CDC Water Fluoridation Stand Influenced by Dentists

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is part of a larger administrative structure that provides intra-agency support ^[4] 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 ^[5] 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 ^[3].

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 ^[6] “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 ^[7], 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 ^[8], 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 ^[9]:

“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 ^[10], 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 ^[11],

“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 ^[12]:

“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 ^[13]. Studies into the health effects of fluoride have identified a multitude of other health hazards, including:

Incredible Documentation Indicating Suppression of Safety Information

According to the Fluoride Action Network ^[3]:

“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 ^[19] 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 ^[20]:

“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 ^[3], 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 ^[21] 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 ^[22] 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 diane.sprules@cogeco.ca ^[23].
2. The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at aliss@nutrimom.ca ^[24].

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 NYSCOF@aol.com ^[25] . 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: info@fluoridefreeaustin.com ^[26] or fluoride.info@yahoo.com ^[27], 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 pbrooks936@aol.com ^[28].

In addition, you can:

• Make a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network ^[29], to help them fight for your rights to fluoride-free food and water.
• Check out FAN’s Action Page ^[30], as they are working on multiple fronts to rid our food and water supplies of fluoride.
• For timely updates, join the Fluoride Action Network Facebook page ^[31].