• Phillip Sutton – Fluoridation – The Greatest Fraud, March 19, 2012

• Meet a Fluoride Poisoning Survivor - The Great Fluoride Experiment at Grand Rapids, By Sylvia P. Onusic, PhD, January 12, 2011

• Fluoridation was based on the work of H Trendley Dean DDS. He claimed that areas with higher fluoride levels had less tooth decay.

In 1955 Dean admitted under oath, that his data purporting to prove the fluoridation hypothesis were not valid. (H. Trendley Dean: Proceedings, City of Oroville vs. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Oroville, California, Oroville, California, October 20-21, 1955.)

It was shown that Dean had selected the cities that would give a positive result for fluoride. When all available data was examined it was found there was a scatter pattern – no relationship at all (Rudolf Ziegelbecker).

[http://www.hamilton.govt.nz/our-council/consultation-and-public-notices/haveyoursay/Fluoride%20Submissions/946.pdf Fluoridegate Legal Action New Zealand

• Artificial fluoridation: Layman's dilemma, Konstantin K Paluev, 1954

• Reality #1: If fluoridation really reduces tooth decay by 60% then Del Norte County would have virtually no tooth decay. Currently our decay rate is 70%. That’s very high, and we’ve been fluoridating for over 40 years.

The 60% figure is a complete fraud. This is how they got it:

An incorrect reading of the statistics in the Kingston/Newburgh study led to the false conclusion of large reductions in tooth decay. “They ignored the fact that fluoride interferes with proper growth of children’s permanent teeth, which causes teeth to erupt later than normal. Teeth that have not yet erupted cannot decay; therefore, at first (at age 6) the fluoridated Newburgh children had 100% less tooth decay, by age 7 also 100% less, age 8 – 67% less, age 9 – 50% less, and by age 10 – 40% less. Realizing their experiment was going downhill, the USPHS stopped their experiment early, totaled the five reductions shown, then divided by 5 to obtain what they called “an over-all reduction of 70%.” Obviously, the only reduction that counted at that time was the 40% (age 10).” [3]

“Had the Health Department continued their survey beyond age 10, they would have found that the percentage of reduction continued downhill to 30%, 20%, 0% and eventually these children had more cavities – not less. The rate of decay is identical, once the children’s teeth erupt. (“Fluoridation Benefits – Statistical Illusion.” Testimony of Konstantin K. Paluev, Research and Development Engineer, Mar 6, 1957). [3] THE 5 MYTHS OF WATER FLUORIDATION

• Is further proof of the effectiveness of water fluoridation needed?, The fluoride debate

• The study failed; but early fluoridationists ignored this inconvenient truth.

Named a "demonstration project" so as not to alarm residents about what was actually occurring, the experiment was meant to last 15 years. After only five years, cavities went down in both Grand Rapids and Muskegon. So officials fluoridated Muskegon which scientifically nullified the study.(1)

There are many errors in the Grand Rapids experiment. (2) When a firm of professional statisticians was employed to study the data published from the trial, they concluded: "the lack of sophistication shown in selecting the sample leads to complete bewilderment as to the precise effects or the extent of the effect of fluoridation" (De Stefano 1954).

The Grand Rapids experiment never proved fluoridation was effective and didn't even look for adverse health effects. But that hasn't stopped public officials and organized dentistry from saying it did. In fact, two monuments have been built in fluoridation's honor in Grand Rapids. The first one crumbled and fell apart just as over-fluoridated children's teeth tend to do.

Grand Rapids first use, Toxipedia, Jan 28, 2008

• The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation, whale, September 1996

• Dentists’ “experts”, authorized by governments of member states of the WHO, repeated the figures and conclusions of this study of Dean et al in 1942 for many decades. Before 1969 all of the promoters of water fluoridation but the opponents believed that the inverse relation between fluoride and dental caries was supported by strong evidence in this study.

In 1969 and in the following years I analysed the study of H.T. Dean et al (“21-cities-study”) and other studies with similar study design from various scientific perspectives. I found that the “inverse relationship between natural fluoride drinking water and dental caries of children” is a statistical artefact and constructed by the authors (dentists).

OPEN LETTER TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE YORK FLUORIDATION REVIEW – FROM DR. RUDOLF ZIEGELBECKER, By Rudolf Ziegelbecker | 2000