Links to many other papers, articles and videos, about this toxic, mass medicating assault, on the bodies of every person forced to drink the water poisoned by fluoride. Click Here

Copyright Robert Gammal 2021
We all deserve clean drinking water

“This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”

Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann

A Brief Summary

This is the only thing medical students in Australia, learn about dentistry, in their 6 years at university!

“Everybody Knows! Fluoride is the best thing that has ever happened to the universe, to stop our gorgeous young children from getting tooth decay. This has been the single most successful public health measure ever introduced by any country. The ‘results’ speak for themselves. Fluoride is in fact an essential element and we need it to live “

Anyone who opposes the fluoridation of the water supply is one or all of the following; Selfish, Uncaring, Stupid, Ignorant, Psychotic, Hates Children, is Anti-Everything and clearly is a Conspiracy Theorist. So goes the official narrative in Australia and the USA. Anti-Fluoridationist, Anti-Amalgamist and Anti-Vaxers are often used interchangeably and carry the implication that conspiracy theories are all the rage. These words have never existed in the English Language. They were created by the Dental and Medical propaganda machines. i.e. Big Pharma!

‘Does anyone have a new conspiracy theory? All of mine have come true!’

Could it be that there are some people who are in fact intelligent, have read the science (or have done it) and have come to a thoughtful conclusion, based on this published research, a love of humanity and common sense. I have worked as a dentist in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas and have seen the difference. I have worked in several areas of Australia both rural and metro, and also had the privilege of working in Nepal. Although my comments are only anecdotal observations, I can say with complete confidence that the kids with the most decay in their teeth were in Sydney, where the fluoridation program has been happening since the early 1970’s. The middle group were in rural areas, in towns that were not fluoridated. The kids with the least decay and the healthiest teeth and bodies, were those who drank mainly rain tank water. I observed this over a 40 year career. As well, the children who only drank rainwater from a tank, were on the whole brighter and more present. They always made eye contact when we spoke. They very rarely had any tooth decay.

The Australian Constitution prohibits any form of mass medication of a population.  Fluoride is put in the drinking water to try to prevent tooth decay. As there is a physiologic reason for doing this, it must be regarded as a medicine.  Inserting it into public drinking water, must therefore be regarded as mass medication.

Fluoride in any form – drops, tablets, or vitamins – has never been approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the USA, as required by law since 1938. This means that the FDA has no proof of the safety or the effectiveness of fluoride. Furthermore, no drug application is pending.  Neither the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) nor the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) nor the American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry have proof of fluoride’s safety or effectiveness.   The same applies in Australia, where Fluoride has NEVER been approved by the TGA as a supplement in water or for topical application or as tablets. 

There are only eleven countries in the world that still add toxic fluoride to their citizen’s drinking water. These are Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Ireland, America, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Chile, Guyana and Hong Kong. The rest have either tried it and then banned it, or never introduced it in the first place.

There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.

There is little to no difference in decay rates between those countries that do and those that do not, fluoridate the water supply.

This is most evident from statistics obtained by the World health Organization as shown in the graph below.

Clearly some of the non-fluoridated countries have even done better in reducing tooth decay.

American Dental Association, May 2000

In Harlem, NY, which has been fluoridated for 32 years, “There’s more dental decay among these kids; we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths.”

Where it comes from

Fluoride that is found naturally is Calcium Fluoride. One of the propaganda campaigns run by the Australian Dental Association stated “Fluoride… Nature thought of it first”. Calcium Fluoride, although toxic also, is 25 times less toxic than the fluoride dumped into our drinking water. Almost all the fluoride that is put into the drinking water is Hydrofluorosilicic Acid. It is a waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Some comes from the waste products of the aluminium manufacturing industry. It is also called Silicofluoric Acid and Fluorosilicic Acid.

Classification as a Biocide

In Europe, Fluoride is classified as a BIOCIDAL agent and has been banned throughout the European Union. The following citation comes from a superb article by Declan Waugh Full PDF Here. Declan Waugh is an environmental and risk management consultant with an interest in risk management, molecular biology and environmental toxicology. (my Emphasis added)

The definition of a biocidal Product is provided in the EU Biocidal Directive (98/8/EC). A biocidal product is any “Active substances and preparations containing one or more active substances, put up in the form in which they are supplied to the user, intended to destroy, deter, render harmless, prevent the action of, or otherwise exert a controlling effect on any harmful organism by chemical or biological means.” An exhaustive list of 23 product types with an indicative set of descriptions within each type is given Annex V of the directive. Hexafluorosilicic acid is listed in this Directive as a biocidal Product.

…are classed as rodenticides, insecticides and pediculicides, with acute lethal doses in experimental animals comparable to arsenic and lead.

It has been banned for use as a biocidal product by the European Commission due to lack of toxicological data to demonstrate that it was safe for humans and the environment. Since 2006

In Australia, Hexafluorosilicic acid is explicitly listed in the Australian classification of toxins as a “DANGEROUS POISON” using the criteria in the Standard for the Uniform Scheduling of Drugs and Poisons (SUSDP). The “Material Safety Data Sheet” (MSDS1) published in Australia for the compound H2SiF6 specifically lists this chemical as a poison.

Preparation products used in the manafacture of Hexafluorisilicic (H2SiF6) acid include, Ammonium hexafluorosilicate, Sodium fluoroaluminate, Magnesium fluorosilicate, Potassium tetrafluoroborate, Potassium fluoride, Sodium tetrafluoroborate, Magnesium hexafluoroacetylacetonate dihydrate, Chromic acid, Potassium fluorosilicate, Magnesium fluosilicate, Magnesium hexafluorosilicate hexahydrate, Sodium tripolyphosphate, Aluminium fluoride, Sodium fluorosilicate, Cupric fluorosilicate, Trisodium hexafluoroaluminate, Ammonium fluoborate, Sodium fluoride, Zinc silicofluoride and Lead.

…is likely to contain variable amounts of other contaminants such as lead, mercury, cadmium, chromium, copper, selenium, barium, boron, arsenic, and thallium6. Arsenic is a confirmed type one human carcinogen. Thallium is a radionuclide and emits beta radiation, which makes it by definition a carcinogen.

It is also considered that commercial SiFs are likely to be contaminated with fluosiloxanes. Fluo siloxanes are classified by Health Canada and Environment Canada as toxic, persistent, and having the potential to bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.

