“The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water.”
“Fluoridated Water Is Public Murder On A Grand Scale” – Dr. Dean Burk
The Courts have said …
Texas Trial Court:
Judge Anthony Farris presided over the trial in the case of Safe Water Foundation v. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, 151st Judicial District, No. 80-52271. On May 24, 1982, Judge Farris entered his findings of fact on the record of the case. His main findings were as follows:
“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.”
Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, these findings of fact were specifically sustained and upheld as having been established at trial by a preponderance of the evidence, as appears in Safe Water Foundation v. Houston, 661 S.W. 2d 189 (Tex. App. 1983).
The Courts have said …
Pennsylvania Trial Court:
Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, Judge Flaherty’s jurisdiction to make and enter his findings on November 16, 1978 was expressly sustained and upheld.
Judge John P. Flaherty, now a Supreme Court Judge, presided over the trial in the case of Paul Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, No. GD-4585-78. The city was sued over fluoridation.
On November 16, 1978, Judge Flaherty handed down his decree. The critical parts of his opinion read as follows:
“Over the course of five months, the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities.”
Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, Judge Flaherty’s jurisdiction to make and enter his findings on November 16, 1978 was expressly sustained and upheld as appears in Aitkenhead v. West View, 397 Atl. 2d 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Nor were his findings ever disturbed on appeal.
In 1988, Justice Flaherty re-affirmed his convictions that fluoridation is a very dangerous practice. In a letter dated January 26, 1988 to Ms. Evelyn Hannan, he stated,
“It has been years now since the case involving fluoridation was before me as a trial judge, but since that time nothing I have seen changes my view of the serious hazards occasioned by public fluoridation. To the contrary, what I have read convinces me all the more that indepth, serious, scientific effort should be undertaken before further expanding a questionable practice. Those who belittle critics of fluoridation do the public a mis-service, yet it seems in the face of strong, uncontradicted prima facie evidence, that is the tactic most often employed.
Whether government has the right to force what it perceives as a benefit to the public was not directly before me in the case, but that also is to be pondered.
My hope is that groups such as yours will spur the scientific community into an objective posture on this issue.
The Courts have said …
Illinois Trial Court:
“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
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
“We’ve got a network of evil in this country that we can’t hide from any longer.”—Fluoride the Aging Factor by John Yiamouyiannis
“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical.” Dr. Dean Burk, Chief Chemist Emeritus, U.S. National Cancer Institute
It’s quickly becoming a known fact that the fluoride in our drinking water is harmful, it’s not even the natural element of fluoride, it’s industrial toxic waste called Hydrofluorosilisic acid.
There’s a reason multiple countries and communities all over the world are putting an end to water fluoridation.
In total, 377,655,000 million people worldwide drink artificially fluoridated water. This represents 5% of the world’s population.
There are more people drinking fluoridated water in the United States than the rest of the world combined.
There is no difference in tooth decay between western nations that fluoridate their water and those that do not.
Shocking Government Cover-ups Hide Fluoride’s Connection to Cancer!
Fluoride and genetic damage and cancer
When drinking water is artificially fluoridated, it is at the arbitrary concentration of 1 part per million. Dr. W. Klein and colleagues at Austria’s Siebersdorf Research Centre found in 1977 that even this small amount of fluoride inhibited DNA repair enzyme activity by 50 percent and caused genetic and chromosome damage(1). This was confirmed in 1982 at the University of Missouri(2).
Sperm cells were damaged by fluoride in a test carried out at Holland’s Leiden University leading to a “highly significant increase in mutation”(3).
Scientists at the West German Central Laboratory for Mutagenicity Testing(4) and at Columbia University(5) came up with similar findings showing that it also caused genetic damage to eggs in both insects and mammals.
Fluoride and cancer
Substances which cause mutations also tend to cause cancer. Scientists in several countries have demonstrated that this is the case with fluoride. In the USA, a comparison between the ten largest fluoridated cities and the ten largest non-fluoridated cities showed that, while cancer rates had been similar initially, after 20 years the fluoridated cities had 10 percent more cancer deaths than the non-fluoridated ones(6). These figures were checked and confirmed in 1976 by the U S National Cancer Institute.
There were attempts by the U S National Cancer Institute to refute this study in 1977 with the claim that during the period of the study there were changes in the age, sex and racial composition of the populations of the cities which had not been taken into account. However, the Institute had made an error in their figures which left out almost 90 percent of the relevant data. At a Congressional Hearing, the data were corrected and agreed, and the National Cancer Institute confirmed the original results.
