My research on the harmful effects of fluoridation in Chile was the first study specifically concerned with poor, malnourished people. I chose Chile for my research because (a) the majority of the population of Chile is poor and malnourished, and (b) pro-fluoridationists have never adequately studied the effect of fluoridation on poor, malnourished people as a specific group of the total population.

In the United States and other developed countries, poor and malnourished people are a minority that is statistically drowned out in the total population which is researched for harmful effects of fluoridation. The increased death rates associated with fluoridation in Chile tell us that fluoridation is also killing poor, malnourished people in all countries that have fluoridation.

Most research which purports to demonstrate the safety of fluoridation has not been concerned with very low concentrations of fluoride, at which paradoxical effects occur, for three reasons. (1) Individuals vary significantly in fluoride uptake. (2) There is considerable individual variation. (3) It has been unjustifiably assumed that there is a threshold level; namely, the sacrosanct one part per million in drinking water, below which fluoridation is safe. The occurrence of paradoxical effects at very low levels of fluoride means that there is no threshold level below which low-level fluoridation is safe. There is also no threshold level below which low-level radiation is safe. We call fluoridation low-level fluoridation because that term associates it with the well-known low-level radiation. Both are harmful and similar in other ways.

The paradoxical effect in the report by Mitchell et al is similar to what has been observed in a variety of fluoride systems where paradoxical effects occur.5 Paradoxical effects may be involved in SIDS in some fluoridated cities in Australia."8 The data in the Australian report, which claimed that there was no linear relationship between fluoridation and SIDS, should be reexamined to see if there are inverse (paradoxical) relationships.

Paradoxical effects occur in complex systems where they are influenced by conditions that vary from time to time within the same system.6 For these reasons, paradoxical effects may not always appear in a very low concentration range. But a linear dose-response always appears at higher concentrations which, in the case of fluoride, begin at the arbitrarily defined safe level of one part per million. Therefore, the relationship between fluoride concentration and SIDS may be linear and/or paradoxical, depending on the concentration range of fluoride and other variables. This variability and, at times, even irreproducibility of results are characteristic of paradoxical effects.6

There is "a famous Sufi story" about "Mulla Nasrudin, an enlightened fabled teacher. While on his hands and knees, peering on the street for a lost key, he was approached by a friend. 'You lost your key here, Mulla?' his friend inquired. 'No,' said Nasrudin, 'I lost it in my house.' 'Then why are you looking here?' asked his friend. 'Because.' said Nasrudin, 'the light is better here.'" — Larry Dossey

It is paradoxical that statistics, employed to assure the validity of conclusions drawn from data, can be responsible for concealing paradoxical effects." 6 "The fact that statistical analysis of experimental data does not reveal paradoxical effects does not mean that such phenomena do not exist. On the contrary, statistical methods of analysis can effectively prevent recognition of paradoxical effects if the methods do not consider these phenomena. With scattered points, statistical methods are too frequently used to determine where a straight line should be drawn. To often, the statistical approach assumes that straight lines are the correct lines. Deviations or irregularities caused by paradoxical effects have too often been attributed to experimental variation or errors.6 More information about paradoxical effects and risk assessment is in Appendix B.

We have been told that fluoridation is economical because it lowers the cost of dental care. But, even if that were true, "let us get our priorities right. If it is economic to poison people, then there must be something wrong with economics." 9

With respect to economics, let us look at fluoride and what I call the pig mentality. In 1952, seven years after fluoridation was started, some U.S. government agencies were concerned about possible harmful effects of fluoride. But they were more concerned with safeguarding pregnant pigs than pregnant women and their unborn children. Their reason for giving priority to the welfare of pregnant pigs was that pregnant pigs were economically more important than pregnant women.

The following testimony, which reports this shocking revelation, is taken from a U.S. Congressional investigation held in 1952.10

Dr. Miller: The United States Department of Agriculture made some examination as to what happened in brood sows. They recommended to the farmers that fluoride not be added to the water or feed of brood sows because it did something to pigs that were unborn.

Dr. Porterfield: Yes.

