Monday, July 17, 2017

Stop Fluoridation: It's Ineffective & Harmful, Say Chilean Researchers

Water and milk fluoridation haven't reduced tooth decay but is potentially harmful, report researchers from Chile (Medical Journal of ChileFebruary 2017,Translated with Google Translate). They recommend the government of Chile change its laws to stop adding fluoride chemicals into drinking water and milk in all regions of the country.

They show how fluoride intake can cause bone, thyroid, neurological and skin damage without reducing tooth decay. For example, they explain that, in the 1950s, fluoride was used to depress or reduce overactive thyroid glands (hyperthyroid) at doses which corresponds to the doses in drinking water of some fluoridated areas.(between 2 and 5 mg per Liter per day)

So it's not surprising that a recent study found a link between fluoridation and hypothyroidism (under-active thyroid)

Unnecessary fluoride chemicals are added to public water supplies, in a failed effort to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers. Many theories which gave birth to fluoridation in the early 1900's have been scientifically disproved making fluoridation a waste of money and a detriment to health.

The Chilean researchers report, “The fluoridation of drinking water does not significantly impact on caries prevention... effectiveness is rather a topical and non-systemic effect, as demonstrated by countries that do not fluoridate drinking water, and do not use milk or fluoride salts," yet have similar decay rates.

The research team based their analysis on a review of irrefutable scientific studies which included control of confounding variables.

They report that, according to WHO data, between 1970 and 2013, a decrease in 12-year-old's tooth decay occurred and at the same rate whether a country fluoridated its water or not. The same holds true for countries that fluoridate drinking water vs countries that do not fluoridate drinking water or salt.

Many European countries that have substantially decreased dental decay have never had massive fluoridation programs for milk and milk products (and/or drinking water).

"Therefore, fluoridation of drinking water and salts have no incidence at all in reducing dental [decay]," they conclude. 

About 3 million Chilean children consume fluoridated milk, diluted with water that naturally has at least 0.3 mg/L of fluoride. Considering consumption of at least  3 glasses of milk a day (200 ml), the intake of fluoride would be 2.59-3.6 mg/day which is above any international recommendation, they report.

"...the fluoridation of milk has no relevance in reducing dental decay. In addition children who have received fluoride salts are at increase risk of developing not only dental fluorosis [discolored teeth], but diseases such as those described in this review," they write.

This isn't the first review to expose the fluoridation boondoggle.

The respected UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the “existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups.” Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults’ cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay.

"Peckham and Awofeso concluded that the evidence suggests that fluoride has the potential to generate health problems, while it only has a discrete effect on the prevention of dental caries," the Chilean research team reports.

Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report Israeli  researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016) 

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016).

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al, reported "Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs...these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable."

Even respected dental researchers have reported in dental textbooks that fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific evidence.

                                    END FLUORIDATION

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Lead Linked to Autism - Fluoride Increases Lead Absorption

A new study reveals that children with Autism had much higher levels of lead levels throughout their development, according to Medical News Today.

The new research was led by Manish Arora, Ph.D., an environmental scientist and dentist at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, NY, and the findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.

Naturally exfoliated baby teeth were analyzed for lead content. However, fluoride level wasn't mentioned; but should be tested.

Lead is allowed in fluoridation chemicals used in most US public water supplies

Here's an explanation of how that occurs.

Also, while not providing a direct link to autism, several studies show that fluoride increases blood lead levels.  