The European Union has classified siloxanes compounds as endocrine disruptors, based on evidence that it interferes with human hormone function and a possible reproductive toxicant that may impair human fertility. … They are also known to influence neurotransmitters in the nervous system.

…. is 25 times more lethally toxic than naturally occurring Calcium Fluoride.

It is deeply disturbing that despite the conclusive findings of scientific bodies both in the USA and EU which highlighted the lack of toxicological data for Hexafluorisilicic Acid, and despite requests for such studies to be urgently undertaken no such studies have been completed or made public, that the chemical continues to be injected into public water supplies for consumption by the entire population regardless of their individual health needs or age.

When added to drinking water Hexafluorosilicic acid dissociates into free fluoride ions, it is now accepted that this reaction is not complete with the possibility of some silicofluoride compounds remaining present in drinking water.

“concentrations of hexafluorosilicic acid may be present in the gastrointestinal tract after consumption of fluoridated drinking water”.

Hexafluorosilicic Acid Banned Biocidal Product Added to Drinking Water for Fluoridation 2013

Accidental Excess Release.

Although there are many safety regulations for the use of fluoride in drinking water, there have been many accidents, where large amounts have been added to the water supply. They have produced levels far in excess of 1ppm. In each of these cases many people have been hospitalized and some have died.

Fluoride displaces calcium and makes it unavailable for the many biologically necessary functions in the body. One of these is cardiac function.

Levels that are considered ‘safe’, by the government and dental ‘authorities’, at 1ppm, are known to cause heart attacks and death.

Water fluoridation is just another form of Russian Roulette.

Delayed Eruption of Teeth

Whenever the pro-fluoridation lobby present information to the public or to councils, they always compare tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations. The most common way of doing this is to compare the rates of ‘Decayed, Missing or Filled’ (DMF Rate) teeth for 12 year old’s. When this is done they will show a percentage difference of usually about 10% – 15% more decay in the Unfluoridated group. Very impressive to promote the propaganda. There is a major problem with this comparison though. It is a comparison of apples and oranges not of apples and apples.

It is well published that fluoride will delay eruption of teeth by between 1 – 3 years.

Therefore, to do a true comparison of decay rates in different communities, we would have to compare 12 year old’s in Non-fluoridated areas, with 14-15 year old’s in Fluoridated areas.

When this is done, the difference in decay rates for the two areas is between 0% and 1%.

Whenever I’ve listened (often) to Dental Experts, Dental Associations, Chief Medical Officers and State Health Ministers answering the above problem, they all sprout the well-worn disclaimer, that there are NO studies to support these claims, and there is no difference in tooth eruption ages. They are all ignorant or lying. There is a mass of published scientific research

(Similar statements about the safety of mercury from amalgam and toxins from root canals are supported by the claim that there is no research available. A suit and tie, a serious but smiley face and a blanket denial, is all that is needed to convince most people to believe in the ‘authority figure/liar’.)

As Carl Sagan said:

‘Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’

Without reinventing the wheel, I refer you all to an extraordinary paper by C.A. Clinch written in 2010. Delayed Eruption of Teeth & Time at Risk for Cavities Here There are many references.

(and also A Bibliography of Scientific Literature on Fluoride (slweb.org) ).

Decay Rates Drop after Removal of Fluoride

REMOVING fluoride from the water is more effective in reducing decay than adding it. Note that the references below are all published in dental journals. Have the dental leaders not read their own literature? Do they just deny its existence? Would you not expect the deans and professors to be cognoscente of the literature published in their own journals? If they aren’t, then why do they hold such prestigious positions? If they are, then why are they lying? When I was at university in the 1970’s the education about fluoride being the saviour of mankind, was presented by none other than the Dean of the faculty, partly because it was so important and partly because he was the one responsible for poisoning the Tamworth water supply and then the rest of Australia. In dental circles he is regarded as a hero.

  • Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation.  Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2001 Feb;29(1):37-47 Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J  Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
  • Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation.  Caries Res 2000 Nov;34(6):462-468 Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H   Institute of Dentistry, University of Oulu, Finland.
  • Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany.  Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000 Oct;28(5):382-9 Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S  Dental School of Erfurt, Department of Preventive Dentistry, Friedrich-Schiller-University of Jena, Germany.
  • The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis.  J Dent Res 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9   Burt BA, Keels MA, Heller KE  Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109-2029, USA.
  • Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba.  Caries Res 2000 Jan-Feb;34(1):20-5  Kunzel W, Fischer T Department of Preventive Dentistry, Dental School of Erfurt, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany.
  • Caries decline in Germany–causes and consequences. Gesundheitswesen 1997 Dec;59(12):710-5  Kunzel W Poliklinik fur Praventive Zahnheilkunde, Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena.
  • The decline of caries in New Zealand over the past 40 years.  N Z Dent J 1998 Sep;94(417):109-13   de Liefde B
  • Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren   Fluoride April 1990; 23(2): 55-67     Yiamouyiannis, J.

In July 1986 the journal, Nature (Vol 322), published research that was conducted at the Australian National University in Canberra.  It found that

“Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years.  …  It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.”

Fluorosis

Dental Fluorosis is a condition of discoloration of teeth caused by high levels of fluoride in drinking water. This fluoride crosses the placenta and enters the foetus and is then added in the breast milk to the newborn and is then added in massive quantities to the milk formulas that are made with fluoridated water. Of course, it is also added as the child develops and keeps drinking this poison.

Dental and Government authorities claim that dental fluorosis, although unfortunate, is the only known side effect from drinking fluoridated water. To them it is merely an unsightly bit of collateral damage. They do however acknowledge that there ‘may be psychological challenges’ for these children.

The reality is that when fluorosis is visible in the teeth, the levels of fluoride in the body are dangerously high. Fluorosis is common in all areas where this poison is added to the water supply. The extreme version shown above does happen at 1ppm but is less common. When baby formula is made up with fluoridated water, the levels that the baby is exposed to, can exceed the accepted adult dose by up to five times. This level of intake will have profound effects on the teeth and every other system of the babies body, including neurologic development.

Most of the time we see mild fluorosis. These are the little white flecks that are visible on the front teeth. Check your friends when they smile. This type of disfigurement is now so common that it is considered normal! You will see it often in the younger population – we oldies did not get this poisoning when our teeth were developing. It only started in the 1960s.

Over the years though, there has been a steady increase in the levels of fluoride stored in our bones.

