Does the Government Love Your Children More Than You Do?

Sacrificing the Individual

Under stress of dire circumstances, appalling things are done which could not otherwise be condoned. One person is often sacrificed so others may live. How far this is justified is a nice moral question which need not concern us here. Those are times when law breaks down.

But we do need to consider how far we would go, in normal times and as a matter of policy, in sacrificing one person for the benefit of others. Do you, for example, agree with the American Medical Association when it says that, if you fluoridate your water some people will be harmed, but that harm to them is “outweighed” by benefit to the community? I don’t.

Totalitarians regard the citizen as just a unit of the state, like the ants in the hill or the bees in the hive. He may properly be sacrificed for the good of the community. But, here in America, we have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness–and to decide, each for himself, what shall be done to our bodies. At least we did till fluoridation came along.

But now, many of our courts have decreed that it is a proper exercise of police power to drug people against their wills in the hope of abating a non-communicable disease. Our own Supreme Court of the State of Washington so decided in a five to four decision, in the case of Kaul vs. City of Chehalis; but the reasons given are purest sophistry. The powerful dissenting opinions, on the other hand, were closely reasoned.

Throwing Away the Constitution

The dissenting judges asked: “Can we withstand the insidious erosion of our basic liberties produced by a multiplicity of little instances where, as here, a guaranteed right is set aside because it interferes with what is said to be good for us?”

They said: “What future proposals may be made to treat noncontagious diseases by adding ingredients to our water supply, or food, or air, only time will tell. When that day arrives, those who treasure their personal liberty will look in vain for a constitutional safeguard. The answer will be: ‘You gave the constitution away in the Kaul case’.”

Furthermore, they said: “But even were it assumed that the majority of the citizens of Chehalis approve this move, that would not condone an impairment of constitutional rights. The constitutional guarantees are to protect the rights of the minority–not the majority. The majority does not need protection, because it does not do anything it does not want to do.”

One of the dissenting judges, now retired, has said that if there had been any finding by the trial court that fluoridation could harm anyone, the decision would have been unanimous against fluoridation. But the trial judge had been so impressed by perjured testimony by government “experts” that he found that fluoridation “will not amount to a contamination and the water will continue to be wholesome.”

The five judges didn’t care a hang about the rights of the citizens or the constitution; but neither would they have gone for poisoning people. And, for that matter, neither would the A. M. A. if it had known what it was doing.

The A. M. A. Action of December, 1957

A. M. A. policy is set by the House of Delegates. The delegates are not selected for their scientific qualifications; and it is not their function to pass on scientific matters. They are medical politicians.

They had made no study of fluoridation. They ordered one made by men they trusted, and who submitted a report last December.

The delegates made the mistake of adopting that report without ever studying it. They were given no chance to do so. The delegates also said that fluoridation is “safe,” but they had no grounds for saying so; and, as I said at the start, the report says definitely that some people will be harmed but that this is outweighed by the benefit.

Moreover, it should be noted that the delegates did not urge or recommend that any communities undertake to fluoridate their water supplies; nor assume any responsibility for harm that may result. Their action was ill-considered and irresponsible rather than vicious. Nevertheless, the report they approved is now “official.”

That report is an apology for, rather than an endorsement of, fluoridation. And when you sort out the actual findings from the apologetics and equivocation, they constitute a powerful indictment rather than support. They destroy, item by item, the entire case for fluoridation as it has been told you by the Public Health Service and its stooges.

Twenty Years of Public Health Service Promotion

In 1939, fluoridation was first proposed by a man from the Mellon Institute. Since that time the (U. S.) Public Health Service has spent untold millions of tax dollars to promote it.

Fabulous bribes have been given and received–and I include the millions paid in “subsidies” to colleges and universities with the understanding that they would support, or at least not oppose, fluoridation.

Dr. James A. Shannon is Director of the National Institutes of Health, which are a part of the Public Health Service. In an interview, last February, he said: “Inevitably, the influence NIH and the Public Health Service exert on the nation’s health problems has grown tremendously. Thousands of doctors now depend on NIH grants for most of their support. The training of many researchers is financed by the government. A majority of U. S. medical schools admit they would be in difficult straits without government grants.”