In Poland, scientists at the Pomeranian Medical Academy reported that as little as 0.6 parts per million produced chromosomal damage to human white blood cells(7). The world’s leading authority on the biological effects of fluoride, Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, estimates that 30,000 to 50,000 deaths each year in the USA are directly attributable to fluoride(8). Agreeing with Yiamouyiannis, Dr. Dean Burk, the Chief Chemist Emeritus of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, stated: ” In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster, than any other chemical “(8).
Osteosarcoma is a rare form of bone cancer but it is the most common form of bone cancer and one of the principal cancers of childhood. In the light of a strong correlation between osteosarcoma and fluoride in a study conducted on rats by the U.S. National Toxicological Program in 1990, and epidemiological evidence of osteosarcoma increase in boys and young men, especially in fluoridated areas, Dr. Perry Cohn of the New Jersey Department of Health surveyed its incidence in seven counties of New Jersey relative to water fluoridation. He found that, as demonstrated in Table I, in the fluoridated areas, the incidence of osteosarcoma in boys under the age of 10 was 4.6 times higher than in the unfluoridated areas, 3.5 times higher in the 10 to 19 age group and over twice as high in the 20 to 49 age group(9). In a similar study of three New Jersey municipalities, the figures for osteosarcoma were over twice as high for the 0-9 age group and nearly 7 times as high for the 10 to 19 age group in the fluoridated areas.
Table I: Fluoride and osteosarcoma in young males
Seven Counties, New Jersey, 1979-1987
Municipalities, NJ, 1979-1987
“fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe 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.”
William Marcus, senior science adviser and toxicologist, US Environmental Protection Agency.
(1) Klein W, et al . DNA repair and environmental substances. Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Bader-und Klimaheilkunde . 1977; 24 (3): 218-223.
(2) Mohamed A, Chandler ME. Cytological effects of sodium fluoride on mice. Fluoride . 1982; 15 (3): 110-18
(3) Mukerjee RN, Sobels FH. The effect of sodium fluoride and idoacetamide on mutation induction by X-irradiation in mature spermatozoa of drosophila. Mutation Res . 1968; 6: 217- 25.
(4) Vogel E. Strong antimutagenic effects of fluoride on mutation induction by trenimon and 1- phenyl-3,3dimethyltriazine in Drosophila melanogaster. Mutation Res . 1973; 20: 339-52.
(5) Jagiello G, Lin J-S. Sodium fluoride as potential mutagen in mammalian eggs. Arch Environ Hlth . 1974; 29: 230-5.
(6) Yiamouyiannis JA, Burk D. Fluoridation of public water systems and the cancer death rate in humans. Presented at the 67th Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biologists and Chemists and the American Society of Experimental Biologists. June 1976.
(7) Jachimczak D, Skotarczak B. The effect of fluorine and lead ions on the chromosomes of human leucocytes in vitro. Genetica Polonica . 1978; 19 (3): 353-7
(8) Yiamouyannis JA. Fluoride: The Aging Factor . Health Action Press, Delaware, Ohio. 1983.
(9) Cohn PD. A brief report on the association of drinking water fluoridation and the incidence of osteosarcoma among young males . N J Dept of Hlth, Trenton, New Jersey. Nov 8, 1992.
Takahashi K, Akiniwa K, Narita K.Regression analysis of cancer incidence rates and water fluoride in the U.S.A. based on IACR/IARC (WHO) data (1978-1992). International Agency for Research on Cancer. J Epidemiol 2001 Jul;11(4):170-9
Department of Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tokyo, Japan.
Age-specific and age-standardized rates (ASR) of registered cancers for nine communities in the U.S.A. (21.8 million inhabitants, mainly white) were obtained from IARC data (1978-82, 1983-87, 1988-92). The percentage of people supplied with “optimally” fluoridated drinking water (FD) obtained from the Fluoridation Census 1985, U.S.A. were used for regression analysis of incidence rates of cancers at thirty six sites (ICD-WHO, 1957). About two-thirds of sites of the body (ICD) were associated positively with FD, but negative associations were noted for lip cancer, melanoma of the skin, and cancers of the prostate and thyroid gland. In digestive organs the stomach showed only limited and small intestine no significant link. However, cancers of the oral cavity and pharynx, colon and rectum, hepato-biliary and urinary organs were positively associated with FD. This was also the case for bone cancers in male, in line with results of rat experiments. Brain tumors and T-cell system Hodgkin’s disease, Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, melanoma of the skin and monocytic leukaemia were also correlated with FD. Of the 36 sites, 23 were positively significant (63.9%), 9 not significant (25.0%) and 4 negatively significant (11.1%). This may indicate a complexity of mechanisms of action of fluoride in the body, especially in view of the coexisting positive and negative correlations with the fluoridation index. The likelihood of fluoride acting as a genetic cause of cancer requires consideration.
