I'm a resident of Nashville, Tennessee and I've lived here in East Nashville since 1981. I am someone who values integrity in science and politics. And, I've valued my health since the day I first discovered we are all mortal and aging.
I am not a medical doctor, and nothing that I say today to your group should be construed as advice from a licensed medical practitioner, nor should it be judged to be a cure for any disease, because, exercise, healthy foods, vitamins and minerals, and fresh clean water won't cure anything, …. well, at least according to the FDA.
My related experiences are anecdotal, that is to say, they work for me, and have been interpreted from reliable scientific sources and personal experimentation. And, I have no conflict of interest to report except that I am a member of the Fluoride Action Network.
Most of what I going to tell you today involves the intentional placement of an insidious toxin in our drinking water. So, think about what water is and what it represents to you personally. A huge percentage of your body mass is water. This substance is used in just about every chemical process that maintains your life. Second only to breathing air, without fresh, clean water, humans can only survive a brief period before suffering kidney failure, and death. If you have any doubt about its importance to our entire society, just think back a few years to what incredible measures the Georgia Legislature passed against the state of Tennessee during a major drought in order to assure that water could be drawn from one of our rivers. Had that drought continued, there would have been major political consequences around the country, not to mention the consequences to entire populations in northern Georgia. And, we live on a water planet with tremendous amounts of this liquid continually changing forms in a never ending cycle. Yet, so little of this water is available to many people as clean and uncontaminated drinking water, such as that we once drank from ground springs back during my early childhood. I would never even consider doing that now without having it checked for hazardous chemicals or biological contamination. Recently in the news we have heard that there is a full scale water crisis approaching our world population. That is certainly something to think about. Water is an amazing and vital substance.
So, what is fluoride? Fluoride ions or molecular fluoride is derived from the base element, fluorine. Fluorine is the most chemically active of all the elements on the Periodic Table. You will never find fluorine gas as a pure chemical in nature because it violently interacts with so many other substances it comes into contact with. Some fluorides are so strong they can etch glass or melt steel. Because of that ionic energy, it has many industrial uses. The two compounds we are most concerned with are used in fluoridation and toothpaste. They are hexafluorosilicic acid and sodium fluoride. There are two ways in which you can immediately determine how dangerous these chemicals are. You can either read the Material Safety Data Sheets for these substances, or you can simply read the outside of your toothpaste box. I guarantee you will not hear the warnings you read on the box on any fluoride toothpaste commercial. But, you will see a giant glob of toothpaste on those bristles. If you read carefully, you'll note that only a small pea sized amount is recommended, and that if you accidentally swallow, you should call the poison control center immediately, that is, if you have one.
Both chemical additives are derived as industrial by products of the phosphate fertilizer, aluminum and steel smelting industries. Instead of ending up as expensive pollution that has to be disposed of, these industries have managed to turn industrial waste into a lucrative cash product by trucking it around the country and placing it in your drinking water. It would be very difficult to calculate just how much fluoride is placed into our water system each day. And, more than 90 percent of what is released goes straight into the drain and into our streams and rivers. All the rest goes into our processed foods, drinks, and all the various places we use tap water every single day.
And, there have been no valid research studies that indicate fluoride is an essential nutrient. In fact, mother's milk contains 250 times less fluoride than the optimal amount our government recommended only a month ago for daily consumption. This should tell us a great deal about its value to the functions of the human body.
Journey of discovery to recovery
I had a problem for more than 25 years. I was generally a person who followed all the recommendations for good health. I worked out with weights and jogged. I ate what I thought was a healthy diet. I noticed that as I aged, certain symptoms that I had barely noticed since childhood began to grow and show their ugliness. They included; chronic fatigue, dryness of the throat and excessive water consumption, problems with urinating, aches and stiffness in muscles and bones with arthritic like pain where it shouldn't be, muscular weakness, muscle spasms, tingling sensations in my fingers, bloating in my gut, extended flu symptoms beyond what would have normally been expected, skin rash after showers, loss of mental acuity or symptoms like depression, nervousness, and occasional dizziness. I went through about four doctors trying to discover the root cause, and perhaps obtain some relief. But, all they gave me were lots of drugs that really only masked the symptoms. My most diagnosed ailments were depression and arthritis and the side effects of having asthma and sinusitis. I can't tell you how often they told me, "Now Jack, you're going to have to accept that you are getting older. None of them really knew what was wrong, and none of them had the time to really figure it out. So, I just toughed it out as best I could. But, I knew something was very wrong.
