I hoped when I came here that I would be allowed to show you these lantern slides, which I brought with me. Unfortunately, I realize the time is too short and facility is lacking for me to be able to show what I have done. Should it be necessary, I will be happy to be at your disposal and show these slides. They will depict the story of what my work has achieved better than any spoken or written word can. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for having given me the chance to say what I had to say during the very short time at my disposal. The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Spira, it has been a very great pleasure and very helpful to have had the benefit of the testimony that you have presented to the committee. We realize that it is a result of many years' study and careful observations upon your part and that you are convinced as to the correctness of the views you have expressed. And Mrs. Robinson, I think, should be commended for the fact that she gave you her time, in order that you might have an opportunity of giving an extended explanation of the work and study that you have made in this matter. Mrs. ROBINSON. I thought that you would want to hear Dr. Spira and what he had to say. The CHAIRMAN. I regret that the time is such that we do not have the opportunity of seeing the pictures but if any members of the committee desire at some off-hour to see them, I am sure that you will be glad to show the pictures, if they will so indicate to you. Dr. SPIRA. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate that. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will recess until 2 o'clock. In doing so may I announce that there are, according to my list, two witnesses in opposition who have not been heard. That is Dr. Paul Manning and Dr. Max Day. Am I correct in that statement? It will be the intention of the committee when it meets at 2 o'clock to hear you 2 gentlemen so that the first witness after we reconvene will be you 2 gentlemen. There have been some who have spoken for the opposition this morning, and that will enable us to give this time to you. After that we will proceed to hear the witnesses in opposition. The committee will stand in recess. (Thereupon, at 12:28 p. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m., of the same day.) AFTERNOON SESSION (The committee reconvened at 2 p. m., pursuant to recess.) The CHAIRMAN. The first witness will be Dr. Max Ginns, senior dental consultant, Worcester City Hospital, Worcester, Mass. STATEMENT OF DR. MAX GINNS, SENIOR DENTAL CONSULTANT, WORCESTER CITY HOSPITAL, WORCESTER, MASS. Dr. GINNS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Dr. Max Ginns of Worcester, Mass. I should like to submit this for the record. (The information submitted by Dr. Ginns has been placed in the committee files.) Dr. GINNS. So that the proponents may be fully informed, I shall state my qualifications. I am a graduate of Tufts College Dental School. I was appointed chief of dental service, Worcester City Hospital, in 1921. Also in charge of dental clinics in the out-patient depart ment. I was formerly a lecturer on oral diseases at the city hospital Nurses Training School. I established training for dental interns, city hospital, giving instruction in oral surgery, dental diagnosis, and clinical dentistry. I was chief dental surgeon, with rank of captain, Dental Reserve, with the 315th Cavalry until 1938. At present I am senior dental consultant, staff of the Worcester City Hospital. I served as chairman, 1942, of the Emergency War Study Club dental program. I was formerly director of Quota Club Clinics. I am past chairman of the educational committee of State and local dental societies. I am past chairman of the dental health councils, State and local. I am a member of the American Dental Association, the Massachusetts Dental Society, and the Worcester District Dental Society. I was appointed chairman of a special committee to reexamine the proposition concerning fluoridation of Worcester water supply by the local dental society in December 1951. I was chairman of the Alpha Omega Dental Society in 1951-52. The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated, Doctor. Dr. GINNS. As a loyal member of the ADA back in 1946 I, too, was very enthusiastic about topical fluoride treatments for the prevention of decay, until I found out that its value was highly exaggerated. As time went on I gradually acquired information that brought about a reversal of my former attitude. My visits to Hereford and Amarillo, Tex., and other points in Texas, and then to Newburgh and Kingston, N. Y., and then to Brantford and Stratford, and then to Farnumsville, Mass., 5 miles outside of the city of Worcester, revealed shocking variations, with the onesided story I had been given, through the ADA and Public Health literature. You shall see for yourselves as I go on with my experiences. I have had to curtail my talk, so I shall present for your consideration a petition which I obtained from 119 Worcester dentists. By the way, I have a special delivery that came to me yesterday, to my hotel, from 10 physicians of the Massachusetts