Whenever there is visible dental fluorosis there will be an accompanying and much greater fluorosis of the bones! These bones are much more likely to suffer breakages. This is especially true in older people where there has been a longer accumulation in the bones. Hip fractures are also normalized by their prevalence. Hip and knee replacements are a daily medical specialty.

Bone cancers in young children are also on the increase.

Dental fluorosis is a visible sign of severe poisoning!

Other Sources of Fluoride

There are many other sources of fluoride that are regularly ingested. They all supply just a bit more. Fluoride is a cumulative poison. The more you add the more that will remain in your body.

  • Tooth pastes
  • Topical applications at the dentist
  • Fluoride mouth rinses
  • Dental materials – orthodontic bracket adhesives, glass-ionomer and some composite resin dental restorative materials, and some dental sealants and cavity liners
  • All food and drinks that are prepared with fluoridated water.
  • Soft Drinks
  • Some bottled water
  • Tea
  • Many Pharmaceuticals
  • Antidepressants
  • Psychological drugs
  • Mechanically Deboned meats
  • Teflon pans
  • Pesticides
  • Industrial Exposure especially aluminum, fertilizer, iron, oil refining, semi-conductor, and steel industries 

A Safe Dose

There is no such thing.

Boiling your water will not remove the fluoride.

Fluoride is added to drinking water to deliver 1 part per million fluoride/water at your tap. This concentration is provided with the assumption that the ‘average’ adult drinks One Litre of water per day. This has nothing to do with the amount of water that is actually consumed per day and therefore there is no such thing as a safe dose. Children and babies drinking this much water will be overdosed!

Fluoride is a cumulative poison, just as mercury is. The more you take in to your body and the longer you do this for, the more will be stored in your body (especially your bones) and the more toxic it becomes.

People who like to drink a few cups of tea every day will increase their fluoride intake from the tea alone. This and all other sources of fluoride are additive.

Athletes and anyone else who does exercise, will drink far more water than 1 litre/day.

People who use fluoridated toothpastes and mouthwashes will receive an extra dose each day.

Baby formulas that are made with fluoridated water, will provide a dose of fluoride that is far in excess of the levels considered ‘tolerable’ for a human of that size an weight. This is why the USA and other countries have advised to use non-fluoridated water to make up baby formula.

Children, who are not yet adult size, will also be exposed to more fluoride than is advised at 1ppm concentration.

People with kidney disfunctions are unable to excrete the fluoride. 1ppm is an excessive dose. Mercury released from one amalgam filling will reduce kidney filtration function by up to 60%.

Older people also are unable to excrete much fluoride. 1ppm is an excessive dose for most seniors.

Fluoride is bound strongly to aluminium. When ingested in this form it will be deposited into the synaptic space between the nerves and will have a considerable effect on nerve transmission.

Fluoride will corrode Titanium as found in dental implants and increase the amount of titanium ions floating around your body.

Systemic Effects of Fluoride Poisoning

That fluoridation is a safe and effective is simply untrue.  It is clearly not effective, and neither is it safe.  A short list of referenced papers demonstrate the dangers of fluoride.  There are many more in the literature. They simply don’t exist, according to the pro-fluoridation lobby! The research below is at levels of fluoride found in the water supply – 1ppm.

  • Hip fracture caused by weakening of the bones. [i],[ii],[iii]
  • Increased Heart attack [iv],[v],[vi]
  • Increased Cancer [vii],[viii],[ix],[x],[xi],[xii]
  • Decreased fertility in women …fluoride adversely affects fertility in most animal species. [xiii]
  • Decreased Intelligence – over 15 studies internationally demonstrated a substantial drop in intelligence of children in fluoridated areas as compared to non-fluoridated areas.[xiv] Over 72 studies are listed on the Fluoride Action Network page . fluoride has devastating effects o neurological development i young children babies and the foetus. I t does not protect their teeth!
  • “…even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.” Grandjean 2012
  • Increase in periodontal (gum) disease is also associated with fluoridated water.  “As the degree of dental fluorosis increased, periodontitis (advanced gum infection) increased.”  “The results suggest that there is a strong association of occurrence of periodontal disease in high-fluoride areas,” [xv] 
  • Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea. [xvi],[xvii],[xviii],[xix],[xx]
  • Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.[xxi] Immune function is then seriously compromised.
  • Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis.  As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis.  Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents. [xxii],[xxiii],[xxiv],[xxv] Water fluoridation in Australia is set at 1ppm
  • Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals. [xxvi],[xxvii],[xxviii],[xxix],[xxx]
  • Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood. [xxxi]
  • Fluoride depresses Thyroid activity. [xxxii],[xxxiii],[xxxiv],[xxxv],[xxxvi]
  • Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body. [xxxvii],[xxxviii],[xxxix]
  • Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer. [xl],[xli],[xlii],[xliii],[xliv],[xlv],[xlvi]
  • Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body. [xlvii],[xlviii],[xlix]
  • Fluoride ingestion from mouth-rinses and dentifrices (tooth pastes) in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health. [l],[li],[lii],[liii]
  • Fluorides diminish the intelligence capability of the human brain. [liv]
  • Fluoride studies in rats can be indicative of a potential for motor disruption, intelligence deficits and learning disabilities in humans. Humans are exposed to plasma levels of fluoride as high as those in rat studies. Fluoride involves interruption of normal brain development. Fluoride affects the hippocampus in the brain, which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli to produce behavioral decisions and modify memory. Experience with other developmental neurotoxicants prompts expectations that changes in behavioural functions will be comparable across species, especially humans and rats. [lv]
  • Fluorides accumulate in the brain over time to reach neurologically harmful levels.[lvi]
  • “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, with the capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by inhibiting certain enzymes. Sources of fluoride intoxication include drinking water containing 1ppm or more of fluorine.” [lvii]
  • When fluorine is present, iodine is displaced, which will cause a thyroid gland to stop working properly [lviii]

Fluoridation has been touted as the most cost-effective means of reducing decay rates in a population.

What are the profits, from sale of drugs and medical treatments, to try to treat the diseases caused by fluoridating the water supply?

Clearly if the medical and social costs of the above negative effects are considered, it would appear to be the most cost EXPENSIVE way of trying to reduce decay and especially because it does not do what it is supposed to.

