Fluoridation Uncertainty Existed From the Start & Persists Today

Adding fluoride chemicals into public water supplies, to reduce children's tooth decay, was met with uncertainty by respected medical professionals from the outset, including a very well respected physician, Dr. George Waldbott. Although denied by today's fluoridationists, scientific safety and efficacy uncertainties persist today.  The following was published in 1965 by Dr. Waldbott, but it could just as easily explain the politics of  and lack of science supporting the safety and efficacy of fluoridation today.

 A Struggle With Titans, (1965) By Dr. George Waldbott, Chapter 3 "A Fateful Decision" 

     There were two logical approaches for me to gather preliminary information: To contact the American Medical Association and to ask the local Health Department for all available data. I had reason to believe that I would obtain objective advice from both sources.  The Detroit Health Commissioner, Dr. Joseph G. Molner, as well as his two predecessors, Dr. Bruce Douglas and Dr. Fred Meader, had consulted me frequently on matters pertaining to allergy.  I was certain of his full cooperation.

In a dinner discussion on fluoridation at our home, Dr. Molner assured me that his statisticians had been checking all data carefully. they had found nothing wrong with them. Fluoridation was effective and safe, he stated. He admitted, however, that the Public Health Service and termed the project a "calculated risk."

He was surprised at some of the facts which my wife had dug up. They evidently had not reached Dr. Molner's desk. My wife referred to the article by James Rorty in the Freeman, 1953, which reported the Hearings in Washington, D.C. of the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food and Cosmetics, January to March, 1952, under the chairmanship of James J. Delaney.

The Committee included two physicians, Dr. A. LO. Miller, former Nebraska State Health Commissioner, and Dr. E. H. Hedrick of West Virginia. Its counsel was Vincent Kleinfeld, one of the ablest and most experienced food and drug attorneys in Washington.

After all testimony had been heard, the Committee which had split wide open on all its other reports dealing with fertilizers, and cosmetics, was unanimous in its position regarding fluoridation. It recommended a "go-slow" policy.  It pointed to a sufficient number of unanswered questions concerning fluoridation's safety to warrant a conservative attitude. Yet, instead of heeding this advice, the Rorty article stated, both The Public Health Service and the American Dental Association redoubled their drive for fluoridation.

The principal feature which had characterized the promotional campaign up to this date was elucidated in the Rorty article: Promoters attempted to minimize the caliber and the competency of the opposition.

J. Roy Doty, an official of the American Dental Association, complained bitterly in their Journal that the Committee had accepted "misgivings of a few individuals who appeared as witnesses in spite of the weight of evidence furnished by such organizations as the American Dental Association, the AMA, the USPHS, The National Research Council and the Association of State and Territorial Health Officers."

Mr. Rorty continued:

The "few individuals" referred to by Dr. Doty numbered seven scientists who "breadth of training and experience as toxicologists, clinicians, biochemists, nutritionists and research dentists qualified them thoroughly to appraise the issues involved."

"In contrast, most of the eleven witnesses who testified for fluoridation were qualified to talk solely about teeth; they were neither toxicologists nor doctors of medicine."

Dr. Molner told us of his own investigation. At his request, a committee of dentists, Wayne University professors, technicians and engineers had studied the question in 1950. This committee's report came to my attention several years later when it was resurrected from the files of Detroit's Municipal Library.  The following are pertinent passages quoted from the Report of the Medical Committee:

"1. Soluble fluoride is an extremely poisonous substance, even more so than arsenic, and its addition to the water supply of a large metropolitan area cannot be undertaken without creating certain possible hazards to the public health. With this in mind, your Committee wishes to present these points:

"A. The intake of city water by this age group (children) is highly uncertain because of the established high consumption of milk and fruit juices.
"B. Certain adults have an abnormally high water intake due to occupation, disease and dietary peculiarities. The fluoride intake of this group might become dangerously high.

"C. Certain occupational groups of substantial size in this metropolitan area are already exposed to fluorides. The effect of an additional fluoride intake on the health of these adult groups in unknown.

"D. The effect of prolonged fluoride ingestion on the health of a large industrial population is not clearly established.  It will be necessary to extend studies over a period of at least ten to twenty years to determine the possibility of delayed injurious effects.

"2.  In view of the above uncertainties this Committee believes that it is undesirable to undertake the fluoridation of the water supply of metropolitan Detroit."

The Committee recommended the consideration of topical application of fluoride to teeth and exploration of the possibility of adding it to milk.

Dr. Molner expressed some concern about whether or not an even flow of fluoride could be maintained throughout Detroit's water system,.  Indeed evidence published subsequently in the Journal of the American Waterworks Association in Oct., 1957, pages 1268-70 and the American Journal of Public Health, Dec., 1958, testifies to the validity of his doubts.

Many years later, on June 11, 1962, Mr. Gerald J. Remus, Detroit's Water Board Manager, who had made an unusually thorough study on this question, wrote as follows to the Detroit Common Council:

..."Doubt exists as to whether uniform fluoride concentration could be maintained throughout the more than 6,000 miles of distribution mains in the Detroit system. Data reported in the American Water Works Association Journal reflects this un-uniformity...we checked 482 samples of water taken from either Michigan cities that fluoridate their supply and we found considerable variation in concentrations."

Our discussion demonstrated that Dr. Molner still favored fluoridation subject to the same provisos which had been established by the Health Department May 3, 1951, namely:

"1. The Health Department now recognizes the public health value of the fluoridation of water.
2. There are very definite risks associated with the introduction of fluoride into a communal water supply from the point of view of workers. Therefore, certain protective measures must be adopted.
3. Baseline studies must be established. At least 5,000 children should be examined annually to determine the amount of good accomplished.
4. Laboratory controls must be continuously run on the water at source and point of usage.
5. Neighboring non-fluoridated communities with similar sources of raw water supply and geographical location should be used as controls.
6. Fluoridation of water must not be looked upon as a complete and only answer for the prevention of dental caries; it is not a panacea, but rather one factor involved in the prevention of dental caries"

Our discussion had been constructive. Dr. Molner assured me that he would furnish me with whatever material he deemed convincing and worth-while. I offered him the same courtesy. I made it clear that I was considering a more thorough study of this matter.  As an allergist, I was concerned about the long term effect of fluoridation on allergic patients.

