Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

I find it suspect that a person, who releases his research, refuses to answer questions about his book. Using the excuse that "they haven't read the book" to side-step any questions make me question the academic integrity of the work. You should want your research to be peer reviewed. It also confuses new students who want to learn about Islam and the Jahiliyyah period.

Any period of "Jahiliyyah" - that is, period of ignorance - began with Muhammad and continues with his followers unto this day.

Regarding the author, besides not explaining how Muhammad could have known what went on thousands of years before him, it gets even worse in regard to unanswered questions. I copied and pasted into the book section some of his book that he posted online, and posted some responses to it. Amazingly, he seems to want to make Muhammad's ride on a magic flying donkey-mule to be a literal event on a horse. I suspect he is a Muslim, or at least certainly seems to be sympathetic to Islam, while hard to imagine he could be a Christian. The thread and questions are in the book section at this link:

I find it suspect that a person, who releases his research, refuses to answer questions about his book. Using the excuse that "they haven't read the book" to side-step any questions make me question the academic integrity of the work. You should want your research to be peer reviewed. It also confuses new students who want to learn about Islam and the Jahiliyyah period.

I have heard of a man named Jay Smith (sic?) who uses Dan Gibsons book as a point of reference as well.

What are you views on David Woods and Jay Smiths research on the matter. I just dont want conflicting or unproven information .

Does fluoridated water reduce tooth decay?

What about the positives?

PDF of the following article:

"Why we doubt the benefits of swallowing fluoride.
Paul Connett,, March, 2009


One of the surprises waiting for someone who decides to review the literature on
the issue of water fluoridation is the discovery that, despite the impression
conveyed by the promoters, the evidence that swallowing fluoride actually
reduces tooth decay is very weak. In this bulletin we will begin to review the
evidence that the benefits of swallowing have been wildly exaggerated and no
grade A study has ever been published to support the claims of "massive"

1. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient
Fluoride is not an essential nutrient (NRC 1993 and IOM 1997). No disease has
ever been linked to a fluoride deficiency. Humans can have perfectly good teeth
without fluoride. This is not surprising when one notes the level of fluoride in
mothers' milk. This is only 0.004 ppm (NRC, 2006, p. 36 and Table 2-6, p. 40). If
the infant needed fluoride to develop strong health teeth then clearly evolution
messed up on this requirement.

2. No "Randomized Controlled Trials" demonstrating effectiveness
In the 60 years (plus) of this practice there has never been a study of the quality
required by the FDA and other national regulatory bodies when approving new
drugs for efficacy. Such trials require random selection of the individuals tested
(exposed and unexposed) and examinations should be "double blind." Double
blind means that neither the person examining the subject nor the person being
tested should know whether the substance given is the drug or a placebo. The
modern terminology for this testing is "Randomized Controlled Trial."
The York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) after an exhaustive review of the
literature could identify NO "Randomized Controlled Trials" of either fluoridation's
effectiveness, or safety.

3. No controls for delayed eruption of teeth
Not one single study purporting to demonstrate fluoridation's effectiveness has
ever controlled for a possible delayed eruption of teeth caused by fluoride, for
which there is some evidence (Feltman and Kosel 1961; Komarek et al. 2005).

4. Primary versus secondary dentition
Those promoting fluoridation usually do so using the data on primary dentition
(deciduous teeth) rather than secondary dentition (permanent teeth). However, it
is the latter which are more important since these are the teeth we hope to have
for the rest of our lives.

5. Cross-sectional versus Longitudinal studies
The York Review (McDonagh et al. 2000) only looked at longitudinal studies
(these compare the same community over a period of time). Cross-sectional
studies (these compare 2 or more communities at the same point in time) are
much larger and more convincing in indicating no or little benefit from ingesting
fluoride. Some of these studies are discussed below.

6. Baby bottle tooth decay
Even promoters of fluoridation have conceded that fluoridation cannot prevent
baby bottle tooth decay (BBTD) and this is the cause of the most distressing
examples of tooth decay in infants often leading to extractions under anesthesia.
BBTD is caused by babies sucking on sugared water, fruit juice (and even coca
cola) for hours on end (Kelly et al. 1987; Barnes et al. 1992; Weinstein et al.
1992; Von Burg et al. 1995; Febres et al. 1997; Tang et al. 1997; Blen et al. 1999
and Kong 1999).
Promoters are being intellectually dishonest when they use pictures of BBTD to
promote fluoridation. But this has become a standard ploy of many promoting

7. Pit and fissure decay
Since 1950, it has been found that fluorides do little to prevent pit and fissure
tooth decay, a fact that even the dental community has acknowledged (Seholle
1984; Gray 1987; PHS 1993; and Pinkham 1999).
This is significant because pit and fissure tooth decay represents up to 85% of
the tooth decay experienced by children today (Seholle 1984 and Gray 1987).
Pit and fissure decay is best prevented with sealants.