Copyright Robert Gammal 2021

The Propaganda Campaigns

In 2012 the dental journal, Community Dental Oral Epidemiology, Published a paper by Dr Shanti Sivaneswaran titled ‘The revival of water fluoridation in the state of New South Wales, Australia, in the 21st century’.

This paper outlines the methods that should be employed to run a Pro Fluoridation propaganda campaign! 

When asked to speak at a meeting in Byron Bay, NSW, to oppose fluoridation of their water supply, we debated the official group wanting to impose fluoridation in this shire. They consisted of a dentist from a local branch of the ADA, An Epidemiologist, The Dean of Medicine form Wollongong University, and Dr Kerry Chant the Chief Medical Officer from NSW Health.

The dentist was almost crying while pleading the fluoridation case, and begging that the people understand how serious it is. He did this while showing pictures of rampant decay in children who did not have the benefit of this wonder drug in their water. Unfortunately, the images he displayed were those of tooth erosion typical of drinking from bottles with sweeteners on the dummy, and/or drinking orange juice from a bottle. Only the other dentists picked up this lie. The toxicologist and Chief Medical Officer also pleaded and cajoled. The only refence they could come up with to support these pleas, was a study that had not yet been peer reviewed, had not been published and at the time, had not even been completed. Because of their high standing in society though, everyone was expected to believe them. Hospital admissions were also used to support their arguments. Anecdotes of the horror that are seen in non-fluoridated communities, were the main thrust of their arguments. They followed almost to the letter, the propaganda campaign as outlined in the paper above and to be dissected below.

I was the last speaker of the night and was able to turn to this group of deceivers and thank them for not being able to present even one published scientific paper to support their position. This was rewarded by a standing ovation from a very intelligent and aware audience. The No-fluoride speakers presented over a hundred peer reviewed, published papers.

I quote from Dr Sivaneswaran’s paper on how to run a propaganda campaign (my emphasis):

  • “At the time of writing, 20 councils have implemented fluoridation, which increased the population coverage of water fluoridation from 90% in 2004 (1) to 94% in mid-June 2010 (2) and to 96% at present (Centre for Oral Health Strategy – New South Wales Department of Health, unpublished data).”
  • ‘A grass roots approach using basic principles of social marketing, which included use of solid scientific evidence, local statistics, anecdotal evidence, a powerful lobbying machine and skillful use of the media, was used in the ‘Teeth for Life Project’.’
  • ‘… endorsement of water fluoridation was also sought from expert medical professional organizations who have their own medical advisory committees.  … chosen for the purpose of countering claims made by antifluoridationists concerning the plethora of maladies and side effects caused by drinking fluoridated water.”
  • “To compensate for the lack of clinical disease data, rates of dental treatment performed under general anaesthetic were used instead. In NSW, data on hospital admissions are routinely collected and readily accessible and were therefore used to demonstrate that their local children were at greater risk for undergoing dental treatment under general anaesthetic than their counterparts in fluoridated areas.” 
  • “When dental decay data were available, figures for 5- to 6-years-olds were used, as the caries experience is usually greater, and public sympathy for small children is usually greater as well.”
  • “Anecdotal evidence provided by local health professionals including doctors of the extent of poor oral health at public forums and in submissions to councils also played a critical role in swaying the opinion of councillors to supporting fluoridation.” 
  • “The role of the media in any fluoridation programme cannot be underestimated. It was therefore essential that NSW Health Department identified spokespersons for fluoridation who underwent media training to assist with media liaisons. A pool of credible, media savvy spokespersons was identified”
  • “… the extension of fluoridation to rural communities in NSW would not have been possible without the commitment and dedication to fluoridation by senior bureaucrats in the NSW Health Department and the NSW Office of Water.”   

My Response to these statements:

If there was any solid evidence for the reduction in tooth decay, with little to no deleterious effects on the population, there would be little need to run  a fluoridation propaganda campaign.  The science and the benefits would be open, transparent and obvious to everyone. 

  • This paper uses ‘UNPUBLISHED DATA” to represent the councils that implemented fluoridation. If your not with us you must be against us – just as past President George Bush said to incite anger after 9/11. (Note the parallels in the current government narrative.) If it is unpublished than where did it come from? Being unpublished, these statements are impossible to validate!
  • a powerful lobbying machine and skillful (sic) use of the media,- this is the same propaganda tactics that were used to bring Hitler and every other dictator to power. It has nothing to do with science.
  • “expert medical professional organizations who have their own medical advisory committees.  … chosen for the purpose of countering claims made by antifluoridationists…”. I wonder why they left out the other medical organizations who have stated that; “Fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, probably because of their capacity to modify the metabolism of cells by changing the permeability of the cell membrane and by inhibiting certain enzyme systems.” – Journal of the American Medical Association, Sept 18, 1943.
  • “Special Scientific Committees” of medical and dental trade organizations, are often cited to support the status quo narrative. From my experience dealing with these groups, they are usually composed of un-named individuals, without the ability to produce a list of studies that have been examined, and rarely if ever actually exist. The Special Scientific Committee of the Fatherland Dental Association cannot be argued with!
  • If there really was clinical data, there would be no need to compensate for the lack of it, by quoting general anaesthesia figures.  I find this argument to convince councillors of the benefits of fluoridation, totally despicable, the height of dishonesty and an insult to both intelligence and academic integrity.  This is a blatant admission that there is no clinical data.  The use of hospital General Anaesthetic rates, to demonstrate decay rates, is like comparing Buddha with Hitler. The rates of dental treatments carried out under general anaesthesia may be significant in relation to the special needs of the patients, the lack of ability of the dentist treating these patients, the financial profit to the pedodontist to do all that is required in one sitting, or even the fear of the parent who hates dentists.  It is not a reflection of decay rates in non-fluoridated populations. 
  • If there was real science to support the claims of the pro-fluoridation lobby, or even an obvious and real reduction in decay rates, there would be no need to rely on increased public sympathy for young children.  Science is gone by the wayside. A little bit of misplaced sympathy will sway a council more than a million published scientific papers. Considering that most councilors who are sitting in these local councils have NO scientific, medical or dental training, and usually no desire to look at the science, is it any wonder that the sympathy line works?
  • “ figures for 5- to 6-years-olds were used” Almost all adults feel protective of this age group of poor vulnerable little things. The sympathy vote just hit 110%. As well, this argument is used to avoid the real comparative decay rates. Fluoride is known to delay tooth eruption by as much as three years. Therefore, the real age comparisons should be between 12 year old’s and 15 year old’s, rather than between 12 year old’s in areas with and without fluoride. When this is done, it is obvious that there is NO DIFFERENCE IN DECAY RATES between the two groups
  • The use of anecdote is clearly a good propaganda strategy, which works to sway public opinion, but it has NO scientific merit and is NOT a scientific argument, whether presented by me, a doctor, a chief medical health officer or a prime minister.  The anecdotal opinions of doctors and other health care professionals has no credibility for deciding public health policies that will affect a whole population.  My anecdotal comments at the beginning of this paper, of course fall into the same category. Doctors have absolutely no idea of dental conditions or their causes, and nor have they any training in how to  diagnose them.  We are not discussing decay in children’s teeth. This is about mass medicating a population’s drinking water with a schedule 6 poison. This decision is made by lay people who occupy political positions in a local council who do not have any scientific training. Such a critical decision made by those who are swayed by the opinions of other politicians. How Horrifying!
  • Media savvy trained professionals usually occupy relatively permanent positions in the dental private trade organizations such as the Australian Dental Association.  We are all aware of the role of the media in any such campaigns, but again this is not science.  This is only a way of getting mass opinion in a population.  It is a numbers game strategy. Again it is the exclusionist argument of being with us or against us, and most people have a great need to belong.
  • Senior bureaucrats in the NSW health may support fluoridation, but they are not referenced or named and may have zero knowledge about medicine, dentistry or any of the effects of fluoridation.  They could just be members of the ‘Harper Valley PTA’! Are these senior bureaucrats even intelligent? They may just be faceless, nameless people of Dr Sivaneswaran’s imagination, which certainly puts the concept of peer review into question. The dedication to a lack of transparency in this paper is a sad reflection of the same dedication of the whole pro-fluoride lobby.

