The Fluoride Debate

HOME

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

HISTORY/
ENVIRONMENT

CENSORSHIP

THE FLUORIDE
DEBATE

BENEFITS
Question 1
Question 2
Question 3
Question 4
Question 5
Question 6
Question 7
Question 8

ALTERNATIVES
Question 9
Question 10
Question 11
Question 12


SAFETY
Question 13
Question 14

OVERDOSE
Question 15
Question 16
Question 17

DISEASES
Question 18
Question 19
Question 20
Question 21
Question 22
Question 23
Question 24
Question 25
Question 26
Question 27
Question 28
Question 29
Question 30
Question 31
Question 32
Question 33

PUBLIC
POLICY

Question 34
Question 35
Question 36
Question 37
Question 38
Question 39
Question 40

COST
EFFECTIVENESS
Question 41
Question 42
Question 43

CONCLUSION

CENSORSHIP

Why would so many health organizations be promoting fluoridation if it were not "safe and effective?"

Follow the Money
After Oscar Ewing, Chief Counsel of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) became head of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) in 1947, he offered the American Dental Association strong inducements to back fluoridation. To this day the ADA is paid well for endorsements of fluoride products. Grants are awarded to produce studies that will show fluoride is safe. Scientists whose research shows negative effects from fluoride often find it difficult to get their findings published. (See 0-6: "The Difficulty of Research on Fluoridation", Natick Fluoridation Study Committee Report, 9/27/97).

"Dr. Phyllis Mullenix says she lost her job at Harvard's Forsyth (Dental) Research Institute in 1994 after she insisted on publishing research results showing that fluoride adversely affected brain function in test animals. Mullenix had spent 12 years at Forsyth's toxicology department, eleven of them as its chairman." (See 0-7: "Vigorously brushing aside reports of fluoride's dangers," The Boston Sunday Globe, Apr. 4, 1999).

"There is clear evidence that promoters have stacked the deck, suppressed evidence, and victimized or smeared those who speak out against the practice" (of fluoridation). (David R. Hill, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4, Aug. 1997.) Such tactics would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.

"No school, college or independent medical research institution dares to be critical of fluoridation because they receive Public Health research grants. Likewise, no big food, beverage or drug company will dare speak critically of fluoride because they are under the supervision of Food and Drug Administration, a branch of US PHS." (Fluoridation and Censorship by H. Petraborg, MD, 9/30/64.)

The USPHS spends millions promoting fluoridation with public funds and have influenced health trade organizations to "come on board" without performing any research of their own. They simply parrot each other's endorsement. Admission that they are mistaken would result in loss of face and legal liability, much like the tobacco industry.

By presenting the results of the original fluoridation experiments incorrectly, the public and many health organizations were led to believe there was a 65% reduction in tooth decay with fluoridation. The Health Department's own statistics, when read correctly, prove that there is only a delay in decay, and that dental bills are actually higher, due to dental fluorosis.
(See Opponent's Response to Question 4 and Question 41).

The Washington Bureau editor of AGD Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry, wrote in 1999 that "supporters of fluoridation have had an unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light," and that organized dentistry "has lost its objectivity — the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion."

According to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics, "Dentists' non-participation (in fluoridation promotion) is overt neglect of professional responsibility." In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers.

Download
The Fluoride
Debate

as a .pdf

What is a .pdf?
It is an electronic file that is an e-book version of this website. Please be sure to have Adobe Acrobat's Plug-in installed for your internet browser so that you may view it.

 

 

NOTICE

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material on this web site is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use" non-profit educational purposes, without permission of the copyright owner.


This site and accompanying book is published by
Health Way House | 403 Marcos St | San Marcos, CA 92069

First Edition
February 2001

This information provided on this site was compiled by
Anita Shattuck | Tel: 760-752-1621 | bakeranita@cox.net

This site and accompanying book was edited by
Edward Bennett

Site Builder: Michelle@Jabbocat Consulting