In Honor of Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Dr. John Yiamouyiannis
(1943-2000)

Putting the tactics of the major promoters of fluoridation into perspective

John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D

President, Safe Water Foundation

20 August 1995

Twenty-five years ago, the British Dental Journal (September 15, 1970, page 300) advised its readers: "Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not. . . . as soon as dentists recognize their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding. In politics, the emphasis is on propagandizing rather than education."

This review attempts to focus in on questions which arise from an article by John Hunt, the chief executive of the British Dental Association, and his colleagues published in the August 19, 1995 issue of the British Dental Journal. If one doesn't "have a complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health" or close to one, how are they going to respond to someone with an opposing viewpoint who does? By name-calling, by character assassination, by distortions, by misrepresentations, by undocumented fabrications? Questions regarding the article by Hunt and coworkers are presented so the reader can decide for himself/herself where the misleading statements are coming from, who is using "deception by omission", and whose references do not support their claims.

Why would people like John Hunt, the chief executive of the British Dental Association, and four colleagues with impressive sounding credentials put their names to an article such as the one that appeared in the August 19,1995 issue of the British Dental Journal?⁽¹⁾

Why would they go way back to a 1970 statement from Russell Rowlett, then editor-in-chief of Chemical Abstracts Service, a division of the American Chemical Society, saying that Chemical Abstracts Service does not take a position on fluoridation when they could easily have mentioned that in 1988, Chemical and Engineering News, the news magazine of the American Chemical Society, published a 17-page cover article on fluoridation (1) expressing some of the same serious concerns regarding the harmful effects of fluoridation that I had expressed while an editor at Chemical Abstracts and (2) stating: "when the actual costs of dental care delivered in similar cities are compared, residents of fluoridated cities seem to reap no economic benefit"?

Why would they go way back to a 1978 statement from the Consumer Union of the United States⁽²⁾ to dig up the following outdated quote: "The simple truth is that there is no scientific controversy over the safety of fluoridation" when that statement has already been nullified by the much more recent statement of Consumer Union's associate technical director, Dr. Edward Groth III who said in 1990: "The point is that this is a legitimate scientific controversy. Proponents of fluoridation insist that there are no grounds for controversy at all, and with that I completely disagree."⁽³⁾

Why would they claim that "In 1988 a team of American scientists undertook a painstaking investigation of 250 references cited in one of Yiamouyiannis's publications entitled Lifesavers guide to fluoridation" when there was not a single scientist among them: 10 were dental hygienists (Colleen A. Wulf, Karen F. Hughes, Kathleen 0. Smith, Linda S. Crossett, Elizabeth King. Sharon Pierce, Ruth Nowjak-Raymer, Beverly Wargo, Geraldine Wirthman, and Karen Zinner), 2 were dentists (Michael Easley and Elizabeth Bernard). 5 had degrees in public relations, education, psychology, or public health (James Collins, Taimi M. Carnahan. Claire Gelband, Judy Harvey and Helen S. Hill), and one had no college degree at all (John Small)?

This lack of scientific expertise shows up in the text of their 215-page report.⁽⁴⁾ On page 23, the group refers to an article in which, they claim, female rats were exposed to hydroxyfluoride. However, the article they referred to makes no mention of hydroxyfluoride, since there is no such chemical. On pages 30 and 60, the group tried to convert millimolar concentrations of fluoride into parts per million and were off in their calculations by 100,000%! On page 91, the group was unable to determine what 'vitamin PP' was. Vitamin PP is niacinamide or vitamin B3.

Why would they quote a "Dr. Stephen Barrett MD", who couldn't qualify as an expert witness in a fluoridation case in Lebanon, Pennsylvania, the state in which he lives, as claiming: "It is clear that Yiamouyiannis uses deception by omission and that the references he cites do not support his claims"? It's hard to determine what "Dr. Stephen Barrett MD" means by saying deception by omission, when I used 221 references to document 5 1/4 pages of text in my pamphlet. Seems like 221 references to document 51/4 pages of text doesn't leave much room for omission. Of these 221 references, the above mentioned group takes issue with only 29 of them. Of these 29 criticisms, 20 are without merit, 5 are judgement calls, and 4 are legitimate and are due to typographical and clerical errors.