Then, my life changed back in January of 2007. Shortly before that, my wife and I had visited a professional nutritionist at the advice of her doctor to help with her diabetes. I'll never forget what that nutritionist told us. She said, "Before you put anything in your mouth, check to make sure you know what's in it." I thought about that for a while, and it suddenly occurred to me that although we had been eating in what we thought was a healthy manner for over a decade, we had actually been eating to save money and enhance our taste buds, not to preserve our health. So, we began reading every box of processed food in our cupboard. About half of what we read we could barely pronounce. So, if we couldn't pronounce it, we threw it out, and began making food from scratch, … that is, we tried to cook or prepare something as fresh from the field as possible. It took more time, and it felt better, but it somehow didn't improve our health as much as we expected.
Then, I was watching our local NBC affiliate television station, WSMV. One of the noon guests was a bodybuilder and owner of a local health products store in West Nashville. I don't really remember much of what he said on the program, but I do very clearly remember him saying to the moderator, "don't ever use fluoridated toothpaste." When the moderator asked him what to use, he stated that his shop had some alternatives available. But, that one statement slowly worked its way into my mind for a few days. I began to think, "why would he say that? Haven't we been told over and over during all of my childhood that fluoride prevented cavities, and that it was placed in our drinking water for that very reason?" Well, I'm a very curious person who tries not to ignore good advice anymore, like I once did as a young man. So, I went on the internet, and looked up the term "fluoride." Suddenly, rather than lots of positive information extolling the virtues of fluoride, I saw article after article concerning the nature of fluorides and some of the history of how this substance had first been introduced into our diets back in 1947. (2011, by the way, is the 66th year of fluoridation). Then, I ran across several websites that contained tremendous amounts of information about fluoride and fluoridation, including the Fluoride Action Network, which seemed, to my way of thinking, to be the best and most comprehensive of all the sites devoted to this issue. In fact, the shear amount of information available was completely overwhelming. It took me most of the year to even begin to realize the scope of a national problem that had every earmark of being not only a controversy, but also a scam from the beginning. Far from being a settled issue, as stated by so many dentists, the CDC and the ADA, fluoridation has been a contentious issue since its beginnings. Needless to say, I was appalled, concerned, and personally awakened. However, the number one rule of internet research, in fact, any research, is to be skeptical until you have collected a significant number of facts from many different sources and to develop at least a passable understanding of the issue at hand. So, I kept reading articles from both sides of the fluoride debate. Of course, the CDC and ADA always claimed there was absolutely no debate and no problem. Fluoride had been used for sixty years with no problems. In fact, the science was so confirmed, they would not even admit there was a problem even though the agency had issued warnings about mixing infant formula with tap water back in 2006. They even had pages and pages of studies listed on their website to validate their stance. So, I compared what I saw there with what the so-called anti-fluoridationists had publicized. The difference in approach was startling. Those who were warning against fluoride were open, analytical, and willing to discuss the matter freely with no doubts or reservations concerning the uncertainties of the science.
The first call I made was to the Vice President of the Environmental Protection Agency's Union of Professionals in Washington, D. C.. Dr. Bill Hirzy is one of the most respected scientists in his discipline, and is a Chemist in Residence at The College of Arts and Sciences at the American University in Washington. He had appeared many years ago before a Congressional hearing to relate what he knows about fluoride. I told him that I had read his works on the issue, and that I also knew that his Union had been publicly against fluoride for decades. All I wanted was to actually talk to someone with his credentials to verify what I had learned. Dr. Hirzy had one of those voices that contained both certainty of knowledge and a weary sound of someone who has spoken, warned, and pushed an issue so long and hard that his frustration communicates clearly in the conversation. What I heard was an older, experienced chemist giving me the gift of certainty with patience and an openness that was entirely unexpected for someone of his reputation, position and experience. Now, I've done enough research over the last three decades to know when someone is telling me something based upon research and assurance, and I know when someone is simply telling me something because that is the expected and authoritarian response. The next contact I made was to one of the co-authors of the landmark 2006 Report on Fluoride commissioned by the National Research Council, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, the head scientist at SENES Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis. She confirmed that she had sent a detailed letter to the Governor of Tennessee, Phil Bredesen, about the issue and about the research she and her fellow scientists had uncovered about fluoride and its adverse health effects. I discovered that the Governor had taken no heed of Dr. Thiessen's warning, and that his administration had not answered her letter. Believe it or not, a year later, I actually got a non-committal answer to an e-mail I had sent to the Governor on the subject, whereas someone of Dr. Thiessen's obvious expertise has yet to hear from anyone in the administration. I was simply amazed.