Added Insult

To add insult to the already poisoned people in this country, NSW Health has admitted that there is no difference in decay rates between countries that do and do not poison their drinking water with fluoride. Fluoridation is an agenda pushed by paid bureaucrats!

Page 6 states: “Fluoride predominantly has a topical action and probably exerts its effect through fluoride
ions in plaque and saliva assisting remineralisation of demineralised tooth enamel.”

‘Probably Exerts its Effect’ means that there is no science to demonstrate this broad and stupid assumption! There is also no science to support the claim that fluoride has a benefit when applied topically.

If the action is predominantly topical, then why is it added to the water supply?

Many developed countries around the world, particularly in Europe, have not fluoridated their water supply, or have fluoridated their water supply and then ceased fluoridation or in some cases used an alternative form of supplementary fluoridation. Some of these largely unfluoridated countries have reported steep declines in dental caries that parallel declines seen in largely fluoridated countries (Marthaler 2004).

Page 12 under the heading ‘What has happened in countries that have not fluoridated their water supply?’ Water Fluoridation Q & As | NSW Health | November 2015 pdf fluoridation-questions-and-answers-nsw.pdf

This is published by the same Government body – NSW Health – who push so hard to fluoridate the whole of the Australian water supply. It must have been written by Senior Bureaucrats. This ‘official government paper’ from 2015 does not have an author.

Opposing Views

The federal and state health departments in Australia, like to act as though they are the only source of what is true and good for the people. Their position on fluoride is anecdotal, propagandist and certainly not in line with the published science or the international positions of many other countries.

Journal of the American Dental Association, Editorial, October 1, 1944.

“Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances.  We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.” 

Letter from Dr. Flanagan, Assistant Director of the American Medical Association May 13 1965

“The American Medical Association is NOT prepared to state that no harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation. The AMA has not carried out any research work, either long-term or short-term, regarding the possibility of any side effects.”

Dr. Robert Carlton, former EPA Scientist.   

“Based on data from the National Academy of Sciences current levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water may cause arthritis in a substantial portion of the population long before they reach old age”

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 1997 vol. 21 no. 24

“Since 1990, five major epidemiological studies from three countries – the United States, United Kingdom and France – showing a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated regions.”

Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association.

“I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs.  Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long range basis.  Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable.”

United States Public Health Service Report (ATSDR TP-91/17, pg. 112, Sec.2.7, April 1993) (ATSDR = Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry in the USA)

Segments of the population are unusually susceptible to the toxic effects of fluoride. They include “postmenopausal women and elderly men, pregnant woman and their fetuses, people with deficiencies of calcium,  magnesium and/or vitamin C, and people with cardiovascular and kidney problems.”

Dr. Simon Beisler, Chief of Urlogy, Roosevelt Hospital and Past President of the American Urological Association.

“It is now clear that fluoride is a potentially harmful substance when present in the drinking water in any amount.”

Journal of the American Medical Association, August 1992

“..significant increase in the risk of hip fracture in both men and women exposed to artificial fluoridation at 1 ppm.”

(Note that Australia has fluoride levels of 1 – 1.5 ppm Australian Drinking Water Guidelines for fluoride is 0.9 – 1.5 mg/l  About 1ppm [i])

Judge Farris, presiding judge in a case involving the fluoridation of Houston’s water.

“That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man;

That the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man.”

Greater Boston Physicians for Social Responsibility, May 2000

“fluoride exposure, at levels that are experienced by a significant proportion of the population whose drinking water is fluoridated, may have adverse impacts on the developing brain.”

Dr. Kennedy, Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and a practicing Dentist for 20 years.

“All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree that dental fluorosis, which is the first visible sign of systemic poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels.”

William Marcus, Ph.D., senior EPA toxicologist, Covert Action, Fall 1992, p.66

“Regarding fluoridation, the EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects

Dr. Ludgwig Grosse, Chief of Cancer Research, U.S. Veterans Administration.

“The plain fact that fluorine is an insidious poison harmful,  toxic and cumulative in its effects, even when ingested in minimal amounts, will remain unchanged no matter how many times it will be repeated in print that fluoridation of the water supply is ‘safe.'”

American Dental Association, May 2000

In Harlem, NY, which has been fluoridated for 32 years, “There’s more dental decay among these kids; we see the beginning of inflamed gingivitis in their mouths.”

Research Microbiologist, U.S. Army, Dr. B. J. Gallo, Environmental Chemist, J. Kupperschmidt Apollo Program Project Scientist, Dr. N.R. Mancuso, U.S. Army Natick Research Labs, A. Murray, Molecular Biologist, Dr. Strauss

“Fluoride has been shown to adversely effect the central nervous system, causing behavioral changes, increased hip fractures and reproduction problems.”

