63-year-old Texan has been drinking water naturally containing 2.8 to 3.5 parts per million fluoride for about 43 years. His kidney disease and his excess consumption of water for 20 years was due to poisoning from fluoride in drinking water. It was not coincidental as the clinician who had recorded the case had assumed in a letter solicited by W. J. Putnam, D.S.S., Chief, Disease Control Branch, Division of Dental Health, dated January 31, 1966. The patient succumbed to a terminal pneumonia which was the end result of chronic intoxication by fluoride. Correspondence pertaining to this case is herewith presented (exhibit 10).

It should be emphasized that in both fatalities the concentration of fluoride in drinking water was only slightly higher that the so-called safe (1 p.p.m.) concentration. Because of the appalling lack of knowledge among the physicians regarding fluoride's effect on the human organism it is impossible to estimate how many additional fatalities due to fluoride in water have remained undiagnosed.

The third fatality is of special interest because it resulted from artificially fluoridated water at 1 part per million. This fatality concerns a 43-year-old nurse with kidney disease, in Rochester, N.Y. This case had to be reported in order to warn the medical profession to refrain from further use of fluoridated water in hemodialysis (treatment with the artificial kidney). The case was reported in two different medical journals (journal of the AMA, 184:1030, 1963 and Archives of Internal Medicine, 115:167, February 1965) by two different teams of scientists with only one-half of the data appearing in each journal. Neither publication referred to the other. Thus the case was misrepresented to the medical profession.

My own research concerns observations on individuals poisoned by, or allergic to, fluoridated water. During the last decade I have encountered more than 100 such cases (11). At least 15 were hospitalized for detailed studies. The salient symptoms of this disease are frequent episodes of pyelitis (kidney disease), manifestations simulating stomach ulcer, spastic colitis and ileitis, arthritis especially in the spine, migraine-like headaches, paresthesias (or numbness), pains and partial palsy of arms and legs. In three patients visual disturbances were identified by eye specialists as beginning retinitis, a disease leading to blindness. Several patients have shown striking mental deterioration with loss of memory and of ability to concentrate. Most conspicuous was extreme exhaustion which eventually caused many of the patients to be bedridden. The more water these patients drink the thirstier they become. The same organs are affected in this disease as in acute poisoning from a single dose of fluoride.

The above-named PHS officials have employed numerous ways and neans in their attempts to discount my observation (exhibit 6, p. 230). Yet these case reports have appeared in eight of the world's most imortant medical journals, including the leading medical journal in Germany and Sweden. These cases were critically examined prior to ublication and judged valid by the scientists who are members of the ditorial boards of these journals. Had they not been properly docuented, they would not have been published.

The relationship of the disease to fluoride was proven in the followng manner:

1. The condition improved repeatedly without any medication whatsoever upon elimination of fluoridated water and food high in fluoride; the disease invariably recurred upon their resumption.

2. After the disease had cleared up, without medication, merely due to avoidance of fluoridated water, so-called blind and double-blind tests were instituted using a dose equivalent to the average daily intake of fluoride from drinking fluoridated water.

3. Other physicians have observed the same disease and have confirmed my observations (12). Unfortunately these physicians hesitate to present their findings to the profession because they fear villification and abuse by members of the dental profession which is inevitably encountered by anyone who raises his voice against fluoridation. Such personal abuse cannot but interfere with their standing in the community and jeopardize their practice. Although these physicians have advised their patients to avoid fluoridated water, they have expressly requested that their names not be divulged.

This leads us into a brief review of some of the unconventional practices with respect to fluoride research.

The above-mentioned officials of the USPHS and the American Dental Association have been discouraging open debates in scientific meetings (13). Their representatives on editorial boards of most medical journals in this country have persistently inhibited publication of valid data unfavorable to fluoridation (14).