Our second approach was to consult the AMA.  Mrs. Waldbott had an unusual entree into AMA's professional staff. It was brought about by a rather fortunate coincidence:

An article appeared in the Alumnae Magazine of Vassar College, her alma mater, by two members of President Truman's Committee for the Nation's Health. It presented the case in favor of socialized medicine. In a letter to the magazine's editor published shortly thereafter, Oct., 1949, page 18, Mrs. Waldbott presented her own appraisal of the subject.

The daughter of a Mr. T. A. Hendricks of the AMA's education staff, at the time a Vassar student, brought Mrs. Waldbott's letter to her father's attention. He immediately wrote Mrs. Waldbott that he considered her letter the "best one page round-up on a subject which had been much misunderstood and misrepresented that had ever reached my desk".  He asked for her permission to reproduce the letter for nation-wide distribution among physicians. She gladly complied with his request.

With this entree into the AMA, Mrs. Waldbott thought she would easily obtain the full cooperation of its staff. She was mistaken. Mr. Hendricks suddenly acted as though he had never heard of her. He transferred her request for information like a hot potato to a "Dr. B"  Dr. B's reply did not furnish the information which Mrs. Waldbott had requested. She  therefore asked for additional information.

In his reply, Dr. B seemed to be quite impatient: "Of course it is simply silly," he wrote, "to talk about any difference between 'natural' and 'artificial' fluoridation of drinking waters. The fluorides are exactly the same, and have exactly the same effect."

This statement is misleading. Of course, the fluoride ion is always the same; its poisonous action, however, is influenced by other minerals associated with it.

Whereas my wife had  previous been considered by one AMA official intelligent enough to write an excellent expose of the shortcomings of socialized medicine, her carefully expressed and logical reasoning on the subject of fluoridation was tossed aside as "silly."

In a letter to the AMA office, I firmly protested this rebuff to my wife.  I did not realize at that time that such high handed treatment was an integral part of the promotional campaign, which did not originate in the AMA office or with Dr. B.

It came to the fore in an editorial written subsequently by the AMA's Secretary and General Manager, Dr. G. F. Lull, June 1955, when he used such phrases as:

"The unscrupulous opponents of fluoridation."
"...those who take every opportunity to discredit medical science and legitimate public health progress."

Dr. Lull's editorial has been widely utilized for propaganda purposes wherever fluoridation has become an issue.

My correspondence with the AMA secretary disclosed how little the AMA officials and the membership of the organization actually knew about the subject. On nearly every question concerning the purely medical aspect of fluoridation, Dr. Lull, the AMA secretary, had to refer us to none other than - the American Dental Association (as though dentists were better qualified to evaluate harm to general health than he and the scientific body of the AMA)

This impression was confirmed in a letter to me by Dr. Elmer Hess, who was president of the AMA in 1955. He wrote on August 9:

"I think most of us in the American Medical Association feel that we have to depend upon the American Dental Association and the United States Public Health Service primarily for scientific facts concerning a situation of this kind and I am unable to express an opinion as to whether it is safe or not safe."

Our correspondence had brought into focus how sorely the medical profession was in need of truly scientific information on the systemic effect of fluoride.

It did much more to me. It made me more and more curious. It stimulated an intense interest in this subject.

I decided to write a scientific article for the American Medical Association. I began to spend all my spare time in the library studying the available data. My efforts would furnish factual evidence which could be made available to physicians. AMA officials would then no longer be obliged to resort to opinions and views of dentists and health officials. Surely, once the basic facts concerning fluoridation were recorded in the literature by one of their own members, they would look into the subject more thoroughly before continuing their endorsement.

Dr. Molner's offer to furnish me information soon materialized. I received a Newsletter stating the position of the Commission on Chronic Illness regarding fluoridation. This Commission was an independent national agency founded by the American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association and the American Public Welfare Association, for the purpose of studying problems of chronic disease, illness and disability. The newsletter approving fluoridation had been sent to every prominent health official throughout the land.

The commission's members were professional and lay persons guided by PHS officials. They included such notables as Miss Sarah Gibson Blanding, President of Vassar College; Leroy E. Burney, MD, future surgeon general of the PHS; Theodore G. Klumpp, MD, president of a drug company; The Most Reve. Wm T. Mulloy: Thomas Parran, MD, a former surgeon general; Walter Reuther, representing labor; and other civic leaders.

The pamphlet was written by a Committee of three scientists: Dr. Nathan Shock, Chief of the Section on Gerontology of the National Institutes of Health, a branch of the USPHS; Dr. KF Maxcy, Prof. of  Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore; and a noted gerontologist (specialist in disease of old age), E J. Stieglitz, MD

The composition of this committee of scientists is worthy of note.  In all subsequent investigations of fluoridation initiated for the purpose of obtaining endorsements, whether from professional or from lay organizations, whether on the national, state or local level, so-called "study committees" have been formed. they are guided by one or more outstanding scientists who are thoroughly familiar with statistical surveys furnished by the USPHS and the ADA.  The less informed Committee members thus receive all their information from promoting agencies. Rarely if ever are scientists with knowledge unfavorable to fluoridation represented on the committee.

The principal feature of the Chronic Illness Report was its acknowledgment that the Commission had carried out no independent investigation. The three Committee members charged with studying the subject had adopted the opinion of another committee, namely the Ad Hoc Committee of the National Research Council.

This council, set up by the National Academy of Sciences, consists of top leaders in science in their special fields. It acts as liaison between the Public Health Service and industry.  It was organized in 1916 with the cooperation of major scientific and technical societies to enable the scientists of the country to associate their efforts with those of the Academy in service to science and to the group.

As customary, this body likewise appointed a special "Ad Hoc Committee for...the Study of Fluoridation.

