seen why the Nazis and Soviets used fluorides in the prison camp water supplies to reduce the will to resist and make the prisoners docile and not tend to question authority. It is the primary reason it is added to water supplies, since there is no credible scientific evidence it exists in the water supply for any other purpose. After several years, we have found no credible evidence, only anecdotal reviews by groups with a vested interest in keeping toxic fluorides in use. (See 1957, Montreal Neurological Institute, and the case of H.M). This 1994 study also showed that "effects on behavior relate directly to plasma fluoride levels in the brain, and fluoride accumulation in the brain, establishing that long-term accumulation of fluorides in the brain does occur, even with minimal doses. This 1994 report also stated that "overall, the behavioral changes from fluoride exposures are consistent with interrupted hippocampal development. Although this study was done on rats, according to the report "a generic behavioral disruption is found in this rat study can be indicative of a potential for motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and/or learning disabilities in humans, and that substances that accumulate in brain tissue potentiate concerns about neurotoxic risks. This is the first laboratory study to demonstrate that central nervous system functional output is vulnerable to fluorides that is publicly released, although decades of studies have been done, but not released, by the Mellon Institute and various agencies, who keep the results to themselves for the last 50 years.
1994 In November 1994 in Australia, the Victorian Parliament passes an amendment to the "Fluoridation Act" to change the constitution in order to stop the Supreme Court of Victoria from hearing any public cases or evidence against artificial fluoridation.
1994 Freni, S.C., "Exposure to High Fluoride Concentrations on Drinking Water Associated with Decreased Birth Rates", Journal of Toxicological and Environmental Health, Vol.42, p.109-121, 1994. This is another study which indicates another reason for fluoride administration is population birth control by involuntary chemical medication.
1995 Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No.2,p.169-177, "Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats", Meullenix, et al, 1995, reveals that fluorides are cumulative in the brain , humans are exposed to plasma fluoride levels as high as those given to rats , fluorides interrupt normal brain development in babies and children , and fluorides affect the hippocampus, the "central processor" in the brain which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli to produce behavioral decisions and modify memory. This firmly establishes that mass fluoridation affects the behavior of society, in that it undermines the capacity for people to make decisions and become motivated to act against abnormal environments (such as that present in tyranny).
1995 In Australia, the Tasmanian government passes a bill to prohibit the holding of meetings on the subject of fluoridation. Called the "Consequential Amendments Bill", it is later withdrawn for rewording and reissue at a later date.
1995 A Chinese study on fluorides finds that the IQ of children is lowered in fluoridated areas. Zhang, I.B., et al, "Effect of a High Fluoride Water Supply on Children's Intelligence" [Pending Publication]
1995 On the 50th anniversary of fluoridation in the United States and Canada, a study published by Mullenix et al reveals "the functional output of the central nervous system is vulnerable to fluorides, and that the effects on behavior depend on the age at which exposure takes place and how much fluoride accumulates in brain tissue." Furthermore, "fluorides in drinking water affect the nervous system directly without first causing skeletal deformations from fluorosis". Proponents of fluoridation typically use fluorosis as a measure of effect, when in fact neural effects occur at a very low dosage.
1996 In May 1996, the FDA introduces a new fluoridated drug, this time an "anti- obesity drug, dexfenfluramine, "despite the objection of consumer advocates who content it could cause brain damage." According to the press release on May 1, 1996, the drug "alters the brain chemical serotonin."
1996 The governor of New York signs a bill into law prohibiting communities who do not want water fluoridation from being fluoridated. (June/July 96).
1996 On December 11, 1996, Commander Col. Henry O. Tuell III, wrote to the U.S. Army Medical Command, Fort Sam Houston, Texas, stating, "...recent research and findings regarding efficacy of fluoridation and the adverse health effects could be serious." The Army post at Fort Detrick, Maryland, remains unfluoridated.
