This entry was posted by admin on Tuesday, 3 August, 2010 at
FLUORIDE … The Aging Factor
HOW TO RECOGNIZE AND AVOID
THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE
John A. Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D. (1943-2000)
At the center of the second-generation conspiracy is John Small. While he is only a high school graduate with no college degree, his credentials do include six years as an information officer for a government department on chemical warfare. He is now and has been the U.S. Public Health Service ‘expert’ on fluoridation since the 1960s.
Mr. Small’s functions at the USPHS [United States Public Health Service] include the writing and printing of anonymous memos, on USPHS letterheads, covering up the harmful effects of fluoridation, and distributing these memos to promoters of fluoridation, and when necessary, getting his hands on memos and reports put out by the government (even the White House) and rewriting them so they no longer express their original concerns about the toxicity and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. Most of the information supplied to dentists and physicians concerning fluoridation comes either directly or indirectly from Mr. Small. He is the cover-up supervisor, an expert relied upon by the USPHS to supply answers to Congress.
He also has the task of harassing, intimidating, and destroying anyone whose publications, utterances, or activities work to the detriment of fluoridation. In some cases, he calls upon other divisions of the Public Health Service to ‘neutralize’ studies or articles showing adverse effects of fluoridation.
In 1969, when Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a biochemical editor for Chemical Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center and the largest division of the American Chemical Society, he began to publicly express his concern about the health risks associated with fluoridation.
Mr. Small contacted his employer and communicated his displeasure with the statements of Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was notified by his employer several times and finally told that if he spoke out against fluoridation one more time, he would be fired. He was told that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if Chemical Abstracts Service did not shut him up.
After the meeting, his employer wrote to Small, “I have again talked to Dr. Yiamouyiannis and I have again made my position as strong and as clear as possible. He will not repeat this kind of performance and remain as an employee of Chemical Abstracts Service.” Within weeks after Dr. Yiamouyiannis next spoke out against fluoridation, he was put on probation, was told that he would never receive a raise again, and was advised to find another job. He was ultimately forced to resign.
Two years later, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was appointed science director of the National Health Federation where he was able to devote more time on the fluoridation issue.
During the 1970s, the fluoridation battle was stalemated. On one side, those opposing fluoridation were winning elections to stop fluoridation. On the other side, there was the force and money and power of the USPHS, the ADA, and industry that kept fluoridation going. In 1978, Yiamouyiannis served as a consultant and witness in a court case in Pennsylvania that proved fluoridation was harmful and banned it. The fluoridation promoters had to do something.
ADA’s White Paper
In 1979, the American Dental Association came out with a “White Paper on Fluoridation” characterizing fluoridation opponents as either “uninformed or misinformed” or “self-styled experts whose qualifications for speaking out on such a scientific issue as fluoridation were practically nonexistent or whose motivation was self-serving.” It suggested that dentists should propagandize politicians while they are in the dental chair. The White Paper proposed setting up the conspiracy between the American Dental Association, Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Health Statistics, National Institute of Dental Research, state dental societies, and state dental directors for “identification of communities where the timing for political action is favorable as well as unfavorable and where the opponents of fluoridation are considering the initiation of referendums” and for “promoting fluoridation.”
It urged that “individual dentists must be convinced that they need not be familiar with scientific reports . . . on fluoridation to be effective participants in the promotion program” and that the ADA should cooperate with the USPHS to get EPA to soften its statements regarding fluoride as a contaminant. It suggested behavioral studies to “help anticipate the behavior of opponents of fluoridation,” e.g. studies that would determine “Why would some persons deny the life-long health benefits of fluoridation to children? What kind of mentality would reject the opinion of those who are qualified by education, training and experience . . .”
It suggested that ADA’s responses to opponents of fluoridation should be prefaced by: “The ADA reiterated its longstanding support of fluoridation . . . Numerous studies have shown . . . There is no evidence of any relation . . . Investigators have observed . . . .” It suggested that “The advice of behavioral scientists should be sought with regard to more realistic, convincing rebuttals” and that “The ADA should produce a step-by-step manual for the development and conduct of a fluoridation campaign . . . The ADA should provide field assistance if needed in a fluoridation campaign or cooperate with the [US]PHS and state health departments in providing such assistance.”