Well, to make a long story short, I kept studying how to recognize where fluoride was present in my water, foods and environment. I discovered that fluoride has such a small molecule that you can't simply filter it out. I did find that some sources say that you can distill water to remove fluoride and other contamination from water, and recommend using calcium or carbon filters to finish the job. So, in September of 2007, we began to distill our drinking water at home. We installed a special filter to our shower, and we instituted methods of purchasing organic foods that avoided high fluoride suspects. Finally, we stopped using fluoride toothpaste.
As God is my witness, once I had reduced my exposure to fluoride for only a week, twenty-five years worth of "mysterious" symptoms that had confounded my doctors slowly went away. I know I'll never recover completely, but as time goes by, those symptoms have kept decreasing. It was like waking up from a 25 year dream. Suddenly, I could think more clearly, I had more strength, and I could do a full workout once again without the severe pains that once put me in bed for days. My doctor was amazed. In fact, my physical exam blood work has improved every year. I'm back to working out with weights once again, and at times, I have put a lot of the younger folks at the fitness center to shame. Nothing felt better than to have a young man tell me that, as a 58 year old man, I was his inspiration in the gym. I almost couldn’t believe that when I heard it.
I found out later that it is estimated that about five percent of the population is particularly sensitive to very low doses of fluoride. I can only guess that perhaps I am one of the five percent.
Heck, my teeth even got whiter, stopped feeling odd, and got stronger. It was amazing. The change was so startling, I actually went out and found a dentist who could safely remove my mercury amalgams. That helped even more. And, several doctors that I had met in the anti-fluoride movement advised me what supplements to take to help reverse the effects of fluoride. For those of you who may be interested, the supplements they recommended to me were iodine, selenium, calcium and magnesium. I don't overdo selenium because it is a trace element with adverse effects at higher doses. In fact, there's nothing on this list that can't be obtained from a good health food store or internet source at a reasonable price.
I can't tell you just how good it is to be healthy once again. I no longer get colds, and I'm no longer beset with serious problems during flu season.
Unfortunately, I've since met other people who have suffered even greater damage from fluoride poisoning. Those people will never be whole again. Once fluoride does permanent damage to vital tissues, there is no repairing those cells. And, it is difficult, if not impossible to know just how many people in the world suffer from fluoride toxicity. And, in America, few doctors are trained to even recognize the problem.
What we can do on a local, state and national level to end fluoridation
The current push by the Fluoride Action Network is to request legislation that will force local or state water agencies to publish the CDC and ADA warning against using fluoridated water to reconstitute baby food. This is a step that should have been taken back in 2006 when their original warning was quietly and discretely released on the internet on a page seldom visited by the public or even the professionals.
Our members have also attempted to warn grocery chains such as Walmart and Kroger that they should not carry infant water that contains fluoride. Kroger continues to carry fluoridated infant water, … Walmart has now pulled theirs and now carries clearly marked gallons of non-fluoridated infant water. Out of concern over the CDC/ADA warnings, Gerber now sells non-fluoridated infant water and several toothpaste companies now carry infant non-fluoridated toothpaste.
I'll warn you up front, ….. the issue of fluoride and fluoridation is very complex in its science and debate. You must study the issue and be prepared, because the experts and pundits will crush you if you are speaking out in a town hall meeting. Keep abreast of the situation, read the literature, and know what you are talking about when making your presentation. Visit www.FluorideAlert.org on the internet. You will find that instead of explaining their stance or engaging you in a discussion on the issue, many professionals will simply get emotional over the fact that you have dared to challenge their authority. This is a sure sign, at least in my mind, that a professional is no longer looking out for the best interests of those he/she serves.