8. Decay rates have been coming down before fluoridation began and after
the" benefits" would have been maximized
Modern research (e.g. Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1997, and De Liefde 1998)
shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced
and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been
maximized (see discussion on Diesendorf's 1986 paper below).
Many other factors influence tooth decay. Some recent studies have found that
tooth decay actually increases as the fluoride concentration in the water
increases (Olsson 1979; Retief 1979; Mann 1987, 1990; Steelink 1992; Teotia
1994; Grobleri 2001; Awadia 2002; and Ekanayake 2002).

9. Little difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities
There is very little evidence which demonstrates a significant difference in the
permanent teeth when comparing children living in fluoridated and nonfluoridated
communities (Leverett 1982; Diesendorf 1986; Gray 1987;
Yiamouyiannis 1990; Brunelle and Carlos 1990; Spencer et al. 1996; deLiefde
1997; Locker 1999; Armfield & Spencer 2004; and Pizzo et al. 2007).

10. Benefits topical not systemic.
Even ardent supporters and promoters of fluoridation like the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), now admit that the benefits of fluoride
are largely topical not systemic (CDC 1999, 2001). In other words fluoride works
on the outside of the tooth not from inside the body. The fact that fluoridated
toothpaste is universally available today, coupled with an increasing standard of
living, are more likely explanations for declines in tooth decay in industrialized
societies than the availability of fluoridated drinking water.

11. World Health organization (WHO) data
According to WHO data there is no significant difference in the rates of decline
in decay in the teeth of 12-year olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated
countries, over the period from the 1960s to the present. The same set of data
shows no significant difference today. See the figure which presents this data
graphically. See also a similar graph presented in the article by Cheng et al.
2007, in the British Medical Journal.

12. Comparing WHO data with CDC claims.
It is interesting to compare the figure based on the WHO data and the figure
used by the CDC in 1999, which can also be observed at http:// . This figure was used by the CDC in 1999
to "demonstrate" the effectiveness of fluoridation. They inferred that tooth decay
was coming down over the period 1960 to the 1990's in the US because the
percentage of the American population drinking fluoridated water had gone up
over this same period (CDC, 1999).
It is disturbing that the CDC authors appear to have been unaware of the WHO
data which clearly refutes the claim for such a simplistic causal relationship.
This CDC graph was used in the report which was supposed to substantiate
their claim that fluoridation is "One of the top ten public health achievements of
the 20th Century" (CDC, 1999).
This famous statement is quoted nearly every day somewhere in the world by
some unsuspecting editor, journalist or public health official as the final word on
fluoridation's safety and effectiveness. As far as an attempt to demonstrate
effectiveness is concerned this graph remains a total embarrassment to any
genuine scientist at the CDC - or it should be.

13. US Department of Human Health Services (DHHS) survey
Dr. Bill Osmunson has showed that according to the results of a
questionnaire administered to parents in all 50 states in the US by the
DHHS, there is absolutely no relationship in the percentage of parents who
responded "my child has very good or excellent teeth" and the percentage of
the population in the state drinking fluoridated water (Osmunson, 2007).
However, there is a very strong relation in all 50 states between the
percentage of parents giving that answer and their income levels. Across
the board 80% of high income parents gave that answer, but only about 60%
of low income parents did so (Osmunson, 2007).
Linear regression lines plotted for these answers versus the percentage of
the population in each state fluoridated were quite flat for both high income
and low income families. This indicates no correlation between the answers
and the fluoridation status of each state.

14. Tooth decay and income levels.
What the findings in the DHHS and NY surveys show is that there is a much
stronger relationship between tooth decay and parent's income level than
community fluoridation status.

15. The weakness of comparing two towns (or regions).
Frequently promoters will produce surveys comparing the tooth decay
between two towns: one fluoridated the other not. However, you can get any
result you want comparing two towns (or regions) unless confounding
variables are controlled very carefully (i.e. income levels, delayed eruption,
diet, genetic, ethnic, cultural and educational differences, parental oversight,
as well as the dental services available).
Often, these comparisons look more like a self-serving and self-fulfilling
prophesy on behalf of fluoridation promoters, than a genuine comparison of
the effects of ingesting fluoride between two towns. That is why the surveys
should be part of a bona fide externally peer-reviewed published study. This
way it can be ascertained if controls were attempted for these confounding
variables. Most importantly it is necessary to compare how much money was
spent on dental services in each community as well as the number of
interventions administered. There is some evidence in the US and the UK
that commensurate with the introduction of fluoridation in some cities (e.g.
San Antonio, TX; Wolverhampton, UK) the measure has been accompanied
with other measures to fight tooth decay. This can create or inflate whatever
benefit of fluoridation is being claimed.

