CDC Shows Fluoridation is Futile

News Release from New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF

CDC's Statistics Prove Fluoridation is Futile, says NYSCOF

New York – June  2015 --The CDC reports that almost all adults have cavities and significant oral health disparities by race still persist. This after 7 decades of fluoridation reaching record numbers of Americans via the water and food supply, reports the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF).

 

Fluoride added to public water supplies attempts to prevent cavities and level out decay between poor and non-poor, in children and adults.  But government statistics reveal it hasn’t.

 

The May 2015 CDC Data Brief by Dye et al. reports 90% of all adults have cavities and two-thirds of 40 to 64-year-olds lost one or more teeth due to decay. Tooth loss and untreated cavities are drastically higher in African-Americans. The poor are more cavity-prone but Dye failed to provide statistics based on socio-economic-status.

 

Dye said his figures are conservative since root or smooth surface cavities, more prevalent in the elderly, were excluded. He speculated that disparities persist because of a lack of dental care.

For example, in fluoridated Greeley, Colorado 60 to 70 percent of one dentist's child patients in Greeley need care that goes beyond checkups, such as fillings or other work, which he said is on par with the national average for lower-income communities, according to the Greeley Tribune. The reason is that most dentists won't accept Medicaid patients.

“Dental Therapists could fix this problem,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. “But organized dentistry, using its power and money, lobby against legalizing Dental Therapists, protecting its lucrative monopoly, instead,” says Beeber.

Inappropriately, the American Dental Association is “doubling down” on fluoridation causing government agencies to waste millions of dollars yearly which could be spent treating teeth not water.

Beeber says, “Fluoridation isn’t the solution; it’s the problem. Organized dentistry, with its pockets full of corporate cash, ‘fool’ legislators into believing fluoridation is a panacea for the poor when it’s just another way to avoid legislative mandates for dentists to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients.”

 

The Surgeon General's 2000 report identified oral health as a "silent epidemic."  But, nothing changed despite dozens of reports, meetings, hearings, webinars, and conferences, many of which identified fluoride research needs that still haven't been done. States hired fluoridation consultants, dental directors and conduct fluoridation spokesperson training.

 

“There has been no progress, really, in the national decay rates, especially in people who are living 100 percent below poverty,” according to that Greeley dentist.

 

According to the Indian Health Services (IHS) (April 2015), American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) preschoolers have the highest level of tooth decay of any population group in the US

 

IHS reports that "This disparity exists...Despite wide implementation of fluoridation, topical fluorides, dental sealants and oral health education," For example, 3/4 of AI/AN five-year-olds have primary teeth cavities (44% untreated).

 

By comparison, the NON-fluoridated counties in New York State have much lower third-graders' tooth decay rates shown in parentheses: Schuyler (29%), Tompkins (42%), Essex (50%), Montgomery (42%) , Putnam (39%), Rockland (47%) , Nassau (42%), Suffolk (49%),

 

According to Oral Health America

• Only about 2% of older adults have dental insurance
• Emergency room visits due to dental problems more than doubled in the past decade
• Obamacare, Medicare do not cover dental care for adults

 

“Fluoridation is a public health blunder that  must end,” says Beeber. Americans need dental care not fluoride.

 

 

SOURCE:  NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc.

Fluoride's Adverse Health Effects:  http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health

NYSCOF on Twitter

NYSCOF on Facebook

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDC Fudges Fluoride Data AGAIN – FluorideGate Scandal Intensifies

Dr. Katherine Weno, Director of CDC’s Oral Health Division’s, recent fluoridation statement (4/2/2015) continues the CDC's pattern of misrepresenting fluoridation safety. Weno seemed to cherry pick information, use outdated science, ignore valid fluoride-damaging reports. And, indirectly, she admits fluoridation failed.

Weno’s letter says, “The U.S. Public Health Service; the United Kingdom’s National Institute for Health Research, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, at the University of York; and the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia have all conducted scientific reviews by expert panels and concluded that community water is a safe and effective way to promote good oral health and prevent decay.”