Everyone must toe the mark or else. When I first began to campaign against fluoridation I got a letter from the Medical School saying that it would be less embarrassing to the University if I didn’t mention that I was on the faculty. I don’t notice that the University is embarrassed when faculty members promote fluoridation.

And when Dr. Alfred Taylor published his studies which found that the lives of mice were shortened nine per cent by water with the same amount of fluoride that is used in fluoridation, people fell all over themselves to assure the Public Health Service that the University of Texas was not to blame.

Fluoride and Longevity and P. H. S.

Meanwhile, in the only study that has been made in this country of the long term effects of fluoride on adults, the Public Health Service found that the death-rate among the upper middle-aged group of subjects where there were eight parts per million of fluoride was six times as high as where there was only one-half part. So what did it do? It said the difference wasn’t significant.

And ever since, you have been assured and reassured that this same study proves fluoridation to be “absolutely safe” because there were no significant differences between the two communities. But the A. M. A. now says that the difference is significant. And we shouldn’t need the AMA to tell us that a six-fold difference in death-rate must be significant of something.

Now an investigator from the University of Catania reports that the life-expectancy of people in a Sicilian village with four and a half parts per million of fluoride, is three and a half years less than where there is only a trace.

Perhaps the Public Health Service should have tried to find out what the six-fold higher death-rate did signify; instead of just telling us it isn’t significant. And perhaps those who have gone around repeating the story should have looked at the published figures. Instead, they just parrot what they are told, and pose as “experts” when they do so.

And perhaps we should all be just a bit sceptical of assurances that fluoridation is safe until they come up with better evidence than was found in the only study they have done so far.

P. H. S. Admittedly Has No Proofs of Safety

In February, papers all over the country published a propaganda hand-out from the Public Health Service. It quoted Dr. Francis Arnold, the director of the government’s Institute of Dental Research as saying: “Continuing scientific studies have demonstrated beyond the shadow of any reasonable doubt that fluoridation is a completely safe method of preventing tooth decay.” He has been saying the same thing, to my knowledge, ever since his boss, the Surgeon-General, announced the P. H. S. policy of promoting fluoridation.

I was present when he said it under oath, on October 21, 1955. But on cross examination, he was forced to admit that he had no scientific evidence on which to base a statement that fluoridation would not harm anyone. And when I debated him before the Academy of Medicine of New Jersey last year, he still had none. And now the A. M. A. says that some people are sure to be harmed.

Medically Speaking, What is the Point at Issue?

Now let’s forget, for the moment, the moral and constitutional questions, and consider just the medical aspects of fluoridation. As a purely medical question, just what is the issue before us?

First: It is not whether fluoride can be used safely and effectively to prevent decay. Second: It is not how safe or effective one part per million of fluoride in the water may be. The only question at issue is whether, if fluoride is to be used to prevent decay, putting it in the water is the best way to give it.

But since there has been so much emphasis on the first two questions, let’s look at them briefly.

Whether fluoride can be used safely and effectively to prevent decay has not yet been proved. There is some hazard in the use of any drug; and the effectiveness against tooth decay is impossible to measure. There is no unit in which it can be measured; and the methods of detecting and identifying tooth decay are so unreliable as to be statistically worthless.

Probably the safest way to use fluoride is to paint it on the teeth, but this is of questionable effectiveness. Some people get local poisoning of the mouth from fluoride tooth pastes. Fluoride mouthwash is probably much safer, and is certainly safer than any method which requires swallowing the fluoride.

And it is now claimed that, in a ten year study, a fluoride mouthwash has reduced tooth decay by 80 to 90 per cent, as compared to the miserable 60 per cent promised for fluoridation but never yet delivered.

And there are many ways of giving fluoride by mouth without putting it in the water. We shall have more to say about them.

But the fluoridators don’t like to talk about other ways of giving fluoride. They like only to talk about how safe and effective it is when added to the water. And when they do, they rarely stick to the truth.

The Policy of Falsehood

One of them actually said to me: “We are under no obligation to tell people the truth. They wouldn’t understand it anyway. Our duty is to tell them whatever is necessary to make them do what they ought to do.”