Dr. Professor Albert Schatz, (Microbiology), co-discoverer of Streptomycin, the cure for tuberculosis and numerous other bacterial infections.

“fluoridation … it is the greatest fraud that has ever been perpetrated and it has been perpetrated on more people than any other fraud has.”

Dr. Hardy Limeback, a leading Canadian fluoride authority, former fluoride advocate and long-standing consultant to Canadian Dental Association.

Fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth and overall health.. it doesn’t need to be added to our water and we may be taking unnecessary risks by doing so.

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, Children’s Hospital, Boston

“The evidence against the safety of this public health policy keeps mounting; it is too compelling to ignore.”

Dr. Colquhoun, former Principal Dental Officer for Auckland New Zealand.

“By 1983 I was thoroughly convinced that fluoridation caused more harm than good. I expressed the opinion that some of these children with dental fluorosis could, just possibly, have also suffered harm to their bones”

Chief Justice John Flaherty, of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

“.. the evidence is quite convincing that the addition of sodium fluoride to the public water supply at one part per million is extremely deleterious to the human body”. –

Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann

“This record is barren of any credible and reputable scientific epidemiological studies and/or analysis of statistical data which would support the Illinois Legislatures determination that fluoridation of the water supplies is both a safe and effective means of promoting public health.”

Texas Judge Anthony Farris (presided over litigation involving fluoridation)

“the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as contemplated by (Houston) City ordinance No. 80-2530may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate tooth decay in man.” –

Dr. William Marcus, Senior Toxicologist at E.P.A.

“E.P.A. should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis,mutagenicity and other effects.” –

American Journal of Epidemiology, October 1999

“...fluoride damages bone even at levels added to public drinking water”

Journal of Public Health Dentistry

Hundreds of millions of dollars may be wasted annually on children’s fluoride treatments by dentists. Typically given once or twice a year at routine checkups, the treatments do nothing to reduce cavities in kids, says a study of insurance records.

STATEMENTS FROM EUROPEAN OFFICIALS:

Austria:

“Toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies in Austria.”
SOURCE: M. Eisenhut, Head of Water Department, Osterreichische Yereinigung fur das Gas-und Wasserfach Schubertring 14, A-1015 Wien, Austria, February 17, 2000.

Belgium:

“This water treatment has never been of use in Belgium and will never be (we hope so) into the future. The main reason for that is the fundamental position of the drinking water sector that it is not its task to deliver medicinal treatment to people. This is the sole responsibility of health services.”
SOURCE: Chr. Legros, Directeur, Belgaqua, Brussels, Belgium, February 28, 2000.

Denmark:

“We are pleased to inform you that according to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Energy, toxic fluorides have never been added to the public water supplies. Consequently, no Danish city has ever been fluoridated.”
SOURCE: Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999.

Finland:

“We do not favor or recommend fluoridation of drinking water. There are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.”
SOURCE: Paavo Poteri, Acting Managing Director, Helsinki Water, Finland, February 7, 2000.

“Artificial fluoridation of drinking water supplies has been practiced in Finland only in one town, Kuopio, situated in eastern Finland and with a population of about 80,000 people (1.6% of the Finnish population). Fluoridation started in 1959 and finished in 1992 as a result of the resistance of local population. The most usual grounds for the resistance presented in this context were an individual’s right to drinking water without additional chemicals used for the medication of limited population groups. A concept of “force-feeding” was also mentioned.

Drinking water fluoridation is not prohibited in Finland but no municipalities have turned out to be willing to practice it. Water suppliers, naturally, have always been against dosing of fluoride chemicals into water.”
SOURCE: Leena Hiisvirta, M.Sc., Chief Engineer, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland, January 12, 1996.

France:

“Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.”
SOURCE: Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August 25, 2000.

Germany:

“Generally, in Germany fluoridation of drinking water is forbidden. The relevant German law allows exceptions to the fluoridation ban on application. The argumentation of the Federal Ministry of Health against a general permission of fluoridation of drinking water is the problematic nature of compuls[ory] medication.”
SOURCE: Gerda Hankel-Khan, Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, September 16, 1999.

Luxembourg:

“Fluoride has never been added to the public water supplies in Luxembourg. In our views, the drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment and that people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets, to cover their [daily] needs.”
SOURCE: Jean-Marie RIES, Head, Water Department, Administration De L’Environment, May 3, 2000.

Netherlands:

“From the end of the 1960s until the beginning of the 1970s drinking water in various places in the Netherlands was fluoridated to prevent caries. However, in its judgement of 22 June 1973 in case No. 10683 (Budding and co. versus the City of Amsterdam) the Supreme Court (Hoge Road) ruled there was no legal basis for fluoridation. After that judgement, amendment to the Water Supply Act was prepared to provide a legal basis for fluoridation. During the process it became clear that there was not enough support from Parlement [sic] for this amendment and the proposal was withdrawn.”
SOURCE: Wilfred Reinhold, Legal Advisor, Directorate Drinking Water, Netherlands, January 15, 2000.

Northern Ireland:

“The water supply in Northern Ireland has never been artificially fluoridated except in 2 small localities where fluoride was added to the water for about 30 years up to last year. Fluoridation ceased at these locations for operational reasons. At this time, there are no plans to commence fluoridation of water supplies in Northern Ireland.”
SOURCE: C.J. Grimes, Department for Regional Development, Belfast, November 6, 2000.

Norway:

“In Norway we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated.”
SOURCE: Truls Krogh & Toril Hofshagen, Folkehelsa Statens institutt for folkeheise (National Institute of Public Health) Oslo, Norway, March 1, 2000.

Sweden:

“Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden…New scientific documentation or changes in dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the Commission have not been shown.”
SOURCE: Gunnar Guzikowski, Chief Government Inspector, Livsmedels Verket — National Food Administration Drinking Water Division, Sweden, February 28, 2000.

Czech Republic:

“Since 1993, drinking water has not been treated with fluoride in public water supplies throughout the Czech Republic. Although fluoridation of drinking water has not actually been proscribed it is not under consideration because this form of supplementation is considered:

  • uneconomical (only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking is used as such; the remainder is employed for hygiene etc. Furthermore, an increasing amount of consumers (particularly children) are using bottled water for drinking (underground water usually with fluor)
  • unecological (environmental load by a foreign substance)
  • unethical (“forced medication”)
  • toxicologically and physiologically debateable (fluoridation represents an untargeted form of supplementation which disregards actual individual intake and requirements and may lead to excessive health-threatening intake in certain population groups; [and] complexation of fluor in water into non biological active forms of fluor.”
    SOURCE: Dr. B. Havlik, Ministerstvo Zdravotnictvi Ceske Republiky, October 14, 1999.