This is what those reports truly say:

1) Review of fluoride: benefits and risks. US Public Health Service (1991)

Far from declaring fluoridation safe, this 24-year-old report identified what isn’t and still isn't known, including:

The relationship, if any, that exists between bone fractures and fluoride intake and fluoride bone levels. It’s also recommended studies be done on fluoride's reproductive toxicity and whether or not fluoride is genotoxic; but have yet to be done.

2) A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation. University of York, 2000 (UK)

About this 15-year-old report, the authors wrote in 2003 “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide...The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable.... An association with water fluoride and other adverse effects such as cancer, bone fracture and Down's syndrome was not found. However, we felt that not enough was known because the quality of the evidence was poor.”

3) National Health and Medical Research Council, The use of fluorides in Australia: Guidelines. Australian Dental Journal  2006

This is not a safety study but one that reported different fluoride modalities and dental fluorosis risks. And it’s partially funded by Colgate, a corporation that benefits from fluoride sales.

Weno says the next report and number 1 above, have “not found convincing scientific evidence linking community water fluoridation with any potential adverse health effect or systemic disorder such as an increased risk for cancer Down syndrome, heart disease, osteoporosis and bone fracture, immune disorders, low intelligence, renal disorders, Alzheimer disease, or allergic reactions.” 

4) Community Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Community Preventive Services: Preventing Dental Caries: Community Water Fluoridation 

This is not a safety study. “It is based on 28 studies about the effect of CWF [Community Water Fluoridation] on caries [cavities]; 16 about oral health disparities, and 117 about dental fluorosis. Most of these studies were included in an existing systematic review (McDonough 2000, search period 1966-1999; 26 studies on caries; 13 on oral health disparities; 88 on fluorosis), combined with more recent evidence (search period 1999-2012; 2 on caries; 3 on oral health disparities and 29 on fluorosis),” according to the reports authors.

Conspicuous by its absence, neither in Weno’s statement nor references, is the  2006 US National Research Council’s (NRC) Fluoride Report, commissioned by the EPA, which found studies that link fluoride to lower and IQ are plausible. The NRC also set off the decision to caution that routinely mixing fluoridated water into infant formula puts babies at higher risk of developing dental fluorosis.

 According to the NRC panel’s chairman Dr. John Doull, “when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began.”

Fluoride “Brain-Drain” can be Damaging Generations of Children, according to renowned physician and 30-year brain researcher, Dr. Phillipe Grandjean in his new book, “Only One Chance: How Environmental Pollution Impairs Brain Development.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists fluoride as having "Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity." A paper in The Lancet classified fluoride as one of the few chemicals known to damage the developing brain in humans

Forty-three out of 50 studies show fluoride reduces IQ - many at levels allowed in US water supplies.

So it’s not surprising that the first US study to look at fluoridation’s brain effects “demonstrated an association between more widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children and adolescents, even after controlling for SES [socio-economic-status]. The findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD,” the authors conclude.

More evidence of harm is here:  http://www.FluorideAction.Net/issues/health

The CDC’s Oral Health Division Director Weno claims that fluoridation is a proven strategy to improve oral health but admits “profound disparities in oral health status remain for some population subgroups, such as the poor, the elderly, and many members of racial and ethnic minority groups.”

These are the very groups that fluoridation was supposed to help. What this really means is that 70 years of fluoridation reaching record numbers of Americans has failed to do its intended job.

It's not the first time fluoridation safety was misrepresented by the CDC

Former CDC fluoridation spokesperson, dentist William Bailey, also fudged the truth to the Fairbanks City Council

Freedom of Information requests reveal that CDC officials are concerned about fluoride's kidney effects; but publicly say there’s no connection.

When fluoridation began, it was projected that only 10% of children would be affected with hardly discernible fluorosis (white flecked teeth). But fluorosis now afflicts 41% of adolescents – 3.6% is severe (yellow or brown stains). Further, government health authorities knew since 1962 that black Americans suffered double the fluorosis risks than others; but still fail to alert the Black community.

