SUMMARY

In 1944, McClure told the American Association for the Advancement of Science that children up to age 12 years drink 1% pints of water a day and weigh 44 pounds. Of course he didn't say it in those words, but that is the way what he says figures out. And what he said is an important part of the foundation for all you are told by the fluoridizers.

He said nothing about averages, but if he had it would still be just as silly. Averages don't drink water, nor do they get mottled teeth or softened bones. It is people, each an individual and every one different, who do these things.

McClure wrote the section on fluorides for the second edition of the American Medical Association Handbook of Nutrition. In it he states that even where water fluorides are highest, people will rarely get more than 8 to 10 milligrams of fluoride daily. But if you allow for the different concentrations, you will find that the average intake of inactive subjects in one of his own experiments was the equivalent of from 2 to 6 times this amount, depending on the climate. If they had been active, the amounts would have been much higher.

In the same Handbook he tells of some experiments he performed, from which he concludes that

upward of 90 percent of waterborne fluoride (in concentrations of 0.5 to 4.5 parts per million) is eliminated in the daily urine of teen-age boys and young men. What his experiment actually showed was that less than half the fluoride in that range was eliminated.

Evidence on these matters is given in detail in my written testimony. We have only time here for a sketch summary. But it is important to remember that these statements of McClure's, and those by Arnold and Dean which I shall cite, form the basis of the case for fluoridation. They are accepted at face value, enlarged, embroidered, and paraphrased, and are repeated so often they are accepted as truer than truth.

Now, as to Arnold. In January 1948 Arnold misstated the findings in his own work. His statement is a little ambiguous, but by the most generous interpretation he understated the number of disfigured front teeth of Aurora children by 65 percent. This was in the most widely read dental magazine of all.

The mainstay of the fluoridators, however, is H. Trendley Dean, formerly with the United States Health Service. He has long represented the American Dental Association in matters pertaining to fluorine. With Anold he wrote an official American Dental Association report on mottled enamel in 1943.

He was adviser to the committee of the American Water Works Association that recommended "endorsement" of fluoridation. He was a member of the ad hoc committee of the National Research Council that endorsed fluoridation.

He was a member of the committees that put out books on fluorides for the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1942 and again in 1946. He wrote chapters on fluorides in Gordon's Dental Science and Dental Art (1938) and in Pelton and Wisan's Dentistry in Public Health (1949), as well as dozens of articles.

In everything he writes, and in everything based on his writings, it is stated or implied that the effects of fluoride are dependable determined by the concentration in the water-that certain things occur at 1 part per million, and quite different things occur at 0.6 part, or 2 parts or 5 parts per million.

For example, he assures us that no harm will be done at a concentration of 1.0 to 1.5 parts per million, but that whatever effect waters with over 2.0 parts per million have on dental caries is largely of academic interest because the resultant permanent disfigurement of many of the users far outweighs any advantage from the standpoint of reducing tooth decay.

Now, it is true that the dose of fluoride depends to a degree on the concentration, in much the same way as the interest you pay depends on the rate. But in the one case you must know how much money you borrowed and in the other how much water you consume.

You are told that the differences in water consumption are trivial, which we all know just isn't true. You are further told that McClure has proved that everybody on the average consumes about a quart of water a day and will get about 1 milligram of fluoride per day from water with 1 part per million of fluoride. Believe it or not, this is told you in all seriousness by learned dentists and scientists; and if you question it, or the conclusions they draw therefrom, you are uninformed, a crackpot, and lack proper respect for the voice of authority.

But, as we have seen, McClure's own work proves it untrue, as if we didn't know it already. And, as I have pointed out in my written testimony, differences of 10 to 1 in individual water consumption are very ordinary. Disregarding all other factors, these offset the difference between 1 part per million and 10 parts per million, and Dean's distinction between complete safety at 1.0 to 1.5 parts per million and disaster at 2.0 parts per million is, as we said before, just plain silly. Actually, the complete safety that Dean talks about has nothing to do with what happens to individuals. He has repeatedly said that his epidemiological studies relate to groups, and not to individuals, and that prognosis with respect to any individual is obviously impossible. His original meaning of the word "safe" was that it would not cause obvious disfigurement of more than 10 percent of children. He has since learned that more than that will be damaged by his recommended one part per million, and has revised his definition of safety to allow for damage to 15 to 20 percent.