Strategies of the Second Generation
This conspiracy solidified in the formation of a planning committee to organize a symposium (sponsored by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS), USPHS, Health Resources and Services Administration, Bureau of Health Care and Assistance, Maternal and Child Health Division, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Prevention Services, Dental Disease Prevention Activity, the W. K Kellogg Foundation, Delta Dental Health Plan of Michigan, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, and Medical Products Laboratories). This symposium took place at the University of Michigan on August 9-10, 1983.
Members of the planning committee included Mr. Small, Mr. James Collins of the CDC, Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS, Dr. Robert Mecklenburg, Chief Dental Officer of the USPHS, Dr. William Warren, Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Joel Boriskin, chairman of the American Dental Association’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, Dr. Wilbert Fletke of the ADA, Dr. Anthony Kiser of the ADA, Ms. M. Lisa Watson of the ADA, Ms. Martha Liggett of the American Association of Dental Schools, Dr. Michael Easley, formerly of the Ohio Dept. of Health and CDC, and Dr. Ray Kuthy of the Illinois Department of Health, who were and/or are some of the central figures in the conspiracy.
The stated purpose of the meeting was to “discuss the status of organized opposition to fluoridation; to analyze probable motives influencing the anti-fluoride movement; to assess the need for a national fluoridation strategy; to develop political and legal strategies for the defense and promotion of fluoridation; and to evaluate past legal and political pro-fluoridation initiatives, focusing on the defeats as well as the victories.”
An examination of the seminar speakers, their affiliation, and the content of their presentations provides a further look into the “un-American” nature of this taxpayer-supported event.
Dr. William T. Jarvis, a member of the board of advisors of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). He spoke on the “Psychology of Anti-fluoridationism.” With regard to those opposing fluoridation, he stated: “I do not believe in providing such people a public platform from which they can create confusion and doubt about fluoridation . . . For several years I have put on fluoridation debates in my dental classes, taking surveys before and after to determine attitudes toward fluoridation. Invariably, each class became more anti-fluoridationist as a result of the debate.”
Dr. Sheldon Rovin, a member of ACSH and co-author with Stephen Barrett of the book, ‘The Tooth Robbers’, a book defaming anti-fluoridationists. He spoke on how to win fluoridation battles through the political process, pointing out that “if it is at all humanly possible, the referendum should be avoided.” In the discussion following, Dr. Myron Allukian asked what could be done to stop anti-fluoridationists from getting signatures to put fluoridation on the ballot.
Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS. As chairman of his workshop, he reported that his committee felt “the lead entities, namely the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association” should accept a plan “to close the ‘windows of vulnerability’ in our defense.” He suggested avoiding trials based on the merits of fluoridation. Finally, he suggested that a mandatory state fluoridation law be developed. During the following discussion, Dr. Easley suggested a conspiracy to deny those seeking relief through the courts their right to due process.
Dr. Dennis H. Leverett of the University of Rochester. As chairman of his workshop, he reported that his committee felt that fluoridation was “a political rather than a scientific situation” and encouraged research on the adverse effects of fluoridation “that will presumably show no effect or will show equivocal results.”
Dr. D. Scott Navarro of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, as chairman of his workshop, suggested that the cost of litigation defending fluoridation should be borne by taxpayers, professional organizations, health groups, universities, and research institutes.
Colleen Wulf of the Ohio Department of Health. As chairman of her workshop, she reported that her committee suggested the formation of a nonprofit organization which would coordinate with the CDC and ADA, pointing out that CDC has already drafted promotional materials for fluoride and that the ADA and the USPHS had already formed the Ad Hoc Committee to Plan for the Legal Defense of Community Water Fluoridation. She suggested that the name of the new group might be something like “Coalition for Improved Dental Health or something similar.”
As a matter of fact, the name of the group ended up being the American Oral Health Institute, incorporated in the state of Ohio on February 19, 1985 as a not-for-profit corporation. In 1985 and 1988, this organization came out with the first and second editions of a book, titled Abuse of the Scientific Literatune in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet (ASLAP), edited by Coleen A. Wulf, Karen F. Hughes, Kathleen G. Smith, and Michael W. Easley. The 215-page second edition of this book attacked the 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1988 editions of a very well referenced Question and Answer pamphlet titled Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation by Dr. Yiamouyiannis that was effectively being used to fight fluoridation.