  

In April 2015, the US Department of Health and Human Services admitted it has been overdosing Americans with fluoride and instructed water companies to lower levels to 0.7 mg/L.  HHS says in ten years, they'll check again to see if they got it "right" this time.

Congress needs to investigate the CDC’s oral health division to find out whose interests they are really serving because it isn’t the American public.

Fluoridation is the Biggest Public Health Blunder of All Time

Public health actions achieved positive health outcomes -  but fluoridation is not one of them.

We've now learned that in the 1970's the sugar industry conspired with government officials at the National Institutes of Dental Research to take the heat off of sugar as a proven cavity-causer. Using tobacco industry tactics, "Big Sugar" convinced federal government dentists to look elsewhere for solutions such as unproven fluoride remedies.

So it's no surprise that, after 70 years of fluoridation, tooth decay is at crisis proportions. And sugar is finally being blamed. 

For example: Despite being over 90% fluoridated, 2/3 of people in West Virginia and Tennessee are missing teeth. The admitted culprit - sugar.

In 1945, fluoridation was expected to put dentists out of business. But instead of spreading less tooth decay across the land and "putting dentists out of business," fluoridation spread dental fluorosis (fluoride-discolored teeth) into every nook and cranny of America providing more cosmetic dentistry income.  

Even though the CDC reports up to 60% of adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis, 51% of them have cavities.

Opposite to predictions, since fluoridation began in 1945:

1) Tooth decay crises occur in all fluoridated cities. See http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com

2) New dental professionals were created, e.g. dental therapists.

3) New dental schools opened.

4) Dental expenditures went up substantially, higher than the inflation rate, according to the GAO..

5) Poor children’s cavities are more prevalent, severe, occur earlier and more likely to be untreated.

6) Despite dental spending growth, 42% percent of adults and 4 million children with dental problems could not afford dental care, according to the GAO

7) More states had the need to hire Dental Directors

8) Since the Surgeon General announced a silent epidemic of tooth decay in 2000, scores of government, dental and oral health groups formed having countless meetings, symposiums, webinars and conventions including  one focused on the growing tooth decay rates in toddlers because 1/3 of 3-year-olds now have cavities.

9) Because the CDC's oral health group can't prove fluoridation is safe for everyone, the CDC hired public relations firms to spin data to make fluoridation more attractive than science and government reports show it is

         10) 52% of new recruits have oral health problems needing
         urgent attention that would delay overseas deployment

     11) dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.

     12) The National Center for Health Workforce Analysis projects            the national demand for dentists is projected to grow by                 20,400 - a10% increase.

       13) One hundred and one patients died in hospitals from the                consequences of untreated tooth decay, according  to                      the Journal of the American Dental Association.                             Four million dental hospital emergency department visits                 were made in the US from 2008 through 2010 costing $2.7            billion.

         14) The United States spends more than  $111 billion on dental
               care every year, according to legislation created by Vermont
               Senator Bernie Sanders, et al. Sanders says that  "504,000   
               children age 5 to 17 missed at least one day of school due to 
               a toothache or other oral health problem in California alone. Sanders
         said in 2012, "The United States is in the midst of a major dental 
         crisis." 

      15) In December 2015, Health Affairs. reported that U.S. dental spending          increased to $113B in 2014, a 2.8% increase from 2013 and
       that expenditures on dental care are expected to continue to increase.

                                                        END IT

  

Fluoridation: Illegal, Unethical and Must End, says Legal Scholar

Fluoridation violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects research protocols, argues Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, in the William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review  (Volume 39 | Issue 1).

Using case law, legal opinions and scientific reports, Barnett-Rose argues that fluoridation schemes allow public health officials to experiment on humans without their informed consent.

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, although touted as a safe and effective method to reduce tooth decay, surprisingly have never been thoroughly studied for many critical adverse and long-term health effects. 