Those of us who fall into the category of being against fluoridation contend that the real solution to the fluoride issue is as simple as turning it off. It's just that simple. Yet, it is so difficult to fight tradition, dogma, and the disinformation that has permeated this public policy for so long. Many scientists find they must support a particular view to continue receiving research funding and support for their credibility. They can easily hide behind complexity. They use double talk and double speak as a defense for their opinions. Or, they will do their best to destroy the validity of your argument because you are not as qualified or educated as they are. Their main goal, as in the Eastern tradition, is to save face.
It is my personal belief that the only way to truly rid ourselves of fluoridation is to educate those who have the most to lose from its use. Those who can not only understand what is being done to them, but those who can also defend themselves. The caring citizen who has no credentials or license to lose by taking on the established policies of official agencies that blindly defend a terribly flawed practice.
What we can do is spread the word about what is being done to us. Write your representatives, senators, and governor. Participate in government. Tell your friends and family what you have learned. Insist that those who hold a job protecting the public's health continue to maintain their scientific integrity, and hold them responsible for any intervention that does not seem to follow common sense rules based on statistics that show an actual public health threat. After all, these people work for YOU, …. the citizen. They are accountable to YOU.
And, most important of all, you should attempt to live what you preach. None of this means a thing if you are speaking against fluoridation or smoking while at the same time drinking fluoridated tap water and smoking a pack a day. Good health is a battle that is fought one day at a time. It is a lifestyle you should try to pass on to your children.
Why does the new recommended level of fluoride by Health & Human Services fall short?
On Friday January 7th, we got the shock of our lives. There in the newspapers and on the morning news we read stories similar to this;
ATLANTA - In a remarkable turnabout, federal health officials say many Americans are getting too much fluoride, and it's causing spots on children's teeth and perhaps other, more serious problems.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced plans Friday to lower the recommended level of fluoride in drinking water for the first time in nearly 50 years, based on a fresh review of the science.
The announcement is likely to renew the battle over fluoridation, even though the addition of fluoride to drinking water is considered one of the greatest public health successes of the 20th century. The U.S. prevalence of decay in at least one tooth among teens has declined from about 90 percent to 60 percent.
The government first began urging municipal water systems to add fluoride in the early 1950s. Since then, it has been put in toothpaste and mouthwash. It is also in a lot of bottled water and in soda. Some kids even take fluoride supplements. Now, young children may be getting too much.
"Like anything else, you can have too much of a good thing," said Dr. Howard Pollick, a professor at the University of California, San Francisco's dental school and (paid) spokesman for the American Dental Association.
One reason behind the change: About two out of five adolescents have tooth streaking or spottiness because of too much fluoride, a government study found recently. In extreme cases, teeth can be pitted by the mineral - though many cases are so mild only dentists notice it. The problem is generally considered cosmetic and not a reason for serious concern.
The splotchy tooth condition, fluorosis, is unexpectedly common in youngsters ages 12 through 15 and appears to have grown more common since the 1980s, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
So, the CDC has now lowered its recommended "optimal" level for fluoride in water from a range of 0.7 to 1.2 ppm, down to single level of 0.7ppm. Is this a good thing or does it fall short of our goal. Simple, it falls much too short of our goal, which is ZERO parts per million.
From a response solicited from the EPA-
Fluoride in drinking water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency under Section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
On April 2, 1986, EPA set a revised Maximum Contaminant Level at 4 mg/L to protect against crippling, skeletal fluorosis, an adverse health effect.
In August 1993, the National Research Council completed a review of fluoride toxicity and exposure for the EPA. The findings of the NRC were published as, “Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride." The NRC concluded that the current 4 mg/L standard is “appropriate as an interim standard” to protect the public health. In addition, EPA set a nonenforceable Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of 2 mg/L to protect against objectionable dental fluorosis or tooth discoloration.
The Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits EPA from requiring the addition of any substance (including fluoride) to drinking water for preventative health care purposes unrelated to contamination.
As a consequence, State or local authorities determine whether or not to fluoridate their water supply. Depending on local conditions, fluoridation in this country is practiced at a level of about 1 mg/L, which is well below the current 4 mg/L SDWA Federal standard.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is the principal Federal agency involved in research on fluoridation in this country.