The preparation of this book was a collaborative effort of 18 federal and state health officials who were promoting fluoridation. Those with an asterisk after their name were invited to or attended the University of Michigan on August 9-10, 1983 symposium discussed above. There was not a single scientist among them: 10 were dental hygienists (Colleen A. Wulf*, Karen F. Hughes*, Kathleen G. 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*). The person who wrote the introduction was a psychiatrist (Stephen Barrett). . .
With the help of fluoride promoters, Consumer Reports prepared and published a two-part article on fluoride in its July and August 1978 issues. The writer of these articles was Mr. Joseph Botta. Mr. Botta holds a Master of Arts Degree in English, but no scientific degree. In this article he passed along the same lies and slander used by the promoters to the trusting readers of Consumer Reports.
The Consumer Reports article on fluoridation is the most artfully written piece incorporating the lies and slander necessary to discredit the research and personalities of scientists showing that fluoridation is harmful. It is by far the Number One article distributed by the government bureaucrats in their promotion of fluoridation. This is not because government bureaucrats are not skillful liars. It is because, by having their spoon-fed material rewritten and published by a “consumer” magazine, their lies become more believable. Dr. William Bock of the Centers for Disease Control thought it was so good that he ordered 10,000 reprints and paid for them with federal tax dollars. The American Dental Association gave Mr. Botta an award for writing it.
This Consumer Reports article was used by U.S. Public Health Service bureaucrats to provide a “scientific” foundation for their views on fluoridation. The situation has become ludicrous. For example, Dr. Vernon Houk, the director of the Environmental Center for Health of the Centers for Disease Control, traveled all the way from Atlanta, Georgia, to St. Paul, Minnesota, to give his “expert” testimony by reading from the Consumer Reports article.
The “Big Lie” in this article and the phrase most often quoted from it is the claim that “The simple truth is that there’s no “scientific controversy” over the safety of fluoridation.” In 1990, Dr. Edward Groth III, the technical director for Consumer Reports, nullified this claim by stating: “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 totally disagree.” This hasn’t stopped proponents from quoting the same phrase to this day.
Who is Stephen Barrett?
…Barrett is a shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and
his bully tactics and unjustified discrediting of leading innovators,
scientists and health practitioners should not be tolerated…
Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, [claims to be] helped in the preparation of the 1978 Consumer Reports article and of the 1988 book Abuse of the Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet. He has close ties with the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service. He is a recipient of the FDA award for “quack-busting” and is a coauthor, along with William Jarvis and others, of the 1993 book Readers’ Guide to Alternative Health Methods, published by the American Medical Association. In this book, he cites, and gives summaries of, the two publications mentioned above to inform his readers about fluoridation. He is a science and editorial adviser to the American Council on Science and Health.
A glimpse into his character can be gained through his habitual use of words to mean their exact opposite. For example, in an article entitled “Poison Mongers,” Dr. Barrett refers to people who are trying to stop the addition of fluoride, a poison, to the water supply as poison-mongers. Now a monger is one who sells something, e.g. a fishmonger is a person who sells fish. Therefore, it is quite evident that a poison-monger is a person who sells poison. Thus, one opposed to having fluoride added to the water supply is exactly the opposite of a poison-monger. The word usage of Dr. Barrett is comparable to the process called “Newspeak” described in George Orwell’s 1984, where what is true becomes false and what is false becomes true. The first few paragraphs of Dr. Barrett’s article “Poison-Mongers” is the best example of how Dr. Barrett has used “Newspeak.” “In hundreds of American communities citizens have voted against healthier teeth.
“They were confused by poison-mongers.
“These alarmists in our society are using confusion and a scare vocabulary as weapons against fluoridation. They are cheating all of us, but especially our children.
“The benefits of fluoridation are supported by 10,000 scientific studies which prove the poison-mongers are wrong.
“What do the poison-mongers say?
“Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water, they call it a ‘pollutant’.
“Instead of telling you that fluoride is a nutrient essential to life, they call it a poison’.
“Instead of the big truth, that fluoridation has never harmed anyone, they tell the big lie and say it causes hundreds of ailments.”
This article was published in newspapers across the country and was printed in the November 1976 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association. It has also been used by the U.S. Public Health Service in its ‘education’ of Congressmen and in its campaign to get various areas around the country fluoridated.
A closer look into Dr. Barrett’s personality can be obtained by examining his correspondence in 1972 with a group of people in Minnesota interested in stopping fluoridation. On March 8, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote to one of these people, saying:
“I read your letter in Prevention [magazine] with some interest. There have been other attempts to defeat the fluoridationists in court but most have failed. Before investing money, I would like to have full details of what you plan.”