Decay Rates Drop when Fluoride is REMOVED

“More then 99% of the water is not drinking water but is used for washing cars, cleaning stairs, showering, to pour on flowers and so on. Fluoride is poison that loads our rivers.” Basel Council, Switzerland. April 9, 2003

Recent evidence indicates that fluoride produces neuronal destruction and synaptic injury by a mechanism that involves free radical production and lipid peroxidation. For a number of pathological disorders of the central nervous system (CNS), excitotoxicity plays a critical role. 264 Fluoride 2004;37(4):264–277 Research Report

“The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community.”

Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation Community Dent Oral Epidemiol

The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child.

Caries trends 1992-1998 in two low-fluoride Finnish towns formerly with and without fluoridation Caries Res . Nov-Dec 2000;34(6):462-8. doi: 10.1159/000016624.. 2001 Feb;29(1):37-47

In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed.

Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2000 Oct;28(5):382-9

…dental fluorosis is sensitive to even small changes in fluoride exposure from drinking water, and this sensitivity is greater at 1 to 3 years of age than at 4 or 5 years.

The effects of a break in water fluoridation on the development of dental caries and fluorosis. J Dent Res 2000 Feb;79(2):761-9


In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds (from 1. 1 to 0.8) and DMFS (from 1.5 to 1.2). In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease (DMFT from 2.1 to 1.1; DMFS from 3.1 to 1. 5), while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased from 4.8 (1973) and 33.3 (1982) up to 55.2%.

Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Res 2000 Jan-Feb;34(1):20-5

No statistically significant differences were found in the decay rates of permanent teeth or the percentages of decay-free children in the F, NF, and PF areas.

Water Fluoridation & Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of U.S. Schoolchildren Fluoride April 1990; 23(2): 55-67

Large temporal reductions in tooth decay, which cannot be attributed to fluoridation, have been observed in both unfluoridated and fluoridated areas of at least eight developed countries over the past thirty years. It is now time for a scientific re-examination of the alleged enormous benefits of fluoridation.

The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay Diesendorf, M. Nature July 1986 Vol. 322


Makes You Wonder?

References

[i] http://www.sydneywater.com.au/AnnualReport/menu/performancesummary/waterquality.cfm

[ii] Klaus Werner, Royal Danish Embassy, Washington DC, December 22, 1999.

[i] Danielson, C.; Lyon, J.L.; Egger, M.; Goodenough, G.K. Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah’s elderly population- Journal of the American Medical Association. 258:746748,1992.

[ii] Hip Fracture rates related to Fluoridated water Journal of the American Medical Association 264(4):500-502 1990

[iii] J. C. Robins and J. L. Ambrus, “Studies on Osteoporosis IX. Effect of Fluoride on Steroid Induced Osteoporosis,” Research Communications in Chemical Pathology and Pharmacology, Volume 37, No. 3, pp. 453-461 (1982)

[iv] McIvor, M., et al. Hyperkalemia and cardiac arrest from fluoride exposure during hemodialysis. American Journal of Cardiology. 51: 901-902, 1983.

[v] Fluoride blamed for death. Ketchikan, Alaska Daily News, June 1, 1998. 

[vi] Machoy-Mokrzynska, A. Fluoride-magnesium interactions- Fluoride. 28(4):175, November 1995.

[vii] Carcinogenesis, Vol. 9, pp. 2279-2284 (1988)

[viii] Sodium Fluoride: individual animal tumor pathology table [rats], Battelle Memorial Institute, February 23, 1989

[ix] Sodium Fluoride: individual animal tumor pathology table [mice], Battelle Memorial Institute, April 11, 1989

[x] Dr. Wm Marcus May Day Memo discussed in Lancet 36, page 737 (1990)

[xi] Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks, U. S. Public Health Service, pp. F1-F7 ( 1991)

Fluoride Vol. 26, pp. 83-96 (1992) Fluoride is an equivocal carcinogen

[xii] A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and the  Incidence of Osteosarcoma among Young Males, New Jersey Department of Health, November 1992

[xiii] Freni SC, Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, 42:109-121, 1994

[xiv] Li, X.S.; Zhi, J.L.; Gao, R.O. Effect of fluoride exposure on intelligence of children. Fluoride. 28(4):189-192,1995.

[xv] Fluoride Linked To Gum Disease http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=71584

[xvi] A.K. Susheela and Mohan Jha, “Effects of Fluoride on Cortical and Cancellous Bone Composition”, IRCS Medical Sciences: Library Compendium, Vol 9, No.11, pp.1021-1022 (1981);

[xvii] Y.D. Sharma, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Collagen Cross-Link Precursors”, Toxocological Letters, Vol.10, pp97-100 (1982);

[xviii] A.K. Susheela and D. Mukerjee, “Fluoride poisoning and the Effect of Collagen Biosynthesis of Osseous and Nonosseous Tissue”, Toxocologiocal European Research, Vol 3, No.2, pp. 99-104 (1981);

[xix] Y.D. Sharma,”Variations in the Metabolism and Maturation of Collagen after Fluoride Ingestion”, Biochemica et Bioiphysica Acta, Vol 715, pp.137-141 (1982);

[xx] Marian Drozdz et al.,”Studies on the Influence of Fluoride Compounds upon Connective Tissue metabolism inGrowing Rats” and “Effect of Sodium Fluoride With and Without Simultaneous Exposure to Hydrogen Fluoride on Collagen Metabolism”, Journal of Toxological Medicine, Vol. 4, pp.151-157 (1984).

[xxi] Robert A. Clark, “Neutrophil Iodintion Reaction Induced by Fluoride: Implications for Degranulation and Metabolic Activation,” Blood, Vol 57, pp.913-921 (1981).