Why would they say that my 1988 pamphlet linked fluoridated water with damage to human enzymes when the pamphlet doesn't even refer to human enzymes?

Why would they say that in my 1988 pamphlet, I "cited a study which purportedly (emphasis added) showed that the city of Grand Rapids in Michigan -- the first place in the United States to be fluoridated -- had a level of tooth decay that was little different from the national average"? For those willing to look at the study (Journal of Dental Research 52(5): 1161 (1973)), it did show that Grand Rapids had a level of tooth decay that was little different from the national average.

Why would they say that "In 1978. . . Consumers Union condemned them (Yiamouyiannis and a collaborator) for managing to ignore the most fundamental factors involved in cancer mortality rates -- age, sex, and race"? As they could have easily seen by doing their homework, I did take age, sex, and race into consideration in my analysis of fluoridation-related cancer mortality by reporting on cancer death rates simultaneously adjusted for age, sex, and race at Congressional Hearings on fluoridation close to one year before the Consumer Reports article came out.^{(5) (6) (7)}

I took Consumers Union to court for claiming that I had not taken age, sex, and race into consideration in my analysis of cancer mortality rates. The author of the Consumer Reports article, Joe Botta claimed that he had carefully read the Congressional Hearings referred to above so he must have known that the defamatory statement he was writing was untrue. These two elements -- (1) defamatory statements (2) made by a person who knows they are untrue should have made an open-and-shut case. However, the court ruled that Consumer Reports' right to freedom of speech outweighed my right to due process of the law and the court didn't allow a hearing on the case. The court claimed that if they did allow a hearing on the case -- whether or not I was libeled -- Consumer Reports would be forced to defend a rash of cases like mine and it would become economically unfeasible for them to exercise their free speech rights. In the court case I filed against the San Antonio Express News it was determined that the reporter who made derogatory statements against me could do so -- whether or not they were true -- as long as he maintained that that was what his opinion was.

While they say that "John Yiamouyiannis has been involved in a number of court cases concerning fluoridation", why did they only mention cases in Scotland and Wisconsin (when I had virtually nothing to do with the Wisconsin case with the exception of preparing affidavits for it) and ignore the big cases in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Houston, Texas; Alton, Illinois; and Charleston, South Carolina that I did have something to do with? Maybe mentioning the results of these other cases might give you a clue as to why they failed to mention them.Nov. 6,1978 - Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Despite testimony from profluoridationists such as Dr. George Martin of the National Institute of Dental Research, Dr. Leo Kinlen from the Royal College of Physicians, Dr. D. J. Newell, from the Royal Statistical Society, Dr. Donald Taves from the National Academy of Sciences, and Dr. Marvin Schneiderman from the National Cancer Institute - Judge John P. Flaherty, also chairman of the Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences, ruled that he was "compellingly convinced" that fluoride is a carcinogen and ordered a halt to fluoridation. In his decision, he stated: "Point by point, every criticism made of the B-Y [Burk-Yiamouyiannis] Study was met and explained"⁽⁸⁾

Feb. 22, 1982 -- Houston. Texas: After 11 days of hearings. Judge Anthony J.P. Farris ruled that "Plaintiffs had the burden to introduce overwhelming evidence in this case that fluoridation was unsafe and ineffective and that they "have not overcome their enormous burden" and denied the petition to stop fluoridation.

During a motion for reconsideration by Judge Farris on April 19,1982. he commented: "I think that everyone in this courtroom who has read my opinion of February 22,1982 can see that underlying that opinion is a feeling personal to me and that that feeling, as divorced from the judicial feeling, was that fluoridation of water would be bad."

On May 24,1982, he issued findings of fact in this case, stating that 'The considerable amount of evidence introduced, heard and considered by this court. . . . shows . . . that the artificial fluoridation of water supplies . . . may cause or 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 some doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." Nonetheless, he maintained that our burden, to get him to encroach upon the legislative branch, was greater, i.e. that we had to show not by just a preponderance of the evidence, but by clear and convincing evidence that fluoridation is harmful.