The nine-member Committee was guided by three scientists two of whom were closely connected with industry, namely Dr. B. G. Bibby, Director, Eastman Dental Dispensary, who had been carrying out research for the Sugar Research Foundation, Inc.; Dr. FF Heyroth, Cincinnati's Health Commissioner, and Assistant Director, Kettering Laboratory, University of Cincinnati, an institute sponsored and supported by industry where research on fluoride has been financed by Alcoa and either other corporations; Dr. HT Dean, the "father of fluoridation," who has personally been responsible for obtaining endorsements in at least a dozen national and international organizations. The only physician member of the Committee, Prof. A. McGehee Harvey of Johns Hopkins Medical School, had never carried out research on fluoride. He therefore had to rely on his dental and PHS advisors for background material.

With such a set up valid scientific evidence unfavorable to fluoridation was bound to be disregarded or presented to the group with adverse comments. Any "neutral" member of the Committee could not have become aware of the true facts without great personal effort.

The Committee based its deliberations according to their Final Report on the evidence of some 30 authors, whose names read like a "who's who" in fluoridation promotion. The only two not linked with a promoting agency were the late Danish scientist, Roholm and Dr. PC Hodges and co-workers.

Significantly, the National Research Council's Committee was chaired by Dr. Kenneth F. Jaxcy, who later became one of the three members of the Study Committee for the Commission on Chronic Illness. Such interlocking of the commission on Chronic Illness. Such interlocking of board and committee members of scientific organizations explains how endorsements are brought about through the influence of a few top scientists. They do not reflect the position of the members whose views have not been canvassed and who in most instances have given the matter little if any consideration.

The most frequently quoted and most impressive endorsements of fluoridation are those of the National Research Council and of the commission on Chronic Illness. Both represent the same group of scientists.

One item in the National Research Council Committee's Nov. 29, 1951, report deserves special mention.  It contains the following information: "Concurrently (with the decline of tooth decay in Grand Rapids) there has been a slight decline in the caries rate reported by Muskegon with its fluoride free water supply, 22 per cent in the six-year-olds and 28 per cent in the seven-year-olds. This is unexplained."

Studies on the decay rates in Muskegon had been made simultaneously with those  in Grand Rapids, the experiment ally fluoridation town. In the 6 and 7 year age groups of the nonfluoridated "control" city a simultaneous reduction in tooth decay occurred. This observation suggests that some factor other than fluoride added to Grand Rapids' drinking water may have been responsible for improving the condition of children's teeth.

Had this observation become generally known, it would have been embarrassing to the health officials conducting the Grand Rapids-Muskegon experiment. Thus upon become aware of this development they initiated in 1951 a drive to add fluoride to Muskegon's water.

The precipitous abandonment of the control for the Grand Rapids fluoridation experiment was explained by health officials - as stated by Dr. Phillip Jay to the Michigan House of Representatives Committee Investigating Fluoridation Oct 7, 1963 - on the basis that Muskegon's children could no longer be deprived of the "great benefits" of fluoridation. Muskegon citizens' sole source of information concerning what was transpiring in Grand Rapids was the one-sided proponent releases.

Comparisons between Grand Rapids children's teeth and those of a non fluoridated control city were no longer possible. This tended to weaken the claimed benefits to children's teeth made for this major American fluoridation experiment.

It should be emphasized that the members of the Commission on Chronic Illness and of the National Research Council attempted to arrive at an objective appraisal of fluoridation but must have been unaware of the one-sided orientation of their committees. The subject is extremely involved. Valid research is difficult to access.  It is only  logical to consult those who have done most research. To separate the wheat from the chaff, to distinguish genuine research which sets out to find the answer to a question from research designed to "prove" a thesis determined in advance for sheer propaganda purposes is a laborious process indeed.

Let us return to the Report by the Commission on Chronic Illness: The three scientists who were charged with the investigation accepted several highly controversial theories as though they were proven facts. to name a few such claims:

- Fluoride is a trace element in human nutrition - necessary for sound teeth:  An essential trace element to be so designated must be proven to be required for existence of life. Although a board guided by Dr. FJ Stare, Harvard School of Public Health, and several other proponent scientists heavily endowed by industry, have listed fluoride among essential minerals, nowhere in the scientific literature has fluoride been proven necessary for maintaining human life. there is no difference in the fluoride content of sound and decayed teeth. In other words, decayed teeth are not "deficient in fluoride"  Fluoride is not needed for healthy teeth. 

Another claim made by the commission on Chronic Illness:

- Storage of fluoride in the skeleton is of no "functional disadvantage." this statement has also been subsequently disproven in humans. Serious crippling fluorosis has been reported in areas where natural fluoride water levels are less than 1 ppm.

the Report further claimed:

- "Minute" amounts of fluoride present in food and beverages, particularly in tea  - which contains 30 to 60 parts of fluoride per million parts of water - are of no significance Data are available which show that food alone can provide amounts of fluoride up to or far above the so-called safe daily amount of 1-1.5 mg.

- An extraordinary statement constituted a part of The Report. It implied that fluoridation must be harmless because more than 3 million people have been drinking water containing fluoride naturally for generations.

Of all problems encountered in medical science, the recognition of the cause of a chronic illness, especially of chronic poisoning, is one of the most difficult tasks, as demonstrated by our experience with smoking. Millions had been  smoking for many years before its ill effect was recognized. If physicians are not looking for harm from fluoride they cannot be expected to recognize  it.

Since the dental profession was the major promoter of fluoridation, I assumed that dentists were thoroughly familiar with every phase of the subject. I expected to obtain further information by addressing a circular letter to Detroit's dentists, which I did in May, 1054. I asked for expression of their views. This letter was based upon what I had thus far learned. Essentially it presented an answer to the Report by the Commission on Chronic Illness.

Unaware of the explosiveness of this hot political issue and inexperienced in public relations, I had made reference to Oscar Ewing. Shortly after becoming Director of Social Security in charge of the USPHS he had given the green light to fluoridation before the permanent teeth of children born in the pilot cities had erupted. At the Washington, DC hearing it was brought out that Oscar Ewing, Alcoa's former legal counsel in that city, as a member of President Truman's cabinet, had committed the PHS to promotion of fluoridation.

For the sake of good public relations one was not supposed to mention such things.

My letter stirred up a hornet's next. I received many replies; most of them critical, some abusive and unbecoming to members of a learned profession. A few reached a high emotional pitch, others were most illogical.