Medical Society, who have signified their desire to add their names to the petition of the 119 Worcester dentists opposed to fluoridation. I should like to read my petition. This as a photostatic copy for your inspection, if you wish, of the original petition. The petition is as follows: Petition opposed to fluoridation of Worcester water supplies. We, the undersigned Members of ADA, Massachusetts Dental Society and Worcester District Dental Society, having heard, since approval without discussion prior to approval, the other side of the fluoridation plan; and having learned of its dangerous and unscientific nature; that it is not essential to development of good teeth; and that it does not prevent tooth decay; that there are better and less devious ways to control tooth decay without polluting our water supplies; and compelling an entire Nation to drink medicated water which is of no value to them; which is known to be harmful to all human beings as a slow and accumulative poison; that all benefits attributed to fluorides are not due to flourides at all, but are due to better nutrition, better hygiene, and better super- vision. All the foregoing statements, being supported by universities in many parts of the country, by eminent scientists, biochemists, physicians, dentists, we demand that this hollow approval of the Worcester District Dental Society, obtained by telling only one side of the fluoridation story, and blocking every attempt to fully discuss the harmful side of fluoridation. We demand that this hollow approval be rescinded. Then follow 119 signatures of Worcester dentists. As I said, now there have been 10 physicians who have sent me this to be added to the list, and there will be more. The list of 10 physicians comes as a result of my talking to the medical society before I left Worcester. The medical society has been put in a very embarrassing situation. They know nothing about fluoridation, they admit, and many of them do not know it has even been approved. They have never heard of a meeting on fluoridation in the medical society, pro and con. It was simply obtained by a rubber stamp of the medical society, approved by a few of the executives who were good fellows and O. K.'d it. That is all they know about it. They now realize they are in a position where they must answer to the people, because they have been silent too long. Now I want to speak about home rule and referendum, if I may; home rule against ruling the home. Fluoridation began in 1945 in Newburgh and Kingston, N. Y., and other pilot areas as a strict secret to be kept under wraps for 10 years. The "strict secret to be kept under wraps for 10 years" has been quoted here. See Public Health Conference June 8, 1951. That document has been quoted here. It planted its one-sided propaganda without asking the people. Public Health bypassed the medical and dental profession. Public Health arrogated unto itself mandatory powers without any attempt at home rule. They ruled the homes of the communities by pressure and compulsion. About 1946 topical application to teeth-the swabbing of the teethwas praised to the skies. They made all the claims for topical that they are now making for fluoridation of water supplies. Topical fell flat in about 2 years, and the rumblings of fluoridation of water supplies were being heard. A definite pattern developed in our society to control thought and speech. I have here something which you may obtain, perhaps, called Securing Community Acceptance for Fluoridation Through a Citizen's Committee for Fluoridation; the American Dental Association. Some of these were even printed at city expense in our own city hall, with no identification as to where they came from. They were purported to come from the ADA, but actually they came from city hall. In this pamphlet, I talked of thought control and speech control. Here is a list of "what you do say and what you do not say." You will notice that this pattern will be followed as a rule by proponents. Pamphlets of indoctrination What To Say and What Not To Say were mailed to the dental profession. Several hundred were printed at city hall at taxpayers' expense. Dr. Bull has been mentioned here. In the Journal of the American Dental Association, February 1952, he said, You must not tell the people. There may be some undesirable side effects. It's another sure way to defeat any or all programs. Fluoridation went on for 5 years before Public Health accepted it, from 1945 to 1950. Please note. And even in 1950 and as late as June 1951, they admitted they did not know about its toxicity or what its harmful effects might be. These are quotes from their own documents. Reference June 8, 1951. All along proclaiming to the people "fluoridation was safe," "no harm seen," "3 million people had been drinking it" and so forth and so forth; while wrangling amongst themselves looking for alibis. They were still without an answer to toxicity, and are still without the answer today. I want to show you gentlemen, if you have not heard about it, in these natural fluoride areas, millions of gallons of Ozarka water are being sold in carload lots in cities in five States. I am