16. When fluoridation is discontinued
Contrary to claims from proponents that when fluoridation is discontinued
tooth decay goes up, several modern studies indicate the very opposite.
Where fluoridation has been discontinued in communities from Canada, the
former East Germany, Cuba and Finland, dental decay has not increased
but in some cases actually decreased (Maupome 2001; Kunzel and Fischer,
1997, 2000; Kunzel 2000 and Seppa 2000).
It is possible that other preventive measures were stepped up when
fluoridation was ceased in these communities, but that gives weight to the
notion that there are ways of fighting tooth decay other than forcing fluoride
on people in their water supply.

17. A dental crisis has been reported in many fluoridated cities in the
There have been numerous press reports over the last few years of dental
crises in US cities and states (e.g. Boston, Cincinnati, Concord, NH, New
York City, Pittsburg, Connecticut, South Bronx, Detroit) which have been
fluoridated for over 20 years. The fact that these crises are occurring in the
low income areas of the cities again reflects the fact that there is a far
greater (inverse) relationship between tooth decay and family income levels
than with water fluoride levels. It also demonstrates that the disparities in
tooth decay caused by income levels is not being corrected by fluoridation
programs. Here is a sampling of these newspaper reports:

Cincinnati - Fluoridated since 1979
"City and regional medical officials say tooth decay is the city's No. 1 unmet
health-care need. 'We cannot meet the demand,' says Dr. Larry Hill,
Cincinnati Health Department dental director. 'It's absolutely heartbreaking
and a travesty. We have kids in this community with severe untreated dental
infections. We have kids with self-esteem problems, and we have kids in
severe pain and we have no place to send them in Cincinnati. People would
be shocked to learn how bad the problem has become.'"
Solvig E. 2002. Special Report: Cincinnati's dental crisis, Cincinnati
Enquirer (Ohio). October 6. Available at

Concord, NH - Fluoridated since 1978
"It's overwhelming," said Deb Bergschneider, dental clinic coordinator at the
Concord center. "Because we serve the uninsured, we see the lower level of
the community and the need is just astronomical. ... By the time they get to
us, their mouths are bombed out. They are all emergency situations. It's a
severe, severe, problem. It's sad."
Gerth U. 2005. Nothing to smile about. Fosters Daily Democrat
(Connecticut). May 22. Available at

Boston - Fluoridated since 1978
"With a study estimating that the number of untreated cavities among Boston
students greatly exceeds the national average, public health officials are
about to launch an offensive against what they say is a growing dental crisis
in the city... According to statistics cited in the city's latest annual health
report, ''The Health of Boston 1999'': Eighteen percent of children 4 years
old and younger who were seen in the pediatric program at Tufts University
School of Dental Medicine in 1995 had baby-bottle tooth decay, a painful
condition that arises when a baby is given a bottle of juice or milk at bedtime.
Treatment can cost up to $4,000 per child. About 90 percent of 107 Boston
high school students were found to need dental treatment, according to a
1996 unpublished study. That report also estimated that the city's students
had four times more untreated cavities than the national average..."
Kong D. 1999. City to launch battle against dental 'crisis'. Boston Globe
(Massachusetts). November 27. Available at

Connecticut - Statewide mandatory fluoridation since 1960s
"Dental decay remains the most common chronic disease among
Connecticut's children. Poor oral health causes Connecticut children to lose
hundreds of thousands of school days each year. One in four Connecticut
children is on Medicaid, but two of three Connecticut children receive no
dental care. And DSS continues to exploit the seriously stretched public
health providers and the few remaining private providers. There is an oral
health crisis in Connecticut."
Slate R. 2005. State must fund plan to provide oral health care for the poor.
New Haven Register (Connecticut). May 5. Available at http://

South Bronx, New York - Fluoridated since 1965
"Bleeding gums, impacted teeth and rotting teeth are routine matters for the
children I have interviewed in the South Bronx. Children get used to feeling
constant pain. They go to sleep with it. They go to school with it. Sometimes
their teachers are alarmed and try to get them to a clinic. But it's all so slow
and heavily encumbered with red tape and waiting lists and missing, lost or
canceled welfare cards, that dental care is often long delayed. Children live
for months with pain that grown-ups would find unendurable. The gradual
attrition of accepted pain erodes their energy and aspiration. I have seen
children in New York with teeth that look like brownish, broken sticks. I have
also seen teen-agers who were missing half their teeth. But, to me, most
shocking is to see a child with an abscess that has been inflamed for weeks
and that he has simply lived with and accepts as part of the routine of life.
Many teachers in the urban schools have seen this. It is almost
Kozol J. 1991. Savage Inequalities. Children in America's Schools. Crown
Publishers, Inc.( New York). Harper Perennial / Harper Collins (New York).