Moreover, Dean's work was concerned with children up to age 14, and Dean knows that, although the primary damage occurs while the teeth are being formed, before they erupt, it becomes increasingly evident with age; and that if he examined the same group a few years later he would find worse damage and to more individuals.

Furthermore, and whether Dean knew it or not, it is generally recognized that the damage done by fluoride, both to the teeth and to the system generally, depends greatly on the diet, and especially on how much calcium the body gets.

I have also cited evidence that 9 of the famous 21 cities on which the case for fluoridation rests fail to meet Dean's own requirements for reliability. Water histories proving this were included in the original reports, but have not been mentioned since.

Either the water supply was changed during the critical period while the teeth were being formed, or changed later in such a way that we cannot know the fluoride concentration when the teeth were formed. The 9 include all but 1 of the cities in the important range of concentrations. Consequently all conclusions are void, and the whole case for fluoridation falls apart.

Furthermore, I have shown that Dean knew that Galesburg did not meet his requirement when he used it to prove that fluoride would produce a 65-percent reduction in decay; and when he used it to prove that protection from decay exists even in the absence of visible fluorosis; and later, when he selected it as 1 of his 21 cities. The city of Aurora is of critical importance, so its water history has been consistently misrepresented. It is the city used for comparison in the artificial fluoridation experiments. But its real importance lies in the fact that it is the city always quoted to prove that mottled enamel attacks only the back teeth when the concentration is low.

Of course, this is not true, and is proved untrue by all observations everywhere. There are places where it appears to be true, both at high and at low concentration. The reason is known, and has to do with the period at which different teeth develop.

Children born where there is no fluoride, but who change in early childhood to a water with fluoride, end up with teeth like those in Aurora. The water history makes it clear that this is exactly what happened, but Dean has covered up by saying that Aurora has had the same type of water supply for more than 50 years.

So far we have seen that the so-called experimental basis for fluoridation is faulty. My testimony next showed that all the talk about 65 percent, or any other specified reduction, in tooth decay, is nonsense for two reasons: First, because there can be no unit for quantitative estimate of decay (the so-called D. M. F. rate makes no more sense than when children count up pennies, dimes, and quarters to see which has the most money); and, second, because the margin of error in recognition of decay is so great that 65-percent differences are not significant.

Because of these unavoidable factors, and also because of gross faults in the methods, the so-called experiments at Newburgh, Grand Rapids, and elsewhere can never prove anything about tooth decay.

They can, on the other hand, be expected to damage the teeth, and probably the bodies, of countless children, although it is still far too early for the worst damage to be manifest, and, contrary to the promises of Dean and others, we can confidently expect the worst damage on the upper front teeth.

So much for the dental effects of fluorides. The nondental effects are far more to be feared. In spite of McClure's so-called experiments, it is a fact that fluoride does accumulate in the body and that it does do important damage. It is a further fact that damage can occur at 1 part per million of fluoride. A Public Health Service study, where the fluoride was only 2.6 parts per million, showed some 23 times as many third molar teeth lost because of malposition than in a nearby fluoride-free city.

It is also known that fluoride damage is greatly increased whenever, for any reason, the ability of the kidneys to put out fluoride is impaired.

I can find no evidence of any serious attempt by the Public Health Service to find evidence of fluoride damage. The work they have done seems directed solely toward proving that none occurs and the proofs are not impressive. There has been some very sketchy work on the bone-hardening effects (osteosclerosis) of fluorides.

I find no mention of the bone-softening effects (osteomalacia), although they are probably far more common. A report from South America estimates that there are some 10,000 cases in the Argentine. It is the commonest form in animals, both experimentally and naturally, and was described by Bartolucci in 1912, some 20 years before either the dental effects or the bone-hardening effects were known.

Neither have the other known effects of cumulative poisoning been sought. I can't even find record of any wide-scale blood-calcium or calcium-retention determinations.