PMID: 11512573 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db;=PubMed&list;_uids=11512573&dopt;=Abstract
Several human epidemiological studies have found an association between fluoride in drinking water and the occurrence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer) in young males. (Bassin 2006; Cohn 1992; Hoover 1991). These studies are consistent with the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) cancer bioassay which found that fluoride-treated male rats had an dose-dependent increase in osteosarcoma. (Bucher 1991). Although a number of studies have failed to detect an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma, none of these studies have measured the risk of fluoride at specific windows in time, which is the critical question with respect to fluoride and osteosarcoma.
As acknowledged by the NTP and most other observers, a fluoride/osteosarcoma connection is biologically plausible. The biological plausibility centers around three facts: 1) Bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood; 2) Fluoride is a mutagen when present at sufficient concentrations, and 3) Fluoride stimulates the proliferation of bone-forming cells (osteoblasts), which may “increase the risk for some of the dividing cells to become malignant.” (NRC 2006).
A number of studies have failed to detect an association between fluoride and osteosarcoma. None of these studies, however, have looked at the risk of fluoride during specific ages in life. This is important because, in 2001, an age-specific analysis of a national case-control study that previously reported no association between lifelong exposure to fluoridated water and osteosarcoma (Douglass 1995) found that boys consuming fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th, and 8th years of life (the mid childhood growth spurt) had a statistically significant, “remarkably robust,” risk of developing osteosarcoma during their teenage years. (Bassin 2001). Initially published as a PhD dissertation at Harvard, the study was later published in Cancer Causes & Control.
Although a study in 2011 purported to refute the findings that fluoride causes osteosarcoma (Kim 2011), the study’s methods — by the authors’ own admission — were incapable of assessing the age-specific risk during the critical window period (ages 6 to 8 ) that Bassin identified as the critical risk period from fluoride exposure.
Timeline of Fluoride/Osteosarcoma Research: Read more.
by Arjun Walia.
Water fluoridation has been an increasing topic of public concern over the past few years. Skeptics tend to argue that there is no evidence to support the claim that water fluoridation is harmful to human health. If this were true, why are townships all around the world coming together to ban fluoride from their water supply? Communities in Australia, Canada, the United States and more, have all been convinced that fluoride can be extremely hazardous to human health. Sodium fluoride, sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid are all used in dental offices, toothpaste and water fluoridation practices. They are toxic waste substances created from the creation processes in the fertilizer, steel, nuclear and aluminum industries.
Who Was Dr. Dean Burk?
Dr. Dean Burk was an American biochemist, who co-discovered biotin, a chemical necessary for cell growth, the production of fatty acids and the metabolism of fats and amino acids. He was the head chief chemist at the National Cancer Institute, part of the National Institute of health under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He was chief of cytochemistry at the institute’s laboratory. He received the Hilderbrand Prize in 1952 for his work on photosynthesis, and the Gerhard Domagk Prize in 1965 for his development of procedures for distinguishing the difference between a normal cell and one damaged by cancer. He was the co-developer of the prototype of the nuclear magnetic resonance scanner. He was born in Oakland, California in 1902 and died 1988. His paper, “The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants (3),” published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934 is one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry. As you can see, this man knew his science!
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he waited until his senior years to speak up about fluoride. This interview was recorded in Holland in the 1970′s, again no surprise that he did not give interviews like this in the United States. Today, fluoride is a known toxic chemical. If you accidentally swallow a little bit from your toothpaste, the instructions on it will usually advise you to call poison control. The government doesn’t hide the fact that fluoride is toxic (2), Dr Dean Burk presents his research in the video, and states that the evidence cannot be refuted. The fluoride used in the water supply is poison, there is no good reason we should be administering it to the population, no matter what the dose. On top of that, there has never been any evidence to support the claim that water fluoridation benefits teeth. This is especially interesting when you observe that dental health is better in non-fluoridated regions than it is in fluoridated regions.