One of the things they tell us is that they can predict the effects of artificial fluoridation from what happens where fluoride is naturally present in the water. The A. M. A. now says they can’t. It says the effects of waters with the same amounts of fluoride may vary almost unpredictably depending on the nature and concentration of other minerals present.

Most waters which contain fluoride naturally are hard waters, and contain large amounts of calcium and magnesium. Fluoride is much less damaging to the body when it has plenty of calcium and magnesium. When fluoride is added to soft water, it fails to bring with it the minerals which would make it less poisonous.

But the man in our State Health Department who is paid with our money to go around promoting fluoridation, testified under oath, at Chehalis, that if there were any calcium deficiency in children’s diets they would have no teeth or bones. And apparently the Court believed him.

He doesn’t like to be reminded of this; and he never yet has dared meet me in debate. But he likes to go around posing as an expert at P.-T. A.s and similar places when there is no one to challenge him.

The dental health officer of California testified under oath about the fabulous sums that would be saved by fluoridation. The figures he gave were pure speculation. In addition, it turned out that he saved the cost of the same filling all over again each year. But that isn’t all.

The A. M. A. now says that the promised reductions in decay are based on a method of calculation which “gives a high figure for improvement.” Let’s see how that works.

If you examine a hundred children before fluoridation and find that 97 of them have decayed teeth, and after some years of fluoridation you examine them and find that now only 94 have decayed teeth, you and I would say that there had been a reduction of 97 minus 94, or three per cent reduction in decay. But we aren’t as clever as the fluoridators.

When they find the number of children with decayed teeth has dropped 97 per cent to 94 per cent, they say there has been 100 per cent improvement. There were only three per cent free of decay, and now there are six per cent. That is 100 per cent increase.

And, in case you think I just dreamed those figures up; they are the actual figures from Sheboygan, Wisconsin, before fluoridation and after eight years.

And by similar shenanigans, a difference of 11 per cent in the per cent of teeth decayed was reported as a 43 per cent reduction in the DMF rate.

Our own State Dental Officer (the one who said the children would have no bones or teeth if deficient in calcium) did still better. He reported a similar difference of 11 per cent as 61 per cent less decay.

Fluoridation is the WORST Way to Give Fluoride

As we have said, there is no proof that fluoride in the water is safe. And, as we have now seen, the claims for effectiveness are–shall we say exaggerated? Nevertheless, there is still room for reasonable difference of opinion as to just how safe or unsafe, just how effective or ineffective, fluoride in the water may be. Fortunately these points are not even at issue.

From a medical standpoint, the only question that concerns us is whether putting fluoride in the water supply is the best way to give it. And on this there can be no reasonable difference of opinion.

Of all the ways that fluoride could possibly be given, putting it in the water is by all odds the worst. It is the least safe. It is the least sure of success. It is the most wasteful and expensive. And it is utterly and completely immoral.

The last is because it deliberately and needlessly sacrifices some children to attain a hoped-for benefit to others; and because it forces everyone to take a drug that many don’t want to take.

The Unanswerable Question

When fluoridation was first proposed in Seattle, in 1952, almost everyone was for it. It sounds so nice to just put a little something called fluoride in the water and save thousands of toothaches and millions of dollars. But the people began to ask one simple question.

They asked: “How will you arrange that children who drink different amounts of water will all get the right amount of fluoride?” Obviously there is no answer, since it can’t be done. And the A. M. A. now says that if the level of fluoride is low enough so no one will be harmed, there will still be too much tooth decay. In other words, there is no level high enough to prevent decay and still low enough so no one will be harmed. If those who drink little water get enough to be effective, those who drink a lot are sure to be harmed.

There is no answer to our question, but we got answers. And the answers we got quickly convinced people that they wanted no part of fluoridation and couldn’t trust the fluoridators. After six short weeks of such answers, they voted down fluoridation by two to one. But the fluoridators are still trying; and they still can’t answer the question.

The Desire for Compulsion

There are many ways that fluoride can be given in measured doses. All of them are safer and offer more hope of success than fluoridation. But the fluoridators will have none of them, and resort to all sorts of falsehood to discredit them. But the A. M. A. lays the cards on the table.

