Letter to the Editor of Evening Outlook

Editor

Evening Outlook

1540 Third Street

Santa Monica, California

Dear Sir:

Although I am appearing before the City Council at the hearing on September 12th, I had neither meant to broadcast this nor to write a letter to the editor. Nevertheless, since reading the letter of Gary Warburton, D.D.S., titled “Fluoridation Backed”, which appeared in your esteemed paper of September 6th, I feel it is my duty to answer this.

I do not happen to know Dr. Warburton and assume from his letter that he is as concerned as I am with an attempt to prevent tooth decay and gum inflammation in the general population. However, his letter not only reveals a complete lack of information regarding the inefficacy of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, together with the dangers involved, but reflects the one-sided, over-optimistic propaganda which, unfortunately, is fed to all dentists through the Journal of the American Dental Association.

Before Dr. Warburton challenges this statement, I would like to have him present me with a reprint of any article which has appeared in the Journal of the American Dental Association in the past 20 years in opposition to fluoridation, or even critical of it. Unfortunately, most dentists–and I do not ignore physicians–have been given only one side of the question. All these practitioners are busy men and it is exceedingly difficult for them to separate the wheat from the chaff, particularly when they have to delve into foreign medical or dental journals or others which they usually do not read in order to learn the truth.

Dr. Warburton apparently has no knowledge whatsoever of the toxic and allergic effects which fluorides have had upon not only human beings but animals. He also is unaware that fluorides are one of our most serious contaminants of air, foods and water in many instances. We should be working towards removing fluorides from our environment, rather than adding them to our water supply

The ”fabulous results” reported by Dr. Warburton are ephemereal. Artificial fluoridation of water supplies does not decrease the incidence of cavities.

This may seem so for the first four or five years because drinking fluoridated water delays the eruption of permanent teeth for from one to two years. At the age of 18 or 20, the incidence of decayed teeth is the same in people who have drunk fluoridated water and those who have not.

I am speaking of facts and not fantasies. I hope that Dr. Warburton will be present at the hearing on September 12th and as many concerned citizens as possible, so that they may be exposed to both sides of the question.

The only answer to tooth decay is nutritional. The studies of Dr. Price and Dr. Pottenger have shown that in order to be free or comparatively free of tooth decay, one must avoid sugar, white flour, and other refined foods which do not contain the minerals, vitamins and other fractions of nutritional value which our bodies must have. It is probable that we should eat more than 50% of our food in a raw state. We should also eat foods which have been grown in fertile soils without the use of artificial fertilizers, if possible, and in soils which contain adequate minerals and organic material so that the minerals may be released at the right time for optimum plant growth.

The addition of one toxic chemical such as sodium fluoride, or any of the fluoride compounds–a chemical which has never been proven to be an essential nutrient–but to be the equivalent of lead and arsenic in toxicity, is obviously not the answer to the prevention of tooth decay.

I hope that all members of the public who wish to be informed concerning this controversy will attend the Council meeting on the evening of September 12th.

Sincerely,

Granville F. Knight, M.D.

Santa Monica, Ca.