August 29, 2014

CDC Water Fluoridation Stand Influenced by Dentists

pin it button CDC Water Fluoridation Stand Influenced by Dentists

fluoride support documents7.13 CDC Water Fluoridation Stand Influenced by Dentists

By Dr. Mercola

Documents released under the Freedom of Information Act show that since the 1970′s, the dental health professionals in the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have completely controlled the agency’s stance supporting water fluoridation. No CDC toxicologists, minority health professionals, experts in diabetes, or others outside the Oral Health Division had any input into the agency’s position.

The documents have drawn attention once again to the CDC’s and EPA’s fluoride safety statements, which appear at odds with current scientific knowledge.

According to the Fluoride Action Network:

“Law firms are now reviewing old and new documents believed to highlight a pattern of attempts to curtail discussions on fluoride toxicity and downplay the importance of professionals personally reviewing scientific reports about fluorides.”



Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support and resource sharing for health issues that require the input from more than one area of expertise. Other offices that share information and expertise with the CDC include the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, and the Agency for Toxic Substances.

The general assumption has been that the agency utilized a broad range of expert input to evaluate fluoride before reaching the decision to support water fluoridation. After all, since fluoride is ingested, it stands to reason it may have an impact on your whole body, not just your teeth.

Alas, a recent document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) tells a different tale.

Dentists have Controlled CDC’s Water Fluoridation Stance for over 35 Years…

In April, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) responded to an FOIA request asking for the names and job descriptions of all parties at the CDC who have had input into the agency’s decision to support water fluoridation.

As it turns out, ever since the mid-1970′s, when fluoridation activities transferred from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to the CDC under the directorship of William Bock, dental health professionals have been the sole body of experts directing the agency’s stance on water fluoridation. Glaringly absent from this list are… well, any health expert outside the Oral Health Division. Apparently, no toxicologist has ever been directly involved in the decision process; nor any minority health professionals, or experts on internal medicine or diabetes, for example.

This flies in the face of what the agency claims, and what water-, health- and political leaders have believed about the way the CDC operates. Without these additional experts from other fields, can we reasonably believe that the agency has properly assessed the research on whole-body harm from fluoridation?

“The documentation intensifies focus on the motivations behind CDC’s and EPA’s fluoride safety statements that appear at odds with current scientific knowledge,” the Fluoride Action Network says in its press release.

Indeed, the CDC’s stance on water fluoridation does seem to be at odds with a now very large body of scientific evidence detailing the profound and detrimental impact of fluoride on multiple biological functions.

While the CDC officially claims that “extensive research conducted over the past 60 years has shown that fluoridation of public water supplies is safe and effective for all community residents,” this claim appears to have the flimsiest of foundations.

According to a 2006 report from the National Research Council, extensive amounts of research is inconclusive, or still missing and needs to be conducted to evaluate whole-body impact of fluoride… Not only that, but their scientific review also identified research suggesting a variety of harmful effects, from skeletal fluorosis, bone fractures, and, potentially, even cancer. With that in mind, how can the CDC claim that “extensive research” has concluded water fluoridation is safe for ALL community residents, without differentiation between infants and adults, the sick or the healthy?

Water Fluoridation—A Civil Rights Issue

Water fluoridation has been a civil rights issue from the very start. Just take a look at this 1977 article in the Harvard Crimson, and you’d think it was written today. Nothing has changed in the 34 years since that article was published, except for the emergence of additional research supporting fluoride opponents’ worst fears.

Alveda King, niece of civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. has now joined the fight against water fluoridation, stating on her blog:

“This is a civil rights issue… No one should be subjected to drinking fluoride in their water, especially sensitive groups like kidney patients and diabetics, babies in their milk formula, or poor families that cannot afford to purchase unfluoridated water. Black and Latino families are being disproportionately harmed.”

The reason why certain ethnic minorities may be disproportionately harmed is because fluoride’s toxicity appears to be exacerbated by:

  • Inadequate nutrition, including lower intakes of iodine and calcium. Certain racial groups are more likely to be lactose intolerant than others and may therefore consume less dairy (a primary source of calcium) and more water.

    Included among these are Central and East Asians, Native Americans, African Americans, Southern Indians. Thus these groups may be more heavily exposed to fluoride in water and other beverages than are Caucasian Americans, and their calcium intakes may be compromised, which may further exacerbate toxicity.

  • Kidney dysfunction and diabetes, which are more prevalent among minorities than whites.
  • Inadequate supplies of vitamin C, vitamin D, magnesium, and selenium

According to CDC statistics, African American mothers are also the least likely to breastfeed their infants, compared to other ethnic groups. And while breast milk is very low in fluoride, infants fed formula mixed with fluoridated water may receive harmful amounts of fluoride—as much as 200 times more fluoride than a breastfed baby.

Two Atlanta Civil Rights leaders, Andrew Young and Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, recently called for the state of Georgia’s mandatory water fluoridation law to be repealed, based on the fact that it disproportionately harms minorities and the poor.