Feb. 28, 1982 - Alton. Illinois: After 40 days of hearings devoted primarily to testimony regarding fluoridation and cancer. Judge Ronald Niemann ruled "A conclusion that fluoridation is a safe and effective means of promoting dental health cannot be supported by this record" and ordered a halt to fluoridation.⁽⁹⁾

Nov. 23,1982: In South Carolina, after 9 days of hearings. Master in Equity Louis E. Condon ruled that 'To believe the Plaintiffs, one must believe that the entire established medical and scientific community of this Country and other foreign countries which have studied the subject had conspired to promote fluoridation and cover up its hazards. Such a conspiracy is improbable and has not been proven in this case. Fluoride regulated at one part per million in the drinking water of the city of Charleston has not been shown to constitute a health hazard or a public nuisance . . . the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof and, therefore, the Plaintiff's Complaint requesting injunctive relief must be and is denied."

June 29, 1983: In Scotland, after a court case which lasted off-and-on from 1980 to 1982, Lord Jauncey, a judge in the Edinburgh Court of Session, ruled that while he concluded that fluoridation was safe and effective, he ordered a halt to it because fluoridation rendered the water less wholesome in the 'restricted sense' stating: "In my view the word 'wholesome' falls properly to be construed in the more restricted sense advocated by the petitioner as relating to water which was free from contamination and pleasant to drink. It follows that fluoridation which in no way facilitates nor is incidental to the supply of such water is outwith the powers of the respondents. The petitioner therefore succeeds on this branch of her case."⁽¹⁰⁾

Why would they go way back to 1963 and 1966 to dig up derogatory statements about the National Health Federation by the US Food and Drug Administration and the American Medical Association? At the time, I was in school getting my Ph.D. in biochemistry on a US Public Health Service grant.

When the defense in the Pittsburgh case attempted a similar character assassination of me as National Health Federation science director by using the 1978 Consumer Reports article, this is what the presiding judge, John Flaherty said in reply:

"The issue I am eventually going to have to decide is whether or not fluoride is carcinogenic ... (the National Health Federation) isn't on trial,. . .

"I don't care what . . . (the National Health Federation) is advocating . . . I am not going to be prejudiced in my decision because of innuendoes cast against organizations pro or con of this issue . . . Can you show me any evidence that (Dr. Yiamouyiannis) was part and parcel of these alleged frauds?"

Defense Counsel: "No, I can't."

The Court: "Then, my goodness, why would you be here impugning the integrity of this individual due to some other individuals' alleged fraudulent activities? This flouts in the face of due process of law and everything we stand for in this court?"

In a July 31,1979 letter. Judge Flaherty recalled, in a letter to Sir Dove-Meyer Robinson, the mayor of Auckland:

"Prior to my hearing this case, I gave the matter of fluoridation little, if any. thought, but I received quite an education, and noted that the proponents of fluoridation do nothing more than try to impugn the integrity of those who oppose fluoridation."

Why would they rely on the Knox report to discredit me when anyone with expertise in the field of fluoridation who took the time to read the report could easily tell that it is loaded with false statements and inaccuracies, 24 of which are listed herein.⁽¹¹⁾ While the Knox report maintained that virtually all other studies except for those of Yiamouyiannis and Burk show no link between fluoridation and cancer, the following table lists a number of the studies that did show a link between fluoridation and cancer at the time the Knox report was prepared. In some of the following studies, errors and omissions in the original studies have been corrected:

Why would they say that "scientific, medical legal, and consumer organizations on both sides of the Atlantic have consistently refused to recognize John Yiamouyiannis as a serious research worker, or as a serious commentator on health policy" when I have not only been recognized, but relied upon as an authority, by (for example in the scientific community) the scientists from the US Environmental Protection Agency and their union who came out against fluoridation on the basis of a lecture I delivered to them,⁽¹²⁾ by (for example in the medical community) the International Association of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, by (for example in the legal community) the Scottish Legal Society, and by (for example in the consumer organization community) the US Natural Resource Defense Council? Even Ralph Nader, the leader of consumerism in the US knows of my work and has long been an opponent of fluoridation. In an address at Muhlenberg College in 1974, Ralph Nader pointed out: "With the Public Health Service, the fluoride companies and the dentists on one side, and the consumers on the other side - fluoridation has been promoted without giving consumers their free choice. The average dentist goes along because his dental society passed a resolution about fluoridation years ago."