SOURCE: Forbidden Knowledge TV: This interview was recorded live in Holland in the 1970′s, and as a result of it being broadcast, 100,000 people took to the streets and had fluoride removed immediately.
Who exactly was Dr. Dean Burk?
– Head of the National Cancer Institute’s Cytochemistry Sector from 1938 to 1974
– Co-discoverer of biotin
– Co-developer of the prototype of the Magnetic Resonance Scanner (MRI machine)
– Cancer researcher at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute
– Worked for the Department of Agriculture in the Fixed Nitrogen Research Laboratory
– Published more than 250 scientific articles in his lifetime
– Professor of biochemistry at Cornell University medical school
– Research master at George Washington University
– Awarded the Gerhard Domagk Prize in 1965 for his techniques to distinguish between normal cells and those damaged by cancer
– Received the Hillebrand Prize in 1952 for his work on photosynthesis
Given the extraordinary credentials of Dr. Burk, don’t you think it’s worth your time to see what he had to say on water fluoridation?
In Dr. Dean Burk’s own words;
“this amounts to public murder on a grand scale, it is a public crime, it would be, to put fluoride in the drinking water of people”.
It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.
“When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.”—Dean Burk former head of National Cancer Institute Research (interview on the Owen Spahn Talk Show, San Francisco, June 1972)
“They (ACS) lie like scoundrels.”–—Dean Burk, Ph.D., 34 years at the National Cancer Institute (Peter Barry Chowka, “The Cancer Charity Rip-Off,” East West Journal, July 1978)
“Such letters…from the FDA, are, filled with objectively demonstrable lies, practiced deceptions and deviousness, red herrings, directed misinformation, misdirected information, etc. …Once FDA-NCI-AMA-ACS…concedes that Laetrile anti-tumor efficacy was indeed even once observed…a permanent crack in bureaucratic armor has taken place.” – Dr. Dean Burke, co-founder, National Cancer Institute (NCI), Cyto-chemistry section: open letter July 3, 1973.
Dr Dean Burk, who has spent more than fifty years in cancer research, mainly at the National Cancer Institute states: ‘More people have died in the last thirty years from cancer connected with fluoridation than all the military deaths in the entire history of the United States.’
“I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention that would save so many lives as simply to stop fluoridation, or don’t start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year.“ Dr. Dean Burk Ph.D. (34 years at the National Cancer Institute). Judicial hearing, January 14, 1982.Safe Water Foundation vs. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, Harris County, 151st Judicial District, 80-52271
Written by Richard A. Kunin, M.D.
C = CANCER
In 1975 Dean Burk, former head of research at National Cancer Institute, and John Yiamouyiannis, a biochemist and fluoride expert, reported their analysis of fluoridation effects. After reviewing official public health statistics on 180 million Americans they found a significant increase in death from cancer in fluoridated cities. They limited their study to the ten largest fluoridated cities compared to the ten largest unfluoridated cities in America over a twenty-year period, from 1950 to 1970.
The selection of cities was based upon similar cancer death rates for the preceding ten years, 1940-1950, i.e. before fluoridation was begun. After fluoridation, there were a million cancer deaths between 1950 and 1970. If there was ever an opportunity to evaluate the health effects of fluoride, this was it because since that time the amount of fluoride in water, toothpaste, soft drinks and food has gone up all over the country, blurring the differences between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. For practical purposes, all of America is already fluoridated nowadays, even if the local water supply is not.
But at the time of the Burk-Yiamouyiannis study, the fluoridated cities had an average cancer death rate of 220 cancer deaths per 100,000 people per year, while the nonfluoridated cities had only 195. This represented an excess of over 10 percent in the cancer death rate within a surprisingly short period of only 13 to 17 years after fluoridation. Their analysis further showed that the increase was not due to differences in age, race or sex composition of the fluoridated and non-fluoridated populations although the increase in cancer death occurred primarily in people over age 45 and especially after 65 years old, in whom there was a statistically significant increase of 37 deaths per 100,000 in the fluoridated cities from 1952 to 1969. The ten non-fluoridated cities averaged an insignificant increase of only 3 deaths per 100,000 in the over-65 age group, i.e. 13 times less increase in cancer.