Dr. Miller: Do you think it might be wise for the Public Health Service or some group of people to inquire what might happen to pregnant women and the unborn child when they are given fluoride? Do you think it is necessary to complete the examinations that have already been started on that subject?

Dr. Porterfield: I do not think there is enough money, sir, from the Federal Government or any other source, to pursue all of the possible hypotheses that may be proposed for most of our programs. We have to screen them from the point of view of greatest probability, and since we can find no cause from the physicians or the dentists or the investigating scientist pointing to this, it would seem to us not of a high priority to devote money for something that has shown no suggestive indications.

Dr. Miller: Would you say that the agricultural Department went off on a tangent then when they investigated what might happen to pigs or brood sows?

Dr. Porterfield: No, sir, I think there is a difference.

Dr. Miller: It is alright to do it with pigs, but you do not want to do it with women. Is that the attitude you take?

Dr. Porterfield: They have different objectives in mind, sir. There is more money available for matters that have economic value than there is for health.

Have the fluoridationists, like Dr. Faustus, no understanding of "the morality of knowledge" (Erich Heller) and no "insight into ultimate meanings"? (Victor Lange) Did they, like Faustus, "outwit the Devil by creating a Hell of" their "own"? (Victor Lange11) No wonder fluoridation calls to mind Albert Einstein's lament: "Strange that science, which in the old days seemed harmless, should have evolved into a nightmare that causes everyone to tremble." And Linus Pauling's comment: "Most problems in the modern world are the result of the contributions of science."

Mitchell et al (like Nelson and Taylor whom they cite) found a correlation between mean daily temperature and SIDS. People generally drink more liquids in warmer weather. One would therefore like to know, for example, whether the dead infants had been nursed and how much water and tea their mothers consumed. Tea is notoriously high in fluoride. But Mitchell et al did not estimate each infant's total daily fluoride intake. The correlation of infant deaths with mean daily temperature suggests that more infants may die in hotter weather when mothers and infants consume more tea and other fluids and therefore more fluoride. Finally, Mitchell et al and all proponents of fluoridation apparently also do not understand why it is inappropriate to apply the results of random testing to an individual.12

Another variable overlooked by Mitchell et al is nutrition, especially calcium intake. The consumption of milk, which is the major source of calcium for infants, is especially important. Our research on fluoridation in Chile (like many other studies) points out that malnourished infants comprise the human population that is most susceptible to fluoride toxicity. It is also well known that calcium protects against fluoride. When Salvador Allende, M.D. became president of Chile in 1970, he initiated a government program under which "pints of ... free ... milk were delivered ... daily ... to pregnant mothers, nursing mothers and every child under the age of 15." 1 At that time, "half the children in Chile under 15 years were undernourished, and 600,000 were mentally retarded thorough lack of protein, especially during the first months of life." 1 This was the health status of half the children who were being fluoridated in Chile.

I am not implying that malnutrition and/or calcium deficiency were significant factors in SIDS researched by Mitchell et al. No one knows because Mitchell et al did not provide that and other information. To properly evaluate the role of fluoride in SIDS, it is necessary to consider nutrition, especially calcium intake, and total fluoride intake.

Those who are for and against fluoridation have little in common other than the issues they disagree on. They cannot dialogue objectively because they have different realities. They see things differently, and have different criteria for determining validity. Our lives are enriched by artists for whom "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." But our lives are often endangered when scientific truth is in the eyes of the beholder.

1. Researchers assumed that there is only one dose-response to fluoride and that dose-response is linear. They do not know that there are two distinctly different dose-responses which occur within two different concentration ranges of fluoride. The dose-response which they completely overlooked is the paradoxical, non-linear dose-response. This occurs only with low-level fluoridation, just as it also occurs only with low- level radiation,13,14 where it is described as supra-linear, quadratic and non-linear. (I shall shortly discuss low-level radiation and what it has in common with low-level fluoridation.) The reasons why paradoxical effects occur at low levels of fluoride and other chemicals,5 and why supra-linear dose-responses occur at low levels of radiation are beyond the scope of this report, but have been explained elsewhere.5,6,13,14,15