Why didn't they tell you that according to the handbook, Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products, fluoride is more poisonous than lead and just slightly less poisonous than arsenic?⁽¹³⁾

Why didn't they tell you that according to the Physicians' Desk Reference: "In hypersensitive individuals, fluorides occasionally cause skin eruptions such as atopic dermatitis, eczema, or urticaria. Gastric distress, headache, and weakness have also been reported. These hypersensitive reactions usually disappear promptly after discontinuation of the fluoride."?⁽¹⁴⁾

Why didn't they tell you that the Canadian Dental Association recommends: "Fluoride supplements should not be recommended for children less than three years old"?⁽¹⁵⁾

Why didn't they tell you that from 1990 to 1995 the Journal of the American Medical Association published four separate articles linking increased hip fracture rates to fluoride in the water?^{(16) (17) (18) (19)}

Why didn't they tell you that in the March 22, 1990 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, Mayo Clinic researchers reported that fluoride treatment of osteoporosis increased bone fracture rate and bone fragility?⁽²⁰⁾

Why didn't they tell you that a study by Procter and Gamble showed that as little as half the amount of fluoride used to fluoridate public water supplies resulted in a sizable and significant increase in genetic damage?⁽²¹⁾

Why didn't they tell you that in 1993, researchers from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences admitted: "in cultured human and rodent cells, the weight of the evidence leads to the conclusion that fluoride exposure results in increased chromosome aberrations [genetic damage]"?⁽²²⁾

Why didn't they tell you that in 1988, the ability of fluoride to transform normal cells into cancer cells was confirmed by Argonne National Laboratory?⁽²³⁾

Why didn't they tell you that results from Battelle Research Institute showed that fluoride was linked to a rare form of liver cancer in mice, oral tumors and cancers in rats, and bone cancer in male rats?⁽²⁴⁾

Why didn't they tell you that since 1990, the National Cancer Institute, the New Jersey Department of Health and the Safe Water Foundation all found that the incidence of osteosarcoma, a type of bone cancer, was substantially higher in young men exposed to fluoridated water as compared to those who were not?^{(25) (26) (27)}

Why didn't they tell you that in the largest US study on fluoridation and tooth decay, United States Public Health Service dental records of over 39,000 schoolchildren, ages 5-17, from 84 areas around the United States showed that the number of decayed, missing, and filled permanent teeth [DMFT] per child was virtually the same in fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas?⁽²⁸⁾

Why didn't they tell you that Dr. John Colquhoun, former Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health for Auckland, New Zealand, investigated tooth decay statistics from about 60,000 12- to 13-year-old children and showed that fluoridation had no significant effect on the decay rate of permanent teeth?⁽²⁹⁾

Why didn't they tell you that according to the October 1987 issue of the Journal of the Canadian Dental Association: "Survey results in British Columbia with only 11 per cent of the population using fluoridated water show lower average DMFT [tooth decay] rates than provinces with 40-70 per cent of the population drinking fluoridated water" and "school districts recently reporting the highest caries-free rates in the province were totally unfluoridated."?⁽³⁰⁾

Why didn't they tell you that in 1993, the Subcommittee on Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride of the US National Research Council admitted that 8% to 51% and sometimes up to 80% of the children living in areas fluoridated with the amount of fluoride recommended by promoters of fluoridation have dental fluorosis [fluoride poisoning].⁽³¹⁾

There are two choices you can make if you forced to realize you are wrong. The honorable choice is to admit it. The other choice is to attack the person who has clearly presented the evidence that shows you are wrong. The article titled "Putting Yiamouyiannis into Perspective" by John Hunt and coworkers recently published by the British Dental Journal should give a clue as to what course they, as promoters of fluoridation, have taken. As for me, I don't know whether John Hunt or any of his coauthors have run for parliament (by the way, there was no Presidential election in the US in 1993) or whether they have sued the Times or whether their sister-in-law's mother is a card-carrying communist -- and I don't care. The facts speak for themselves.

Who is making misleading statements? Who is using "deception by omission"? Whose references do not support their claims? Which of us is the propagandist in the pejorative sense of the word? Another look at the advice the British Dental Journal gave to its readers 25 years ago may give you an answer (British Dental Journal, September 15, 1970. page 300).

