FAN Bulletin 943
   
March 19, 2008
 
Dear Supporter,

In yesterday’s bulletin we outlined why we believe the days of the foolish and reckless practice of water fluoridation were numbered. However, there is one way others could still be fighting this battle 20 years from now. That would be by fighting the battle with the same half-baked conspiracy theories of the 1950’s and 1960’s.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s the rational scientific and ethical arguments used by the late Dr. Geoge Waldbott and Nobel laureates like Dr. Fred Sumner, were drowned out by those who insisted that fluoridation was a communist plot. The promoters gleefully exploited these theories to discredit all opponents of fluoridation. In this they were ably assisted by the “father of public relations” Edward Bernays and perhaps unwittingly by Stanley Kubrick in his film Dr. Strangelove.

Today’s equivalent is the claim that Hitler used fluoride to suppress prisoners in concentration camps and Stalin did the same in his gulag camps. There is no valid historic documentation to substantiate these claims as being true. Instead, the “evidence” proffered to support the Hitler and Stalin claims are testimonials from people who claim they heard it was happening. Such hearsay evidence would never pass muster in court or with a good historian if they were not accompanied by primary historical documents that independently verify the claim. There is no shortage of documents from the Nazi regime. Nowhere in these documents, however, is there any mention of fluoride being used in concentration camps.

Thus, in contrast to the voluminous documentation, which establishes that there was an  extensive collusion between US Government agencies and US industries in promoting fluoridation in the early days of the practice (as brought to light by investigative journalist Chris Bryson in his brilliant expose The Fluoride Deception), there is no such documentation for the Hitler/Stalin claims. Not only are the Hitler/Stalin claims almost certainly false, but they carry a risk of sabotaging our efforts at a time when we can see victory in our sights. Let us explain why.

1) The science on fluoride’s ineffectiveness and dangers is well and truly on our side. Our task is to get more and more journalists and professionals to see this. The other side would dearly wish to distract them away from the NRC (2006) review; the Bassin (2006) study on osteosarcoma; the Scientific American January 2008 issue; the over 40 animal studies which indicate that fluoride damages the brain and the nearly 20 human studies which indicate that it lowers IQ in children. They would also like to keep dentists, doctors, and others away from the accumulating evidence that there is no or very little difference in tooth decay (especially in the permanent teeth) between fluoridated and non fluoridated communities, states and countries. The only hope that the proponents have of prolonging this practice is to keep independent scientists, doctors and dentists away from examining this issue: nothing would more effectively do this than the suspicion that those opposed to fluoridation were nutcases.

2) In addition, people should put themselves in the shoes of a dentist or a doctor who truly believes this practice is doing good. It is highly insulting for them to be portrayed as being part of some gigantic conspiracy theory to dumb down the American population. We need these people to change their minds and this is the very last way to do that. Dr. Bill Osmunson has shown the way to change their minds - not by insulting them - but by gently encouraging them to read the literature. See Dr. Osmunson’s video on our homepage at http://www.fluoridealert.org

3) Third, think of what it means to the professionals who have joined our ranks (and often at some personal and professional cost) to have their friends and colleagues point to some of these vitriolic videotapes on YouTube which espouse these extreme conspiracy theories. For example, here is an email we received today from one of the most important professionals opposed to fluoridation. The website in question is a YouTube video that was mistakenly believed to be produced by FAN:
Dear Paul:
 
Something strange happened to me. xxx approached me in the parking lot and told me that ‘my’ website had something on it that really offended members in his family (he was not complaining to me officially but personally). His wife sits on some kind of committee tracking hate literature (I’m assuming against Jews). He did mention that the link on ‘my’ website showed something really offensive to Jews regarding the holocaust.
 
I assured him I did not have any personal website.
 
He then sent me this link … I have to tell you Paul that it is scary to be associated with this kind of stuff…. I don’t want to be linked to this crap.
So there we have it. Not only are the conspiracy theories about Hitler and Stalin unsupported by facts, but they undermine the credibility of those who work to educate the public about the real problems with fluoride and fluoridation.

For these reasons, we strongly encourage people to keep the focus of the discussion on the documented problems with fluoride. With so many valid reasons to oppose fluoridation, why hurt our cause by relying on imaginary ones?

Paul, Ellen, & Michael Connett