In this website, The Fluoride Debate, we have juxtaposed the arguments presented by the American Dental Association (ADA) with comments from many of the independent scientists who have examined the issue with an open mind. We believe that if people take the time to read and study both sides of the fluoridation debate — especially the science that has emerged over the last ten years — they will be appalled by the practice of putting this known toxic substance into the public drinking water. The benefits have been wildly exaggerated and the risks have been downplayed.
Behind the scenes many dentists acknowledge this situation but the ADA maintains such a stranglehold on the profession that it is dangerous for them to become openly critical of the practice of fluoridation. Even though the ADA is an association, not a governmental agency, it has a great deal of influence on dental matters through its lobbyists in Washington, DC and the almost universal and dominant presence of its members on State Dental Boards. These Boards have the power to remove a license from a practicing dentist in the state, and thus can keep dentists in line on controversial issues like fluoridation.
We hope that this website will encourage more dentists to break ranks with the ADA and rescue this profession from its shortsighted promotion of this dangerous, unethical and unnecessary practice.
THIS WEBSITE CONTAINS EVIDENCE THAT …
- Fluoridation is not about “children’s teeth”. Rather, it is about industry ridding itself of crude hazardous waste products, silicofluorides, for a profit. Silicofluorides are 85 times more toxic than naturally-occurring calcium fluoride.
- Fluoride is more toxic than lead and like lead in minute doses, accumulates in and can be damaging to brain/mind development of children, producing abnormal behavior in animals and reducing IQ in humans, especially in conjunction with deficiencies of key nutrients such as calcium, iodine and vitamins. It can also contribute to many disease processes. Because it is almost as toxic as arsenic, fluoride’s ability to play havoc in the human body should surprise no one.
- There is as much, or more, dental decay in fluoridated communities as there is in the non-fluoridated areas; however, the dental costs are higher in fluoridated communities due to dental fluorosis. Drinking fluoridated water may delay decay, but it does not prevent it.
- Dental fluorosis is not simply a “cosmetic effect”. Dental fluorosis is the first visible sign of fluoride poisoning. Today there is an increased prevalence of dental fluorosis, ranging from about 15% to 65% in fluoridated areas and 5% to 40% in non-fluoridated areas in North America.
- Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists, after studying all the evidence, concluded that the public water supply should not be used “as a vehicle for disseminating this toxic and prophylactically useless … substance.”
- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) states that fluoride is not a mineral nutrient; it is a prescription drug. Every prescription drug has side-effects, including fluoride. Fluoride has never received FDA approval and does not meet the legal requirements of safety and effectiveness necessary for such approval. Once this drug is put in the water there is no control over individual dosage.
- The American Dental Association supplement schedule shows that fluoride prescription drugs should not be given to infants under 6 months of age. One cup of water per day for children age 6 months to 3 years matches the supplement controlled dose. Therefore, in fluoridated areas, most children under 3 are getting an overdose of this drug via their drinking water, yet the ADA continues to recommend fluoridation.
- The widespread and uncontrolled use of fluoride in our water, dental products, and foods and beverages (grown and processed in fluoridated communities), is causing pervasive over-exposure to fluoride in the U.S. population. Most developed countries have rejected, stopped, or banned fluoridation because there is no margin of safety.
- Fluoride is not just “one of forty chemicals used to treat water”. It is the only chemical added to public drinking water to treat individuals, rather than the water. It is mass medication. This website explains why a good number of leading scientists, doctors, and some dentists are avidly opposed to putting fluoride in our water supply. It also shows that this controversy has existed in the scientific field from the onset.
Why would so many health organizations be promoting fluoridation if it were not “safe and effective?”
Follow the Money
After Oscar Ewing, Chief Counsel of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA) became head of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) in 1947, he offered the American Dental Association strong inducements to back fluoridation. To this day the ADA is paid well for endorsements of fluoride products. Grants are awarded to produce studies that will show fluoride is safe. Scientists whose research shows negative effects from fluoride often find it difficult to get their findings published. (See 0-6: “The Difficulty of Research on Fluoridation”, Natick Fluoridation Study Committee Report, 9/27/97).
“Dr. Phyllis Mullenix says she lost her job at Harvard’s Forsyth (Dental) Research Institute in 1994 after she insisted on publishing research results showing that fluoride adversely affected brain function in test animals. Mullenix had spent 12 years at Forsyth’s toxicology department, eleven of them as its chairman.” (See 0-7: “Vigorously brushing aside reports of fluoride’s dangers,” The Boston Sunday Globe, Apr. 4, 1999).
“There is clear evidence that promoters have stacked the deck, suppressed evidence, and victimized or smeared those who speak out against the practice” (of fluoridation). (David R. Hill, P.Eng., Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4, Aug. 1997.) Such tactics would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific ground.
“No school, college or independent medical research institution dares to be critical of fluoridation because they receive Public Health research grants. Likewise, no big food, beverage or drug company will dare speak critically of fluoride because they are under the supervision of Food and Drug Administration, a branch of US PHS.” (Fluoridation and Censorship by H. Petraborg, MD, 9/30/64.)
The USPHS spends millions promoting fluoridation with public funds and have influenced health trade organizations to “come on board” without performing any research of their own. They simply parrot each other’s endorsement. Admission that they are mistaken would result in loss of face and legal liability, much like the tobacco industry.
By presenting the results of the original fluoridation experiments incorrectly, the public and many health organizations were led to believe there was a 65% reduction in tooth decay with fluoridation. The Health Department’s own statistics, when read correctly, prove that there is only a delay in decay, and that dental bills are actually higher, due to dental fluorosis.
(See Opponent’s Response to Question 4 and Question 41).
The Washington Bureau editor of AGD Impact, the monthly publication of the Academy of General Dentistry, wrote in 1999 that “supporters of fluoridation have had an unwillingness to release any information that would cast fluorides in a negative light,” and that organized dentistry “has lost its objectivity — the ability to consider varying viewpoints together with scientific data to reach a sensible conclusion.”
According to Section 20 of the American Dental Association Code of Ethics, “Dentists’ non-participation (in fluoridation promotion) is overt neglect of professional responsibility.” In recent years, several dentists who have testified on the anti-fluoridation side have been reprimanded by their state dental officers.