[xxii]A.S. Kozlyuk, et al., “Immune Status of Children in Chemically Contaminated Environments”, Zdravookhranenie, Issue 3, pp.6-9 (1987);

[xxiii]W.L. Gabler, et al., “Effect of Fluoride on the Kinetics of Superoxide Generation by Fluoride”, Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 64, p.281 (1985);

[xxiv] John Curnette, et al, “Fluoride-mediated Activation of the Respiratory Burst in Human Neutrophils”, Journal of Clinical Investigation, Vol 63, pp.637-647 (1979);

[xxv] W.L. Gabler and P.A. Leong, ., “Fluoride Inhibition of Polymorphonumclear Leukocytes”, Journal of Dental Research, Vo. 48, No. 9, pp.1933-1939 (1979);

[xxvi] Alfred Taylor and Nell C. Taylor, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Tumor Growth”, Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, Vol 119,p.252(1965)

[xxvii] Shiela Gibson, “Effects of Fluoride on Immune System Function”, Complementary Medical Research, Vol 6, pp.111-113 (1992);

[xxviii] Peter Wilkinson, “Inhibition of the Immune Syetem With Low Levels of Fluorides”, Testimony before the Scottish High Court in Edinburgh in the Case of McColl vs. Strathclyde Regional Council, pp. 17723-18150, 19328-19492, and Exhibit 636, (1982);

[xxix] D.W.Allman and M.Benac, “Effect of Inorganic Fluoride Salts on Urine and Cyclic AMP Concentration in Vivo”, Journal of Dental Research, Vol 55 (Supplement B), p.523 (1976);

[xxx] S. Jaouni and D.W. Allman, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride and Aluminum on Adenylate Cyclase and Phosphodiesterase Activity”, Journal of Dental Research, Vol.64, p.201 (1985)

[xxxi] S.K. Jain and A.K. Susheela, “Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Antibody Formation in Rabbits”, Environmental Research, Vol.44, pp.117-125 (1987).

[xxxii] Viktor Gorlitzer Von Mundy, “Influence of Fluorine and Iodine on the Metabolism, Particularly on the Thyroid Gland,” Muenchener Medicische Wochenschrift, Vol 105, pp182-186 (1963);

[xxxiii] Benagiano, “The Effect of Sodium Fluoride on Thyroid Enzymes and Basal Metabolism in the Rat”, Annali Di Stomatologia, Vol 14, pp.601-619n (1965);

[xxxiv] Donald Hillman, et al., “Hypothyroidism and Anemia Related to Fluoride in Dairy Cattle,” Journal of Dairy Science, Vol 62, No.3, pp.416-423 (1979);

[xxxv] V. Stole and J. Podoba, “Effect of Fluoride on the Biogenesis of Thyroid Hormones”, Nature, Vol 188, No.4753, pp.855-856 (1960);

[xxxvi] Pierre Galleti and Gustave Joyet, “Effect of Fluorine on Thyroid Iodine Metabolism and yperthyroidism”, Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 18, pp.1102-1110 (1958).

[xxxvii] Hemodialysis Patients”, American Journal of Kidney Diseases, Vol. 15, pp.320-324 (1990);

[xxxviii] Y.Yoshisa, “Experimental Studies on Chronic Fluorine Poisoning”, Japaneses Journal of Industrial Health, Vol 1, pp.683-690 (1959).

[xxxix] T.Takamorim “The Heart Changes in Growing Albino Rats Fed on Varied Contents oif Fluorine,” The Toxicology of Fluorine, Symposium, Bern, Switzerland, Oct 1962, pp.125-129; Vilber A.O. Bello and Hillel J. Gitelman, “High Fluoride Exposure in

[xl] J.K. Mauer, et al., “Two-year cacinogenicity study of sodium fluoride in rats”, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol 82, pp1118-1126 (1990);

[xli] Proctor and Gamble “Carcinogencity studies with Sodium Fluoride in rats” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Presentation, July 27, 1985;

[xlii] S.E. Hrudley et al.,”Drinking Water Fluoridation and Osteocarcoma” Canadian Journal of Public Health, Vol 81, pp.415-416 (1990);

[xliii] P.D. Cohn, ” A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males”, New Jersey Department of Health, Trenton, New Jersey, Nov 1992; M.C. Mahoney et al.,”Bone Cancer Incidence Rates in New York”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol 81, pp.81, 475 (1991);

[xliv] Irwin Herskowitz and Isabel Norton, “Increased Incidence of Melanotic Tumors Following Treatment with Sodium Fluoride”, Genetics Vol 48, pp.307-310 (1963);

[xlv] J.A. Disney, et al., ” A Case Study in Testing the Conventional Wisdom; School-Based Fluoride Mouthrinse Programs in the USA” Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology, Vol 18, pp.46-56 (1990);

[xlvi]D.J. Newell, “Fluoridation of Water Supplies and Cancer – an association?”, Applied Statistics, Vol 26, No.2, pp.125-135 (1977)

[xlvii] Nicholas Leone, et al., “Medical Aspects of Excessive Fluoride in a Water Supply”, Public Health Reports, Vol 69, pp.925-936 (1954);

[xlviii] J. David Erikson, “Mortality of Selected Cities with Fluoridated and Non-Fluoridated Water Supplies”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 298, pp.1112-1116 (1978);

[xlix] “The Village Where People are Old Before their Time”, Stern Magazine, Vol 30, pp.107-108,111-112 (1978);

[l] Yngve Ericsson and Britta Forsman, “Fluoride retained from mouthrinses and dentifrices in preschool children”, Caries Research, Vol.3, pp.290-299 (1969);

[li] W.L. Augenstein, et al., “Fluoride ingestion in children: a review of 87 cases”, Pediatrics, Vol 88, pp.907-912, (1991);

[lii]Charles Wax, “Field Investigation report”, State of Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, March 19, 1980, 67pp;

[liii] George Waldbott, “Mass Intoxication from Over-Fluoridation in Drinking Water”, Clinical Toxicology, Vol 18, No.5, pp.531-541 (1981)

[liv] X.S.Li et al, Fluoride, Vol 26, No.4, pp.189-192, 1995, “Effect of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence In Children”. Presented to the 20th Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research, Beijing, China, September 5-9, 1994.

[lv] Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No,2, p.176, “Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats”, Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995.

[lvi] Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No,2, p.176, “Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats”, Muellenix, Denbesten, Schunior, Kernan, 1995.

[lvii] Journal of the American Medical Association, September 18, 1943.

[lviii] K Roholm, Handbuch Experi menteller Pharma-kologie, Ergaenzungswerk, Vol 7, Berlin. Springer, 1938: 20.