It says the methods for individual administration “are measures obviously dependent upon factors of cooperation which are by no means so regular or certain as fluoridation of the water supply.”

It seems we shouldn’t have to depend on people’s cooperation. They should be forced to do whatever the experts think is good for them.

Can Parents Be Trusted?

Some people try to tell us that the government loves your children more than you do. Some of them have formed what they called the “Committee to Protect Our Children’s Teeth.” Its purpose is to promote fluoridation.

There was an article by its president, this year, in Parent’s Magazine. He repeated all the discredited arguments we heard in 1952; but he still didn’t tell us how he would arrange that children who use widely different amounts of water will all get the desired amount of fluoride.

I was present last year when the chairman of that committee told the Board of Estimate of the City of New York: “The City Fathers have to become the fathers of the child population in general, in this matter of fluoridation.”

When he said it he wasn’t thinking of your child, or my grandchild, or any child. He was thinking of the child population. Treat them all alike. Instead of fitting the treatment to the child, make the child fit the treatment, or take the consequences.

He knew that if fluoride is put in the water you can’t control the dose; that some children will get many times as much as others; that those who get too much will be harmed; and others won’t get enough to be effective.

He knew all this; but he told the Board that we must have fluoridation because parents can’t be trusted to give their children what they need. Nonsense! And he knows it’s nonsense.

He is a pediatrician; and he knows that rickets and scurvy, once common, are now rare. Parents learned how to prevent them, and they did. And surely, cod-liver oil and orange juice are as much trouble to give as fluoride. And they cost as much for a week as fluoride for a year.

Two cents worth of drug-grade fluoride will last your child two years. The only real expense is for dispensing; and that need not be high.

I am certain that if you really thought fluoride would be good for your child, he would be getting it now. But it’s just as well if he isn’t. We still don’t know how much is safe.

The Word-Games

Most people who promote fluoridation have been sold a bill of goods; and if they knew the facts, they would be horrified. No one who knows the facts wants fluoride in the water unless he has an axe to grind.

So those who have axes to grind try every trick they know to hide the facts and to make you want fluoride in the water.

There is nothing that infuriates them so much as to have fluoridation called “compulsory mass-medication.” Why? Because that is exactly what it is. And they know that mass-medication is medically wrong and compulsory medication is morally wrong.

For any medicine to be used safely and effectively, it must be given only to those who need it, when they need it, and in the right amount–neither too much to be safe, nor too little to be effective. When the fluoride is in the water, none of the requirements for the proper use of drugs can be met.

So they resort to word-games. They tell us that fluoridation is not medication–as if what you call it matters. They say it isn’t medication because it treats no disease. It is just a preventive measure.

We don’t treat diseases. We treat people, to cure or prevent disease. The fluoride is put in the water to prevent disease by acting on the body of the consumer. This makes it, by definition, a drug.

Perhaps we should by-pass the whole silly argument by calling it “compulsory mass-dosing” as the British do. But we don’t need to. The A. M. A. has now affirmed that it is “compulsory medication for the prevention of non-communicable disease.”

Fluoridation is Not a Public Health Measure

And that brings up another point. Some try to justify fluoridation by comparing it to chlorination. They say both are public health measures; both add a halogen to the water; both are to prevent disease.

It is true that fluorine and chlorine are both halogens. And a tiger and a tabby are both cats. But word games won’t change the fact that, if you don’t like the trace of chlorine that remains when it has done its work, you can remove it by a few minutes’ boiling. While the longer you boil the fluoride the stronger and more dangerous it gets. This becomes important when you boil off water in cooking.

It is also true that both are to prevent disease. But the chlorine acts on germs in the water; while the fluoride acts on you. They are hardly similar.

But the real difference is that chlorination is a public health measure, and fluoridation is not.

If I get typhoid fever, I become a menace to everyone. It is proper that the water I must drink be made safe whether I like it or not. The public safety is at stake.

Fluoridation does nothing for the public health. Its effects are confined to the individual. Harm to him doesn’t harm others; and benefit to others doesn’t benefit him. Some will be harmed. Others may be benefited. And the A. M. A. now warns that unless some are harmed there will be too little benefit.