In a letter to Georgia state legislators, Rev. Dr. Durley writes,

“I support the holding of Fluoridegate hearings at the state and national level so we can learn why we haven’t been openly told that fluorides build up in the body over time, (and) why our government agencies haven’t told the black community openly that fluorides disproportionately harm black Americans…”

Dental Fluorosis is Just the Beginning

Supporting the assessment that water fluoridation may disproportionately harm minorities are the statistics showing that dental fluorosis is more prevalent among African American and Hispanic children. These groups also have an increased risk for the more severe forms of this condition. And while advocates for fluoridation are fond of saying that the characteristic mottling of the teeth is “only cosmetic,” it might just be the visible tip of the iceberg.

Dental fluorosis may be an indication that the rest of your body, such as your bones and the rest of your organs, including your brain, has been over-exposed to fluoride as well. As Dr. Paul Connett, a chemist specializing in environmental chemistry, explained in a previous interview:

“We know that 32 percent of American children have been overexposed to fluoride because you have this telltale sign of dental fluorosis, which in its mildest form is little white specs. But when it gets more serious, it affects more of the surface of your teeth and it becomes colored; yellow, brown and orange mottling of the teeth …

The teeth are the window to the bones. If you’ve seen the damage to the teeth, what damage can you not see?”

In other words, if fluoride has a detrimental, visual effect on the surface of your teeth, you can be virtually guaranteed that it’s also damaging something else inside your body, such as your bones. Bone is living tissue that is constantly replaced through cellular turnover. It’s a finely balanced, complicated process. Fluoride has been known to disrupt this process ever since the 1930s.

For an extensive listing of scientific studies on fluoride, see this link. Studies into the health effects of fluoride have identified a multitude of other health hazards, including:

Increased lead absorption Brain damage, and lowered IQ Lowered thyroid function Inhibited formation of antibodies
Disrupted synthesis of collagen Arthritis Genetic damage and cell death Disrupted immune function
Hyperactivity and/or lethargy Dementia Bone cancer (osteosarcoma) Increased tumor and cancer rate
Muscle disorders Bone fractures Inactivation of 62 enzymes Damaged sperm and increased infertility

Incredible Documentation Indicating Suppression of Safety Information

According to the Fluoride Action Network:

“Law firms are now reviewing old and new documents believed to highlight a pattern of attempts to curtail discussions on fluoride toxicity and downplay the importance of professionals personally reviewing scientific reports about fluorides… One such document is an explosive transcript of a 1951 meeting of state dental directors on file at the Library of Congress.”

In this meeting, state dental leaders were told:

“The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass it over. ‘We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay,’ you say, and go on. If it becomes an issue, then you will have to take it over, but don’t bring it up yourself.”

Additionally, a white paper issued by the American Dental Association in 1979 states:

“Individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports of laboratory and field investigations on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program and that nonparticipation is an overt neglect of professional responsibility.”

Fluoride Action Network quotes Daniel G. Stockin, a career public health professional opposed to water fluoridation:

“I think it’s pretty clear that the public, the media, and health providers were given soothing talking points about fluoridation, and in many cases dissuaded from personally looking at toxicity data.

How can CDC oral health professionals in a department that has promoted fluoridation for decades be objective, let alone competent to assess research and draw conclusions about the toxicity of fluorides on thyroid glands, kidneys, and the pineal gland?

There is a reason we’re seeing calls for Fluoridegate investigations. The legal community and the media are waking up to this. I believe jurors will see a clear pattern of disinformation, half-truths, misdirection, and omission of critical material facts concerning harm from fluoridated drinking water.”

The Role of the EPA in Water Fluoridation

The CDC isn’t the only agency that might be unduly biased. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has declared that achieving Environmental Justice for all Americans is a top priority for her agency. Clearly, since fluoride has been shown to disproportionately affect poor and minority Americans, the EPA should therefore give special consideration to these groups when determining the level of fluoride in drinking water in order for it to be safe for all Americans.

Unfortunately, the most recent analyses of fluoride by the EPA’s Office of Water indicate that the EPA is more concerned with protecting the fluoridation program than protecting the American people…

For example, the EPA’s newly proposed reference dose for fluoride (the dose of fluoride that is supposedly safe for everyone when taken every day and over a lifetime) is based on the dietary intake of fluoride recommended by the Institute of Medicine in 1997 to prevent dental caries.

Since that time, however, it has been well established – and is now widely accepted – that the primary action of fluoride on teeth is topical, not systemic. Therefore, since fluoride is not an essential element (i.e. not necessary for human health), any dietary recommendations for fluoride are illogical and unnecessary, and may do more harm than good.

So, again, we see a clear disconnect between the latest scientific findings concerning safety and the EPA’s proposed changes to the reference dose. This reference dose will soon be translated to a new Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water. If EPA were to evaluate the true science behind fluoride toxicity – free from any interference by those promoting fluoridation – the only rational outcome would be an MCLG of ZERO, effectively ending the practice of artificial water fluoridation.

What You Can Do TODAY!

The Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation in both Canada and the United States. Our fluoride initiative will primarily focus on Canada since 60 percent of Canada is already non-fluoridated. If we can get Calgary and the rest of Canada to stop fluoridating their water, we believe the U.S. will be forced to follow.