Government agencies hoping to fill the knowledge-void recommend that research finally be done, specifically to brain, bone, kidneys, endocrine system, bladder cancer, genotoxicity, and more (NRC 2006). In effect, they are using the entire human population as unwitting guinea pigs in their failing but ongoing fluoridation experiment.

Fluoridation will certainly go down in history as the biggest public health blunder of all time.  The US government just isn’t willing to bury it, yet – probably for political reasons.

Even President Obama’s science czar was unkind to fluoridation when he wrote in 1977 “The scientific evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of mass fluoridation at the generally recommended level of 1 milligram per liter of water (1 ppm) is not as good as it ought to be…”

Barnett-Rose writes, “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive. Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that

the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment. As such, this experiment should be subject to informed consent

for each human subject affected.”

She adds, "It is no longer acceptable for public health officials to simply dismiss the accruing negative data and to continue to insist that the levels of fluoride children and adults are receiving on a daily basis are without any serious health consequences.”

‘Unfortunately, rather than considering new data objectively, public health officials and dental lobbies spearheading fluoridation schemes often ignore, reject, or suppress the evidence that does not toe the profluoride party line,” she writes.

 After scientists disproved the 1945 theory assuming ingested fluoride was essential for healthy teeth, fluoridation promoters newly speculate, without evidence, that fluoridation benefits low-income children who have the most decay and least access to dental care – a problem that persists today despite 7 decades of fluoridation. In fact, dental socioeconomic disparities have increased.

Barnett-Rose writes: “Fluoridation proponents have historically characterized those opposing or questioning fluoridation as “irrational, fanatical, unscientific and fraudulent,” regardless of the legitimate scientific credentials of those

opposing fluoridation. However, mounting scientific evidence against fluoridation has begun to persuade an increasing number of scientific researchers and dental and medical professionals, and even some formerly

avid fluoride proponents.”

“The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens," she writes.

CDC misleads legislators about fluoride's kidney effects. Is it a Cover-up?

Emails released through freedom-of-information  requests reveal that at least two members of the US Center for Disease Control's Oral Health Division have private worries about fluoride's risks to kidney patients but publicly deny any concern.

Artificial fluoridation began in 1945, aimed at teeth, without considering how unnatural fluoride chemicals could affect other body functions or population subsets, such as kidney patients.

CDC says, “The safety and effectiveness of fluoride at levels used in community water fluoridation has been thoroughly documented…”

But,  William Maas, (former CDC Oral Health Division Director) admits “There is a lot of uncertainty,” regarding fluoride’s effects to kidney patients in a May 2011 email to ADA Director of Congressional Affairs, Judith Sherman, (a registered ADA lobbyist).

Cc’d is William Bailey, then acting Director of CDC’s Oral Health Division, who responds: “End stage renal disease may be another issue. Since the body excretes fluoride through the kidneys, it is reasonable to assume that people with end stage [renal] disease may experience a buildup of fluoride.”

Bailey also mislead  the Fairbanks, Alaska,city council in 2008 claiming studies he listed proved fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness when they didn't.

Now working with the PEW-funded Campaign for Dental Health, formed to protect and promote fluoridation, Bailey told the Loveland (Colorado) Utility Commission on November 19, 2014: “I believe that fluoridation is a healthy practice...It is not associated with any negative health effects,” according a Loveland newspaper.

In 2012, the National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) report indicating that kidney patients are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects.