These findings posed a direct challenge to the pro-fluoridation policy of the United States government Public Health Service. In response, the United States Center for Disease Control assigned Dr. J. D. Erickson of The Center to re-analyze the health effects of fluoride. He confirmed the above findings-but then expanded the database by choosing more cities on the basis of five additional factors: age, sex, race, population density and median educational level. By this means he was able to expand the original 20 cities to 46 cities and the analysis was broadened to include 29 fatal conditions, including cancer and coronary heart disease (also called ischemic heart disease). He performed over 2000 independent calculations and so arrived at parity: no difference in cancer deaths after all! Naturally, this was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and accepted by the medical and dental establishment as a vindication of fluoridation.
I am more comfortable with the original data because it is validated by selection of cities with similar cancer death rates in the baseline time period: 182 per 100,000 in the control cities and 183 in those that were fluoridated in between 1950-1960. In addition Burk and Yiamouyiannis analyzed total cancer deaths from 1953-1969. Dr. Erickson took his mortality data only from 1970 census figures and was thus unable to describe year to year trends.
Even if we accept all of Erickson’s statistical manipulations, there remains a 15 percent excess death from hypertension, 13 percent excess from arteriosclerosis, 12 percent excess from other arterial diseases, and 25 percent excess from pregnancy complications. However even this is questionable because Dr. Erickson excluded the death certificates of all Asians and Hispanics from his analysis; yet he included them in the population density and educational level data[i].
How could experts be so opposite in their view of the same data? In this case it comes down to a matter of method.
- Burk and Yiamouyiannis compared the cancer rates in fluoridated and nonfluoridated cities chosen for their similar cancer rates before fluoridation was begun in the fluoridated cities. Theirs is a true before-after study.
- Erickson compared cancer rates in fluoridated cities to non-fluoridated cities in 1970. It is a side-by-side comparison but the differences are obscured by his adjustment of the data using statistical means beyond an ordinary person’s understanding, i.e. combining five factors in the selection of his cities and excluding sub-groups, e.g. Asians and Latinos.
It is hard to avoid a suspicion that Dr. Erickson was pre-ordained with the goal of neutralizing the Burk-Yiamouyiannis findings. Bias is present if only because Dr. Erickson represents the public health establishment, whose avowed goal is to fluoridate all of the United States, whether the locals want it or not. Thus he changed the cities in his survey and left out Atlanta and Seattle, two of the non-fluoridated cities of the original study. And finally, he filtered his data with age, sex, race, median education and population density.
The Burk-Yiamouyiannis report on fluoride and cancer was presented to the United States Congress in 1976. It came out that there was no data to support the conclusion that fluoride was safe[ii]. What an incredible oversight! On that basis alone, fluoridation should have been stopped. Instead Congress ordered an investigation, the results of which did not appear until 12 years later! When the studies in rats and mice by Battelle Institute were released in 1989 the conclusions again fanned the flames of controversy, for an excess number of rats developed bone cancer, osteosarcoma. The total amount of fluoride in the bones of these rats was about the same as is found in humans after 20-30 years living with 1 part per million of fluoride in their water.
Over-all there were four fluoridated animals with cancer: one male rat out of fifty on 45 ppm fluoride water and three males out of eighty receiving 79 ppm fluoride water. Females and control animals on low fluoride diets had no cancers[iii]. However historical control rats used in other studies typically exhibit such cancers in 3 out of 500 animals–probably because the commonly-used rat feeds contain fluoride between 12 and 45 parts per million[iv] and this study was no exception in using fish meal, which is high in fluoride, in their feed. This diminishes the difference between fluoride intake in control and treated rats and obscures the increased cancer rate in these fluoride experiments.
And there is another side to this story: political forces succeeded in influencing scientists to down-grade already diagnosed pre-cancerous tumors, such as dysplasia, thyroid nodules and liver cancers that were found in these animals. In an action that some might view as fraud, a pre-publication review committee, representing the National Institute of Health, reclassified one osteosarcoma cancer as non-malignant because the microscope picture looked as if the cancer could be outside the bone. By cutting the number of cancers by just this one, the cancer rate was not statistically significant but only equivocal–and “equivocal” was the final opinion of the report to Congress by the National Toxicology Panel.
One conscientious and courageous researcher, Dr. William Marcus, a senior scientist in the Department of Drinking Water at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote an internal memo recommending that these questions be resolved by consultants outside the government. For this he was fired! But he sued and won his job back plus compensation of $50,000. There is no question that he was in the right; and the trial transcripts verify that public officials illegally destroyed documents and used subterfuge to get Dr. Marcus fired in the first place.