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, boosts lead absorption in lab animals' bones, teeth and blood, report Sawan, et al. (Toxicology 2/2010).
Earlier studies already show children's blood-lead-levels are higher in
 fluoridated communities, reports Sawan's research team.
"…exposure to increased amounts of lead and fluoride occurs at about the same age (1-3 years)… Therefore, this is a critical time when systemic exposure to fluoride should be minimized since fluoride may increase lead accumulation," the researchers caution.
"These findings suggest that a biological effect, not recognized so far, may underlie the epidemiological association between increased blood-lead levels in children and water fluoridation," concludes Sawan's research team.
"[O]ur findings may have serious implications for populations exposed to
increased amounts  of both lead and fluoride, particularly young children,"
the research team writes.
Masters and Coplan's landmark studies show higher blood-lead-levels in
children living in silico-fluoridated communities. (Neurotoxicology 2000, 2007). 
Macek's research shows children's higher blood-lead-levels are associated with water fluoridation when lead is already in the environment
(Environmental Health Perspectives, 2006).
                           --  END FLUORIDATION --

Monday, May 01, 2017

Fluoride Safety Doubted, Researchers Report

Fluoridation Safety & Efficacy is Doubted, Researchers Report
Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report Israeli  researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016)
Fluoridation is the unnecessary addition of fluoride chemicals (lead- and arsenic-laced hydrofluosilicic acid) into public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay.

Albany County  enjoys a very low decay rate (25%)  despite a very low 13% fluoridation rate, according to NYS Dept of Health statistics. 

The Israeli researchers further report that  “A [UK] Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth]." 
Israel policy-makers and public health officials ignored or denied valid evidence, produced by experts in their fields and respected science groups to push through a fluoridation mandate in Israel, report Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz.

They report that “policy makers themselves …[carry] out what they accuse others [fluoridation opposers] of doing. They share only partial, biased information in order to support their [pro-fluoridation] case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.”

The same is true in the US

From the beginning, respected US scientists and physicians criticized fluoridation but were ignored (i.e., Waldbott). Voices of opposition were suppressed since the early days, according to Chemical and Engineering News.

Criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Chemical & Engineering News, Newsweek and ABC-TV.  

In fact, US public health bureaucrats ignore their own published evidence of fluoride’s potential harm i.e. New York State Department of Health and Virginia Department of Health.

The ignored1990 NYS Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats about fluoride's potential harm to kidney patients, diabetics and the fluoride hypersensitive even at optimal levels.

Gesser-Edelsburg and Shir-Raz explain that some studies, including recent ones, show no benefit from fluoridation; some even report adverse effects and that those studies were ignored by officials.

Today’s PR gurus coach fluoridationists to avoid mentioning risks because then “opponents are likely to win.”  (slide 18) And they disallow fluoridation opponents from partaking in fluoridation discussions. This occurred in New York State.

Coming on the heels of evidence showing that fluoridation is useless and more harmful to the poor, researchers continue to report that fluoridation's tooth decay reduction are still  not scientifically proven.

“Fluoridated water [does] not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries,” report Italian researchers in the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry (December 2016). 

 Swedish researchers, in PLOS one, February 2015, reported a “systematic review concerned the caries-preventive effect of water fluoridation [McDonagh]… was graded as low.”

In July 2012, Cagetti, et al. reported “Studies of the effectiveness of water fluoridation have been based on observational study designs… these studies are regarded as low in quality and the weight of the evidence derived from cross-sectional and observational studies can be questionable” 

Even respected dental researchers have reported in dental textbooks that fluoridation is based more on unproven theories than scientific evidence.

Countries that do not fluoridate the water have experienced a dramatic decline in tooth decay.  See chart.

NYS Communities which have stopped or rejected fluoridation are:  Suffolk, Nassau & Rockland counties, Albany, Elba, Naples, Levittown, Canton, Corning, Johnstown, Oneida, Carle Place, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, Riverhead, Central Bridge Water District, Homer, Ithaca, Rouses Point, Pulaski, Romulus and Amsterdam.


Tuesday, March 14, 2017

Fluoride: EPA's Protected Pollutant

EPA’s failure to lower allowable fluoride levels in public water supplies protects artificial water fluoridation instead of the American public for political not scientific reasons.

EPA, by law, must determine every six years if safe levels of water contaminants, such as fluoride, allowed in public water supplies are still protective of health.  In 2006, the National Research Council, at the behest of EPA and after 3 years of study, said health-preserving fluoride levels must be lowered. But EPA ignored the NRC and the science showing that fluoride ingestion is harmful to health.  In effect, EPA's lack of action is putting many Americans' health at risk.