Thanks, Stephen J. Barrett, MD.”
In another letter to these people, dated April 4, 1972, Dr. Barrett wrote:
“Thank you for your recent telephone call. I am sorry that I could not immediately make the financial commitment which you requested. I know how enthusiastic you are and did not want to raise your hopes until I had a chance to discuss the matter with my group.
I am part of a group which is vitally concerned about fluoridation and which has raised a considerable amount of money. We are not yet sure whether it would be more practical to lobby or to go to court in Pennsylvania. The reason your lawsuit interests us is because it might be more practical for us to join your effort rather than go it alone.
“Thus we would need to have a detailed, written description of the plans of your suit. Our attorneys would then be in a position to study how it would effect Pa. law and also to estimate the chances of your suit being successful. We would also need some detail as to how the Attorney General’s favorable attitude will be used to advantage without this becoming apparent to the American Dental Association.
“We realize you are hesitant to say too much about your plans. On the other hand, we could not make a total commitment unless we had full knowledge of what we would be getting for our investment. We realize this asks a lot of you. On the other hand, we think we have a lot to offer.
“You may be assured that whatever information you send us will be handled with appropriate discretion.
“Sincerely yours, Stephen Barrett, M.D.”
On April 12, 1972, he wrote another letter to Miss Mary Bernhardt, the person at the American Dental Association responsible for promoting fluoridation, and related the following:
“Dear Miss Bernhardt:
“At about 6:20 this evening, I received another phone call from Mike Liptak, the organizer of MOFF [Minnesotans Opposed to Forced Fluoridation]. He said that at 4.30, Judge Gordon McRae ordered an injunction ‘to keep the fluoride out of Brainerd.’
“He said that there were 1500 people who watched the trial and that the judge had cautioned them about becoming emotional. They were very quiet. The case presented by MOFF included an affidavit from Dr. Waldbott. The attorney general of Minnesota defended and was given ‘five days for rebuttal.’ According to Mr. Liptak, who again said he went to school with the attorney general, the attorney general said he ‘would not furnish a rebuttal’. He merely stated that the new Minnesota law required fluoridation.
“Mr. Liptak added that there was an additional legal action scheduled for September. In about two weeks, 500 local citizens were planning to gather at a meeting where the vice-president of a local bank would get from them ’3 year notes for $50 each’ to help finance the suit. He explained that such mass action would not get them much publicity in Prevention magazine and the National Health Federation. It was their plan to seek further injunctions of this type with eventual overturning of the new state laws. He again asked me for a contribution, even a token one. He added that there might be money left over for use in another state such as Pennsylvania.
“On 5/14, Dr. Gross will try to contact leaders of the pro fluoridation forces in the Minnesota Dental Society and will also call the American Dental Association attorney. We have Mr. Liptak’s confidence and hope to continue to use it to our advantage. Perhaps the dental society should consider entering the suit as a guardian of the children. It might also be helpful if some quick way could be devised to dissuade the Brainerd residents from their imminent investment in foolishness.
“Best wishes, Stephen Barrett, M.D.”
Ironically, Dr. Barrett is a co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud.
Subsequently, he and Mary Bernhardt got together and published a book called The Health Robbers, in which they refer to those opposing fluoridation as health robbers. Excerpts from this book, which consist primarily of the substance of his poison-monger article, were reprinted in newspapers around the country, as well as in Family Health Magazine.
Teaming up with others of his kind, including Drs. Thomas Jukes, Warren Winklestein, and Joel M. Boriskin, Dr. Barrett complained about and tried to prevent Dr. Yiamouyiannis from speaking before the Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley. Together they claimed that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was some disreputable person not deserving a forum at the University of California campus.
In another action, Dr. Barrett, Dr. Boriskin and Dr. William Jarvis, who also is on the board of the National Council Against Health Fraud, wrote letters of complaint to the National News Council concerning an article published in the National Inquirer which pointed out that higher cancer risks were associated with fluoridation.
An indication of how Barrett’s ‘Newspeak’ is passed down the line to local dentists is evident from the experience Dr. Yiamouyiannis had when he was called in by local residents of St. Charles, Missouri for a debate on fluoridation. When Dr. Michael Garvey, a local dentist, heard that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was going to be the opposition speaker, he refused to participate in the debate.