The American Dental Association responded to the National Toxicology Study: “Water fluoridation remains the safest, most effective, and most economical public health measure to prevent tooth decay and to improve oral health for a lifetime.” Their director of scientific affairs responded: “one would have to consume about 380 eight-ounce glasses of water a day to obtain 45 parts per million of fluoride and 700 glasses daily for 79 parts per million.” By ridiculing the research findings this way, she obscured the fact that the rats only drank the water for two years. Humans accumulate the fluoride over a lifetime and an equivalent dose would take only 18 years (45 ppm) and 32 years (79 ppm) respectively. Human levels can actually exceed those of the laboratory rats that got cancer.
The United States Public Health Service also issued a rebuttal[v]. The only concession was that “the prevalence of dental fluorosis may have increased.” On the other hand, they made note of the fact that in the years 1973-1987 the annual incidence of osteosarcoma among males under 20 years of age increased from 3.6 cases per million population to 5.5 cases per million. “Although the increase in rates of osteosarcoma for males during this period was greater in fluoridated than non-fluoridated areas, extensive analyses revealed that these patterns were unrelated to either the introduction or duration of fluoridation.”
Nevertheless, do you feel safe with fluoride in your drinking water, knowing that since 1973 there has been a fifty-plus percent increase in bone cancer in our young men, an epidemic that is five times worse in fluoridated areas? The Public Health Report was published in 1991. Has research been done? Has a public debate ensued? Why have we sat by while our misguided political leaders have mandated fluoridation of the entire state of California? Will we passively permit the Public Health Service to do the same all over America?
Dr. Dean Burk, former Chief of Research at the National Cancer Institute, was so convinced of the danger from fluoride that he addressed the District Court in Houston, Texas as follows: “I know of absolutely no, and I mean absolutely no means of prevention, that would save so many lives as simply as to stop fluoridation, or don’t start it where it is otherwise going to be started. There you might save 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 lives a year, cancer lives. That is an awful lot of lives a year[vi].”
AB 733 was approved by the California legislature and signed into law by Governor Wilson in September, 1995. We are all potential victims–of our well-meaning but over-confident officials. The only hope is You, the citizen. It is important that you be informed. For more information: http://keepersofthewell.com/on_point.html
[i] Erickson JD, Mortality in Selected Cities with fluoridated and non-fluoridated water supplies. 1976, NEJM, 298:1112-1116.
[ii] Yiamouyiannis J and Burk D. Fluoridation and cancer; Age-dependence of cancer mortality related to artificial fluoridation. 1977, Fluoride, 10:102-125.
[iii] Bucher JR, Hejtmancix MR, Toft JD et al: Results and conclusions of the national toxicology program’s rodent carcinogenicity studies with sodium fluoride. 1991, In J Cancer, 48:733-737.
[iv] Rao GN and Knapka JJ. Contaminant and nutrient concentrations of antural-ingredient rat and mouse diet used in chemical carcinogenicity studies. 1987, Fundam appl Toxicol, 9:329-338.
[v] Public Health Service Report on Fluoride Benefits and Risks. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, vol 40, RR-7, 1-8, June 14, 1991.
[vi] Burk D, Judicial hearing, Safe Water Foundation vs. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, Harris County, 1561st Judicial District. 80-52271. January 1982.
Water fluoridation is a highly controversial topic, with many individuals voicing massive concern over the practice. In contrast, some stick to the concept that there isn’t any association between fluoride and any real negative effects. Fluoride, however, is indeed a toxic substance, and has been tied with numerous health complications in well-established research. Fluoride can be found in many water supplies, toothpaste, and even food at alarming levels. While it may sound shocking to many, some research is even drawing a close connection between fluoride and an increased cancer risk.
Top Scientist: Fluoride Already Shown to Cause 10,000 Cancer Deaths
One paper entitled Fluoride – A Modern Toxic Waste says the following:
Yiamouyiannis documents research showing that fluoride increases the tumor growth rate by 25% at only 1 ppm, produces melanotic tumors, transforms normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals. For the original references to these studies, refer to Yiamouyiannis’ pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation.
In 1997, it was shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000 cancer deaths in epidemiological studies by Dr. Dean Burk, former head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute and Yiamouyiannis. Despite the findings occurring in 1997, they were not reluctantly released until 1989. After analyzing the study results in rats, it was found that animals who drank fluoridated water:
- Showed an increase in tumors and cancers in oral squamous cells.
- Developed a rare form of bone cancer called osteosarcoma.
- Showed an increased in thyroid follicular cell tumors.
- Developed a rare form of liver cancer known as hepatocholangiocarcinoma.