Pittsburgh, PA - Fluoridated since 1953
"Nearly half of children in Pittsburgh between 6 and 8 have had cavities,
according to a 2002 state Department of Health report. More than 70 percent
of 15-year-olds in the city have had cavities, the highest percentage in the
state. Close to 30 percent of the city's children have untreated cavities.
That's more than double the state average of 14 percent."
Law V. 2005. Sink your teeth into health care. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
(Pennsylvania). February 13. Available at

Washington DC - Fluoridated since 1952
"Washington DC has "one of the highest decay rates in children in the
country." The "typical new patient, age 6, has five or six teeth with cavities --
a 'staggering" number'" at the Children's National Medical Center."
Morse S. 2002. Dentists Push for Fluoride in Bottled Water. Washington
Post (DC). March 5. Available at

18. Early trials and Dean's 21-city study.
A great deal of the conviction that fluoridation works has been derived from two
sources: Dean's famous 21-city study (Dean, 1942) and the early fluoridation
trials in the US, Canada and New Zealand. However, both the legitimacy and the
quality of the methodologies used in these have been questioned.
19. Dean's study has been questioned.

In describing Dean's early work the CDC states that:
"Dean compared the prevalence of fluorosis with data collected by others on
dental caries prevalence among children in 26 states (as measured by DMFT)
and noted a strong inverse relation (10). This cross-sectional relation was
confirmed in a study of 21 cities in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio
(11)." (CDC, 1999).
This raises the question: if Dean had access to data from 26 states, why did he
end up using data from ONLY 21 cities?
Rudolf Ziegelbecker, an Austrian statistician, who sadly passed away a few
weeks ago, pursued this issue. When he added in all the data he could find from
the US and Europe, which related tooth decay with fluoride levels in the water,
the inverse relationship reported by Dean disappeared. However, when he
examined the same data for dental fluorosis he found a very robust relationship.
(Ziegelbecker,1981). Thus one relationship (between fluoride levels and dental
fluorosis) holds up over the "background noise", the other (fluoride levels and
dental decay) does not.

20. The early trials.
The trials conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, and Canada, which helped to
launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and
poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and
1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the
University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials:
"are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical
methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness
and hebetude (hebetude is mental lethargy or dullness, PC)." (Arnold,
Some examples of poor methodology in the early trials.
In two trials the control communities were fluoridated before the trial had been
Furthermore, when the Grand Rapids trial began in 1945, children from all 79
schools in Grand Rapids were examined. By 1949, however, examiners
observed children from only 25 of these 79 schools. Meanwhile in Muskegon,
children from ALL the schools were still being examined.
Such problematic changes and inconsistencies in sampling size is further
illustrated by the fact that when the Grand Rapids study commenced, the
number of 12 to 16 year olds being examined was 7,661, but by the final year of
the study, the number of 12 to 16 year olds being studied had dropped to just
1,031 (Sutton 1996).
Along with these arbitrary changes in the study's sampling methods, the study
employed multiple examiners to assess the children's teeth. But as was known
at the time, studies from the American Journal of Public Health (Boyd et al.,
1951) as well as the Journal of the American Dental Association (Radusch,
1934), there is a considerable variability between each dentists' assessment of a
person's teeth.
Despite these enormous weaknesses, these early studies are cited again and
again to support the success of fluoridation. As Benjamin Nesin, Director of the
New York State Water Laboratories, stated at the time,
"It must be emphasized that the fluoridation hypothesis in its entirety
rests on a very narrow base of selected experimental information. It is
this very base which is vulnerable to scientific criticism. And it is upon
this very narrow base that the impressive array of endorsement rests like
an inverted pyramid (Nesin 1956)."
Sutton's monographs on this matter (Sutton, 1959, 1960) have never been
successfully refuted by proponents, even though they have tried. Sutton's work
was re-published in book form shortly before he died in 1996. The book also
contains some of the letters and articles which attempted to rebut Sutton's work
and his responses.

21. The Hastings-Napier trial a fraud.
The Hastings-Napier trial was conducted in the 1950s and was used to
successfully promote fluoridation throughout New Zealand. However, it has now
been shown to be fraudulent (Colquhoun and Mann, 1986; Colquhoun PhD
thesis, 1987). The control community (Napier) was dropped two years after the
trial began and the huge drop in tooth decay found in Hastings was found to be
due to an artifact involving a change in methodology used to characterize tooth
decay before and after the trial (i.e. diagnosing tooth decay was less stringent at
the end of the trial than at the beginning). The fact that the methodology had
been changed was NOT acknowledged by the authors when they published
their report - which in our book constitutes fraud (Ludwig, 1958, 1959. 1962,
1963, 1965, 1971; Colquhoun, 1987).