Those harmed are to be sacrificed to attain a hoped-for benefit to others; and the sad part is that, if there is any benefit, there could be greater benefit to more people with less harm if each were given his fluoride individually. And it would be cheaper.

Why Fluoride Poisoning Isn’t Reported in America

Another argument that is used is that people have lived for generations where fluoride is naturally present and have suffered no harm. Neither part of the statement is true.

In the United States, more than anywhere in the world, people move and water supplies change. Few people have lived all their lives with the same source of water. Certainly not the millions they tell us about.

And as to those who have, no one but they knows who they are. And as to harm, there is no shred of proof that there has been none, and much evidence that there has been a lot. The point is that most American physicians don’t know anything about fluoride poisoning. It isn’t taught in the medical schools; and it won’t be so long as the schools are controlled by the bureaucrats who now control the Public Health Service.

The veterinarians know a lot about fluoride poisoning of livestock, and even of humans, but not the physicians. Not in the United States.

Poisoning of livestock by industrial fumes is common; and millions of dollars have been paid in settlement of claims for damage to land and livestock. But the first successful suit for such damages to humans in this country was that of the Paul Martin family at Portland, Oregon. They claimed, and proved, damage from fluoride emitted by the aluminum plant at Troutdale.

The interesting thing, however, was that they had to send to England to find a physician who knew enough about fluoride poisoning of humans to make a definite diagnosis. Otherwise the best testimony was by veterinarians.

The American “Experts”

Those who are inclined to sneer at the testimony of a foreigner and a bunch of horse-doctors should remember that the aluminum company did not lack resources. And it certainly didn’t consider the case unimportant. But it couldn’t find any expert anywhere who could upset the testimony of the Englishman and the veterinarians.

None of the people who tell you how safe fluoridation is; none of the so-called experts in the Public Health Service; none of the men from Mellon and Kettering Institutes; none of the scientists and researchers in our colleges and universities; none of the men who made the study for the A. M. A.; and no physician or dentist in these United States could stand up under cross-examination in defense of the company.

We shouldn’t be too impressed because these same people fail to report something they wouldn’t even know how to recognize.

But there is another reason why fluoride poisoning isn’t reported in this country. When anyone tries to report what he thinks is fluoride poisoning, the medical journals won’t publish it.

Don’t ask me why. Ask them. They do in Europe, and in Asia, Africa, Australia, and South America–but not in this country. An exception was the recent report of fluoride poisoning from toothpaste which was published in Northwest Medicine.

Dr. Arnold was quite truthful when he said there is NO scientific evidence that fluoridation is safe; and far from truthful when he calls it safe.

Safety By Testimonial

Having no proofs that fluoridation is safe, proponents have resorted to testimonials. The so-called endorsements by assorted organizations are nothing but testimonials. Not one of them has any real knowledge on which to base the endorsement. And not one of them assumes any responsibility for what fluoridation may do to people.

The Committee to Protect Our Children’s Teeth has published a whole book of testimonials, by people with obvious axes to grind. It is strangely reminiscent of Lydia Pinkham at her best.

One is signed by 229 so-called “leading American authorities on human nutrition.” Along with a lot of other nonsense, it says:

“For any person to become poisoned from drinking fluoridated water at one part per million, that person would have to drink at least fifty bathtubs full.”

They should be ashamed!

In the first place, the fifty tubfuls would contain about 30 grams of sodium fluoride, which is enough to kill seven men in a matter of hours, or to make more than a hundred seriously ill.

In the second place, we aren’t talking about single doses that will kill you in your tracks. What concerns us is the tiny doses which, taken every day, may in a lifetime impair your health or comfort.

The Public Health Service recognizes this danger when it recommends that, where the weather is hot, less fluoride should be added to the water. The A. M. A. goes much farther. It recommends that there be less when, for any reason, people consume large amounts of water or any other source of fluoride.