The NRC reports that the kidney-impaired retain more fluoride and risk skeletal fluorosis (an arthritic-type bone disease), fractures and severe enamel fluorosis, which may increase the risk of dental decay. More specifically:

“Human kidneys… concentrate fluoride as much as 50-fold from plasma to urine. Portions of the renal system may therefore be at higher risk of fluoride toxicity than most soft tissues.” p.280

“Early water fluoridation studies did not carefully assess changes in renal function.” p.280

“future studies should be directed toward determining whether kidney stone formation is the most sensitive end point on which to base the MCLG [EPA’s maximum contaminant level goal allowed in water].” p.281

“The effect of low doses of fluoride on kidney and liver enzyme functions in humans needs to be carefully documented in communities exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water.” p.303

“Thus, more studies are needed on fluoride concentrations in soft tissues (e.g., brain, thyroid, kidney) following chronic exposure.” p.102

In 1980, a toxicologist, Brian Dementi, with the Virginia Department of Health wrote in his ignored report, “where the kidney is concerned persons with impaired kidney function may suffer from acute fluoride toxicity when consuming water containing as little as 2 ppm fluoride.”

Dementi writes, "In discussing the effects of fluoride upon the kidney, it seems appropriate at this point to indicate that whereas the kidney fulfills the important task of removing toxic substances, such as fluoride, from the system.  There is the consequent danger of fluoride intoxication in those individuals with impaired renal function who ingest fluoride...It is evident that fluoridated water poses an enhanced threat to those among the populace who have impaired kidney function."

In 1990, the New York State Department of Health published a study, “Fluoride: Benefits and Risks of Exposure,” alerting officials that fluoride can be harmful to kidney patients, diabetics and those with fluoride hypersensitivity even at “optimal” levels. More study was advised; but ignored. Without this vital information, government bureaucrats continue to claim fluoridation is safe.

The National Kidney Foundation’s (NKF) former fluoridation position statement also carried surprising cautions. The NKF advised
monitoring children’s fluoride intake along with patients with chronic kidney impairment, those with excessive fluoride intake, and those
with prolonged disease. But NKF now admits, “exposure from food and beverages is difficult to monitor, since FDA food labels do not
quantify fluoride content.” The USDA lists fluoride content of common foods here.

The NKF’s April 15, 2008 statement goes further: “Individuals with CKD [Chronic Kidney Disease] should be notified of the potential risk  of fluoride exposure.”

“More than 20 million Americans have CKD, and most don’t even know it. More than 20 million others are at increased risk for developing CKD,” NKF reports.

The American Dental Association, in its Fluoridation Facts Booklet,reports that “decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis.”

According to Schiffi in the Journal Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, “a fairly substantial body of research indicates that patients with chronic renal insufficiency are at an increased risk of chronic fluoride toxicity.”

Ibarra-Santana, et al. report “patients with renal disease presented more severe dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth] than children without renal disease, in the Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Bansal, et al. in Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation reports: “Individuals with kidney disease have decreased ability to excrete fluoride in urine and are at risk of developing fluorosis even at normal recommended limit of 0.7 to 1.2mg/l of fluoride in drinking water.”

Ng, et al, report in the journal, Bone, their research suggest that “in ROD [renal osteodystrophy], bone fluoride may diminish bone microhardness by interfering with mineralization.”

Researchers report “that drinking water fluoride levels over 2.0 mg/L can cause damage to liver and kidney functions in children and that the dental fluorosis was independent of damage to the liver but not the kidney, published in Environmental Research.

According to a 1975 editorial in Kidney International, “Trace doses of fluoride leave the blood within minutes, concentrating principally In

bone and kidney...”

More fluoride/kidney information here  and here

CDC Official Lied About Fluoridation Safety

A CDC fluoridation spokesperson, dentist William Bailey, told the Fairbanks, Alaska, City Council in 2008 that the CDC doesn't do original fluoride/fluoridation safety research. Instead the CDC relies on many reviews and reports from the US and other countries. Some of the studies Bailey cited actually do not support fluoridation's safety and/or efficacy as he professed: Transcript:  https://web.archive.org/web/20080531015347/http://fluoridealert.org/bailey1.html

Legislators rely on government officials and rarely fact-check their testimony. But we did.