22. Modern Studies.
If we shift to more modern times, a major development occurred in 1980. This
was when Dr. John Colquhoun was sent by his superiors in New Zealand on a
four month world tour to investigate tooth decay in several different continents,
including Australia, Asia, North America and Europe. He was expected to bring
back with him evidence that would prove once and for all that fluoridation
worked. He failed to do so.

23. Colquhoun's work (1980- 1997).
In 1980 Colquhoun was the principal dental officer for Auckland, NZ's largest
city. Both as a dental officer and as a city councilor he had avidly and
successfully promoted fluoridation throughout the country.
When Colquhoun went on his world tour, to his dismay, researchers reported to
him - behind the scenes - that they were not finding the difference in tooth decay
between fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities that they had expected - in
fact they were finding very little difference at all.
When Colquhoun returned to NZ he was given a summary of tooth decay for the
whole of the country. NZ is a little unusual in this respect since under their
national health service they monitor tooth decay for ALL children at the ages of 5
and 12. So this was not a sample survey but a complete record.
When Colquhoun looked at the complete record of tooth decay in NZ, he found
no difference in tooth decay between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated cities. If
anything, the teeth were slightly better in the non-fluoridated communities.
When Colquhoun's assistants reported to him the extensive amount of dental
fluorosis occurring in fluoridated Auckland, he risked his pension by deciding to
make the lack of fluoridation's effectiveness public. To his enormous credit he
spent the rest of his life trying to undo the damage he had done by reversing his
position on fluoridation, and opposing it in any scientific way he could.
Paul Connett interviewed Colquhoun on videotape in Auckland in 1997 shortly
before he died (see Colquhoun videotape, Connett, 1997).
Colquhoun wrote up his findings in several published papers (Colquhoun 1984,
1985, 1987, 1990, 1992 and 1995) and after he retired he obtained a PhD
(1987). His research thesis examined the history of fluoridation in New Zealand.
He offered Thomas Kuhn's famous analysis: "The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions" to explain the reluctance of the dental community to change its
paradigm on fluoridation's safety and effectiveness in NZ . In his thesis
Colquhoun also exposed the rigged nature of the Hastings-Napier fluoridation
trial (discussed above).
Colquhoun summarized his evolution from being an ardent supporter of
fluoridation to one of its most articulate critics in, "Why I changed My Mind on
Fluoridation" a paper published in 1997.
Most references can be found at"
Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ
By Dr. Joseph Mercola


A recently-published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.

read on:
The Phosphate Fertilizer Industry: An Environmental Overview

1. Introduction

They call them “wet scrubbers” – the pollution control devices used by the phosphate industry to capture fluoride gases produced in the production of commercial fertilizer.

In the past, when the industry let these gases escape, vegetation became scorched, crops destroyed, and cattle crippled.

Today, with the development of sophisticated air-pollution control technology, less of the fluoride escapes into the atmosphere, and the type of pollution that threatened the survival of some communities in the 1950s and 60s, is but a thing of the past (at least in the US and other wealthy countries).

However, the impacts of the industry’s fluoride emissions are still being felt, although more subtly, by millions of people – people who, for the most part, do not live anywhere near a phosphate plant.

That’s because, after being captured in the scrubbers, the fluoride acid (hydrofluorosilicic acid), a classified hazardous waste, is barreled up and sold, unrefined, to communities across the country. Communities add hydrofluorosilicic acid to their water supplies as the primary fluoride chemical for water fluoridation.

Even if you don’t live in a community where fluoride is added to water, you’ll still be getting a dose of it through cereal, soda, juice, beer and any other processed food and drink manufactured with fluoridated water.

Meanwhile, if the phosphate industry has its way, it may soon be distributing another of its by-products to communities across the country. That waste product is radium, which may soon be added to a roadbed near you – if the EPA buckles and industry has its way.

"Today, the same gypsum stack which caused this particular spill, is considered by Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection to be “the most serious pollution threat in the state.” That’s because tropical rains over the past couple of years have brought the wastewater to the edge of the stack’s walls.

As noted by the Tampa Tribune, “The gypsum mound is near capacity, and a wet spring or a tropical storm could cause a catastrophic spill.”

To prevent such a spill, which was all but inevitable, the EPA recently agreed to let Florida pursue “Option Z“: To load 500-600 million gallons of the wastewater onto barges and dump it directly into the Gulf of Mexico.

The dumping of the wastewater into the Gulf represents the latest in a series of high-profile embarrasments for Florida’s phosphate industry; one of the most dramatic of which happened on June 15, 1994.

On that day, a massive, 15-story sinkhole appeared in the middle of an 80 million ton gypsum stack. The hole was so big that, according to US News & World Report, it

“could be as big as 2 million cubic feet, enough to swallow 400 railroad boxcars. Local wags call it Disney World’s newest attraction — ‘Journey to the Center of the Earth.'”