2. Researchers did not selectively study minority populations, such as infants, that are most susceptible to fluoride toxicity. But it is not enough to study infants. One must select infants who are malnourished and whose mothers received little or no prenatal care. Otherwise, as I discussed in detail in my report on deaths association with fluoridation in Chile, "the relatively well-nourished majority overwhelms ... the undernourished minority which is most susceptible to fluoride toxicity." 1

The importance of selecting a minority population of infants that are malnourished and disadvantaged in other ways is clearly revealed by the shockingly high variation of infant deaths in different sections of Philadelphia. This variation is directly related to poor nutrition, inadequate prenatal care and other factors.16 No one knows how many poor, malnourished children in Philadelphia, which is fluoridated, are being killed or otherwise harmed by fluoridation?

Spittle recognized the importance of working with a malnourished minority,17 which I had pointed out in my Chile report. Both Brown18 and the same Mitchell,19 who criticized my Chile report, did not recognize (1) the above-mentioned inadequacies in the report of Mitchell et al, and (2) the importance of focusing research a malnourished minority.

The 1994 report by the New Zealand Public Health Commission,20 which endorsed fluoridation, accepted without question the erroneous conclusion of the report by Mitchell et al,4 and Brown18 and Mitchell's19 unjustified criticism of my report on fluoridation in Chile. The New Zealand report referred to my article in its text, but did not cite it in its bibliography. The results of Mitchell et al which, despite their inadequacies, show that fluoridation is harmful as very low levels, are all the more significant because the infants they researched were not specifically selected as a malnourished population. Despite that limitation, their results support my report of increased deaths associated with fluoridation in Chile.

This New Zealand Public Health Commission report has as little scientific validity as a British report on the effectiveness of fluoridation drafted by a special Committee on Research into Fluoridation. This is Report No. 122 published by the British Department of Public Health and Social Security in London. I challenge Brown18 and Mitchell,19 who criticized my report on fluoridation in Chile, to publish a criticism of my analysis21 (See Appendix C) of that British report. This British report has to be seen to be believed. This and many other reports that support fluoridation reveal incompetence, bias, and arrogance, and are examples of pseudoscience. One does not know whether to accuse the authors of misconduct in science or conclude that they just don't know any better.

Those who do research in Plato's cave do not realize that: (1) All they see are only shadows on the wall. (2) They "can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but" they "cannot fool all of the people all of the time." (3) "No man was ever so much deceived by another as by himself. (Greville) and (4) "The learned fool writes his nonsense in better language than the unlearned, but still 'tis nonsense." (Benjamin Franklin)

The history of progress is the history of controversy. The antifluoridation movement has made both history and progress. The report you are now reading contributes to both. Its objective is to provide new information about the nature of the sand upon which the house of fluoridation has been built. It points out the importance of paradoxical effects which have not received adequate attention with respect to fluoridation. These effects occur at low levels of fluoride and radiation. We call fluoridation low-level fluoridation because that term associates it with the well-known low-level radiation. Both are harmful and similar in other ways.

For low-level radiation, we now know that "linearity underestimates the true cancer risk per rad when one derives values from studies based on higher doses of radiation than the" low "doses at which we wish to apply those values." 13 We now know that linearity also underestimates the risk of low-level fluoridation. This is why we criticize those who have disregarded paradoxical effects associated with low-level fluoridation.

Low-level fluoridation, like low-level radiation, may produce adverse effects that appear after prolonged periods of time. For this reason, a cause and effect relationship is not always clear. The adverse effects of large doses of fluoride and radiation, with which this report is not concerned, occur sooner after exposure and are therefore clearly associated with the cause.

Low-level fluoridation and low-level radiation have both been controversial for decades. Both have used human beings as guinea pigs. They have killed and continue to kill untold numbers of people. There is no threshold level below which fluoride and radiation are harmless. Background radiation, such as radon gas, is harmful; and background fluoride (from sources other than drinking water; i.e., air, food and tea) is harmful. Topical application of fluoride and topical application of radiation (e.g., for skin cancer) are harmful. The dose-response to both low-level fluoridation and low-level radiation is not linear but paradoxical.