"Don't you know that dentistry's greatest experts, Dr. Phillip Jay of Ann Arbor, Dr. FA Arnold, Jr., Dr. John Knutson, consider fluoridation the greatest health measure of modern times?"

"Aren't people allergic to penicillin, too?  Would you abandon penicillin treatment?"  (As though anyone would ever have proposed adding penicillin to the water supply for everyone to consume daily for a lifetime!)

"You are an allergist and physician. How dare you offer an opinion on fluoridation - a purely dental subject?"

There were a few voices in the wilderness: Several dentists were interested in the information which I had furnished to them. they suspected that not all the had read in their journals and heard at their meetings was cricket. they sensed that something strange was going on in the promotion of fluoridation. They realized that ordinarily genuine advances in dentistry are handled quite differently. They asked, why are not both sides, the pros and cons discussed openly in dental journals and in dental meetings as is customary with new advances in dentistry? they were aware that every new measure in medicine or dentistry is bound to have some side effects. Some knew that fluoride was a treacherous poison. How had it suddenly become a "nutrient," they wondered.

Their uniform demand was, "Please don't quote me."

Subsequently, when several Detroit  physicians joined me in forming a group to study fluoridation a local dentist approached every one of them This group was short lived. Each ember in turn received his share of harassment and embarrassment. One of these men was the dean of Detroit's pathologists, the late, beloved Dr. Plinn Morse; another, Dr. Ralph Pino, who had taken an active part in the affairs of the Michigan State Medical Society and the AMA; a third, a greatly respected and highly reputed Detroit internist, the late Dr. William H. Gordon.

One internist, still practicing in Detroit , received a warning from a member of his hospital staff. Should he continue to publicity oppose fluoridation he would jeopardize his consultant practice, even his hospital staff appointment. He was profoundly, distressed.  Reluctantly he withdrew.  He had no other choice.

I learned subsequently that intimidation and harassment of opponent professional men by dentists and health officials is another major feature of fluoridation promotion. To quote the Journal of the American Dental Association of May, 1955, from a letter by the late journalist George Sokolsky:

"I find that as many of those whom I interviewed who are members of your association are opposed to the process as favor it. I also find that they live in terror of being quoted. They tell me that they may be brought up (before the ethics committee) on charges should I quote their names. I regard such intimidation of any citizen for whatever reason as un-American. I should like to see a Congressional Committee investigate this whole subject."

The Public Health Service has spent thousands of dollars for so-called "research" to "discover" what motivates fluoridation opponents. social scientists call opponents "unsound," "erratic" and "hard to comprehend."  Such views indicate that these scientists have not had access to the genuine case against fluoridation. They have based their opinions upon one-sided information given them by proponents.

Shortly after I had written the circular letter to dentists, representatives of the Detroit District Dental Society requested the Council of my medical society to censure me.To oppose fluoridation, they claimed, was unethical.  It should not go unpunished. Two members of the Council subsequently told me what went on during that meeting behind closed doors.

After a brief discussion, one of the Council members set the tone: If one of our members has knowledge on a subject about which we know very little and if he does not bring it to our attention - that would be reason for censuring him. The society promptly dropped the matter as did societies in Dayton, Ohio, and in Greenwich, Conn.

This experience had cooled my enthusiasm for the study of fluoride's action on the human organism. I was obliged to re-appraise my situation before going farther. I had to decide whether I should continue looking into the matter or simply drop the subject for good. Persistent open opposition to fluoridation was bound to affect my practice adversely.

Up to this time I was not aware of having ever made enemies. Most of my colleagues, I assumed, had considered me competent. they respected my contributions to the advancement of my own specialty. all of a sudden a large segment of Detroit dentistry, little acquainted with medical research, was questioning  my competence. Under such circumstances could I continue to practice medicine? True, I had hosts of satisfied and grateful patients. Numerous physicians were referring their allergic patients to me. Would these physicians be influenced by the wild stories which were already being circulated about me?

There was another side:

Should I drop this extremely challenging study? Should I disregard the very patients for whom I had taken up cudgel?

My friends told me: "It isn't worth while!"

I had just been elected vice-president of the american College of Allergists, one of the two leading national scientific organizations devoted to the study and teaching of allergy. this was solely due to having made important research contributions to this specialty.  I had never taken an active part politically in this or in any other organization. Nevertheless, I was in line for the presidency. Any activity in opposition to fluoridation wold almost certainly preempt my becoming president.

"Am I a coward?" I asked myself. "Can I be intimidated?"

Actually these considerations were minor. My curiosity had been aroused. I wanted to learn more about fluoride. I was interested in its effect on those to whom I had devoted my life's career, especially the patients with chronic asthma. Here was a completely virgin field of endeavor. I was thinking of some of the unfortunates who had been extremely allergic to iodide. How much worse wold their illness become were they obliged to ingest, day in and day out, trace quantities of fluoride, another halogen much more toxic than iodide?

Few scientists were in as strategic a position as I to produce the sorely needed evidence. My research background of many years, my financial independence and my indifference to political emoluments, the high repute in which I was held by my patients and by my colleagues in the community, throughout the country - and  internationally - surely they could withstand a campaign of disparagement and slander whic had already begun.  I could not stop now.

I decided to go on.

                                                   END

The above was copied from a hard copy of the book - forgive any typos. Chapter 1 is here: http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2016/12/fluoridation-struggle-with-titans-then.html
The book in its entirety can be seen here: http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/WaldbottStruggleWithTitans.pdf

Dr. Waldbott also co-authored "Fluoridation: The Great Dilemma"

Fluoridation: A Struggle With Titans - Then and Now

One of the first scientists to doubt and then oppose fluoridation had impeccable credentials and made amazing medical discoveries.  Yet, his fluoride expertise was disregarded.  George L. Waldbott, MD, wrote a book detailing how science and common sense was ignored  to promote and protect fluoridation (just as it is today.  Only the "titans" have changed.) This is Chapter 1: ("Why I Became Curious") in Waldbott's book A Struggle With Titans.

"What do you know about fluoridation?"
This was my wife's greeting late one afternoon in the spring, 1953, upon my return from a busy day in  my office.