But, as US News noted,

“there’s nothing amusing about it. The cave-in dumped 4 million to 6 million cubic feet of toxic and radioactive gypsum and waste water into the Floridan aquifer, which provides 90 percent of the state’s drinking water.”"

David C. Kennedy, DDS
2425 Third Avenue
San Diego. CA 92101
(619) 231-1624

Board of Supervisors
County of Santa Cruz
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060

RE: Drinking Water Fluoridation

March 1, 1998

Dear Supervisors,

I am David Kennedy, DDS. I am a preventive dentist. I have practiced dentistry in San Diego for more than 20 years. My father and grandfather before me were also dentists.

I served on the board of the San Diego Better Business Bureau for over 10 years, and have been a member of the Centre City Optimist Club for 20 years as well.

I have been a member of the San Diego County Dental Society for over 20 years, and for three years elected to the Board of Directors. I have participated on numerous committees including. Senior Care, Speakers Bureau, Political Action Committee, and the Council on Dental Care.

In 1974 Eddy Oriole and I planned and built the Chicano Children's Dental Health Clinic at 1809 National Avenue. I care about children's dental health.

I am immediate Past President of International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, the author of a book on preventive dental health entitled How to Save Your Teeth, and a nationally and internationally recognized lecturer on toxicology and restorative dentistry.

I am intensely interested in the welfare of my patients and the community at large.

Although I am a member of the San Diego County Dental Society (SDCDS), The California Dental Association (CDA) and the American Dental Association (ADA), I must begin my statement by expressing my opposition to these organization's stances concerning the safety of fluoride and further clarify what an endorsement by any of these organizations represents.

1) CDA and ADA perform no research of their own.

2) These trade associations have successfully argued in court that they assume no legal liability for any harm that may result from their recommendations.

3) Dental organizations are not responsible for studying adverse systemic effects of water fluoridation. These issues are appropriately studied by medical researchers, epidemiologists and toxicologists.

4) CDA and ADA have never provided their members any large scale blinded studies which prove that fluoridation reduces tooth decay. An expert for the ADA testified in court that she was not aware of any blinded animal or broad based blinded human epidemiological studies that has ever found a reduction in tooth decay from drinking water with one part per million fluoride.

5) CDA and ADA have never polled their membership for their knowledge or opinion of water fluoridation.

The two following examples clearly illustrate the depth and reliability of dentist's understanding of this controversial issue.

A) Despite the local dental society's recommendation of water fluoridation, my conversation with the President of the San Diego Dental Society, Dr. Joel Berick, revealed that he was completely unaware of even the existence of numerous studies linking water fluoridation to hip fracture.

B) An elderly dentist from Chula Vista took umbrage with my position opposing water fluoridation. He claimed that, over the last 50 years in his practice, he had personally witnessed the tremendous benefit of water fluoridation in Chula Vista. When I pointed out that Chula Vista was a nonfluoridated community, he appeared disoriented and mumbled, "It had to be the fluoride. Tooth decay is not nearly as prevalent as when I began to practice 50 years ago."

The above summary is not intended to criticize the dental society, but rather to place the dental trade organizations endorsements in their proper perspective.

Increasing the fluoride intake of a patient without regard to established risk factors such as age, kidney function, weight, physical condition, water consumption, total fluoride intake, and mitigating dietary calcium is medical negligence. Although the courts have ruled that the state has the power to do so under police powers. mandating fluoridation for 25 Million Californians or the entire city of Mountain View is no less negligent.

Dental Fluorosis

The first visible sign of this negligence will be a doubling in dental fluorosis. The cells that produce the collagen matrix, which forms enamel, are poisoned to the point that they can no longer produce opalescent pearl-like enamel. Fluorotic enamel is irregular in texture, porous, chalky white to brown in color, and brittle. In severe cases, the enamel forms incompletely and corners easily break off the teeth.

All of the organizations promoting water fluoridation agree that dental fluorosis, which is the first visible sign of systemic poisoning, increases with water fluoride levels. The Legislative Office of Budget Management acknowledges that drinking water fluoridation would increase disfiguring dental fluorosis, but since treatment of this disease is not covered for children on welfare, calculated that there would be no additional. cost to the state. Clearly they are not considering the enormous legal liability for physical and psychological damage which accompany this disfiguring disease.

The fact that the state will not spend money to correct this defect does not alter the basic truth that fluorosis will have to be treated if the child is to be happy in our image conscious society.

Let's be clear about what children will be adversely affected. Bottle fed babies are most likely to develop dental fluorosis. Mothers milk has virtually no fluoride present. Those children who are deficient in intake of protein, calcium, magnesium, phosphorous, and Vitamin C are especially vulnerable to fluoride poisoning. The accumulation of fluoride is greatly increased if the person has impaired kidney function. In short, the weakest members of our society, the undernourished, the underfed, the very children that fluoridation was to allegedly benefit. In some poorer communities as much as 80% of the children have fluorosis[1].