Other research resurfaced by Dr. Dean Burk, former chief of cytochemistry at the National Cancer Institute for 30 years, also shows that fluoride increases the cancer death rate. Dr Burk refers to a study conducted which compares the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation and the 10 largest without. What researchers found was that following fluoridation, deaths from cancer went up immediately- in as little as a year.
To reduce fluoride levels to a the greatest degree, activists must demand that the government stop fluoridating the water supplies. Water fluoridation has not only been linked to an increased cancer risk, but a decreased IQ in children. In fact, the findings forced the government to call for lower fluoridation levels nationwide. Until water fluoridation comes to a halt, the easiest way to reduce fluoride exposure is to invest in a reverse osmosis water filtration system. Drinking distilled water for 3-6 months may also reduce the soft tissue fluoride levels, but not bone levels. Soft tissue fluoride levels cause the greatest health problems.
This post first appeared at Natural Society
Dr. William Marcus, Ph.D, Environmental Protection Agency Scientist, Food & Water Journal, Summer 1998
“Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe 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.”
In this video Dr Marcus who was the chief toxicologist for the EPA, explains how fluoride causes cancer in the bones.
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
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF WATER
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,
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: Continue
Translation from the Japanese Journal of Fluoride Research, No. 19, Nov. 2000, p. 1, excerpts…
Dr John Yiamouyiannis, biochemist and founder of the Safe Water Foundation, USA, died October 8, 2000, passing away peacefully in sleep at his home in Delaware, Ohio, surrounded by members of his family. Undergraduate degree from the University of Chicago and afterward, in 1967; PhD in biochemistry at the University of Rhode Island. Postdoctoral research at Western Reserve Medical School; became a biochemical editor at Chemical Abstracts Service. There, he became aware of the health-damaging effects of fluoride. His opposing water fluoridation prompted efforts by the National Institute of Dental Research to have CAS silence him or risk losing substantial US Public Health Service funding. He resign from the CAS. His experience is described in his book, Fluoride the Aging Factor. Dr Y’s studies with Dr Dean Burk to determine whether cancer death rates increased after fluoridation in the 1950s caused great concern among many Americans and prompted Congressional hearings in 1977 followed by a 21-day court trial in Pennsylvania. There the presiding judge was compellingly convinced of the adverse effects of fluoridation and ordered its halt as a public health hazard. His decision, however, was overruled on jurisdictional grounds, and at an administrative level fluoridation policy remained unchanged.
Tohru Murakami, DDS, PhD Editor,
Japanese Journal of Fluoride Research 1-5-16
Kamikoide-machi Maebashi-shi Gunma-ken, 371 0037, Japan
This was at the Cancer Control Convention in Pasadena, California, about 1991-1992.
by Darlene Sherrell
Just in time for Children’s Dental Health Month, (February 1997) the Reader’s Digest published HOW HONEST ARE DENTISTS?, by William Ecenbarger, winner of the George Polk Award for Investigative Journalism. The article revealed that in 28 states dentists examined the same set of x-rays and the same set of pearly whites, and then recommended widely differing treatments, with price tags to match: $500.00 to $29,850.00. They didn’t seem to know what to do or how much to charge for doing it. “I got 50 opinions,” Ecenbarger writes, “and I am not comforted.”
This article, however, barely scratches the surface with regard to dishonesty. For decades, the American Dental Association has worked hand in glove with industry to cover up the toxic properties of fluoride, causing untold pain and suffering among an unsuspecting population urged to trust their dentists, trust their government, trust their political leaders, no matter what……
Who is Darlene Sherrell?
The Detroit News headline for March 28, 1978 read, “State study to find out if we’re fluoride OD’s. The article quoted Craig Ruff, an aide to Governor Milliken: “It’s a good example of what one citizen on a white horse can do.” On the previous day, in the capitol, the State Journal quoted Dr. Maurice Reizen, Director of the Michigan Department of Public Health, who said “There is nobody more knowledgable or dedicated on this subject than Darlene Sherrell.”
In a recent talk, she described herself as follows:
Ladies and Gentlemen. I have often been asked questions about my credentials . . . my background . . . my qualification to speak or write about fluoride . . . my right, so to speak, to disagree with a dentist or physician.
In 1976, while living in Lansing, Michigan, I met our local typical little old lady in tennis shoes, carrying a large paper shopping bag full of tattered newspaper clippings and copies of magazine articles about fluoride. She told me fluoride caused cancer and was put into our water to keep us docile. I was 35, she was in her mid- 60s, and I immediately classified her as a nutcase.