This obviously applies to some people in every community. In fact, many people are exposed to dangerous amounts of fluoride at their work; and can’t afford to have any in their water. And, since people can’t have different amounts of fluoride in water from a common source, the A. M. A. recommendation requires that fluoride be individually administered. The recommendation cannot be met by fluoride in the water supply.

The “Safe” Dose is Unknown

The A. M. A. also says that, in determining how much fluoride can be consumed without harm, all fluoride from all sources must be considered; and that it is practically impossible to measure the food-fluoride and fluid-fluoride intake of large enough groups of people over long periods of time to determine safe limits. We just don’t know how much is safe.

But we do know that whatever the safe limit may be, some people get more than that amount from water with only one part per million. All the claims that fluoride can’t hurt anyone can’t change the fact that it does. We see cases of fluoride poisoning every day–how many, we have no way of knowing.

The Non-Existent Morbidity Statistics

In 1955, the director of the Institute of Dental Research testified that studies of morbidity statistics had proved that fluoridation is safe. But, on cross-examination, he had to admit that no such studies had been made. And the plain fact is that there are no statistics to study. Neither fluoride poisoning, nor any of its known manifestations, is a reportable disease.

Americans move, and their water supplies change. But these things are much less true in other countries. From studies in such countries, from fluoride poisoning in industry, from what happens to livestock, and from animal experiments, we know many of the things that fluoride can do, and they are things that every doctor sees every day. The only trouble is to know which cases are caused by fluoride and which may be due to some other causes.

The Signs of Fluoride Poisoning

Don’t forget that every person in this country is constantly exposed to fluoride whether he gets it in his water or not. Some are exposed much more than others. Children in Longview, Washington, were found to show signs of fluoride poisoning, presumably from industrial fumes, even before the City Fathers decided to add more to the water.

Whenever we consume fluoride, some of it is stored in the bones. But it is not the stored fluoride that does the damage. The stored fluoride is inactive unless it later goes back into the tissue fluids.

But the stored fluoride is an index of past fluoride consumption; and when trying to diagnose fluoride poisoning, it helps to analyze the bones. Except that people don’t like to have their bones analyzed; and by that time it’s too late to do anything about the poisoning except make a diagnosis.

Whenever we consume fluoride, some is excreted in the urine. So in making a diagnosis, it helps to analyze the urine. But this tells nothing about past exposure; and the manifestations of poisoning may show up as much as forty years after the fluoride was taken.

The A. M. A. report says: “Among those who have studied the problem most judiciously, it is generally held that the most delicate criterion of harm from fluoride ingestion” is what is known as “mottled enamel” or “dental fluorosis.” This was recognized almost 25 years ago as being “the dental sign of chronic fluoride poisoning.”

In 1952, Dr. David Ast, who runs the so-called experiment at Newburgh, New York, testified that: “It was considered that the earliest sign of fluoride toxicity would be manifested in the teeth and in the bones.”

The latter refers to changes in the X-ray appearance of the bones. Neither they, nor the tooth-changes are due to the stored fluoride, but to damage to the tooth-forming and bone-forming cells.

If we find diseases such as fluoride can cause, and also find the tooth or bone signs, we can reasonably suspect that the disease was caused by fluoride. If both are absent, it is hard to be sure.

The trouble is that neither is present till years after the harm is done; and the tooth-signs never appear unless the fluoride was consumed while the teeth were being formed.

However, the slightest trace of injury to the teeth or bones is absolute proof that fluoride levels in the blood at the time of injury were high enough to poison not only the tooth buds and the osteoid tissue, but also other soft tissues throughout the body. And all the word and number games of proponents can’t prove otherwise.

Signs of Poisoning at Newburgh

All these things were known when the experiments at Newburgh, Grand Rapids, and elsewhere were begun. There is still no proof that fluoridation is safe, and there certainly was none in 1945. The experiments were undertaken with complete disregard to the possible or even the probable consequences to the subjects, and without their consent.

Already, mild, very mild, and questionable mottled enamel is reported officially at Newburgh and unofficially from other experiments. And the A. M. A. says it should have been expected. Dr. Ast tries to belittle its significance by saying it isn’t disfiguring. Even this is not true.