1997 A 1944 World War II Manhattan Project classified report on water fluoridation is found to be missing from the files of the University of Rochester Atomic Energy Project, the U.S. National Archives, and the Nuclear Repository at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, by researcher Clifford Honicker, Executive Director of the American Environmental Health Studies Project in Knoxville, Tennessee, which provided key evidence in the public exposure and prosecution of U.S. human radiation experiments.
----------------
Fluoride FACTS
Fluoride Is A Carcinogen Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.1
Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males.2
Earlier studies had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities.3
Fluoride Increases Hip Fractures
Drinking fluoridated water will double the number of hip fractures for both older men and women.4 5
Extremely low levels of water fluoridation 0.1 ppm still produced statistically significant increased hip fractures. (Bordeaux Study JAMA 1994)
Fluoride Increases Infertility
Infertility in women was found to increase with water fluoridation.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists reported a close correlation between decreasing total fertility rates in women between ages of 10 and 49, and increasing fluoride levels.
They also reported that a review of all of the animal studies done to date shows that fluoride adversely affects fertility in most animal species.6
Fluoride Increases Fluorosis
Opaque white spots and brown ugly teeth caused by fluoride is called Fluorosis.
Fluorosis currently affects one out of five or more children in this nation although it is rarely seen in California.
California is the least fluoridated state with less than 16% of the population drinking artificially fluoridated water.
Fluoride Does NOT Reduce Tooth Decay
Fluoride is not effective in reducing tooth decay.
No correlation was found between the level of fluoride in water and dental caries.7 8 9 10 11
There appears to be a genetically related increase in tooth decay for Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans and Asians.
Decay is related to the educational and economic level of the parents.12 13 14
Fluoride Is Unapproved By FDA
The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof of safety or effectiveness.
The FDA does not consider fluoride an essential nutrient.
Fluoride Is Highly Toxic
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology has classified Fluoride as an unapproved dental medicament due to its high toxicity.
-----------------
References
1. Maurer, et. al., Fluoride an equivocal carcinogen J. National Cancer Institute 82, 1118-26, 1990
2. Cohn, Perry D. Ph.D. An Epidemiological Report on Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma in Young Males New Jersey Department of Health, Environmental Health Service, Trenton NJ November 8, 1992
3. Yiamouyiannis, J.A. and Dean Burk, "Fluoridation and Cancer: Age Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation," Fluoride, Vol. 10 #3 (102-123) 1977
4. Hip Fracture rates related to Fluoridated water Journal of the American Medical Association 264(4):500-502 1990
5. J. C. Robins and J. L. Ambrus, "Studies on Osteoporosis IX. Effect of Fluoride on Steroid Induced Osteoporosis," Research Communications in Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology, Volume 37, No. 3, pp. 453-461 (1982)
6. Freni SC, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 42:109-121, 1994
7. Diesendorf M. Tooth Decay not related to fluoride intake from water Nature Vol. 322 10 July 1986
8. Colquhoun J. Tooth Decay related to economics of family American Laboratory 17:98-109 1985
9. Colquhoun J. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 13:37-41 1985
10. Dr. John Yiamouyiannis statement both in his book (Fluoride the Aging Factor" pub Health Action Press 2nd ed. 1986 )and during debates has not been challenged by the ADA or others.
11. Ziegelbecker D. Fluoride 14; 123-128 1981
12. Steelink and Jones Fluoride in the Municipal Water of Tucson related to diet and ethnic origin International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology March 95
13. Colquhoun J. Fluoride Vol. 23 #3 July 90
14. Colquhoun J. Community Health Studies 11:85-90 1987
------------
NEW: Dental fluorosis on the rise according to new US survey - FAN Science Watch, August 25, 2005
Dental Fluorosis: A Cosmetic Effect? (Back to top)
"it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion."
- Dr. Hardy Limeback, Head of Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto. (2000). Why I am now Officially Opposed to Adding Fluoride to Drinking Water.
"Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child's body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely."