The correction of this permanent disfigurement involves crowns, laminates, bonding, and bleaching. The physical, psychological, emotional, and financial costs of the repeated trauma necessary to correct this condition far exceeds any projected benefit that fluoridation can possibly produce. This is truly a case where the treatment is worse than the problem.

The incidence of dental fluorosis has steadily increased since the introduction of fluoride to the drinking water in 1945. Since the introduction of fluoride containing toothpaste the amount of fluorosis has dramatically risen[2]. Fluoride tablets which deliver in prescription form the amount of fluoride alleged to be beneficial for tooth decay, reduction cause dental fluorosis in 64% of the children (Pebbles 1974). These same tablets if swallowed provide no protection against decay. If they are chewed and dissolved in the mouth, they do appear to reduce decay[3]. The effect is topical[4].

Hip Fracture

Fluoride has been tested on humans for the purpose of treating osteoporosis. The theory was that fluoride would strengthen bones. What the researchers found was that it did increase bone mass; however, the bone was much more brittle -- leading to a dramatic increase in hip fracture[5]. Numerous studies have linked long term consumption of fluoridated water to increased risk of hip fracture.[6]

This is not a small matter, it is about life and death. The surgical cost of repairing a hip fracture is $35,000. 25% of the victims die in the first 30 days. Only 11% of the victims ever return to independent living. 100% of the victims are debilitated and few, if any, of the elderly ever regain their former ability to walk normally. The research clearly shows that water Fluoridation increases the number of people who will suffer this devastating injury.

Nine of thirteen studies show a correlation between hip fracture and fluoridation, including four published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in the last five years. In matters as serious as the health of our nation, no risk is acceptable if it is avoidable.


Research has shown in numerous studies that fluoride is a mutagen (genetic damage), a carcinogen (cancer causing), and cancer promoting in laboratory cell studies, animals, and humans. In 1990 the Congress-ordered National Toxicological Program (NTP) found bone cancers in male rats.

The test animals, in the words of the board certified pathologists, "were awash with disease." T he high dose animals had kidney failure and cancers of their lips, cheeks, throats, livers, and bones. The highest rates of cancer were found in the highest dose animals. The lucky rats and mice that drank the distilled fluoride free water had no significant disease. When the actual data indicated a causal relationship between fluoride and bone cancer the NTP down-graded the results to "equivocal."

Dr. William Marcus, former senior science advisor at the office of drinking water Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), concluded that the NTP studies proved fluoride was a carcinogen[7]. In July 1997 the National Federation of Federal Employees. the Union representing all of the scientists, toxicologists and statisticians at EPA headquarters, also stated that "Our members review of the body of evidence over the last eleven years, including animal and human epidemiological studies, indicate a causal link between fluoride/fluoridation and cancer, genetic damage, neurological impairment, and bone pathology. Of particular concern are recent epidemiological studies linking fluoride exposure to lower 1.0. in children.[8]

Political protection for fluoride is not new. The Spin Doctors of fluoridation routinely minimize the peer-reviewed documented scientific research by setting up biased review committees, which then publish their own opinion claiming that fluoridation is safe, without regard to the original findings. The US Public Health Service has been accused of scientific fraud by the National Federation of Federal Employees over the cover-up of the cancer/fluoride link.

After the NJ Department of Health documented a dramatic increase in bone cancers in young men who resided in their fluoridated cities, New Jersey Assemblyman John V. Kelly asked the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the evidence they relied upon in approving prescription fluoride drops and tablets.

The FDA responded that no application for approval, or studies of safety or effectiveness, had ever been submitted and that they were not in possession of any such evidence. Ask yourself for another example of a prescription drug on the United States market (30 plus years) for which no FDA Application has ever been submitted.

When pressured as to why he did not remove the drops and tablets from the market Frank R. Fazzari, Chief of Prescription Drug Compliance reportedly expressed concern for his position and recommended Assemblyman Kelly sue him in order to have a Federal Judge make him comply with congressional law.

The new Food and Drug required warning should provide some clarification as to the safety of fluoride. The FDA now requires all toothpaste containing fluoride to have the following warning attached, "WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. In case of accidental ingestion, seek professional assistance or contact a Poison Control Center immediately." The amount to be used in brushing is a pea sized amount or about 1 milligram. One liter of water in a fluoridated community will contain one milligram.

Tooth Decay Costs Savings

All of the recent large scale studies have found no relationship to tooth decay and water fluoride levels. Earlier studies that are often cited by fluoridation promoters are transparently flawed. The examiners were not standardized or blinded. There are no randomized controlled blinded studies of animals or humans that have ever found a reduction in decay from ingesting fluoride. On the contrary, all of the recent large-scale studies have failed to show any significant reduction.