It's not EPA's task to determine if the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies - fluoridation - is beneficial for dental health. But EPA oddly defended water fluoridation  in its Federal Register published excuse for ignoring the science of fluoride's harm. EPA felt compelled to rip apart almost every study critical of fluoride but failed to critique virtually any pro-fluoride study - even though many respected research bodies found fluoridation research is mostly shoddy and unreliable.

Three expert committees (NRCSCHERYORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  ( Journal of Risk Research, August 2016)

They add,  “A Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis [white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth].”

Dentists and the EPA often claim that dental fluorosis is no big deal but then dentists make a tidy profit covering up those discolored teeth as these fluorosis before and after advertisements attest to.  

Based on published science, EPA has enough evidence, not only to lower the water fluoride Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) and Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), but to ban all artificial fluoridation programs country-wide. Naturally fluoridated water supplies generally contain calcium fluoride which is much less toxic than the fluoridation chemicals most used for artificial fluoridation.  In fact, calcium is the antidote for fluoride poisoning.

An EPA scientist details how EPA caved to political interests in 1985 in setting the current safe water fluoride levels. And that was way before hundreds of additional studies were published showing fluoride's harm.

Keeping the MCLG and MCL at scientifically indefensible levels appears to, not only benefit artificial water fluoridation and the special-interests which instigate it, but those industries and corporations that profit from fluoride sales. Corporate interests notoriously protect their products and brand image  – even when water fluoride is not directly linked to their fluoridated dental products. See: Fluoridation - Follow the Money.

Fluoridation began and continues at the urging of dentists – dentists who didn’t perceive that fluoride could get into the brain.  Even the EPA reports, itself, that fluoride is a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.

Well-rehearsed kindly old Dentists, like those in TV commercials, keep to the script. They claim fluoridation is safe and effective before governing bodies who don't realize they are watching an infomercial.   Fluoridation is based on belief not science according to a dental textbook.

Besides, fluoride’s adverse health effects, outside of the oral cavity, are not within the purview of dentistry, according to the California Board of Dental Examiners.  Yet, dentists control the issue - both inside and outside of government.  Organized dentistry's deep pockets full of corporate cash may speak louder than words.

Now over 100 animal and more than 50 human studies show that the neurological system gets fluoridated along with the water, teeth and bones.  The question is no longer “Does fluoride cause brain damage,” but “at what level does fluoride cause brain damage.” 

This alone should be enough to put an end to artificial water fluoridation. 

How long will EPA allow the American public to be guinea pigs in this ongoing human experiment?

The federal government reports that 58% of US adolescents have dental fluorosis - 21% have moderate fluorosis and 2% severe. Clearly, American children are fluoride-overdosed. We know their teeth are fluoride-damaged.  Who's looking at their bones.  No one!

At the same time, the feds report that 350,000 U.S. children (1 in 200) have serum fluoride levels in the approximate range associated with overt neurotoxic effects.

It’s clear that politics has a heavy hand in protecting fluoride levels allowed in water supplies and, therefore, in protecting the US fluoridation program. My guess is that EPA scientists, intimately involved with protecting fluoride, are fully aware that fluoridation is based on a house of cards. In the early 1940’s,  humans  were used to prove a pre-determined outcome – that fluoride, consumed via the water supply, was essential to create healthy teeth. The inconvenient truth is that modern science disproved those out-dated theories. But the belief in fluoridation runs deep.

Fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth as it was once believed to be.  Fluoridation began with the mistaken theory that ingested fluoride was required for children to form decay-resistant teeth.  The Centers for Disease Control now admits that “Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted…” CDC also admits that “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”  They also admit that the amount of fluoride emerging from saliva to bathe teeth topically with fluoride is too low to have any beneficial effect.