Here’s the truth about  reports Bailey served up  (some still listed on the CDC's website under fluoridation safety):

National Research Council (2006)

This isn’t a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis. It found EPA’s current fluoride maximum-contaminant-level-goal (MCLG) for drinking water is not protective of health and must be lowered. EPA has yet to act upon this recommendation. Several members of the NRC panel believe fluoride's MCLG should be as close to zero as possible. (1)

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (2003)

This report says "… subsets of the population may be unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride and its compounds…the elderly, people with osteoporosis, people with deficiencies of calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, and/or protein." (2)

University of York, UK (2000)

About this report, the Centre for Review and Dissemination writes “We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.”(3)

Lewis and Banting, Canada (1994)

“The effectiveness of water fluoridation alone cannot now be determined,” they write.(4)

New York State Department of Health (1990)

Researchers report that  fluoride can be harmful to kidney patients, diabetics and those with fluoride hypersensitivity even at “optimal” levels..

The authors concluded, “…it is currently impossible to draw firm conclusions regarding the independent effect of fluoride in drinking water on caries prevalence using an ecologic study design.”(5)

World Health Organization (2006)

This report, not about fluoridation, documents high levels of natural fluoride causing human bone and teeth malformation in many countries.(6)

Medical Research Council, UK (2002)

This report, not a fluoridation risk/benefit analysis, identifies fluoridation health uncertainties such as total exposure and bone effects.(7)

Institute of Medicine (1999)

Since fluoride is not a nutrient, this report set the adequate intake from all sources to avoid children’s moderate dental fluorosis (discolored teeth) and, also, the upper limit to avoid crippling bone damage -- which the IOM admits “is too high for persons with certain illnesses…”(8)

References:

1) Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards," Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council, Executive Summary, 2006http://www.nap.edu/nap-cgi/report.cgi?record_id=11571&type=pdfxsum

2) US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluordie, and Fluorine, (2003) http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp11.pdf

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

4) Lewis DW, Banting DW. Water fluoridation: current effectiveness and dental fluorosis. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:153–158 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8070242?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

5) Kaminsky LS, Mahoney MC, Leach J, Melius J, Miller MJ. Fluoride: benefits and risks of exposure. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 1990;1:261–281 http://cro.sagepub.com/content/1/4/261.full.pdf+html

6) World Health Organization, "New WHO report tackles fluoride in drinking-water," November 2006   http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/new/2006/nw04/en/

7). Medical Research Council. Medical Research Council Working Group Report: Water Fluoridation and Health. September 2002. http://www.mrc.ac.uk/news-events/publications/water-fluoridation-and-health/

8) Institute of Medicine, Food and Nutrition Board. Fluoride: Background Information. Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium, Phosphorus, Magnesium, Vitamin D and Fluoride. Report of the Standing Committee on the Scientific Evaluation of Dietary Reference Intakes. Washington, DC http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309063507

Deception at Gov't Pro-Fluoridation Rallies

This letter was written in 2005, after I attended an expensive PR event to promote fluoridation hosted by the Centers for Disease Control and the American Dental Association at the ADA's Chicago headquarters. I don’t remember if I received a reply from now-retired dentist William Bailey who was the CDC’s primary fluoridation promoter.

William Bailey, DDS, MPH
Department of Oral Health
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Atlanta, Georgia

Hi Bill

It was a pleasure speaking with you at the fluoridation symposium
even if you are on the wrong side of the issue. It's so rare that I
meet a fluoridation proponent who is as courteous as you were to me.
And I thank you for that. However, what I heard at that symposium is
disturbing.

A thread running through the delivered speeches is that you all seem
to believe that folks opposed to fluoridation disseminate
misinformation. No fluoridation opponents were speaking before this
assembled crowd. Yet lots of misinformation and improper behavior
was flowing, for example:

1) Dr. Lynn Mouden's presentation about the Arkansas fluoridation
battle maligned one of my new friends, and Mouden's fellow
Arkansasan, who was outside picketing. He also insulted Arkansas
legislators and falsely reported that State Senator Jack Critcher
voted down the fluoridation mandate bill. An Arkansas
newspaper, "The Lovely Citizen," reported Mouden's words and then
Critcher's correction of Mouden's un-truths (See:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/news/2352.html). I suggest this article
be disseminated to all Symposium attendees as a "what not to do" and
hope they don't repeat Mouden's misstatements and further malign or
embarrass Arkansas residents, legislators or themselves.