Long after this letter was sent, the National Research Council came out with its landmark 2006 report called, "Fluoride in Drinking Water, a Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" in which the appointed research scientists concluded from their mega study that the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level of 4 ppm was not protective against fluorosis and that more in depth studies should be commissioned concerning the adverse health effects of fluoride, especially its roll in producing cancer. Even though the CDC, the EPA, the ADA, and the Public Health Service have all played down this report, and even said publicly that its content had little to do with a change in public health policy by the CDC, this has been proven not to be the case. One of the scientists who co-authored the report, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, chief scientist of SENES Risk Assessment in Oak Ridge, TN. has stated that the book contains a clear warning that the current state of research is not sufficient to warrant the continuation of fluoridation. She cites one of the most commonly used policy papers used in determining whether a drug or procedure is ready for use on human beings known as "The Precautionary Principle." In other words, if the procedure has not been thoroughly studied, or if there is continuing doubt concerning its potential long term health effects, then the procedure should be stopped until those doubts can be assessed. The CDC has entirely ignored the Precautionary Principle in the case for fluoride, and continues to do so under the newly revised MCL level of .7 ppm. In fact, the following two effects originally singled out by the NRC panel of 2006 were not even mentioned by the Department of Health and Human Services: bone fractures and pre-clinical stages of skeletal fluorosis, which manifests itself as arthritis. They have stubbornly stayed with teeth as their main emphasis, and refused to discuss current studies concerning how fluoride affects the brain and other internal organs.
The official statement of the Fluoride Action Network:
.7 ppm is STILL too high. An infant who receives formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water at this new level will receive approximately 175 times more fluoride than a breast-fed infant. These infants are STILL not being protected with this new level. The CDC, the ADA and the EPA must clearly inform parents, caregivers, and health providers that infant formula should only be reconstituted with non-fluoridated water. Only when they make a determined and aggressive effort to do this should the public believe that the CDC is serious about reducing the rate of dental fluorosis. Without that effort it will become abundantly clear that this whole exercise of reducing the MCL was a sham - simply an effort to divert attention from the fact that the CDC continues to push fluoridation while ignoring reports of serious health concerns at doses which offer no adequate margin of safety to protect everyone in the population, drinking fluoridated water, especially, but not limited to, bottle-fed infants.
Now we have one big family protecting the water fluoridation program.
The Department of Health & Human Services (or rather one small part of it, namely the Oral Health Division of the CDC), the ADA and now the EPA are working together to protect the fluoridation program. Who is left to protect the people? As Dr. Joseph Mercola has said: "don't expect any help at the federal level, we are going to have end fluoridation one city at a time."
Thankfully, our efforts seem to be snowballing into one huge, grass roots citizen's movement that cannot and will not be ignored.
My involvement in "The Case Against Fluoride" and the power of scientific truth
I had been involved with contacting people in the fluoride movement for a couple of years, but one man seemed to stand out, Dr. Paul Connett. He is the executive director of the Fluoride Action Network and a retired chemistry professor who taught for 23 years at St. Lawrence University. At his request, I began doing little favors for him over the internet for the better part of six months to help with the cause. Then, one day, about a year and a half ago, I got this message that said, "Jack, we're going to write a book. Could you do us a few graphics?" Well, a couple of graphics soon turned into a year of very heavy work. Although Professor Connett offered me a percentage of the book, I have worked pro bono (for those of you who aren't attorneys, that means free of charge), because that is my contribution to FAN and to our efforts. I feel the effort is that important.
……. our side has needed handbook of sorts, … and this is it.
Probably more than ¾ of the work we did never actually made it into print.
Checking facts to make sure they are accurate
Editing copy to smooth out sentencing
Composing and refining graphs to illustrate scientific statistics and concepts
Composing or clarifying photos of fluorosis (never used, but can be viewed on FAN's website)
Then, there is the issue of having many authors and many points of view, especially when the authors are all extremely educated, opinionated, credentialed, and unwilling to make statements that aren't backed up by peer reviewed research and statistics. Sometimes the frustration level can get almost unmanageable to the point that someone wants to quit because they feel their integrity or position is being pushed aside. Bear in mind that three authors appear on the cover, but there were literally hundreds of people making contributions for a period of 14 years. Then, you had to take into account the scientists whose work we were using. We had to acknowledge their opinions concerning their research, or show reasonable doubt concerning some of their conclusions.