"Fluoridation?" I question.  "Fluoridation? - I do know something about fluorine. It is a poisonous gas. Like chlorine it belongs to the halogen group, but-fluoridation? I confess that I am only vaguely familiar with the subject."

"I just read an article about it in a magazine called The Freeman," she replied. "It told the full story. The United States Public Health Service (USPHS) is adding fluoride to drinking water in a number of American cities. It is supposed to prevent tooth decay."

"Fluoride is a gas. Is it being added to drinking water?" I inquired. "Who wrote this article?"

"The author?  What was his name? Let me get it. His name is Rorty, James Rorty. No, it isn't the gas that is added to the water, it is fluorine salt, sodium fluoride."

"Fluoridation? The current US medical literature has only occasionally dealt with it. If sodium fluoride really prevents tooth decay this would certainly mean progress. It would reach every person in a community. But is it wise to add a chemical to water other than to purify it?" I asked.

"This is the very idea. The article objects to it. It says that fluoride salts are extremely poisonous. they are used to kill rodents." This remark aroused my attention, but I felt sure that in such small amounts it would not be harmful.

"Oh, I wouldn't be concerned. The USPHS certainly must have made enough studies  to make sure that there cannot possibly be any harm. They have excellent scientists. They have every medical and dental school at their disposal to carry out controlled studies. They must know what they are doing. Who are we, you and I, to question their decision?"

This settled the matter for the time being. I had my hands full. It was hay fever season, the time when I am unusually busy in the office and dead tired in the evenings. Furthermore, I was devoting all my spare time to preparing an article for the newly formed medical magazine, GP.  I was on their consulting staff and felt that I should make a contribution. I had just completed some studies on dermatitis, an allergic skin disease. In my book entitled Contact Dermatitis where my observations had been assembled, I had proposed a new approach for determining the cause of this disease. A most intriguing endeavor, it presented to the profession a glimpse into the detective workshop of an allergist. I was thoroughly preoccupied and my good wife knew it.

That night, after the lights in the bedroom had been turned off, she asked again:

"I have been thinking about that article. There was a Hearing in February, 1952, in Washington DC, before the House Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Foods and Cosmetics, according to the article. Experts on both sides were heard. It was brought out that the question of toxicity and possible damage from fluoride added to water is very much up in the air. There are still too many unanswered questions."

"If this is true, " I assured her "they will be answered by the proper authorities, particularly by the American Medical Association, before the USPHS introduces fluoridation on a large scale."

"But, no" she explained, "it is already being used in many cities in the United States and no one knows how much harm it can do!"

At breakfast she brought the subject up again.

"I have been thinking about that fluoride business again during the night couldn't the America Medical Association be in error? Don't medical ideas and medical practices change, especially when they are new and inadequately tested?

"Look at your own experience with the case of a penicillin death! No one would ever have predicted that this most valuable wonder drug could be harmful under certain conditions; that it could even cause death. There is evidence that milk contains penicillin in small amounts. Isn't this liable to sensitize people, especially your own allergic patients?"

The reference to penicillin aroused mixed feelings. One of my patients had died suddenly after an injection of penicillin for a chronic lung infection. It was the first case of its  kind ever reported in the medical literature. It appeared in 1949 in the Journal of the American Medial Association.  A middle aged lady with asthma had been given several injections of penicillin. Since she had greatly benefited from this drug, she asked me to instruct her sister, a registered nurse, to let her have a few doses at home. Within ten seconds after the injection of a relatively small dose of 30,000 units she collapsed and expired. No one could have known that during the two to three weeks which had elapsed from one injection to the other she had become allergic to the drug.

The wonder drug - penicillin - which was, and still is, the greatest saver of lives also has the  power to kill. My report, the first of its kind, made a definite impact on our approach to penicillin therapy.  Time magazine covered it in its March 7, 1949, issue. Up to that time hives, dermatitis and other allergic trouble were known to result from penicillin, but no one had died from it.  My report alerted physicians to the potential danger of using it indiscriminately.

"Valuable as penicillin is, do you think anyone would even so much as suggest that it be added to drinking water to prevent imminent infection on a large scale?" she asked.

I had nothing to add. Somehow I couldn't entertain the thought that the AMA would endorse anything unless they knew exactly what they were endorsing.

"You can't discount, " she continued, "the importance of the testimony of some of the country's most respected career scientists who presented unfavorable evidence at the Washington, D.C. hearings."

"If they were competent scientists," I replied, "they would have registered their views with the AMA.  Every so often quacks and charlatans are admitted at public hearings to give medical testimony. They act as so-called experts, yet they are in no way qualified. Do you remember ten or fifteen years ago when I appeared at a Detroit Federal Court as a key witness for the US Food and Drug Administration in the trial against a physician who claimed to cure cancer and 'allergies' with a single injection? What an assortment of so-called 'experts' appeared in his behalf. their testimonials regarding cancer cures made no sense to anyone with a scientific background; yet most of the men testifying for him were bona fide MD's qualified physicians."

"But - No!  The hearing in Washington was quite different," she retorted. "The witnesses representing the opposition were outstanding scientists, leaders in fluoride research! Some of them had done research for a lifetime - let me ask you this: Can't 'real experts' be mistaken, too, on some questions?"

My wife had seen an article in the Seattle times of Dec. 15, 1952, which stated that The Aluminum Company of America had offered many grants to research groups for a solution of their serious disposal problem. Fluorides, by-products especially of the aluminum, steel and fertilizer industries, contaminated the atmosphere and induced poisoining of livestock and damage to plant life.
"The PHS," she stated, "is collaborating closely with industry in the disbursement of research funds to overcome the menace. Isn't it possible that a conflict of interest might tarnish the objectivity of a researcher holding an influential position?"

This thought was revolting to me. to think of scientists in the PHS as being motivated by politic and/or buy personal gain - a fantastic accusation!

"How can you make such a statement?" I retorted irately. "the men in the PHS are scientists, highly respected altruistic scientists."

At that time I would not have believed what happened a few years later. According to Time, May 30, 1960, p. 3, a director of a branch of the PHS, Dr. Henry Welch, was  obliged to resign his post because he had received $260,766.00 derived in one way or another from the interests he was sworn to regulate." How a scientist with the best intentions can be caught in a dilemma I learned from my own experience.