Although the CDC is often cited as praising fluoridation as a great achievement of the last century, the CDC seems to divest itself of responsibility by saying It is not CDC’s task to determine what levels of fluoride in water are safe.

Fluoridation is based on an early 1900’s discovery that people with fluoride-discolored teeth had less tooth decay. A discovery that failed to factor in that healthier wealthier populations were their test subjects. Those with fluoride-mottled teeth grew and ate their own local produce and could afford dental care – which is how, then and now,  most dentists decide where to practice.  Healthy diets reduced tooth decay. Fluoride just discolored their teeth.

Consuming a fluoride-free diet does not cause tooth decay.  But there is no dispute that too much fluoride damages bones and teeth.  The problem is that there is no government entity which is tasked with or interested in ascertaining Americans’ total fluoride intake or informing the public to tally fluoride intake and why they should.  

As EPA scientists are well aware the fluoride concentration in public water supplies does not equate to an individual’s dose. Fluoride does not need to be added to public water supplies at all.

Virtually all foods and beverages and some medicines contain fluoride as well as dental products both obvious and obscure, as in dental cements.  Inhaled shower and ocean mist, air pollution and cold mist humidifiers using fluoridated water also contribute to total fluoride intake. In a 2017 study showing that some two-year-old's exceed a safe fluoride level from all sources, Martinez-Mier et. al point out that “Dust and soil, for example, can contribute to a person’s total fluoride intake.”

A 1940’s fluoridation-health experimental study carried out on the entire population of Newburgh, NY, without individual's informed consent, was prematurely declared successful after only 5 years, before the teeth of test animals - schoolchildren - permanent teeth had erupted.  Also ignored were adults, pre-schoolers, brain and long-term effects. The Newburgh study forms the basis for specious claims that fluoridation is safe for everyone. Since then, very little US research looks for fluoride’s adverse health effects to any body parts that aren’t the teeth.  And the few that do are dismissed for poor reasons by this EPA.

The 1940’s was a time when essential vitamins and minerals were discovered to prevent disease. Dentists thought fluoride was their magic bullet but it isn’t.  After 72 years of fluoridation, tooth decay is a national crisis – especially in the poor.  Too many Americans are dentist-deficient and fluoride-overdosed, thanks in part to the EPA’s failure to lower fluoride’s MCL and MCLG.  Dentists prefer to treat the water of and not the teeth of low-income people and EPA enables that

By focusing on fluoridation instead of diet and dentist-access, organized dentistry allowed a national dental health crisis to occur on its watch and created a new one – dental fluorosis.

While the profession increasingly focuses on cosmetic care, 1/3 of all Americans can’t afford or are unable to get any dental care forcing them into hospital emergency rooms to relieve the relentless pain.  EPA has an indirect hand in this.

Dental visits to ERs nearly doubled between 2000 and 2010.  Four million visits cost $2.7 billion, mostly paid by taxpayers, and the patients seldom receive dental care – often just receiving pain and/or antibiotic prescriptions. One hundred and one patients died in hospitals from the consequences of untreated tooth decay, from 2008-2010, according to the Journal of the American Dental Association.

We know that organized dentistry lobbies the EPA to keep the water fluoride MCL and MCLG levels higher than necessary, to protect fluoridation, and claims that dental fluorosis is not a big deal But “Such changes in the tooth’s appearance can affect the child’s self-esteem which makes early prevention that much more critical,” according to dentist Elivir Dincer in the January 2008 New York State Dental Journal.

Fluoridation gives the illusion that dentists care about the low-income folks who aren’t welcomed in their dental chairs.  Most dentists refuse Medicaid patients. Organized dentistry lobbied successfully to have dental care excluded from Medicare.

Tooth decay rates did go down since fluoridation’s inception but there is no valid evidence proving that fluoride is the reason.  Tooth decay rates have gone down in areas with no added fluoride in water or foods.  At the same time, tooth decay crises are occurring in all fluoridated cities, states and countries.  See:  Some African countries with no fluoride, toothbrushes, toothpaste or dentists have inhabitants with some of the lowest decay rates in the world (Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, by dentist Weston Price)

It’s well established that rotten diets make rotten teeth and no amount of fluoride has changed that. 