I feel that my most important roll in all this was that I could keep an eye out for hints that someone was disgruntled or dissatisfied with how things were going, or even overwhelmed by little details that never seemed to be agreed upon by all parties. When I suspected that we were drifting from the main goal, I'd simply write an e-mail to everyone as a pep talk, reminding them of the importance of what we were doing, and that there were some issues in the book that would never get resolved before publication. I'd give them a pep talk of sorts to smooth things over, and remind them that they had literally saved my life as well as many others. I have no specialized degree, I am not a professional scientist, and I have no professional credentials or reputation to protect. I'm simply a communicator, a writer, and I know the issue and the egos involved. I just tried to keep us on track. Writing a book on science takes incredible concentration, resolve and energy. Writing a book of this type takes a miracle. Personally, I think we succeeded.
I think Dr. Paul Connett has published the book he will always be known for. When we look back in history, and marvel at why we ever went down the path of fluoridation, this and Christopher Byson's book, "The Fluoride Deception," will be the books everyone quotes. And, I'm quite proud to have been involved in the process.
Environmental justice - who gets hurt?
It all boils down to who is at the most risk?
Low income families who do not have the resources to purchase non-fluoridated water or take steps to limit fluoride intake. They simply have no choice.
Those who are being treated for cancer or kidney disease or other chemically sensitive treatment programs simply cannot use tap water, especially if it contains fluoride.
Minority populations that tend to be in the lower income bracket. They also tend to be more affected by fluorosis, and therefore, potentially, by the adverse health consequences of long term fluoride exposure mentioned in the NRC Report.
The uneducated or uninformed consumer. In fact, this one cross section of the public is subject to manipulation by government and industrial graft and corruption of every form. This simply emphasizes the importance of knowing that our personal education only begins the moment we leave school.
And, ALL OF US may be in harm's way. Consider that much of the electricity generated on the North American continent is from coal burning. One of the smoke by products of energy utilities just happens to be hydrogen fluoride. That means that those in the population who are particularly sensitive to fluoride may be interpreting symptoms as sporadic allergies and sinusitis, when in fact they are reacting to hydrogen fluoride or other airborne pollutants coming from upwind of their homes. There are documented cases of stagnant industrial smoke causing the death of local residents in this country. Some of the most notorious can be studied in the book, "The Fluoride Deception."
Things anti-fluoridationists emphasize:
We emphasize scientific studies, both past and present, that clearly show connections between long term exposure to fluoride and the adverse health effects exhibited across a population that are clearly and statistically significant.
We emphasize a common sense approach to public policy.
We emphasize that it is clearly unethical and illegal to administer a substance such as fluoride to an entire population that has the following attributes: it is administered without individual metered dose and without monitoring by licensed and qualified medical personnel; the population that receives fluoride has not been clearly informed of the nature of the substance, it's adverse health effects, and it's expected outcome; it is a known neuotoxin with long term adverse health effects; it is not approved by the FDA as a drug; it is administered with the expectation that every individual will react to it in the same manner; it is a non-pharmaceutical grade substance that is derived from an industrial by product of the fertilizer and aluminum smelting industries; it is a substance that cannot be dumped legally in any body of water in the entire U.S., but if it is placed into a tanker truck, sold to, and hauled to your local water utility, and placed in your drinking water, it instantly becomes a legal product.
We emphasize that it is not the function of a water utility to initiate a process that is meant to cause a change in the human body. Instead it is their responsibility to process a vital biological resource, water, so that it is reasonably uncontaminated and safe from biological organisms that cause disease.
Things we do not emphasize:
We do not get into personal politics. There is nothing that will derail a movement faster than the bickering and personal attacks that come from the political arena. Our coalition is formed on one very simple premise: fluoridation must stop. The variety of people and backgrounds and affiliations that have come together to this purpose alone is simply amazing. When this one goal is reached by common consensus, then, by example, there are few problems that cannot be addressed by civil discourse and a view to the well being of the common citizen.