"Perhaps the greatest deterrent to meaningful political engagement of dentists in the promotion of water fluoridation is the mistaken but widespread assumption that to do so they must have full and complete knowledge of the detailed and voluminous scientific literature on the relationship of water fluoridation to dental and general health. They do not. . . . as soon as dentists recognize their responsibility in the politics of fluoridation, their performance will be outstanding. In politics, the emphasis is on propagandizing rather than education."

If the cavalier attitude of the British Dental Journal towards knowledge in the field of fluoridation and the importance of propaganda over education and the fast and loose handling of the facts in their article in the August 19,1995 issue of the British Dental Journal is characteristic of the quality of studies put out by proponents of fluoridation, I think the more astute readers of this journal ought to reevaluate their position on fluoride as well as the methods used to promote it used by their Association. While space does not permit me to give an in-depth review of the science and politics of fluoridation here, I do recommend Fluoride, the Aging Factor⁽³²⁾ for those who are interested in the rest of the story.

References

1. Hunt J, Boulton S, Lennon M A, Lowry R J, Jones S. British Dental Journal, pp 121-123 (August 19, 1995).

2. Consumers Union of the United States. Consumer Reports: A two-part report on fluoridation. New York: Consumers Union, 1978.

3. Browne M W. New York Times, March 13.1990, pp B5 and B8.

4. Wulf C A, Hughes K P. Smith K G, Easley M W. Abuse of the scientific literature in an autifluoridation pamphlet. 2nd edition, Columbia. Ohio; American Oral Health Institute Press, 1988.

5. Yiamouyiannis J. The National Cancer Program (Part 2. Fluoridation of Public Drinking Water). Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, 95th Congress, 1st Session. September 21 and October 12. 1977. GPO 99-316-0: 3-10,61-72.310.318.

6. As a matter of fact. the first study that I and "my collaborator", Dr. Dean Burk, one of the founders and for 35 years chief chemist of the US National Cancer Institute, ever published dealt with age-adjusted cancer mortality rates of white males which obviously took age, race, and sex into account (Burk D. Yiamouyiannis J. Fluoride and Cancer. Congressional Record, pp H7173-7176 (July 21,1975)).

7. Professor David Newell, respondent's witness in the Scottish court case was asked under oath about speeches he made in South Africa and Australia where he gave the impression that Burk-Yiamouyiannis "never made adjustments for age, race, and sex".

Q. "Don't you agree that that is the impression which you convey by the documents to which I have referred." Professor Newell replied:

A. "Yes. I would think so."

Q. "And isn't the impression a wholly misleading impression?"

A. "It was not my intention to mislead."

Q. ". . . it is quite untrue to say, is it not, that Burk-Yiamouyiannis made no adjustment?

A. "Yes it is. I admit I was wrong". (p.9805-9806 of the Scottish court case transcript)

8. Case overturned on the basis that even if fluoride causes cancer and other diseases, the court doesn't have jurisdiction to grant relief and that such relief can only come from legislative action.

9. Illinois Judge Ronald Niemann clearly pointed out:

'Considering the part of the plaintiffs' case that is credible, together with the failure of the State to adequately explain the scope of the risks to the public the Court orders an injunction to issue against the Department of Public Health, the Environmental Protection Agency and to the Alton Water Company from further use of artificial fluoride in the public water supply.

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

"The legislation that exposes the public to the risk, uncertain in its scope, of unhealthy side effects of artificial fluoridation of the public water supply is unreasonable and a violation of the due process clause of the Illinois Constitution of 1970" (emphasis added).

Yet the Illinois Supreme Court, in overturning Judge Niemann's order to stop fluoridation, stated: "We construe the circuit court's comment to mean that plaintiffs have shown, not that the risk was so great that fluoridation was unreasonable, but that the question was shown to be debatable" (emphasis added)

10. It is ironic that the only case where the judge most forcefully ruled against us on the facts was the only case where we got a court order that stopped fluoridation.

11. False statements and inaccuracies in the Knox Report (studies used to back up charges against the Knox committee report are dated 1985 or before since studies done after that time would not have been available to the authors of the report; symbols such as ¶S. 8 and ¶2.5 are used to denote the chapter and paragraph number within that paragraph, for example ¶S. 8 would denote the summary, paragraph 8 and ¶2.5 would denote the chapter 2 paragraph 5.