Mottled Enamel IS Disfiguring

Mottled enamel is classified as “questionable,” “very mild,” “mild,” “moderate,” or “severe.” The criteria are standard and are well known. Mild mottling is always found where there is as much as one ppm of fluoride in the water, and even severe mottling may be found. Mild mottling has been described as “obvious enough to be revealed at the first smile.” It is not nice to have. Those who say it is unimportant should have it themselves.

As long ago as 1953, Dr. Carl Brehmer reported: “We have had fluoridated water in the City of Sheboygan for about seven years. It is lately that the mottled enamel is starting to show up. It is not pretty.”

You will remember that Sheboygan was where they reported, the following year, a three per cent reduction in the incidence of tooth decay.

The Real Significance of Mottling at Newburgh

But the disfigurement really is unimportant as compared with the fact that even questionable mottling, when real, is sure sign that the child has been poisoned in early life and will go right on taking the poison as long as it is in the water.

In Colorado Springs, three-fourths of mottling that was “questionable” at age 12, later proved real. If we apply the same proportion to the Newburgh figures, they indicate that, in a city the size of New York, more than 130,000 children would already show signs of early poisoning after 10 years of fluoridation.

No Interest in Detecting Poisoning

It is an appalling fact that there has been no interest, in any of these experiments, in detecting fluoride damage. Nowhere has there been any investigation of the effect on adults. At Newburgh, but nowhere else, they have looked for mottled enamel. They found it, but tried to deny its importance.

At Newburgh, but nowhere else, they have made some studies of children, but these were pure make-believe.

The Make-Believe Studies at Newburgh

As we have said, fluoride can stunt growth. Newburgh and the control city of Kingston each had about 3200 children. It would have been simple to keep complete height and weight records on all of them so we could now compare the children at Kingston with those at Newburgh who show signs of poisoning.

Instead, we are offered so-called average growth curves for 22 boys and 37 girls from Newburgh, and 29 boys and 26 girls from Kingston–numbers so small that one fat child could throw off the averages and we are supposed to be impressed!

Crimes Against Humanity

After we hanged Germans for experimenting on people without their consent, strict rules were laid down governing human experimentation. Among other things they require the free and informed consent of the subjects. The Pope has set forth similar principles.

The experiments at Newburgh, Grand Rapids and, in fact, everywhere that fluoridation is practiced, were undertaken and continue in flagrant violation of those rules. Such actions have been defined as “crimes against humanity.” But right here in these United States they are being committed by men acting as agents of the government.

No, Ladies and Gentlemen: Even in these United States, the government doesn’t love either you or your children more than you do.

What to Do About It

I don’t advise it. I don’t think we dare to take more fluoride than we all get unavoidably. But if you want your child to have fluoride, for goodness sake give it to him in measured doses, and stop as soon as his teeth are formed. Or, better yet, give him a fluoride mouth-wash and be sure he spits it out.

Keep your water pure. Take your medicines in measured doses. Care for your child’s health yourself with the aid of your doctor.

And, above all, preserve and cherish your right and your neighbor’s right to be secure in your persons against invasion of privacy. The master of your body should be YOU; not a government bureaucrat.

And no bureaucrat is going to respect, much less protect your civil rights. Nor, for that matter, are the courts nor the Congress unless, as citizens, you compel them to do so.

It is your duty as citizens to throw out of office every politician who disregards the constitutional limitations on governmental power; beginning with every one who supports fluoridation in [any] way. Nothing any politician can say or do can offset the fact that he is prepared to destroy your constitutional rights. We just don’t dare tolerate politicians who think it is all right to drug people without their consent.

How to Do It

But weeding the totalitarians out of office will take time–too much time. So, in the meanwhile, whenever this subject of fluoridation comes up, ask the unanswerable question that has defeated fluoridation in hundreds of communities.

Ask, as we did in Seattle in 1952: “How will you arrange that children who drink different amounts of water will all get the desired amount of fluoride?” Ask it and insist on a straight and reasonable answer. Don’t let them evade, or change the subject, or say it isn’t important.

It is a simple question of vital importance and requires a straight answer. There is none.

If even a few people in every city do this one thing, there will be no more fluoridation, and American liberty will have won another important victory.