So it’s very disheartening to see EPA's frivolous rejection of a growing mountain of published scientific evidence showing that ingesting fluoride is not safe for everyone.  EPA is supposed to base its MCLG on those who are most adversely affected by fluoride which would include kidney patients, babies, the allergic or insensitive and people who drink copious amounts of water or tea.   Anyone can pull apart any one study but EPA neglects to do so with any study favorable to fluoride or fluoridation. 

Because EPA seems to be politicized, EPA scientists, under protection of their union, expressed their scientific reasons to oppose fluoridation in 1999.

William Marcus, PhD, a respected EPA senior scientist was fired after he made public that results of rodent/fluoride studies were selectively downgraded to make it appear that fluoride did not cause cancer in experimental lab animals when it did.  He was re-hired under with back-pay under the whistle blowers’ act but the animal experimental results were never fixed to show the truth.

Others are doing a better job of protecting the public than the current EPA.  For example:

As early as 1988, an investigative reporter with Chemical and Engineering News wrote “Questions about health risks and benefits remain after more than 40 years.”

In 2008, Scientific American reported “Second Thoughts About Fluoride,”  where John Doull, PhD, Chair of the National Research Council’s (NRC) panel which reviewed current fluoride toxicological research (at the EPA’s request – what a waste of money.) said, “when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began.”

In fact, three expert committees (NRC, SCHER, YORK) revealed “that there is uncertainty surrounding both the safety and the efficacy of fluoridation, report researchers,  Anat Gesser-Edelsburg, PhD, Head of Health Promotion Department, School of Public Health, University of Haifa, and Dr. Yaffa Shir-Raz  in the Journal of Risk Research, August 2016)

They add,  “A Cochrane systematic review (2015) “concluded that there is very little updated and high-quality evidence indicating that fluoridation reduces dental caries, while there is significant association between fluoride levels and dental fluorosis.”

In the 1940s and 1950s, dentists in their eagerness to have a magic bullet that would enhance their professional prestige, promoted fluoridation heavily and dismissed legitimate debate over the merits of fluoridation within the scientific, medical and dental communities, according to an American Journal of Public Health article by Catherine Carstairs, PhD (June 2015). 

Carstairs writes, “some of the early fluoridation studies had methodological problems, which may have exaggerated their benefits.”

Carstairs concludes “After 70 years of investigation, there are still questions about how effective water fluoridation is at preventing dental decay and whether the possible risks are worth the benefits.”

In 2014, a legal scholar writes that fluoridation violates numerous legal and ethical human subjects research protocols ( Rita Barnett-Rose, Chapman University Associate Law Professor, in the William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review  Volume 39 | Issue 1)

Barnett-Rose writes, “Claims that fluoridation is not mass medication are unpersuasive. Adding a drug to the water supply to treat or prevent the disease of tooth decay is unquestionably a medical intervention, and the fact that the risks of this drug are still being determined by public agencies supports an argument that water fluoridation is an ongoing human medical experiment. As such, this experiment should be subject to informed consent for each human subject affected.”

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

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

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

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

Dentist Thomas Connelly, reporting in the wrote: “I do not see the good in fluoridating our drinking water.

The US has yet to do any human brain/fluoride studies, especially in regard to fluoride’s link to children’s lower IQ.  When respected scientist Phylllis Mullenix unexpectedly found that fluoride can cause brain damage in lab animals and called for more corroborating research, she was fired instead because she wouldn’t hide her result.  