1. In ¶S. 8. they claim Dr. Burk and I "failed to consider the effects of other social and environmental differences between the groups in the comparisons. In fact, we did. Our very first study [Congressional Record (July 21,1975). pages H7173-6 compared were (1) age-adjusted and considered (2) white (3) males only in (4) highly urbanized areas [note how they omitted citation to this reference].

2. In ¶ S. 14, they claim: "Finally, the test of statistical significance used by the authors was inappropriate." In fact, we used the Student t test and this test is a standard in the field.

3. In ¶S. 15, they claim that we "depended on unreliable estimates of population". In fact, we used intercensal estimates by interpolation of decennial census figures which are routinely used and were used by most of the studies cited by the Knox Report to support their contention that there is no cancer risk from fluoride (studies, e.g. that they cite in ¶6 20. 6.21. 6,22. 6.23. 6.24. 6.25, figure 6 on page 81). See also ¶ 9.35 where this claim is made again.

4. In ¶S.16, they claim: "Yiamouyiannis and Burk failed to conduct a lest of statistical significance." In fact, in Fluoride 10(3): 102-123 (1977), on pages 110,112 and 113, we conducted numerous tests of significance.

5. In ¶S. 20, the Knox Report criticizes the use of data from intercensal years in the analyses of Yiamouyiannis and Burk saying "It would be safer to avoid this source of possible error by adopting the normal practice of centering the calculation of the standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) on, or closely around, the census years, thus using population estimates which would be expected to be more reliable." Confronted with such figures, i.e. figures taken on, or closely around, the census years, Sir Richard Doll, the leading profluoridation witness in the Scottish case, admitted that there was an absolute increase in cancer death rate in fluoridated areas:

   Queen's Counsel: "Well, the figures speak for themselves, don't they, and would you agree that in general terms they show, whichever method you use, that the fluoridated cities do worse than the nonfluoridated cities in comparison as to what happened between 1950 and 1970?"

   Doll: "Yes, I do agree, and that is why I said this paper was the first paper which I thought was of any consequence. . ." (Doll's testimony in the Scottish case. pp 19259-61)

6. In ¶1.2, they claim that "decisions to fluoridate were often taken only after extensive scientific examinations of the evidence". I don't know of a single case where this is true

7. In ¶2.1 they claim "It was shown later that water containing fluoride at a level of 1 ppm did not produce noticeable dental mottling." This is untrue as can be seen by the following references - Science 217: 26-30 (1982); Journal of the American Dental Association 108: 56-59 (1984); and American Laboratory 17:98-109 (1985)

8. In ¶2.2, they claim "No other non-dental disease was reported to result from these high exposures, nor was any non-dental disease reported from the use of moderately high-fluoride waters which were associated with dental modeling". This is not true. See for example "Renal failure and fluorosis" in the Journal of the American Medical Association 222(7):783-785 (1972).

9. In ¶2.3, they claim "By August 1950, the emerging results had confirmed the expected reduction in dental decay and the United States Public Health Service recommended the wider introduction of fluoridation." This is not true. See Public Health Reports 65: 1409-1408 (1950); J. Dent. Res. 30:465,1951, J. Amer. Dent. Assn. 47:159-170 (1953).

10. In ¶2.5 they claim "By then the reassuring results of American health studies were available". This is not true. The only American study that was relied upon was the study by N.C. Leone, et al, Public Health Reports 69:925-936(1954), which found that the mortality rate in naturally fluoridated Bartlett, Texas was over three times as high in the neighboring town of Cameron, which contained a much smaller amount of fluoride (0.4 ppm).

11. In ¶2.9 they claim "The trials were those in Grand Rapids (Knutson, 1954) and Newburgh (Schlesinger, et al.. 1956). None of the reports indicated a risk of cancer from fluoridation." This is not true. The study by Knutson published in Fluoride Drinking Waters, pages 213-217 (1962) examined cancer death rates following fluoridation of Grand Rapids, Michigan and found a 22% increase in cancer death rate following fluoridation in contrast to the non-fluoridated control city of Muskegon, Michigan.