2) Several speakers dismissed Dr. Dean Burk and Dr. John
Yiamouyiannis' cancer study because it wasn't adjusted for important
variables, they said. This often-repeated criticism is false.
Burk/Yiamouyiannis did make adjustments. When fluoridation
proponents are put on the witness stand in courts of law, they are
unable to scientifically invalidate the Burk/Yiamouyiannis study.

For example, Pennsylvania Judge Flaherty presided over a case which
focused on the validity of the Burk-Yiamouyiannis study. Over the
course of five months, the court held periodic hearings which
consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England.
Flaherty found "[p]oint by point, every criticism made of the Burk-
Yiamouyiannis study was met and explained by the plaintiffs. Often,
the point was turned around against defendants. In short, this court
was compellingly convinced of the evidence in favor of plaintiffs
[fluoridation opponents]."

Then fluoridationists further misinformed legislators, others and me
by reporting that Flaherty's case was "thrown out of court for lack
of evidence." So I wrote to Flaherty in 1996. This is what he
said: "My decision regarding the fluoridation of the public water
supply, made during my tenure as a trial judge almost twenty years
ago, was on appeal, purely a jurisdictional issue...That the
practice is deleterious is more and more accepted -- its utility
doubted."

3) Another speaker, Dr. George Stookey, reported that after 15 years
of water fluoridation which began in 1945, Grand Rapids had about a
50% less tooth decay rate than Muskegon, the non-fluoridated control
city. He stressed that no other fluoride was around back then.
However, Muskegon started fluoridation in 1951. So, in effect,
Stookey's comparison was made between two fluoridated cities, which
actually indicates something other than fluoridation was protecting
the teeth of Grand Rapids' children.

4) I was shocked when Missouri's Ashley Micklethwaite expressed fear
of anti-fluoridationists in her talk. She advised attendees to get
unlisted phone numbers to avoid us. It seems fluoridationists have
been so good at creating a negative image of Americans who fight for
pure water that they believe their own PR.

When my and my daughter's picture appeared in a Long Island
newspaper in the early 1980's as opposed to fluoridation, I got very
alarming phone calls directed to my then 5-year-old. I never assumed
these troubling calls were from dentists or fluoridationists.
However, Dentists don't have a monopoly on sanity. Google searches
reveal dentists who murder, rape, commit Medicaid fraud and more. We
don't judge a whole barrel by a few bad apples. So I'm surprised
your speaker expressed such a fear of us.

If only you had allowed chemistry professor Paul Connet, PhD,
Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network to speak as he and
I requested, Ms Micklethwaite would have seen her fear was
misguided. Also, maybe Dr. Connett could have corrected your
speakers' blunders before they permeate throughout the country and
those 7 foreign countries which were represented at the symposium.

Not there to defend himself, one of your speakers took a cheap shot
at Dr. Connett. Florida dentist Robert Crawford said, "The fellow
that was out here in the book covers when you went to the
celebration of fluoridation out in the tent the other day [Paul
Connett] . They flew him in to debate us. Can you imagine what you
feel like standing up here and debating somebody standing between
two book covers." This brought laughter from the audience who,
apparently, are quite comfortable denigrating opponents of
fluoridation.

Crawford bragged about his successful Pinellas County fluoridation
strategy. He made this outrageous statement, "We identified county
officials who were anti-fluoride and we had no further contact with
them. And we cut them off, totally." In effect, Crawford cut off
anyone who doubted fluoridation; hardly a noble thing to do. Is he
protecting people or fluoridation? Would his malpractice insurance
cover him should he use the same tactics with a patient who
questions him? I found him quite disturbing.