According to the November 12, 1982 St. Charles Post: “Dr. Garvey said American Dental Association Officials had told him, ‘running up against Dr. Yiamouyiannis is not recommended’. The man is well-known as an antifluoridation speaker, Dr. Garvey said. ‘This guy is a terror.’”
Why haven’t Consumer Reports, Stephen Barrett and others who issue false and defamatory statements been sued for libel and slander? Why haven’t bureaucrats responsible for illegally spending tax monies to influence elections been prosecuted and sent to jail? Why haven’t bureaucrats who have lied in court while under oath been prosecuted for perjury?
In many cases they have. However, when legal action was taken against Consumer Reports, the court didn’t even allow a hearing on the case. The court claimed Consumer Reports’ right to freedom of speech outweighed the plaintiffs right to due process of the law.
When charges concerning Dr. Schneiderman’s alleged perjury in the Pittsburgh court case were brought before the district attorney’s office, they pointed out it would be virtually impossible to convict anyone on perjury and they rarely, if ever, prosecute such cases.
Dr. John Yiamouyiannis was not the first in the controversy over fluoridation. Even such accomplished physicians as Drs Ionel F Rapaport and George L Waldbott were severely oppressed in the early stages of the dispute over fluoridation. Even today, similar reprisals continue, as can be seen in the case of Forsyth Dental Research Center toxicologist Phyllis J Mullenix, phd, and USEPA cancer scientist William Marcus, phd. These actions are described by Professor Paul Connett in his “Fluoride: A Statement of Concern”, which is translated into Japanese in this issue of the Journal of the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research, as “a sickening thread that runs throughout this sorrowful 50-year history of fluoride promotion by the agencies of the US Public Health Service.”
Dr. John Yiamouyiannis, biochemist and founder of the Safe Water Foundation, USA, died October 8, 2000, passing away peacefully in sleep at his home in Delaware, Ohio, surrounded by members of his family.
by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis
Health Action Press
6439 Taggart Road
Delaware, Ohio 43015
First edition published 1983
Third edition published 1993
Excerpts from the book, with permission from the author.
Chapter 17 . . . The Conspiracy: The Second Generation
In 1975 Dr. John Yiamouyiannis publishes a preliminary survey which shows that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempts to refute the studies. Later in 1975, Yiamouyiannis joins with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which are then included in the Congressional Record by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption. Both reports confirmed the existence of a link between fluoridation and cancer. (Note: Obviously Dr. Burk felt free to agree with scientific truth only after his tenure at NCI ended, since his job depended on towing the party line).
In 1989 Dr.Yiamouyiannis used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain carcinogenicity studies conducted by Proctor and Gamble (one of the makers of fluoridated toothpaste) that were submitted to (and covered up by) the United States Public Health Service. These studies showed dose dependent cell abnormalities caused by fluoride. These results were reported in the February 22, 1990 issue of the Medical Tribune. Additional studies by Proctor and Gamble scientists confirmed the link between oral precancerous growth and fluoride, as well as an increase in osteomas (bone tumors) and osteosarcomas (bone cancer). In fact, the National Cancer Institute found in 1991 that the incidence of bone cancer was 50% higher in men ages 0-19 years of age exposed to fluoridated water compared to those who were not.
Fluoride Action Network
Fluoride Action Network is an international coalition seeking to broaden public awareness about the toxicity of fluoride compounds and the health impacts of …
Opposition to water fluoridation
Opposition to water fluoridation refers to activism against the fluoridation of public water supplies. The controversy occurs mainly in English-speaking countries, as Continental Europe does not practice water fluoridation, although some continental
UK Against Fluoridation
Fluoride is a toxic waste, a manufacturing byproduct, and is used in rat poison. Fluoride is very caustic and damages water systems. After decades of experimentation, 98 percent of Europe is now fluoridation-free, as is Japan…..
Australian Fluoridation News
The Australian Fluoridation News is for people willing to think for themselves, without the common ad nauseum bombardment by commercial gobbledygook sorcerers, acting as scientific salesmen, together with ego hoppers, going about their master’s busin
BARWON FREEDOM from FLUORIDATION
A consumer action group of general citizens, including healthcare personnel and some public officials, determined to end the injustice and health risk of water fluoridation – enforced tapwater medication….