Hundreds of millions of dollars – maybe billions – are wasted on artificial water fluoridation schemes including PR agencies hired by both government and private organizations, on infrastructure, spokesperson training, water employee indoctrination, dedicated fluoridation employees in health departments and the CDC, lobbying, continuing education credits, grants, webinars, seminars, meetings, symposiums, advertising, videos, pamphlets, posters and other paraphernalia (t-shirts, cups, tote bags, water bottles, etc) – all because EPA won’t do its job and lower the MCL and MCLG of fluoride to a level that is safe for everyone and which would, in effect, abolish artificial water fluoridation in the United States.

Imagine, instead, if that money could be used to actually treat the teeth of low-income Americans – those who dentists neglect, for whom fluoridation shows no benefit and for which the American public picks up the tab for substandard dental care in hospital ER’s to the tune of billions of dollars.

Failure to lower the water fluoride MCL and MCLG, makes EPA an enabler in this political boondoggle. 


Sunday, February 19, 2017

Politics Ruled EPA Way Before Trump Was President

At the urging of Congress, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) studied fluoride/cancer effects in rodents.  Some rodents developed cancer. But the 1990 report downgraded those and other effects, officially calling the certain cancer findings "equivocal"(uncertain), some said to protect the US fluoridation program and the government agencies promoting it. An EPA Senior Science Adviser blew the whistle on this discrepancy, was fired for doing so, then re-hired with back pay under the whistle blower's act. But the NTP never corrected its misrepresentation. Below is Dr. Marcus'  May 1, 1990 Memo on the falsification of the NTP fluoride/cancer results which got him fired. Here is a 1995 transcript of his experience.

Bioassay on Fluoride
DATE: May 1, 1990
SUBJECT: Fluoride Conference to Review the NTP Draft Fluoride

FROM: Wm L. Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Criteria &
Standards Division, ODW (WH-550D)

TO: Alan B. Hais, Acting Director, Criteria & Standards Division,
ODW (WH-550D)

The conference was held in RTP at the NIEHS headquarters on April
26, 1990. The subject of the conference was a peer review of the NTP
draft report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of Sodium
Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3F Mice (Drinking Water Studies)
NTP Report Number 393. Dr. Robert Scala was to chair this meeting
but was unable to attend because of ill health. Dr. Michael Gallo
appointed acting Chairperson. One of the attenders seated with the
panel members was David Rall, Ph.D., M.D., Director of NIEHS. Dr.
Rall took an extremely active interest in the proceedings and remained
seated for the entire proceedings with only two minor interruptions.
The most disturbing part of the report was the continual reference to
the historical controls as having the same or higher cancers as the test
groups. On pages 89 - 90 of the report starting with the last paragraph
the authors state the following:

An important consideration which limits the usefulness of the historical
control data base in the current studies is that the diet used in all other
NTP studies had not been closely monitored for fluoride content.
Fluoride concentrations in typical batches of NHI-07 diet range
between 28 and 47 ppm (.7 and 1.2 mg/kg/day)(Rao and Knapka (1),
1987). Assuming a minimum bioavailability of 60% (Tests show 66%
absorption page I-18), the historical database animals actually
constitute a group receiving sufficient fluoride to place them between
the low- and mid-concentration group in the current (the studies
reviewed at RTP at the conference). The fact that this fluoride is
available for absorption from the standard diet is supported by the
levels of fluoride found in the bones of animals maintained on this diet
in the six months studies (Appendix I). (The levels in the bones of the
rats on the standard NHI chow was ten [10] times the levels of those
fed the semisynthetic diet and deionized water, 0.922 vs 0.0901). If the
fluoride [is] in fact influencing the "spontaneous " or background
incidence of osteosarcoma in male rats, comparisons with those in the
historical database maybe misleading. This forces an even greater
reliance on the within-study comparisons, ie., the incidences of the
dosed groups compared with the concurrent control, in the
interpretation of the results of the sodium fluoride studies. [italics in

When I plotted a bar graph of osteosarcoma in male rats and placed the
historical controls on the graph 0.6% is just where expected. This helps
demonstrate a relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoride. The
purpose of such graphs is to predict occurrence. Since the historical
controls comprise some 6,000 animals, this data point is extremely
significant compared to the other three. Osteosarcoma is an extremely
rare animal tumor and may be the result of the variable high fluoride
content in the feed. In order to demonstrate this, all that need be done is
require that the fluoride content of animal chow be lowered
dramatically and that fluoride be removed from the water given to the
animals under study.

