From the November 2000 Idaho Observer:

EPA scientist denounces fluoride before water subcommittee

Federal employees union opposes forced medication

by Don Harkins

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- EPA scientist Dr. William J. Hirzy, speaking on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), of which he is the vice-president, told the Senate Subcommittee on Wildlife, Fisheries and Drinking Water, June 29, 2000, that “In 1997 we most recently voted to oppose fluoridation. Our position has strengthened since then.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the federal agency which recommends routine hepatitis B inoculations for infants, influenza vaccines for the elderly and overspraying the public with malathion and anvil to control mosquitoes, still uses the December 14, 1995 statement from acting Surgeon General Dr. Audrey Manley to justify mass fluoridation. “The benefits of fluoride are available, on the average, for a little more than $.50 per person per year,.”she said.

The FDA has never approved the use of fluoride for any medical or dietary purpose. The NTEU believes that the American people have been the unwitting subjects of a 50-year medical experiment that is a scientific and public health failure.

According to 22 documents cited by Dr. Hirzy, there is no evidence to support claims that individuals themselves are recipients of the “benefits” to which the Clinton appointee vaguely referred.

The subcommittee heard testimony on the subject last summer amid increased awareness that a growing body of evidence proves the mandated administration of systemic doses of fluoride, as delivered through municipal tap water in thousands of cities across the U.S., is unsound public health policy.

The NTEU recommended that Congress should engage in the following activities to determine conclusively whether or not the federal government should change its policy with regard to fluoridation: 1) Order an independent review of the Battelle Memorial Institute report on fluoride carcinogenicity; 2) order real toxicity studies of phosphate fertilizer industry byproduct fluoride (rather than a substitute chemical) which constitutes 90 percent of the fluoride used in fluoridation programs; 3) “since federal agencies are actively advocating that each man, woman and child drink, eat and bathe in these chemicals, silicofluorides should be placed at the head of the list for establishing an MCL [safe level] that complies with the Safe Drinking Water Act.” 4) order an epidemiological study comparing children with and without dental fluorosis [symptomatic of excessive exposure to fluoride] for behavioral disorders.

In light of overwhelming documentation that fluoridation is not beneficial to the public, Dr. Hirzy stated, “We ask that you [the senate subcommittee] convene a joint congressional committee to give the only substance that is being mandated for ingestion throughout this country the full hearing that it deserves.”

Dr. Hirzy and the NTEU outlined the allegations against fluoridation policy that Congress should investigate: Public exposure to fluoride is excessive and uncontrolled; report findings such as Batelle have been fraudulently construed to support pro-fluoridation policy; recent brain/fluoride research reveals the dangers of fluoridation; fluoride enjoys a “protected pollutant” status with the EPA; the results of a 50-year experiment on fluoridation in two New York communities that do not support claims that fluoridation is either safe or effective in preventing tooth decay; findings of fact in three landmark fluoride lawsuits since 1978; implications of elevated levels of fluoride in the blood and anti-social behavior in children and; the changing views of dental researchers with regard to the efficacy of mass medication of the public through water fluoridation programs.

Dr. Hirzy went down the list of findings which prove that the administration of fluoride through tap water compromises rather than enhances public health. The EPA scientist provided Congress with reference to 22 documents and reports which show fluoride to be immunosuppressive, carcinogenic, mutogenic and damaging to teeth and bones.

Dr. Hardy Limeback's infamous letter was among the documents cited by Dr. Hirzy. Dr. Limeback of the University of Toronto Department of Preventative Dentistry published his change of views last April. In his letter, Dr. Limeback denounced the use of fluoride as ineffective in preventing dental disease and dangerous to the health and well-being of fluoride recipients. “We [NTEU] believe that Dr. Limeback, along with fluoridation proponents who have not changed their minds, such as Drs. Ernst Newbrun and Herschel Horowitz, should be called before a select committee to testify on the reasons for their respective positions,” Dr. Hirzy said.