12. In ¶2.10 they claim "Experiments in animals and plants continued, however, and reports began to appear largely from one author, of mutagenic effects from fluoride." This is not true. The articles which show the mutagenic effects of fluoride are from many different authors. The following articles which show the mutagenic effects of fluoride are all from different authors: Mutation Research 6:217-225 (1968); Mutation Research 20:339-352 (1973); (47) Gig. Sanit. (4): 14 (1973); Archives of Environmental Health 29:230-235 (1974); Huangjing Kexue Xuebao 3:94-100 (1983); Cancer Research 44:938-941 (1984); Mutation Research 139:193 (1984); Mutation Research 144:89-92 (1985); Fluoride 15(3): 111-118 (1982); Generica Polonica 19(3):353-357 (1978).

13. In ¶2.13 they claim "The report (Royal College of Physicians, 1976) was able to take account of two further papers on British cancer statistics (Kinlen. 1974: Nixon and Carpenter, 1974) which reported no significant differences between high- and low-fluoride areas". This is not true. Kinlen admitted that his own study showed that the cancer incidence at sites he felt would be most likely affected by fluoridation were 5% higher in the fluoridated areas he examined than in the non-fluoridated ones. (Transcript of Kinlen's testimony in Allegheny County Court, Pennsylvania. 1978 pages 29-30).

14. In ¶2.14 they claimed that the report of Mirisola and Cruciani, 1964 did not show "a cancer risk from fluoride". This is not true. This study did show higher cancer rates in fluoridated areas. They repeat this claim in ¶8.10.

15. In ¶2.21 (a) they claim that both before and after corrections for the errors passed on to Kinlen and Doll and Oldham and Newell by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, results showed no effect of fluoridation on cancer rates. This is not true. In addition to the statements of Doll and Kinlen referred to above, Professor David Newell admitted that his own study showed an absolute increase of 3.7 excess cancer deaths per 100,000 population in fluoridated areas vs. nonfluoridated areas (p.9638 of the Scottish court case transcript).

16. In ¶2.21(c) they claim that "It is on this paper . . . (Yiamouyiannis and Burk, 1977). . ., that Yiamouyiannis and Burk have since principally based their claim that fluoridation increases cancer rates." This is not true. I should know. I am Yiamouyiannis and I don't principally rely on this study. In 1985, I relied more on the data and results reported in Fluoride: The Aging Factor, Health Action Press, 1983, pages 60-69 and pages 52-59.

17. In ¶3.24 they claim that in the Yiamouyiannis and Burk study of 1977 "The weighting procedure employed in the study of cities east of the Mississippi is also unconventional and not validated." This is untrue. This is the same method of weighting used by the U.S. National Cancer Institute and cited by the Knox report to support their claim that fluoridation doesn't cause cancer (Hoover, 1976).

18. In ¶3.25 they claim "Yiamouyiannis and Burk have been led to select and analyze their data in ways which best accommodate their hypothesis of harm from fluoridation." This is not true. Our paper published in 1977 in the journal, Fluoride, was done for the purpose of refining data to determine whether or not differences observed in our other studies could be explained away. We never selected or analyzed data in such a way as to prove anything.

19. In ¶3.30 they claim "the levels of fluoride in blood plasma and in milk are similar". This is not true. Fluoride levels in blood are three to ten times higher than that of milk.

20. In ¶4.54 they claim "Their preoccupation with the combination of all cancers and with the search for an effect following swiftly on fluoridation is difficult to justify in the light of existing biological knowledge." This is not true. The ability of fluoride to inhibit the DNA repair enzyme system. inhibit the immune system, and increase tumor growth rate indicate that fluoride would have a generalized effect on increasing cancers overall (Cancer Research 44:938-941 (1984); Genetics 48:307-310 (1963), Cancer Research 44:938-941 (1984); Zeitschrift fur Angewandte Bader und Klimaheilkunde 24(3): 218-223 (1977); Proceedings of the Society of Experimental Biology and Medicine 119:252-255 (1965), and testimonies of Peter Wilkinson and Sheila Gibson during the Scottish court case).