drinking it here now, because I will not drink fluoridated water. I may have to take the food, but I am keeping it down to a minimum. Here is Ozarka water. This is a photostatic copy of the size of the carton. It cost me about $16 to bring it here, but I wanted to show it to you gentlemen. They pay $1 for 5 gallons in these naturally fluoridated areas, where proponents claim no harm is seen." Why? To avoid mottling decay, gum diseases, and crooked teeth. The question is often asked: What has crooked teeth go to do with it? As you have heard, fluorine is an antienzyme. There are many authorities for that. Professor Box of the University of Toronto is one of many. There is interference with bone development, causing a jumbling of the teeth. In the same year, 1950, one of the reasons you do not see many more dentists willing to come out against fluoridation because the mouthpiece for the dental profession comes through Public Health. I happen to be one of a number who would not yield to this kind of thought control. In the same year of 1950, our dental society Code of Ethics was revised. Section 20 says-and there are many people who do not know about it: Education of the public. A dentist may properly anticipate in a program for the education of the public on matters pertaining to dentistry, provided, such a program is in keeping with the dignity of the profession and has the approval of the dentists of a community or State, acting through the appropriate agency of the dental society. I ask you, gentlemen, is this to be our pattern for the future? Are you willing to make your dentists vassals of the State? I for one refuse to become one. Here is an excerpt from the Dental Health Council, January 9, 1952, Boston, Mass. This comes from the assistant secretary of the Council on Dental Public Health, and it reads: Almost without exception, administrative changes affecting dentistry are being made with absolutely no consultation with the dental profession in the States involved. It will be necessary to foresee the possibility of such situations and to support positive action before the administrative pattern has been irrevocably changed. Dr. W. Philip Phair, D. D. S. I want to say, you cannot build hardness into teeth by adding fluoridation. Here are teeth [exhibiting teeth] that come from Aurora, Ill., exposed to fluoridation for years. Here are teeth [exhibiting teeth] that come from Worcester, Mass., subjected to the same acid influence of lactic acid you find in the mouth. I defy any public health man to give me a tooth from any area that will not succumb to acid. The chemico-parasitic theory of Miller, which we all accept as of this time, is the theory of decay, the chemical parasitic theory. It is not a question of hardness. That is a fallacy. It is a contradiction of theory taught in the schools, which is a matter of record in our text books. You can subject any tooth from any area, and it will succumb to acid and become decalcified. It is a matter of chemical environment and not a mechanical hardness. Here are the teeth to show it, if you would like to see them. [Exhibiting teeth.] I want to say that fluorine is not essential. In the city of Bridgeport, Conn., where the hygienist originated, Dr. Fones in 1915 to 1918 produced remarkable results by training nurses to be what we now know as dental hygienists. I do not see the dental hygienists on the list of approval of American Dental Association. They are the most closely allied to the dental profession, and they only exist in our offices because Dr. Fones produced a reduction in tooth decay up to 572 percent in the schools of Bridgeport, Conn., through good hygiene, good nutrition, and good supervision. If it was done then, it can be done now, which proves fluorides are not essential. At Farnumsville, Mass., outside of Worcester, we have conducted tests on this. I have a letter from the State public health department proving that in these natural fluoride areas decay is just as rampant as any place else 5,000 schoolchildren in the city of Worcester were subjected to topical application which was supposed to do everything fluoridation is supposed to do. In 2 years the local public health reported it was a complete failure. I perhaps will conclude at this point. I do not want to run over into Dr. Manning's time. If there are any questions I would be glad to answer them. The CHAIRMAN. Any questions, gentlemen? Mr. Heselton? Mr. HESELTON. Doctor, you quoted from some pamphlet which I believe you had, Things To Say and Things Not To Say. I was not clear as to where that pamphlet was issued. I thought you said it was city hall. Dr. GINNS. Some of these were printed at city hall, purporting to come from Chicago. This is on the cover. It is marked Securing Community Acceptance for Fluoridation Through a Citizens Committee for Fluoridation issued by the American Dental Association Council on Dental Health, March 1952; and they must have copies of this. It says here: Do not say this and do not say that. I will describe it to you. It says: Do not use the words "artificial fluoridation." Do not refer to "sodium fluoride." Do not use the words "rat poison." |