The dose of fluoride to which the concurrent controls were exposed is
0.2 mg/kg/day. A 70 kg man who drinks 2 liters daily is exposed to
0.03 mg/kg/day. The "control" animals were exposed to an amount of
fluoride six to seven (6-7 X) greater. Lois Gold, Ph.D. of the review
panel concluded that, "this group of animals therefore, can hardly be termed a control group. It can best be described as a lowest dosed
group." This is an important consideration because as the document
reports on page 9, the levels of fluoride in bone are linearly dependent
upon dose and length of exposure ("depends upon total intake") in
people. The level of fluoride in ashed samples of bone of 20-30 year
old people is 200 - 800 mg/kg compared to 70 to 80 year old people of
1,000 - 2.500 mg/kg. In the document, the authors cited Zipkin (2) who
reported on bone fluoride concentrations in four groups of individuals
with average ages of 56 to 76 who lived in areas with fluoride
concentrations in drinking water of 0. 1, 1, 2.6, or 4 ppm The
relationship to bone fluoride concentrations and water fluoride content
was linear; bone fluoride ranged from about 800 to 7,000 ppm ash with
increasing water fluoride."

In the animal studies the levels of fluoride (Appendix I) found in the
bones of the animals were the same as or lower than those found in
people. The highest dosed level of rats had lower levels of fluoride in
their bones (5,470 ppm) compared to people (7,000 ppm) at the MCL
of 4 ppm. This can be interpreted as people who ingest drinking water
at the MCL have 1.3 times more fluoride in their bones than male rats
who get osteosarcoma This is the first time in my memory that animals
have lower concentrations of the carcinogen at the sight of adverse
effect than do humans. An important toxicologic consideration is that a
toxic substance stores at the same place it exerts it toxic activity. This is
true of benzene and now for fluoride. Fluoride however, is at twice the
concentration in human bones compared to benzene which is 10 to 100
[times] greater in animal marrow. This portends a very serious
problem. One would expect to be able to discern a carcinogenic effect
in the exposed population when compared to the unexposed population
especially if data exist on the populations before fluoridation.

Yiamouyiannis and Burk published epidemiology studies that have
since been revised twice (3), by Burk (former head of the
Cytochemistry section at NIH). In these extensively peer reviewed
papers, the authors found that about 10,000 deaths a year are
attributable to fluoride water treatment. The U.S. Public Health Service
(U.S.PHS) criticized the original studies by erroneously asserting that
the results reported by the authors were a result of changes in the age,
race and sex composition of the sample. The U.S.PHS made
mathematical errors and did not include 90% of the data. U.S.PHS
method of analysis when applied to the database, confirmed that 10,000
excess cancer deaths yearly were linked to fluoridation of watersupplies. This evidence has been tested most recently in the
Pennsylvania Courts and found scientifically sound after careful

There were three different short term in vitro tests performed on
fluoride and all these tests proved fluoride to be mutagenic. An Ames
test was performed and reported to be negative. Bruce Ames, in a letter
to Arthur Upton introduced in the Congressional Record, stated that his
test system was inappropriate for fluoride testing based on a number of
technical considerations. EPA's own guidelines require that in vitro
tests be taken into consideration when found positive. In this case, the
mutagenicity of fluoride supports the conclusion that fluoride is a
probable human carcinogen.