5) A symposium attendee, during a question and answer period,
brought up misinformation disseminated on the National Institutes of
Dental Research's (NIDCR) website, where a "history of fluoridation"
said H. Trendley Dean did not find fluorosis at "optimal" levels of
fluoride in drinking water. This person called and spoke to the
writer at NIDCR who then researched his objection and agreed it
should be re-written. However, she said it was a low priority for
her and she would get around to it someday. Since the symposium and
his public revelation of this error, it has been corrected, however,
but not before the incorrect information from this "reliable
source," the NIDCR, was repeated in On Tap magazine and elsewhere.

I and others opposed to fluoridation are routinely personally
denigrated by dentists and/or fluoridation proponents in person, in
writing and on the internet, including from members of the public-
dental-health listserv (my taxes at work?). I was called a baby-
killer to my face by a dentist. Many exceedingly derogatory and ugly
comments have been and are directed towards me on the internet where
some dentists actually sign their real names and addresses, their
criticism so apparently accepted within the profession. Dentists
opposed to fluoridation are routinely tongue lashed by their
colleagues on internet mail lists and message boards.

I can only wonder what's been going on in private fluoridation
meetings and at taxpayer subsidized dental schools over the years to
provoke such hatred towards us.

This may be why California Dentist David Nelson felt so comfortable
laughing at us on Wednesday July 13, 2005, while I snapped his
picture. Nelson mockingly told me he was Kip Duchon, a federal
employee. This, by the way, is a federal crime which I reported to
his superiors, who probably will do nothing about it.

I was also offended when Dr. Nelson and two female colleagues
chuckled when the Missouri presenter made a reference to San Jose
woman writing and sending information to Missouri legislators. I
felt like I was back in Junior High School. It scares me that these
people are guardians of my health.

Fluoridation proponents have created an American myth that fluoride
is absolutely safe. The average person is afraid to overdose on the
water-soluble, relatively harmless vitamin C. But very few Americans
similarly fear fluoride. That's very odd. Since just a teaspoon of
fluoride could and has killed. That may not be your intention; but
that's certainly the reality.

As you know, very few grants are available to study ill health
effects of fluoride. And studies declaring fluoridation's benefits
are out-dated and scientifically flawed by today's standards,
according to the National Institutes of Health and the UK's York
Commission.

I hope in the future you will invite Dr. Paul Connett, Dr. William
Hirzy, Dr. David Kennedy or another equally qualified fluoridation
opponent to speak before any fluoridation meeting, symposium or
gathering. You are doing no one a service by disallowing our
participation in tax-payer funded fluoridation programs.

If your goal is to protect the health of Americans, you'll invite
one of our speakers. If your goal is just to win, you will not. If
our science is so misrepresented as fluoridationists tell
legislators in private, you'll be able to show us where we are wrong
in public.

The internet is often maligned as providing misinformation to
fluoridation truth seekers. But the truth was definitely not on
display at this government sponsored event. I fear New York State
Department of Health employees, present at this symposium, will come
back armed with misinformation, and use it to fluoridate more New
Yorkers against their will and without their full knowledge of harm,
further wasting my taxes.

However, I did enjoy our pleasant conversation about New York State.
Someday I'd like to have a pleasant conversation with you about
fluoridation.

I look forward to your response.

Yours truly,

Carol Kopf

Copy to:

Willliam Maas, DDS director of CDC's oral health program

U.S.Senator Charles Schumer
U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton
U.S. Representative Peter King
NYS Senator Kemp Hannon
NYS Senator Owen Johnson

Mayor Heartwell Grand Rapids, Michigan

Dr. George Stookey

Dr. Lynn Mouden, director of the Arkansas Health Department's Office
of Oral Health

Dr Julie Louise Gerberding, Director,Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention

Dr. Elmer Green, Director,Bureau of Dental Health, NYS Dep't of
Health

Dr. Jayanth Kumar, Director, Oral Health Surveillance and Research,
Bureau of Dental Health, NYS Department of Health