Indeed, at this moment I myself, was the recipient of a sum of money "for research." Strangely enough, I was completely unaware of what later turned out to be its real purpose, namely to bury the facts should the study  produce results not in harmony with the donor's aims. Whether or not such money is "compensation for services" is a matter for individual interpretation. This is how it happened:

In 1953, I described a new disease in the Journal of the AMA which I termed "Smoker's Respiratory Syndrome."

This condition closely simulates asthma. It begins with a chronic inflammation of throat and pharynx which gradually descends into the bronchial tree. I had observed it many times in my extensive allergy practice among people who had been steady cigarette smokers. I had never attributed it to smoking. These patients cough and wheeze as though they had real allergic asthma. they have pains in chest and arms in conjunction with this cough.

Through a peculiar coincidence I was able to discover the cause of a disease which others as well as myself had encountered many times in their daily practice but had never been able to explain:

I, myself, had suffered from it.

Wheezing in the chest had gradually increased. It was especially noticeable in the morning. Day after day I coughed up heavy mucus. My throat was constantly irritated. I realized it could not be bronchial asthma, a disease to the study of which I had devoted my life's work. The next logical diagnosis to consider was cancer of the lungs.

I was faced with hospitalization for bronchoscropic examination, a rather unpleasant procedure. Reflecting upon the course of my ailment, it occurred to me that my cough and wheezing were usually worse on Monday mornings than during the balance of the week. On Sundays I was in the habit of smoking incessantly; during the week I could only smoke at mealtime, since most of my asthma patients could not tolerate tobacco smoke in my office. I decided to stop smoking.  To my surprise, after about three weeks time this peculiar disease which had been a source of much concern to me had promptly and completely subsided.

Those who have done research know only too well how practically every new discovery is subjected to critics. Most of it comes from individuals with little knowledge of the subject. Critiques, however, are desirable. They stimulate further thought and work. surprisingly, my report in the AMA Journal aroused very little adverse criticism. Numerous physicians throughout the country congratulated me on pinpointing this new disease and its source. Many who read my article recalled cases in which they had made an incorrect diagnosis as had I many times.

Eight years later, two Boston clinicians, Dr. F. C. Lowel and Dr. W. Franklin, followed my lead and reported on the more advanced state of this disease, chronic emphysema. this represents a serious complication interfering considerably with the function of the lungs and even affecting the heart.
One morning a letter arrived from a well-known physician a consultant to many news magazines and drug companies. He asked me to do some research for one of the cigarette companies for which he acted as intermediary. He suggested that I set up a research program to determine whether or not a newly devised cigarette filter might prevent the disease that I have described. He asked how much money such an investigation would entail.

For a controlled study I suggested that patients, once they had recovered their health, be asked to smoke the particular brand of filtered cigarettes. Bacteriological tests, tissue examinations and lung function studies were to be done before and after the experimental period. I determined the amount of money necessary for those who were to assists me in this project, for the equipment that had to be purchased and for my own services. The research was bound to make considerable demands on my time. Several thousand dollars were involved.

When the work was completed and ready for publication I was told that the company would publish it at some future date.  It was to be a portion of a comprehensive report together with two or three other pieces of research by other investigators who had made similar studies. I dismissed the entire subject from my mind in the firm belief that the company's representative would eventually publish it in one of the medial journals which he edited.

This was never done because my report had not shown that the cigarette filter prevented the disease. After several months, when I inquired about its fate, I was assured that the article would be published eventually. After the lapse of many more months, I requested the article's return, but no answer was ever forthcoming.

As I was later to realize, the outcome of this research is related to what is happening with respect to research on fluoride:

As physicians we may be confronted with a common disease. We would never suspect its origin or its precipitating cause until someone first clearly pinpoints its manifestations and relates cause to effect. Since I became aware of the ill effect of smoking by the simple expedient of advising a person  to discontinue it, many others, like myself, have been cured - and I use this term advisedly, many of these patients had been incorrectly diagnosed as "intrinsic" or "idiopathic" asthma, i.e., asthma, without cause. Indeed this disease has taken many a life without anyone, not even the greatest experts in medicine and pathology, so much as suspecting that cigarettes were the cause.

My experience with the cigarette company demonstrates something much more significant than the establishment of a scientific fact or the discovery of a new disease:

Research which does not prove a predetermined theory is often not published. Its results can be shelved by its sponsor. Even the investigator engaged to carry out research may not ever learn why. Nevertheless, my wife's suggestion that scientists cooperating with industry might abandon their objectivity to do their benefactors' bidding did not shake my faith in their integrity.

A few years later, in 1956, a newspaper report in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, May 18, evoked further skepticism about the US Public Health Service concerning their promotion of fluoridation:

The late famous St. Louis, Mo., surgeon, Dr. Evarts A. Graham, had delivered the Roy D. McClure lecture at Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital. Dr. Graham was critical of the USPHS because they failed to warn the public about the hazard of cigarette smoking.

"If there were as much evidence that spinach caused cancer of the stomach, the USPHS would have plastered the country with placards", Dr. Graham stated.

He expressed the hope that the scientists conducting a $1,500,000 dollar research program for the tobacco companies "won't set up a smoke screen."

Dr. Graham "charged the tobacco companies with campaigning to offset lagging sales by starting people smoking at a younger age", the Post Dispatch reported.

The PHS seemed to accept the explanation of manufacturers of cigarettes that air contamination, not smoking, is the principal cause of lung cancer.

I wrote to D.r Graham concerning his views on fluoridation. Judging from his own experience, he was convinced that not all was well on the fluoridation front. He blamed the PHS for launching a project fraught with danger.

My experience with the tobacco company had aroused my misgivings about some industry-sponsored research.

My strong rebuke to my wife when she mentioned that scientists might have ulterior motives ended our discussion of fluoridation.

She, however, was not satisfied with my answer. The next morning several letters were ready for mailing, addressed to scientists who had appeared as expert witnesses in opposition to artificial fluoridation at the Washington hearing in February, 1952.