21. In ¶5.39 they claim "Although Yiamouyiannis was later to use a form of indirect standardization, he had claimed originally that it was an unreliable technique (Yiamouyiannis and Burk)" This is not true. I began using indirect standardization before I ever used the direct method.

22. In ¶6.10 they claim "Austin compared all the counties with drinking water concentrations of at least 5 ppm fluoride for a significant portion of the population of the county (over fifty percent) with a group of 'low fluoride' counties (with an average of no more than 0.7 ppm fluoride)." This is not true. In fact, less than six percent of the people living in Austin's 'high fluoride' counties lived in areas where they reported fluoride levels of 5 ppm or more.

23. In ¶6.18 they claim "There was no reason to suggest cancer specifically as a possible hazard of fluoridation." This is not true. See, for example #20 above.

24. In ¶9.27 they claim "More careful Canadian studies, however, have found no evidence that fluoridation affects cancer rates or the trend in cancer rates (Raman. et al. 1977)". This is not true. The authors of the Canadian study admitted that their study could not rule out an increase in cancer death rate below the ten to forty percent range.

12. As reported on the BBC show February 22,1993

13. Robert Gosselin, Roger P. Smith & Harold C. Hodge. Clinical Toxicology of Commercial Products. Fifth Edition. 1984. pp. II-4, II-112, II-138 and II-129

14. 1993 Physicians' Desk Reference, p.2376

15. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, vol. 59 p.334 (1993)

16. Jacobsen S J, Goldberg J, Miles T P, Brody J A. Stiers W. Rimm A A. Regional variation in the incidence of hip fracture. Journal of the American Medical Association, vol, 264, Pages 500-502 (1990)

17. Cooper C, Wickham C A C. Barker D J R. Jacobsen S J. Water fluoridation and hip fracture. Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 266. pages 513-514 (1991)

18. Danielson C, Lyon J L. Egger M. Goodenough G K. Hip fracture and fluoridation in Utah's elderly population. Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 268. pages 746-748 (1992)

19. Jacqmine-Gadda H. Commenges D. Dartigues J F. Fluorine concentration in drinking water and fractures in the elderly. JAMA 273: 775 (1995)

20. Riggs B L., Hodgson S F, O'Fallon W M,. Chaoeys E Y S, Wahner H W, Muhs J M, Cedel S L., Melton L J. Effect of fluoride treatment on the fracture rate in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 332. pages 802-809 (1990)

21. Aardema M, Gibson D P, LeBoeuf R A. Sodium-induced fluoride aberrations in different stages of the cell cycle: a proposed mechanism. Mutation Research, vol. 223, pages 191-203 (1989). In this article, the author summary tries to cover up the result tabulated on table 6.

22. Zeiger E, Shelby M D, Witt K L. Generic toxicity of fluoride. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis vol. 21. pages 309-318 (1993)

23. Jones C A, Caltaham M F, Huberman E. Sodium fluoride promotes morphological transformation of Syrian hamster embryo cells. Carcinogenesis 9:2279-2284 (1988)

24. Sibbison J B. USA: more about fluoride. Lancet, vol. 336. page 737 (1990)

25. Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. Report of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Fluoride. February 1991, p. F-6

26. A Brief Report on the Association of Drinking Water Fluoridation and the Incidence of Osteosarcoma in Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health. Nov. 8. 1992. Table 1.

27. Yiamouyiannis J. Fluoridation and Cancer: the biology and epidemiology of bone and oral cancer related to fluoridation. Fluoride. vol. 26, pages 83-96 (1993)

28. Yiamouyiannis J. Water fluoridation and tooth decay: results from the 1986-1987 national survey of U.S. Schoolchildren. Fluoride. vol. 23, pages 55-67 (1990)

29. Colquhoun J. Child dental health differences in New Zealand. Community Health Studies 11: 85-90 (1987) & Postscript

30. Gray A S. Fluoridation. Time for a new baseline? Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, vol. 53. paces 763-765(1987)

31. Health Effects of Ingested Fluoride. National Academy of Sciences. 1993. p. 37

32. Yiamouyiannis J. Fluoride. the Aging Factor, Health Action Press, 6439 Taggart Road, Delaware, Ohio 43015 USA

For more information on Dental Fluorosis click on the image below.

This document may be freely copied