Melvin Reuber, M.D, a board certified pathologist and former
consultant to EPA and part time EPA employee, reviewed some of
pathology slides and the Battelle report. Dr. Reuber has had his
pathologic diagnoses questioned several times in the past. When an
independent board together with Dr. Reuber went over the Slides his
opinion was always upheld. He first published the work that identified
hepatocholangiocarcinoma as a pathologic entity. The report changed
Battelle's board certified veterinary pathologists diagnoses from
hepatocholangiocarcinoma to hepatoblastoma and finally to
hepatocarcinoma. Dr. Reuber reviewed the pathology slides [in the NTP fluoride/cancer rodent study]and stated
that these lesions are indeed hepatocholangiocarcinoma. Because Dr.
Reuber first identified and published his findings on this tumor, I trust
his opinion in this matter. These tumors are extremely rare. Dr.
Reuber's diagnoses would make the liver cancers significant because of
their rarity. This changes the equivocal finding of the board to at least
some evidence or clear evidence of carcinogenicity. In addition, the
oral changes in the report were down-graded from dysplasia and
metaplasia to degeneration. Dr. Reuber said that this. change should
also be reviewed. The report also down-graded adrenal
pheochromocytomas and tumors to hyperplasia. This needs to be
reviewed by an independent board. The other liver carcinomas were
down-graded to foci by artificially defining a need for 75%
compression in the tumor before it was no longer a foci. Using this
changed definition carcinomas were down-graded to adenomas and
adenomas downgraded to eosinophilic foci. In almost all instances, the
Battelle board certified pathologists' findings were down-graded. It is
my suggestion that a board independent of NIEHS should be assembled
by ODW consisting of human pathologists (for their experience in an diagnosing osteosarcoma), the Battelle pathologist (to defend his
original diagnoses), Dr. Melvin Reuber, Dr. Thomas Squires and two
other well known independent board-certified animal pathologists. The
charge to this board is to meet as a body, review the slides, agree on a
pathologic diagnoses and prepare a report to be submitted to ODW for
incorporation in our docket for the fluoride regulation.

The report talks about the efficacy of fluoride and tooth decay. Since
the studies were performed to determine the carcinogenicity of fluoride
this should not have been addressed. There appear to be at least four
different publications from the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand that
have reported similar or lower tooth decay rates in nonfluoridated areas
as compared to fluoridated areas (4,5,6,7). Therefore, the entire
question of the efficacy of fluoridation based on extensive and multiple
studies has been called into question. Our job is to set safe levels for
fluoride in drinking water based on the scientific evidence.
The problem with this meeting was the inability of independent
reviewers to get to see the slides prior to the meeting. We must perform
our own scientific review of the slides and write our conclusions for
use in the development of the revised fluoride regulation.

(1) Roa, G.N., and Knappa, J.J. 1987. Contaminant and nutrient
concentrations of natural ingredient rat and mouse diet used in
chemical toxicology studies. Fundam. Appl. Toxicol.
9, 329-338.
(2) Zipkin, L., McClure, F.J., Leone, H.C., and Lee, W.A. 1958.
Fluoride deposition in human bones after prolonged ingestion of
fluoride in drinking water. Public Health Rep. 73,
(3) Graham, J.R., Burk, O., and Morin, P. 1987. A current restatement
and continuing reappraisal concerning demographic variables in
American time-trend studies an water
fluoridation and human cancer. Proc Pennsylvania Academy of Sci.
(4) Colquhoun, J. 1987. Comm. Health Studies. 11:85.
(5) Gray, a. 1987. J. Canadian Dental Assoc. 53:763.
(6) Hildebolt, C.F. et al. 1989. Amer J, Physiol. Anthropol. 78:79-92.
(7) Diesendorf, M. 1986. Nature. 321:125.
1995 Radio Interview with Dr. Marcus  on NTP fluoride/cancer study is here:


Because EPA management allegedly uses politics and not science to protect fluoridation,  EPA scientists and other professionals under the safety umbrella of their union demanded an end to fluoridation
FluorideGate, The Movie reveals more from Dr. Marcus and his lawyer

Dr. Marcus starts at about 12 minutes into this film

About 13 minutes, hear from Dr. Marcus lawyer from the National Whistleblowers Association