A Struggle With Titans, (1965) By Dr. George Waldbott, Chapter 3 "A Fateful Decision" is here:  http://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2017/01/fluoridation-uncertainty-existed-from.html

EPA Fluoridation Fraud Charged by EPA Scientist in 1991

SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT IN THE FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER REGULATION by Robert J. Carton, Ph.D., Vice-President, NFFE Local 2050
 August 19, 1991

The fluoride in drinking water standard, or Recommended Maximum Contaminant Level (RMCL), published by EPA in the Federal Register on Nov. 14, 1985, is a classic case of political interference with science. The regulation is a fraudulent statement by the Federal Government that 4 milligrams per liter (mg/l) of fluoride in drinking water is safe with an adequate margin of safety. There is evidence that critical information in the scientific and technical support documents used to develop the standard was falsified by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency to protect a long-standing public health policy.  EPA professionals were never asked to conduct a thorough independent analysis of the fluoride literature. Instead, their credentials were used to give the appearance of scientific credibility. They were used to support the predetermined conclusion that 4 mg/l of fluoride in drinking water was safe.

Ethical misconduct by EPA management included the following: they ignored the requirements of the law to protect sensitive individuals such as children, diabetics or people with kidney impairment. Contrary to law, they made the criteria for considering health data so stringent that reasonable concerns for safety were eliminated. Data showing positive correlations between fluoride exposure and genetic effects in almost all laboratory tests were discounted. By selective use of data, they fit science to the desired outcome. They reported to the Administrator data demonstrating that dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect, but then hid this information from the pubic when the Administrator decided to call dental fluorosis a "cosmetic" effect. The National Institute for Dental Research had warned EPA that admitting dental fluorosis was an adverse health effect would be contrary to the long standing policy of the Public Health Service that fluoridation at 1 mg/l is totally safe.  EPA had already admitted in the Federal Register that objectionable dental fluorosis can occur at levels as low as 0.7 mg/l.

EPA management based its standard on only one health effect: crippling skeletal fluorosis. In setting the safe level at 4 mg/l, however, they ignored data showing that healthy individuals were at risk of developing crippling skeletal fluorosis if these individuals happened to drink large quantities of water at the "safe" level of 4 mg/l.  EPA's own data showed that some people drink as much as 5.5 liters/day.  If these people ingested this amount of water containing  4 mg/l of fluoride, they would receive a daily dose of 22 mg. This exceeds the minimum dose necessary to cause crippling skeletal fluorosis ("20 mg/day for 20 years") according to EPA and the Public Health Service. This situation is made worse by the fact that there are additional sources of fluoride exposure, such as toothpaste, tea, etc. Even more unsettling is the fact that there is not sound scientific basis for a 20 mg/day threshold. The threshold is probably lower.  there is evidence, ignored by EPA, that exposure to fluoride at 1 mg/l in drinking water over a long period of time may calcify ligaments and tendons causing arthritic pains (the earliest clinical signs of skeletal fluorosis).

EPA management also relied upon a report from the Surgeon General which they knew was false. This report claimed to represent the conclusions of an expert panel (on which EPA was an observer) when, in fact, the concerns of this panel was for the effects of fluoride in the bones of children,  for its effects on the heart, for dental fluorosis, and for the overall lack of scientific data on the effects of fluoride in U.S. drinking water were deleted. There are indications that a number of important conclusions of the panel were altered without their knowledge or approval.

This instance of scientific fraud is one example of the unethical and unprofessional atmosphere existing at EPA. There are many others. The fluoride standard however is particularly deplorable because of the widespread complicity of a number of different Federal agencies at the very highest levels in distorting the assessment of fluoride's health effects, and thus threatening public health. The Union's involvement in this is not a matter of meddling in the rights of management to dictate policy. We are attempting to correct a clear cut example of management abuse of authority. We insist that professionals have a right to an ethical and professional workplace.

Fluoride 10 cents or $10 million - You decide

Instigated by organized dentistry, States collectively are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to protect, promote and build extensive fluoridation systems for public water supplies. The reason, they claim, is so that poor children. whom most dentists won't treat, get a daily fluoride dose ostensibly to protect their teeth from tooth decay. However, low-income children are suffering from untreated tooth decay not fluoride deficiency. Fluoride pills cost as little as 12 cents each and, in fact, are free in some states to Medicaid patients.   Fluoridating the water supply puts water employees at risk, corrodes equipment, requires new buildings and forces water operators to fulfill all the following requirements (in Utah anyway) to fluoridate the entire water supply even though poor children drink a fraction of 1% of the water.

 A public water system that adds fluoride to drinking water shall comply with the fluoridation facility design and construction requirements of this section.

The following requirements apply to all types of fluoridation.

(a) Chemicals and Materials.

(i) All chemicals used for fluoridation shall be certified to comply with ANSI/NSF Standard 60.

(ii) Materials used for fluoridation equipment shall be compatible with chemicals used in the fluoridation process.

(iii) Metal parts used in fluoridation equipment and present in the fluoridation room shall be corrosion resistant.

(iv) Lead weights shall not be used in fluoride chemical solutions to keep pump suction lines at the bottom of a day or bulk storage tank.

(b) Chemical Storage.

(i) Fluoride chemicals shall be stored in covered or sealed containers, inside a building, and away from heat.

(ii) Fluoride chemicals shall not be stored with incompatible chemicals.

(iii) Bags or other containers for dry materials shall be stored on pallets.

(iv) Fiber drums for storing dry materials shall be kept closed to keep out moisture.

(v) A solution tank shall be labeled to identify the contents of the tank.

(c) Secondary Containment.

(i) Secondary containment shall be provided for tanks containing corrosive fluoride solutions.

(ii) Secondary containment shall be sized to contain the quantity of solution handled.

(iii) Secondary containment shall be designed to be acid resistant.

(d) Means to Measure.

(i) A means to measure the flow of treated water shall be provided.

(ii) A means shall be provided to measure the solution level in a tank and the quantity of the chemical used.

(iii) A sampling point shall be provided downstream of the fluoridation facility for measuring the fluoride level of treated water.

(e) Fluoride Feed Pump.