The conspiratorial nature of fluoride and fluoridation can't be thrown in the face of authorities who support its use and who may not have actually had time to study the primary literature to verify their scientific footing. The authorities often try to attack our integrity and credentials by using name calling or comparing us to General Jack Ripper of the movie, "Dr. Strangelove." The use of fluoride and its ionic compounds to affect the public health is certainly one of the most unfortunate episodes in American public health policy, and the historical data collected in Christopher Bryson's book, "The Fluoride Deception" is quite sufficient to relate how we got into this scam in the first place. Probably the paid industrial lobbying and advertising advice by master propagandist, Edward Bernays in the 1950's, had a great deal to do with the successful beginnings of this scam. So, we try to emphasize the current science, and maintain integrity and calm discussion in our commentary.
There is no scholastic evidence that NAZI Germany used fluoride in the food and water of prisoners in concentration camps during World War II despite the continued presentation of this fact all over the internet. There is ample evidence that the giant chemical organization, IG Farben, used fluoride and fluorine in its chemical processes during the war, up to an including the mass manufacture of sarin toxin (which was never actually used by the German armies). It is also known that IG Farben established a major factory at Aushwitz prison camp where slave labor was used to produce materials for the German war effort. However, I have heard from researchers who have not been able to clearly establish that fluoride was used for mind control in prison camps. When you compare this historical research effort with our current efforts to establish the long term adverse health effects of fluorides, it really makes little difference if this fact is validated or not. Contemporary information and the use of fluoride on the American public beginning in 1947 overshadows anything the Nazis may have attempted. As a side note; the IG Farben company was considered too corrupt to continue to exist, and was split into its original constituent companies after the war ended.
Recommended books to read:
The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson
The Case Against Fluoride; How Hazardous Waste Ended Up In Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There by Paul Connett, PhD; James Beck, MD, PhD; and H. Spedding Micklem, DPhil
Who's who in the fluoride issue? Some of the players with significant presence:
Dr. Paul Connett - Served for 23 years as a professor of Environmental Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY. Now retired, he and his wife Ellen were instrumental in getting fluoride removed from all water utilities in his region of NY. Paul has been deeply involved in the movement against fluoridation since being informed of the problem by his wife over 15 years ago. Ellen continues to fight the use of unnecessary and dangerous pesticides by agricultural operations around the world. It took them 7 ½ years to get fluoride voted down in Canton. Paul has spoken to groups around the world and in most of the U. S. about the science of fluoride and zero waste. As an adjunct to his efforts, he recently co-authored the book, "The Case Against Fluoride; How Hazardous Waste Ended Up In Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There," written with Dr. James Beck and Dr. H. S. Micklem. His book incorporates scientific studies and information from hundreds of researchers, scientists, and professionals. Paul continues to fight fluoridation by speaking and by the promotion of information from his website, "The Fluoride Action Network," in which his son, Michael has posted a wealth of information on the science and history of fluoride.
Ellen Connett - Wife of Paul Connett who has fought against the use of unnecessary or unsustainable toxic pesticides for more than two decades. She originally informed Paul Connett about the fluoride issue back in the mid 1990's. Both thought it would only take a meeting or two to convince their council in Canton, NY to cease fluoridation. Instead, it took seven and a half years. They continue the fight through their international organization, the Fluoride Action Network.
Mr. Stuart Cooper - Is the campaign coordinator for the Fluoride Action Network and its efforts to end fluoridation. He is based in New Hampshire and has extensive experience in coordinating grass roots political movements.
Carol S. Kopf - Communications officer for the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. and the Fluoride Action Network. She has worked tirelessly to inform FAN membership of trends in the media and in scientific research concerning the fluoride issue.
Tara Blank - Is the science coordinator for the Fluoride Action Network.
Bill Hirzy PhD - Vice President of the Union of Government workers representing over 7000 federal employees, among which are scientists and professionals working for the EPA. Bill has continually worked to end fluoridation and the EPA's establishment of 4 ppm as the Maximum Contamination Level since the 1980's. His union has maintained a page on the web for decades outlining the reasons for their stance against fluoridation.