Please, join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

  1. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at
  2. The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at

Contact Information for American Communities:

We’re also going to address three US communities: New York City, Austin, and San Diego:

  1. New York City, NY: The anti-fluoridation movement has a great champion in New York City councilor Peter Vallone, Jr. who introduced legislation on January 18 “prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply.” A victory there could signal the beginning of the end of fluoridation in the U.S.

    If you live in the New York area I beg you to participate in this effort as your contribution could have a MAJOR difference. Remember that one person can make a difference.

    The point person for this area is Carol Kopf, at the New York Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF). Email her at . Please contact her if you’re interested in helping with this effort.

  2. Austin, Texas: Join the effort by contacting Rae Nadler-Olenick at either: or, or by regular mail or telephone:

    POB 7486
    Austin, Texas 78713
    Phone: (512) 371-3786

  3. San Diego, California: Contact Patty Ducey-Brooks, publisher of the Presidio Sentinel at

In addition, you can:


Full Article Here:

© Copyright 1997-2011 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.


0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Study: Legalizing Medical Marijuana Leads to Fewer Prescription Drug Overdose Deaths

Study: Legalizing Medical Marijuana Leads to Fewer Prescription Drug Overdose Deaths

Pin It

A study published in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine on Monday found that states that had legalized medical marijuana had seen a 25 percent drop in deaths related to prescription drug overdoses.

According to ABC News, the researchers conducting the study found that because “legalizing medical marijuana makes it more available to chronic pain patients, it provides a potentially less lethal alternative to pain control on a long-term basis.”

Over the course of the study, the states studied were the ones that allowed access to medical marijuana. The Washington Post reported that those states “had 1,729 fewer overdose deaths in 2010 than would be predicted by trends in states without such laws.”

Dr. Marcus Bachhuber, a physician and researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, and the lead author of the study, told ABC News that while he did expect to see changes among the states that legalized medical marijuana, he found it “surprising that the difference is so big.”

Unapproved but Effective Cancer Cures

Unapproved but Effective Cancer Cures

Pin It

The conventional cancer treatment system and the pharmaceutical companies that control it are dedicated to limiting the development of all other forms of cancer treatment. They have a chokehold on the development of alternative treatments, and they ruthlessly work together with the US FDA and various US government cancer research funding agencies to prevent new treatments from being approved for use by physicians. The reason is that most alternative cancer treatments are much less expensive than surgery, radiation, and chemo. They are also more effective and have many fewer (if any) unwanted side effects.

The great fear of the pharmaceutical industry, and the vast cancer treatment system that it controls, is that a non-patentable and inexpensive cure for cancer might put them out of business. Sadly, these organizations exist to turn a profit from cancer treatment, which is measured in the billions of dollars every year. They are in the business of treating cancer not curing it.

Alternative treatments for cancer have a history of curing cancer and it is this fact that big pharma wants to hide from the American public. Historically, many successful approaches have been developed for curing cancer. We give a review of many of the most popular ones here.

Report: FDA Deliberately Deceptive – Poisoning Millions of Americans

Report: FDA Deliberately Deceptive – Poisoning Millions of Americans

Pin It

US consumers are in dark about mercury in dental products—and they are kept there deliberately by the government. This is documented in a new report being released this week by Consumers for Dental Choice called “Measurably Misleading: Evidence the FDA and Dental Industry are Deliberately Deceiving American Families about Mercury Dental Fillings and Why That Now Has International Consequences.”

Mercury is a known neurotoxin, yet mercury fillings presents one of the largest consumer consumption of mercury worldwide, and dental amalgam represents the largest use of mercury in consumer products in the US. We’ve also been kept in in the dark about mercury in other consumer products because of the FDA. Thimerosal, a mercury compound often found in flu vaccines, is being ignored as a danger.

Detox Your Liver with Homemade Lemon Water

Detox Your Liver with Homemade Lemon Water

Pin It

One of the drinks I routinely make for myself and my family in the mornings is lemon water. Not to be confused with “lemonade,” a sweetened beverage, lemon water is a detoxifying health drink consisting of nothing but one whole lemon and warm water.

Much of the research on lemon water’s ability to detoxify the liver is centered around the antioxidant D-Limonene, which is more concentrated in the peel of the lemon. D-limonene has been shown to activate enzymes in the liver that lead to detoxification. It has also been shown to treat cancer.

The Healing Properties of Clove Essential Oil

The Healing Properties of Clove Essential Oil

Pin It

The ancient texts all seem to agree on the many therapeutic properties of clove – it is a stimulant and has stomachic, expectorant, sedative, carminative, antispasmodic and digestive qualities. It helps flatulence, stimulates digestion and restores appetite, so is good for convalescence. It is a general tonic for both physical and intellectual weakness; and for those suffering from frigidity.

Its principal therapeutic value, though, is antiseptic because of the high proportion of eugenol. This is used for intestinal parasites, and for prevention of virus infections. It is good for the immune system, and particularly effective in mouth and tooth infections.

Here is a review of some of scientific studies published around the world regarding the healing properties of clove essential oil.

read more

Get the news right in your inbox!