(i) Sizing of fluoride feed pumps shall consider prevention of fluoride overfeed and operation efficiency.

(ii) A fluoride feed pump shall have an anti-siphon device.

(f) Electrical Outlet for Fluoride Feed Pump.

(i) The electrical outlet used for a fluoride feed pump shall have interlock protection by being wired electrically in series with the well or service pump, such that the feed pump is only activated when the well or service pump is on.

(ii) The fluoride feed pump shall not be plugged into a continuously active ("hot") electrical outlet.

(g) Fluoride Injection.

(i) The fluoride injection line shall enter at a point in the lower one-third of the water pipe, and the end of the injection line shall be in the lower half of the water pipe.

(ii) The fluoride injection point shall allow adequate mixing.

(iii) The fluoride injection point shall not be located upstream of lime softening, ion exchange, or other processes that affect the fluoride level.

(iv) Each injector shall be selected based on the quantity of fluoride to be added, water flow, back pressure, and injector operating pressure.

(v) If injecting fluoride under pressure, a corporation stop and a safety chain shall be used at the fluoride injection point to secure the injection line.

(vi) An anti-siphon device shall be provided for all fluoride feed lines at the injection point.

(h) Minimize Fluoride Overfeed.

(i) In addition to the feed pump control, a secondary control mechanism shall be provided to minimize the possibility of fluoride overfeed. It may be a day tank, liquid level sensor, SCADA control, a flow switch, etc.

(ii) For fluoridation facilities that do not have operators on site, a day tank is required to minimize fluoride overfeed, unless two alternative secondary controls are provided.

(i) Housing. Fluoridation equipment shall be housed in a secure building that is adequately sized for handling and storing fluoride chemicals.

(j) Heating, Lighting, Ventilation.

(i) The fluoridation building shall be heated, lighted and ventilated to assure proper operation of the equipment and safety of operator.

(ii) The ventilation in the fluoride operating area shall provide at least six complete room-air changes per hour.

(iii) The fluoride operating area shall be vented to outside atmosphere and away from air intakes.

(iv) Separate switches for fans and lights in the fluoride operating area shall be provided. The switches shall be located outside of, or near, the entrance to the fluoride operating area, and shall be protected from vandalism.

(k) Cross Connection Control. Cross connections shall be eliminated by physical separation, an air gap, or an approved and properly operating backflow prevention assembly.

(3) Additional Requirements for Fluorosilicic Acid Installations.

(a) Fluorosilicic acid shall not be diluted manually on site before injection.

(b) Solution Tank Vents.

(i) A solution tank shall be adequately vented to the outside atmosphere away from air intakes, above grade, and where least susceptible to contamination.

(ii) A bulk tank shall not share a vent with a day tank if there is a risk of solution overflow from the bulk tank to the day tank.

(iii) A non-corrodible fine mesh (No. 14 or finer) screen shall be placed over the discharge end of a vent.

(c) If separate rooms are provided in a fluoride building constructed after January 1, 2017, the design shall include a view window between the control room and the fluorosilicic acid operating area.

(d) Emergency eyewash stations and showers shall be provided.

(e) A neutralizing chemical shall be available on site to handle small quantity accidental acid spills.

(f) The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required when handling fluorosilicic acid, and shall include the following:

(i) Full-face shield and splash-proof safety goggles

(ii) Long gauntlet acid-resistant rubber or neoprene gloves with cuffs

(iii) Acid-resistant rubber or neoprene aprons

(iv) Rubber boots

(4) Additional Requirements for Fluoride Saturator Installations.

(a) A water meter shall be provided on the make-up water line for a saturator so that calculations can be made to confirm that the proper amounts of fluoride solution are being fed. This meter and the master meter shall be read daily and the results recorded.

(b) The minimum depth of undissolved fluoride chemical required to maintain a saturated solution shall be marked on the outside of the saturator tank.

(c) The saturator shall not be operated in a manner that undissolved chemical is drawn into the pump suction line.

(d) The make-up water supply line shall, at a minimum, either terminate at least two pipe diameters above the solution tank or have backflow protection.

(e) Make-up Water Softening.

(i) The make-up water used for sodium fluoride saturators shall be softened whenever the hardness exceeds 75 mg/L.

(ii) A sediment filter (20 mesh) shall be installed in the make-up water line going to the saturator. The filter shall be placed between the softener and the water meter.

(f) Dust Control. Provisions shall be made to minimize the creation of fluoride dust during the transfer of dry fluoride compounds.

(i) Air exhausted from fluoride handling equipment shall discharge through a dust filter to the atmosphere outside of the building.

(ii) Provisions shall be made to minimize dust when disposing of empty bags, drums or barrels.

(iii) A floor drain shall be provided to facilitate floor cleaning.

(g) Emergency eyewash shall be provided.

(h) The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required when handling dry chemicals and shall include the following:

(i) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved particulate respirator with a soft rubber face-to-mask seal and replaceable cartridges

(ii) Chemical dust-resistant safety goggles

(iii) Acid-resistant gloves

(iv) Acid-resistant rubber or neoprene aprons

(v) Rubber boots

(5) Additional Requirements for Fluoride Dry Feed Installations.

(a) Volumetric and gravimetric dry feeders shall include a solution tank.

(b) A mechanical mixer shall be installed in the solution tank.

(c) Dust Control. Provisions shall be made to minimize the creation of fluoride dust during the transfer of dry fluoride compounds.

(i) If a hopper is provided, it shall be equipped with a dust filter and an exhaust fan that places the hopper under negative pressure.

(ii) Air exhausted from fluoride handling equipment shall discharge through a dust filter to the atmosphere outside of the building.

(iii) Provisions shall be made to minimize dust when disposing of empty bags, drums or barrels.

(iv) A floor drain shall be provided to facilitate floor cleaning.

(d) Emergency eyewash shall be provided.

(e) The use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is required when handling dry chemicals and shall include the following:

(i) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) approved particulate respirator with a soft rubber face-to-mask seal and replaceable cartridges

(ii) Chemical dust-resistant safety goggles

(iii) Acid-resistant gloves

(iv) Acid-resistant rubber or neoprene aprons

(v) Rubber boots

http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2016/20161001/40769.htm