Then, one day, I got curious and looked in my pharmacology book to see what I could find about fluoride. What I found changed my life.
I learned that when the drinking water contained about one part per million of fluoride, 10 to 15 percent of the children would show a faint change in the appearance of their teeth called dental fluorosis; but with 2 or 3 parts per million, nearly all will be affected by this first and only visible sign of fluoride poisoning. I also learned that fluoride is the key ingredient in a widely used cancer drug called 5-FU. The cells die because fluorine enters into one of the molecules in DNA — the genetic material.
“We observed that for males diagnosed before the age of 20 years, fluoride level in drinking water during growth was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma, demonstrating a peak in the odds ratios from 6 to 8 years of age. All of our models were remarkably robust in showing this effect, which coincides with the mid-childhood growth spurt.” (Bassin, et al., Cancer, Causes & Control, 2006)
SELECT A TOPIC IN HEALTH EFFECTS:
According to the National Toxicology Program (NTP), “the preponderance of evidence” from laboratory studies indicates that fluoride is a mutagen (a compound that can cause genetic damage). A chemical that can cause genetic damage is one that can likely cause, or contribute to, the development of cancer.
While the concentrations of fluoride causing genetic damage in laboratory studies are generally far higher than the concentrations found in human blood, there are certain “microenvironments” in the body (e.g., the bones, bladder, kidneys, oral cavity, pineal gland) where cells can be exposed to fluoride levels that are comparable to those causing genetic damage in the laboratory. Moreover, some research has found that cells of primates (including great apes and humans) are more susceptible to fluoride’s mutagenic effects than cells of rodents. These factors may help explain why seven studies since the 1990s have found evidence of genetic damage in humans with high fluoride exposures. (Some studies have not found this association.)
Fluoride & Osteosarcoma (Bone Cancer)
The concern that fluoride can cause cancer has been fueled by evidence linking it to a serious form of bone cancer known as osteosarcoma. This evidence includes a government animal study as well as several studies of human populations living in the United States.
Osteosarcoma is a rare, but deadly, form of cancer that strikes primarily during the teenage years. A national case control study published in 2006 by Harvard scientists found that boys exposed to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th, and 8th years of life (the mid-childhood growth spurt) had a significantly elevated risk of developing osteosarcoma during adolescence. (Bassin 2006). The sex-specific link between fluoride and osteosarcoma in young males is consistent with the government’s animal study, (NTP 1990), which found osteosarcomas in the fluoride-treated male rats, but not the female ones. It is also consistent with previous studies by the National Cancer Institute and New Jersey Department of Health, which both found associations between fluoridation and osteosarcoma in young males, but not females. (Cohn 1992; NCI 1990)
Although a number of studies have found no association between fluoride and osteosarcoma, the Harvard study by Bassin is the only study to ever carefully considered the “age-specific” risk of fluoride exposure. As the renowned epidemiologist Kenneth Rothman explained to the Wall Street Journal:
“‘If there were an adverse effect of fluoride, it’s possible an effect of early exposure would be manifest in the first 20 years of life – but not after.’ Looking at all ages, in other words, could conceal any link between fluoridation and cancer.”
Fluoride/Osteosarcoma Link Is “Biologically Plausible”
It is widely acknowledged that the fluoride/osteosarcoma connection is a biologically plausible one. When the connection between a chemical and a cancer is biologically plausible, studies that detect an association between the two are taken more seriously, as the association is less likely to be a random fluke.
The plausibility of a fluoride/osteosarcoma connection is grounded in the three considerations:
- Bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood;
- Fluoride is a mutagen when present at sufficient concentrations; and
- Fluoride stimulates the proliferation of bone-forming cells (osteoblasts), which may ”increase the risk for some of the dividing cells to become malignant.” (NRC 2006).
Fluoride & Bladder/Lung Cancer
In addition to osteosarcoma, a number of studies of fluoride-exposed workers have found associations between airborne fluoride exposure and both bladder and lung cancer. Although fluoride’s association with these cancers has generally been attributed to poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) — a non-fluoride airborne contaminant — a twenty-year study of a workplace with no PAH exposure found a similarly elevated rate of both bladder and lung cancer in the fluoride-exposed workers. (Grandjean 2004). Based on these findings, the authors concluded that “fluoride should be considered a possible cause of bladder cancer and a contributory cause of primary lung cancer.”