Miscellaneous Factors and History
Change is Slow: In 1999, National Academy of Sciences stated that an arsenic level of 5 parts per billion in tap water creates a 1-in-1,000 chance of getting bladder, lung or skin cancer. Yet
EPA still promulgates a standard of 50 pp billion established in 1942. “That level would pose a one-in-100 chance of contracting bladder, lung, or skin cancer,” stated National Academy of Sciences in 1999. Over time, science reveals the errors of the past. However, associations and agencies are often slow to make the necessary changes.
Dentists: Dentists’ training in fluoridation is limited to being told in class that it is good. Dental school libraries have not included leading anti-fluoridation journals or other similar material. ADA pamphlets contain an incredible amount of untruths and outright fraudulent claims, which are not inconsistent with other citations of fraud designed to make adding a poison to everyone’s drinking water acceptable.
We can assume the best of intentions on the part of dentists. They have been fed bad information.Most dentists never bother to take time to study both sides of the fluoride issue. Consider this statement by ADA in 1979: “Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants…”Mass Medication: A factor seemingly easily dismissed by the zealous pursuit of fluoridation is the subject of mass medication which, by definition, fluoridation is.
Mass medication violates a principle of the physicians’ code—namely, potentially dangerous substances (prescription drugs) should be individually prescribed. One size fits all?In the sources cited there are good discussions of this violation of medical principle via fluoridation.How about the individual’s freedom to choose? Especially when there are cheap and readily available sources of fluoride (toothpaste, etc.) for those that want it?: This is a violation of ethics.Studies for Safety: There are NO reliable studies conducted under ethical research guidelines that prove benefits of fluoride supplementation. FDA admits this! There are more than 500 peer-reviewed studies documenting the adverse effects.
US House Committee Question: What chronic toxicity test data are there on sodium fluorosilicate? On hydrofluorosilicic acid? Which are used to fluoridate 90% of the fluoridated water systems.
In response to this inquiry dated May 10, 1999, by the US House of Representatives’ Committee on Science, the EPA replied, “In collecting the data for the facts sheet, EPA was not able to identify chronic studies for these chemicals.” Double Standard: “Noted Stephen J. Marx, M.D., with the National Institute of Arthritis, Diabetes, and Digestive and Kidney Diseases:…'If we were just handling this as an environmental contaminant, we could...recommend that if (fluoride) be kept below half a part per million (0.5mg/l)’” (Medical Tribune, April 20, 1989)
Washington insiders refer to fluoride
as the “protected pollutant.” There is a double standard.
Drop in Cavity Rate: “Armed with decades of evidence, including a surprising drop in cavity rates in countries that have never fluoridated their water, scientists are asking: Does fluoride in drinking water effectively reduce cavities? Or does it instead contaminate water in ways that it may be upping cancer cases, skeletal disorders, birth defects—and even tooth erosion?” (Longevity, July 1989)
The Saga of Dr. Marcus: “On Aug. 28 William L. Marcus, chief toxicologist for the Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water programme, claimed that the original findings of the NTP study showed the cancer hazard from fluoridated drinking water to be greater than the NTP was telling the public...The Battelle study’s principal finding was the occurrence of an extremely rare liver cancer, hepatochalongiocarcinoma, in male and female mice...Dr. Marcus believes the Battelle diagnosis of liver cancers was sound and should have been included in the NTP report. This, he says, would change ‘the (NTP) equivocal finding...to at least some evidence or clear evidence of carcinogenicity.’” (The Lancet, September 22, 1990)
“The Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered to reinstate a senior scientist [William Marcus] and pay him $50,000 for emotional distress after he was fired for what he claimed were his whistle-blowing activities, his lawyer said yesterday. In ordering Marcus’s reinstatement, administrative law judge David Clarke, Jr….concluded the reasons given for the firing were ‘a pretext’ and that he really was dismissed ‘because he publicly questioned and opposed EPA’s fluoride policy.’” (Washington Post, December 9, 1992) “Dr. William Marcus, who refused to play along with the USEPA’s attempted cover-up of fluoride hazards, was fired. Dr. Marcus came right back and sued the USEPA—and won.” Included in the court filings for the above case, the EPA Unions requested the court to take further action by naming the officials who were “...chief instrumentalities of the conspiracy against Dr. Marcus within EPA...” as well as “...the Inspector General’s office shredding of evidentiary notes...witness tampering by [EPA] management [witnesses had been threatened with ‘dire consequences if gave testimony which helped Dr. Marcus’s case’]…[EPA] management forgeries of time cards used to entrap Dr. Marcus…” (Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, Fluoride The Aging Factor, p 208.)
Effective? “In the midst of doing his research on fluoridation and tooth decay in 1989, Dr. Yiamouyiannis had the occasion to contact Dr. Anthony Volpe, world-wide dental director for
(Continued) Click here for page 2
Abundant Living
Information Services