Low-level fluoridation, like low-level radiation, is a major pollutant which environmentalists should recognize as such. Like other pollutants, the harmful effects of both low-level fluoridation and low-level radiation have a history of denial which is associated with scientific, professional and academic misconduct. Tolerance levels for low-level fluoridation and low-level radiation are not based on scientific findings. Instead they are determined by special interest groups which have enough money to buy enough political clout to influence government and other high-level agencies.2 "The wages of sin are death." But those who die from low-level fluoridation and low-level radiation are not the sinners, but their victims.

Gould and Goldman, in their book Deadly Deceit. Low-Level Radiation, High-Level Cover-Up,15 report the results of Charles Walden et al who observed a supra-linear effect of ionizing radiation on human chromosomes. "Their findings contradict the conventional scientific dogma that the dose- response is linear, and that a straight line can be used to estimate low-dose effects from studies of high doses." Gould and Goldman also discuss the "Petkau effect." In 1971, Abram Petkau, a physician and biochemist, observed an unusual and entirely unexpected effect of radiation. He found that low levels of radiation produced more damage to fresh beef brain cellular membranes than higher doses did.

Gofman pointed out, in his book Radiation and Human Health,13 that "Enthusiasts of nuclear power and of medical irradiation are forever hoping, quite understandably, that there will be found some threshold — a dose of radiation below which no harm would occur." But "It turns out that nuclear-power and medical-irradiation enthusiasts have all been going in exactly the wrong direction, They have consistently suggested that linearity may overestimate the true cancer risk per rad. The real problem is that linearity underestimates the true cancer risk per rad when one derives values from studies based on higher doses of radiation than the doses at which we wish to apply those values."

According to Gofman and O'Connor (in their book X-Rays: Health Effects of Common Exams), "It is natural for everyone, ourselves included, to wish that radiation would be less harmful per rad at low dose-ranges than at high dose-ranges... Those who cling to this wish, in spite of all the evidence, claim that the linear 'hypothesis' exaggerates the risk of getting cancer from irradiation at low doses. But wishful thinking is gradually yielding to evidence." 14

The books by Gofman13 and Gofman and O'Connor14 are replete with reports which prove that low doses of radiation are in many cases more harmful than higher doses. These data fit what is called a supra-linear dose response curve, which is significantly different from a linear curve. Gofman and O'Connor14 conclude that the "linear model may actually underestimate the risk of getting cancer and leukemia. There is, unfortunately, evidence which is accumulating and growing ever stronger that the cancer risk per rad of dose is worse in the low-dose range than in the high dose... Moreover, during the nearly four years of extraordinary scrutiny and widespread peer review of the book13 in professional journals, scientific symposia and in trials concerning radiation injury, no one has made a single scientifically valid refutation of any of its data, methods, or conclusions. Probably no work in this field has received more review by peers." 14

As a graduate student at Berkeley, he was one of those who discovered uranium-233, and demonstrated that it was fissionable. In 1941-1943, he developed a method for isolating plutonium and provided the plutonium first used at the Manhattan Project. From 1962-1969, he was Associate Director of the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and set up the Laboratory's Biomedical Division. From 1963-1972, he directed research in that Division. This research, requested by the Atomic Energy Commission, evaluated ionizing radiation and chromosome injury as causes of human cancer. Gofman has received many awards and honors, including a citation from the American College of Cardiology. He has written six books.

One of these forms was pointed out by Sutton in his cogent article Are Most Fluoridation Promoters Neurotics?23 Sutton quoted Kurt Thoma, Professor of Oral Pathology at Harvard University: "The neurotic depends on opinions other than his own and is swayed by remarks of others without analyzing the facts. He feels that his opinions must be enforced, and even if proven in error he will not 'give in' because this hurts his ego ideal."