- Colquhoun J. (1997). Why I changed my mind about Fluoridation. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 41:29-44.
"It seems prudent at present to assume that the ameloblasts are not the only cells in the body whose function may be disturbed by the physiological concentrations of fluoride which result from drinking water containing 1 ppm"
- Groth, E. (1973), Two Issues of Science and Public Policy: Air Pollution Control in the San Francisco Bay Area, and Fluoridation of Community Water Supplies. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, May 1973.
"The safety of the use of fluorides ultimately rests on the assumption that the developing enamel organ is most sensitive to the toxic effects of fluoride. The results from this study suggest that the pinealocytes may be as susceptible to fluoride as the developing enamel organ."
- Luke J. (1997). The Effect of Fluoride on the Physiology of the Pineal Gland. Ph.D. Thesis. University of Surrey, Guildford. p. 176.
"A linear correlation between the Dean index of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures was observed among both children and adults."
- Alarcon-Herrera MT, et al. (2001). Well Water Fluoride, Dental fluorosis, Bone Fractures in the Guadiana Valley of Mexico. Fluoride 34(2): 139-149.
-----------------
Dental Fluorosis: What is it?
Dental fluorosis is an irreversible condition caused by excessive ingestion of fluoride during the tooth forming years. It is the first visible sign that a child has been overexposed to fluoride.
Fluoride causes dental fluorosis by damaging the enamel-forming cells, called ameloblasts. The damage to these cells results in a mineralization disorder of the teeth, whereby the porosity of the enamel is increased.
While the dental profession claims that dental fluorosis is solely a 'cosmetic' effect, and not a health effect, this statement is an assumption and not a fact. Certainly, dental fluorosis represents a toxic effect on tooth cells. The question is whether tooth cells are the only cells in the body that are impacted.
As noted by former proponent of fluoridation, Dr. John Colquhoun, "Common sense should tell us that if a poison circulating in a child's body can damage the tooth-forming cells, then other harm also is likely."
As noted by Dr. Hardy Limeback, former President of the Canadian Association of Dental Research, "it is illogical to assume that tooth enamel is the only tissue affected by low daily doses of fluoride ingestion."
Over the past 50 years, the prevalence of dental fluorosis has increased quite dramatically in the United States and other fluoridated countries, reaching almost epidemic numbers.
According to recent estimates, dental fluorosis now effects an average of 48% of children in fluoridated communities (York Review 2000), marking an almost 5-fold increase in fluorosis since the 1940s. (In the 1940s, dental fluorosis rates in fluoridated areas averaged 10%.)
Not only is the prevalence of fluorosis increasing, but so to is its severity. As noted by Dr. Gary Whitford:
"There is a growing body of evidence which indicates that the prevalence and, in some cases, the severity of dental fluorosis is increasing in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions in the U.S... This trend is undesirable for several reasons: (1) It increases the risk of esthetically objectionable enamel defects; (2) in more severe cases, it increases the risk of harmful effects to dental function; (3) it places dental professionals at an increased risk of litigation; and (4) it jeopardizes the perception of the safety and, therefore, the public acceptance of the use of fluorides."
According to recent estimates from the U.S. and British Governments, 2 to 12% of children living in fluoridated communities have dental fluorosis of "esthetic concern" (Griffin 2002; York Review 2000).
Dental fluorosis, of esthetic concern, is an expensive condition to treat. If left untreated, it can cause embarrassment for school-aged children, resulting in psychological stress and damaged self-esteem.
There is also mounting evidence that dental fluorosis in its more advanced stages can leave teeth more susceptible to cavities. As noted by pro-fluoridation dental researcher, Dr. Steven Levy, "With more severe forms of fluorosis, caries risk increases because of pitting and loss of the outer enamel" (Levy 2003).

Other Unreasonable Happiness Posts
You Would Be Interested In:
Get Better Now!... Living Mastery
Show Archives:

Then pay it forward. Help my Scholarship Students with their tuition and allow me to create more of my Free Programs and Shows for everyone. How? Check out my Gift Shop and pick up an inspirational T-shirt, mug, or button, or just click below to Donate, any amount is greatly appreciated and it all goes to a good cause.




Thank You,
Sifu Marcus Lovemore


Translate

My Most Popular Posts