The so-called epidemiological evidence put out by the Public Health Service is wholly without value. First, there is no water history of the cities, and few cities have had an unchanged water supply for 30 years, which is the time needed for certain effects to appear; second, there is no attempt to eliminate persons who have lived elsewhere or used other water; third, most of the effects of fluorides are not reported in vital statistics; and, fourth, the known effects of chronic fluoride poisoning can all be duplicated by other causes.

The plain fact is that no respectable evidence for the safety of fluoride has ever been offered, while there is abundant evidence of danger; and when something is to be added to a public-water supply, the burden of proof should certainly rest on those who claim it safe rather than on those who say it isn't.

There are abundant and compelling reasons why, even if everything we are told about the safety and effectiveness of fluorides were true, it should still not be put in the water supply. As I have pointed out in my written testimony, it is medically insane. But, far more important, it violates our inalienable right to final decision as to what shall be done to our own bodies except when exercise of that right creates a clear and present danger to the right of others. In this connection it is clear that the so-called experiments at Newburgh and Grand Rapids are in flagrant violation of the most sacred laws of God and

man.

It is also in violation of our God-given right to make our own. mistakes instead of having self-styled experts empowered to make worse ones for us without our consent.

We are now confronted with a gigantic steamroller, fabricated by the Public Health Service, powered with unlimited Federal funds, and directed from Washington. It is designed to put over the greatest hoax in history, and to destroy, once and for all, the constitutional protections of the citizens. It gives control over our bodies to a group of men who believe that "physical fitness is a duty owed the Nation," that they are under no obligation to tell the truth but should rather tell people whatever will lead them to do as they "ought"; to men who think fuzzily in term of "average people," and are willing to sacrifice up to 20 percent of individuals to improve something they call "the public health" and can't define.

In my written testimony I have given some indication of how the steamroller works, and the results are manifest everywhere we look.

I believe that H. R. 2341 is needed to stop all this, and respectfully request the committee to bring it out with a recommendation of "do pass.

I believe, however, that this is just a start on what needs to be done. I have extensive evidence of similar activities in many other areas of so-called public health, and I am convinced that we need a thoroughgoing investigation of all such activities. I ask this committee to do all in its power to bring about such investigation.

And, finally, I wish to request that my entire written testimony, with its documented refutation of the Public Health Service pseudoscience, be included in the record to serve as source material, and to help counteract the mountains of misinformation that have been published on this subject at Government expense.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you suspend for just a moment, Dr. Exner. I want to see where we are with reference to time, and the people who are present and those who will testify.

(After informal discussion with various people listed as witnesses, as to length of time that they would require, the following proceedings were had:)

The CHAIRMAN. You know, it is awfully difficult for me to say to anybody who has come a distance such as some of these witnesses indicate, which indicates their very great interest in the subject and a very great interest on their part, to limit them as to the time that they should use in speaking; and that applies to these others, too.

I wish the committee were in a position to give you all of the time that you want, but we have so many duties to perform, you know, that it is not possible for us to stay here as long as you might wish or as we might wish.

(After further informal discussion:)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee is going to go into executive session for about 5 minutes. So, I will declare a recess so that the committee may have an executive session and I hope that you folks who are here in favor of the resolution will agree among yourselves as to what time you should have and be able to announce that to me when we reassemble the committee in about 5 minutes.

(Thereupon, the committee took a recess as above indicated, after which the following proceedings were had:)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Someone has placed on my desk a statement that four witnesses, proponents of the bill, have not been called as yet. If I have not called any of their names, will you rise and give your names?

(After further informal discussion as to time required by witnesses, the following proceedings were had :)

The CHAIRMAN. Have you folks agreed upon any division of time between yourselves? If not, the committee will divide the time accordingly. We will allow each witness 15 minutes. With 11 witnesses, that is 165 minutes. That would be 45 minutes this afternoon, until half past 4, and 2 hours tomorrow morning.

Now, if in that division of time, there is anyone who wishes to give or yield his or her time, or any portion of it, to some other witness, they may do so. That is a custom that is very frequently carried out in the House by which one Member will yield his time, or part of it, to other Members who wish to speak.