This is why the pathology of fluoridation is so easily diagnosed. Its distinctive syndrome consists of hype, brouhaha, hullabaloo, echolalia, pleonasm, tautology, propaganda, weasel words, propaganda, recycled nonsense, double speak,24 the invention of reality, 25 denial, the graying of reality and the manufacture of consent,26 Fluoridation is part of "the new age mythology"27 in which, as Werner Erhard proclaimed, "Reality is make-believe." Wishful thinking is presented as scientifically established fact to achieve self- serving ends. An egregious example of the pathology of fluoridation is Report No 122, compiled by a special Committee on Research into Fluoridation and published by the British Department of Public Health and Social Security in London. See Appendix C for my analysis21 of this British report, which erroneiously concludes that fluoridation is effective in preventing tooth decay.

A clinical psychologist whom I consulted about fluoridation referred me to the psychiatric definition of denial which includes "refusal to admit ... reality... Known also as negation, denial is a primitive defense ... consisting of an attempt to disavow the existence of unpleasant reality.28

Denial is not isolated and sporadic, but may be pandemic in science, medicine, academia, and elsewhere. It occurs in the controversial fluoridation of drinking water which, contrary to what authorities claim, does not prevent dental caries and is not safe.1,23 In quantum physics, physicists have for decades refused to acknowledge an inconsistency in Einstein's special theory of relativity.29 They also have been slow to recognize Bohm's alternative.30 Quantum theory is itself paradoxical because it "demands conflicting or mutually incompatible descriptions — an example of this is the description of an electron as both a wave and a particle." A well-known scientist wrote an unfavorable review of one of Velikovsky's books without (she admitted) having read it. Other well-known scientists who edited prestigious scientific journals rejected papers, which Velikovsky submitted for publication, without (they admitted) having read them.31

Hendershot, editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association, provided another example of denial. I wrote Hendershot to ask if he would be interested in seeing my report on harmful effects of fluoridation in Chile.1 When he did not reply, I sent him copies of my report on three separate occasions, one month after another. He rejected my report three times without ever having even seen it. To publicize his censorship, my report, which then appeared in the Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, included a photograph of three envelopes, each of which contained a copy of my manuscript and was addressed to Hendershot. These letters were certified so that the recipient had to sign a receipt of delivery. All three envelopes were stamped REFUSED - RETURN TO SENDER.

Some areas of higher education are also hotbeds of misconduct by academic robber barons in administration, research, and teaching.34,35,36 The May/June, 1994, Special Issue of The Journal of Higher Education was devoted to "Perspectives on Research Misconduct".35 In some colleges and universities, plagiarism, falsification of data, and other kinds of individual and institutional misconduct appear to be pandemic.30 Much of this pollution of the ethical environment of research and graduate education is covered up by structured silence.36 Structured silence denies misconduct by ignoring it. Unanswered questions are ignored, as if they did not exist. Denial preserves the illusion that all is well, and perpetuates false public images of academia and science. Brown18 and Mitchell19 used structured silence when they selectively criticized my data but not Briner and Carmona's data, included in my report.1

The most recent and most comprehensive report36 of misconduct in colleges, universities and science was rejected for publication by Koshland, the editor of Science. This is a prestigious journal published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Koshland had previously claimed that 99.9999% of scientific reports are accurate and truthful, without having any justification for using that figure! He then did not publish a report36 which proved him wrong.

Thirty years earlier, Abelson, editor of the same journal, Science, did not publish one of Velikovsky's papers, without having read it.31 In 1992, the same Abelson was a member of the panel which produced the National Academy of Sciences report on Responsible Science, Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process.32

Several years before Abelson rejected Velikovsky's paper, without having read it, there was a high-level effort to censor scientific publications which presented new ideas that were at variance with what so-called authorities defined as truth. The American Association for the Advancement of Science seriously considered, but fortunately did not approve, a resolution "that henceforth any publication that presents new scientific hypotheses should not be allowed to be printed without the imprimatur of a proper professional body." 31 If this resolution had been accepted and implemented, it would avoid the problem of having to deny something because that something would never have appeared in print. There would thus be nothing to deny and therefore no controversy.