Studies of fluoride have confirmed that the effect it has on tooth decay reduction is not systemic. The effect is not produced by swallowing the toxic substance, but is in fact a topical effect upon the bacteria that live in the mouth and cause tooth decay. It poisons them. The design of the experiment leaves little doubt -as to the results. Cavity-prone rats were given fluoride in two ways. One group got fluoride in the mouth from a time release tablet bonded to the outer surface of the tooth. The other group got the same amount administered in a slow pump under the skin. The oral dose of fluoride produced some reduction in decay over controls, but the systemic exposure did not reduce tooth decay at all. However, the poisonous nature of fluoride does not change when ingested.

Animals fed sugar-water and fluoride fare no better in terms of tooth decay than animals fed sugar-water alone. Human tooth decay is linked to diet, sugar intake, tooth brushing technique, hours of sunlight, parental education, and family income. These variables must be considered in order to produce accurate results.

In the largest study of tooth decay in America, there was no significant difference in the decay rates of 39,000 fluoridated, partially fluoridated, and non fluoridated children, ages 5 to 17, surveyed in that 84 city study. The decayed missing or filled rate in non-fluoridated Los Angeles was not significantly different than fluoridated San Francisco. In fact, the lowest decay rate was found in non-fluoridated Buhler, KS.

Comparing the State of California 1994 non-weighted dental costs for the 14 largest counties reveals that counties 90% fluoridated spent on average $121.93 per eligible recipient for treatment of tooth decay, and counties with less than 10% fluoridation spent only $118.33 per eligible recipient.

Weighted 1995 California per Eligible Welfare Recipient Dental Costs
CA Counties 90 -100 % Fluoridated $125.27
CA Counties 0.5- 10% Fluoridated $107.26

With less than 17% of the state fluoridated, California children have fewer cavities than the nation as a whole. Where is the alleged proof of safety and effectiveness? Why are the costs of dental care higher in fluoridated areas?

This public health fraud will result only in increased misery-- kidney disease, hip fractures, cancers and even death to its many unfortunate victims. Not only will fluoridation not reduce the dental care costs, it will exponentially increase the fluorotic damage to underprivileged children.


David C. Kennedy, D.D.S.

Enclosed: Fluoride Fact Sheet
America Overdosed

P.S. The attached Fluoride Fact sheet has the scientific documentation to back up each of the 6 proven effects of fluoride.

Upon request the actual studies to support each statement will be happily provided.


[1] Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride, National Research Council, pg 37, (1993)
[2] D. Christopher Clark. DDS, MPH Appropriate use of fluorides for children: guidelines from the Canadian Workshop on the Evaluation of Current Recommendations Concerning Fluorides. J. Canadian Medical Association Vol. 149 #12 (1993)
[3] J.M. ten Cate & J. D.B. Featherstone Mechanistic Aspects of the Interactions Between Fluoride and Dental Enamel Critical Reviews in Oral Biology and Medicine 2(2.):283-296 (1991)
[4] J. D. Featherstone. The Mechanism of Dental Decay Nutrition Today May 1987
[5] Riggs BL, Hodson SF, O'fallon WM, et al. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in post menopausal women with osteoporosis. NEJM 1990: 322:802-809
[6] References for Fact #6
[7] Marcus Memo May 1 1990 (enclosed)
[8] Letter dated July 2, 1997 to Citizens for Safe Drinking Water (enclosed)

1) Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Miles TP. Brody JA, et al. Regional variation in the incidence of
hip fractures: U.S. white women aged 65 years and older. JAMA Vol. 264, pp. 500-502 (1990)
2) Cooper C, Wickham CAC, Barker DJR, and Jacobsen SJ. Water fluoridation and hip
fracture (letter]. JAMA Vol. 266. pp. 513-514, 1991
3) Danielson C, Lyon IL, Egger M, and Goodenough GK. Hip fractures and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population. JAMA Vol. 268, pp. 746-748 (1992)
4) journal of the American Medical Association Vol. 273, pp. 775-776 (1995)
5) Jacobsen SJ, Goldberg J, Cooper C, and Lockwood SA. The association between water fluoridation and hip fracture among white women and men aged 65 years and older: A national ecologic study. Ann Epidemiol 1992: 2:617-226
6) Sowers MFR. Clark MK, Jannausch ML and Wallce RB. A prospective study of bone mineral content and fracture in communities with differential fluoride exposure. Am J Epidemiol 1991:133:649-60
7) Keller C. Fluorides in Drinking Water. Paper presented at the Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. April 10, 1991 1, Bethesda, Md.
8) May, DS and Wilson MG. Hip fractures in relation to water fluoridation: an ecologic analysis. Presented at the Workshop on Drinking Water Fluoride Influence on Hip Fractures and Bone Health. April 10, 1991, Bethesda, Md.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10