Bill Osmunson, DDS - A professional dentist in Oregon and Washington state with a Masters in Public Health and two majors in Health Education and Nutrition. He later obtained his Doctorate in Dentistry. As with most of his colleagues, he promoted the use of fluoride and mercury amalgams for 25 years. Bill began to do significant study on the issue some years ago at the urging of several of his patients, and determined that what he had been taught in dental school about fluoride was wrong. He is currently very energetically engaged with attorney James Robert Deal in a legal battle over fluoridation with the Washington Supreme Court. And, he spends significant time educating the public on the issue of fluoride and mercury in dentistry.
Professor Albert Burgstahler, PhD - Primary editor of the "Fluoride Journal," which is the only independent scientific journal devoted entirely to current and unbiased research on fluoride. It is published quarterly, it's free, and it's online.
Dr. Bruce Spittle, PhD - Managing editor of "Fluoride Journal."
Dr. John Yiamouyiannis - Dr John Yiamouyiannis, biochemist and founder of the Safe Water Foundation who could be said to be the progenitor of Dr. Paul Connett. Yiamouyiannis fought the fluoride battle for decades until his death in 2000, during a period when few people knew of the danger, much less acknowledged the problem. He published significant papers which clearly showed an alarming increase in cancer rates in fluoridated cities in the United States. He was considered one of the most dangerous speakers against fluoridation because of his intimate knowledge and familiarity with primary scientific studies on fluoride toxicology.
Daniel Stockin - Formerly a resident of Middle Tennessee, Daniel now resides in Northern Georgia. He is one half of a corporation called the Lillie Center that does consultation concerning medical and health issues. His major push for many years has been that of bringing the issue of fluoride to the government's and public's attention while challenging the unflinching support of fluoridation by the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta. Daniel has recently announced a project initiative that he has worked on for several years called "Fluoridegate."
Major players in fluoride promotion:
Dr. Howard Polick - is a paid spokesperson for the American Dental Association, which is strongly pro-fluoride. He is a professor at the University of California - San Francisco Dental School. His most recent activities have centered around the fluoridation of the entire southern California region in support of the Centers for Disease Control Healthy People 2010 efforts. Despite protests by scientists and experts in the field, more than 18 million people were fluoridated for the first time in that region.
Dr. Stephen Barrett - a psychiatrist, is the editor of the website, "Quackwatch," He helped in the preparation of the 1978 Consumer Reports article and of the 1988 book Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet. He has close ties with the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service. He is a recipient of the FDA award for "quack-busting" and is a coauthor, along with William Jarvis and others, of the 1993 book Readers' Guide to Alternative Health Methods, published by the American Medical Association. In this book, he cites, and gives summaries of, the two publications mentioned above to inform his readers about fluoridation. He is a science and editorial adviser to the American Council on Science and Health. Dr. Barrett continues to support many mainstream and official policies such as fluoridation using language that is clearly indicative of disdain for debate or acceptance of alternate scientific studies on the issue.
Centers for Disease Control; Oral Health Division - now being downgraded to a branch. This is the guardian of fluoride and fluoridation in the U. S. government. The CDC supports without reservation the use of fluoridation to the point of using a statement in support of the practice made some time ago by an
American Dental Association - The mega promotion and lobbying organization for the dental industry in America. This lobby has continually spend tremendous amounts of membership money promoting fluoride and fluoridation throughout the United States in cooperation with the CDC.
Environmental Protection Agency - The government watchdog and policy arm for matters involving environmental policy. It's own employee union is publicly on record as being against the EPA's stated support of fluoridation and its recommended MCL for fluoride.
Department of Health and Human Services - The mega government agency that oversees all matters relating to the public health of the United States. The CDC and the Division of Oral Health are a part of the DHHS.
The PEW Trusts - A non-profit organization that collects data and statistics that are used by government agencies to promote or support the institution of public policy. PEW has recently been retained to apply its considerable resources to the public policy of fluoridation in areas of the U. S. that have not yet been fluoridated. Their current push seems to be that of manipulating state government and legislators into passing legal mandates in support of fluoridation.
World Health Organization - An arm of the United Nations that monitors and responds to worldwide health issues. Even though WHO statistics have clearly shown no significant difference in the dental health of industrialized nations that fluoridate and those that do not, the WHO continues to promote worldwide fluoridation.