Those who are opposed to fluoridation usually find it impossible to publish in so-called reputable dental and medical journals. So they publish in whatever ways they can. Pro-fluoridationists then criticize them and derogate their research because they did not publish in reputable journals. That is precisely what Brown18 and Mitchell19 did to me and my report on fluoridation in Chile. They not only criticized my research, but also derogated the journal in which it appeared and the university which published that journal.

"Some physicians [were] apprehensive lest the 'promiscuous distribution of iodine,' as they put it, to those not in need of the element, cause a marked increase in hyperthyroidism."37 This was actually observed in Derbyshire, England, where it was reported that "An increase in the prevalence of goiter among children following the use of iodine [including 'iodized water'] is most unusual."37 This increase in the prevalence of goiter in Derbyshire may well be due to a paradoxical effect of iodine. Iodine is a close relative of fluorine and both are in the same chemical family know as halogens. Data suggestive of a paradoxical effect of fluorides and iodides on the clotting of milk by pepsin were published in 1928.39 "Thyroid disorders associated with iodine deficiency and excess" also suggests that iodine produces paradoxical results.40

The results of iodination of drinking water in the above-mentioned cities led Robert Olesen, Surgeon in the United States Public Health Service, to conclude in 1927 that "So far, there is considerable doubt as to the ability of iodinized water to reduce the incidence of endemic goiter." And, "The iodination of public water supplies, in its present state of development, can not be recommended for widespread use."37 Olesen's report was published in Public Health Reports issued weekly by the United States Public Health Service.37 One year before Olesen's report appeared, Hartsock pointed out, in the Journal of the American Medical Association, that "The continuous use of iodine over a long period of time should never be prescribed for adults, and when its periodic use is prescribed, frequent observations of the pulse and weight should be made."38 In 1931, Weston concluded, in the American Journal of Public Health and the Nation's Health, that "The addition of iodine in drinking water [to prevet goiter] has also proved disappointing."41

I should not have implied, without qualification, that proponents of fluoridation have ignored history. What they have learned from history is that they should not permit opponents of fluoridation to publish in professional medical and dental journals. As I already pointed out, that is precisely what Hendershot, editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association, did to me.

The fluoridators have also ignored the history of what Schubert and Lapp called "radioactive poisons" that were used therapeutically for over half a century with disastrous results." 42 Following the therapeutic use of radon drinking water in 1903 and 1904, first radium salts and then Thorotrast (a commercial product which contained a radioactive isotope and became popular in 1929) continued to be used well into the 1960s. In 1913, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that "the value of [radon] is unquestionably established." Over 80% of 1038 patients with a variety of ailments, recalcitrant to other treatments, "were considered ... by 20 foreign doctors ... to have been improved by the use of radium emanation." Radium was also injected into mental patients to treat psychoses and other mental problems.

In 1916, an article in the journal Radium declared that "Radium had absolutely no toxic effects, it being accepted as harmoniously by the human system as is sunlight by the plant." Radium therapy was listed in the New and Non-official Remedies of the American Medical Association until 1932.42 In 1936, Percy Brown, M.D., who died from overexposure to X-rays, published his book American Martyrs to Science through the Roentgen Rays.43 This book presented the biographies of professionals who died from the effects of X-rays.

In the 1950s, articles in medical journals recommended Thorotrast treatment for children. In 1953, a Denver company was marketing a contraceptive jelly containing radium.42 In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, hundreds if not thousands of military personnel and civilians were given radium treatments to prevent and cure colds, hearing loss and other ear ailments, and adenoid problems. The victims attributed head and neck cancers, miscarriages, and thyroid and other problems to the radium treatment.44

In 1957, Schubert and Lapp pointed out that "One of the strangest aspects of the attitude toward radiation poisoning is that as late as 1924 — nearly twenty-five years after the discovery of radium — no one seemed to understand that when radioactive substances were taken into the body they emitted radiations just as damaging as those produced by an X-ray machine. This seems incomprehensible in view of the fact that it was well known by then that all kinds of radiation — whether X-rays, alpha rays, beta rays, or gamma rays — damage tissues." 42

Actually, many people not only understood but warned about the dangers of radiation. Schubert and Lapp themselves comment on numerous reports of injury and death, caused by radiation, which continuously appeared in newspapers and in medical and scientific journals. But the so-called experts ignored these reports while people died, in some cases agonizing deaths.

In the case of fluoridation, the so-called experts also have also ignored repeated warnings about the toxicity of fluoridation while people have been harmed and in some cases killed. For information about the political, economic and social syndrome of low-level fluoridation pathology, read Joel Griffiths' Fluoride: Commie Plot or Capitalist Ploy.2

I did not select the three communities in Chile which I researched. They were the ones selected by the National Health Service of Chile. The demographic data I used are taken from official government reports. In my report, I also analyzed Briner and Carmona's data and took issue with their conclusions. Briner and Carmona were high-ranking officials in the National Health Service of Chile. Brown and Mitchell criticized my conclusion that fluoridation is harmful because the three communities are not comparable in certain respects. But they did not criticize Briner and Carmona's conclusion (based on data from the same communities) that fluoridation is safe. Brown and Mitchell's selective criticism is a form of structured silence, as I have already pointed out.

Brown and Mitchell also ignored Briner and Carmona's erroneous claim that fluoridation had no effect on the death rates of individuals with congenital malformations. In fact, Briner and Carmona's data revealed that fluoridated Curico had 244% more such deaths than non-fluoridated San Fernando, and 288% more such deaths than the entire country of Chile taken as a whole.

Finally, neither Brown nor Mitchell commented on any of the other serious errors and inadequacies in Briner and Carmona's publication, about which my report presented detailed information. Their silence about the deficiencies in Briner and Carmona's work raises questions about their objectivity.

Briner and Carmona were the two highest ranking officials in the National Health Service of Chile, Section of Odontology, when they presented their report in 1965 at the Fifth International Odontological Congress of Chile. The Commission of Dental Health of that Congress endorsed the safety of fluoridation in Chile on the basis of their report.

Despite the fact that my report on fluoridation in Chile was published in an obscure journal, that report was directly responsible for terminating fluoridation in Chile. As soon as it was printed, I sent copies to every dental and medical officer in the Pan-American Health Organization and the National Health Service of Chile. I also sent copies to professors in the faculties of medicine, dentistry and pharmacy in the University of Chile. Shortly thereafter, fluoridation was discontinued in Chile. However, the fight may not be over. Present-day bureaucrats may not know that some 20 years ago fluoridation was discontinued in Chile because it was killing people in the experimental city of Curaco..

The existence of the Journal of Arts, Science, and Humanities and Anthony University which published that journal has also been questionsed (The name Anthony University has since then been changed to Susan B. Anthony University.) The university was establihsed as a not-for-profit corporation in the State of Missouri on June 13, 1973. This can be verified by directing an inquiry to the Secretary of State, Department of State, Jefferson City, Missouri.

Doubts about the existence of the Journal of Arts, Science and Humanities, which contains my report, can also be easily laid to rest. This journal was copyrighted in 1976, which is its legally documented year of birth. The copyright and date of publication can be verified by directing an inquiry to the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, Washington, D.C. Copies of this publication can be ordered from the Copyright Office, Library of Congress.

Additional evidence that the Journal exists is the fact that copies of that journal, containing my report on fluoridation in Chile, have been distributed by the National Institute of Dental Research. This is part of the National Institutes of Health in the U.S. Public Health Service (Bethesda, Maryland). On October 28, 1986, John S. Small, Information Specialist at the National Institute of Dental Research, wrote me as follows on official, government letterhead

Dear Dr. Schatz:

We would appreciate having a few more reprints (3-5) or your permission to reproduce several copies of your January 1976 article on fluoridation in Chile (Anthony University Journal of Arts, Science, and Humanities. v. 2, no. 1)

The needed copies would be for distribution to interested health professionals or writers specializing in health sciences as requests arise.

A postage-free envelope is enclosed for your use in sending copies or your note or permission to make copies. Thank you.