They have sought endorsements by scientific organizations and lay groups, not in the customary manner through free and open discussion before the memberships, but through establishing special study committees, the proceedings of which they themselves guide (15). When data unfavorable to fluoridation appear in the literature, the same members of the dental branch of the USPHS, instead of freely debating the subject, seek ways and means of downgrading the research, of intimidating and disparaging the scientist responsible for the research or they set up new research expressly designed in advance to neutralize the evidence. In this manner, they prevent important information from reaching the medical profession and discourage scientists, independent of grants from industry and of their own agency, from carrying out further research on the subject. For further details may I present a copy of a recent address to the Minority Opinions Forum at the University of Kansas, Lawrence, November 17, 1965, entitled "Why Physicians Are Uninformed About Fluoride"? This committee could render our Nation an inestimable service by withholding funds for fluoridation promotion and by insisting upon a throughgoing congressional investigation of the available PHS research which your committee has financed.

I have here a letter signed by Dr. F. J. McClure, chief of the biochemistry laboratory, to a professor at the University of Kansas who intended to, and finally did, present a panel discussion on fluoridation by competent scientists. In this letter Dr. McClure insisted that the subject should not be debated. May I leave these here?

Here is an account of my observations on patients poisoned by fluoridated water. Here is an exhibit which deals with the fatality from fluoridated water that recently received some notoriety in the newspapers. It answers the author's letter in which he attempted to prove that the death was not related to fluoridation.

Here is a statement by the Secretary of the American Dental Association, Dr. Harold Hillenbrand, in which he claimed that fluoridation should not be debated in scientific meetings.

Here is a review of the subject of fluoridation which appeared in an AMA publication, the Archives of Environmental Health, volume 2, page 155, 1961. In it I recorded scientific data that counters some of the arguments put forth by proponents.

This exhibit shows the manner in which those who object to fluoridation are being subjected to disparagement. My answer was published subsequently in the same journal.

(The exhibits listed were submitted to the committee and have been retained for their files)

LIST OF EXHIBITS

1. Waldbott, G. L.: Partial list of publications.

2. Waldbott, G. L.: "The Physiologic and Hygienic Aspects of the Absorption of Inorganic Fluorides, AMA Archives of Environmental Health" (2:155– 167, 1961; 4: 459, 1962).

3. Waldbott, G. L.: "Monograph: Fluoride in Clinical Medicine" (suppl. 1 ad vol. 20, Internat. Arch. Allergy & Appl. Immunol., 1962).

4. Herman, J. F., Mason, B. and Light, F.: "Fluorine in Urinary Tract Calculi" (Journ. Urology, 30:263–267, 1958).

Call, R. A. Greenwood, D. A., LeCheminant, W. H. Shupe, J. L., Nielson, H. M., Olson, L. E., Lamborn, R. E., Mangelson, F. L. and Davis, R. V.: "Histological and Chemical Studies in Man on Effects of Fluoride" (Public Health Rep. 80:529-538, June 1965).

5. Waldbott, G. L.: "Monograph: Acute Fluoride Intoxication" (Suppl. 400, Acta Medica Scandinavica, 174:1963).

Waldbott, G. L.: "Allergic Reactions to Fluoride" (Journ. of Asthma Research, 2:51-64, Sept., 1964).

Waldbott, G. L.: "Letter to editor" (Arch. Environ. Health 12:269, Feb. 1966). 6. Waldbott, G. L.: "A Struggle With Titans" (Carlton Press, Inc., Publisher, 84 Fifth Ave., New York, N.Y., 1965).

7. Testimony of Francis Heyroth, M.D. representing the ad hoc committee of the National Research Council. Hearings in Fluoridation of Water, befor the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, on H.R. 2341, Washington, D.C., May 26-8, 1954, page 43.

8. Linsman, J. F. and McMurray, C. A.: “Fluoride Osteosclerosis from Drinking Water." Radiology 40:474–484, 1943; correction of misprint 41:497, 1943). 9. Sauerbrunn, B. J., Ryan, C. M. and Shaw, J. F.: "Chronic Fluoride Intoxication With Fluorotic Radiculomyelopathy" (Annals of Internal Medicine 1074-1078, Dec. 1965).

10. See my reply to Dr. Sauerbrunn's letter presented to the committee. 11. See letter in Saturday Review, May 1, 1965, page 62.

12. Letters available, but not presented in evidence in order to protect the respective physicians.

13. McClure, F. J.: Letter September 17, 1965.

Statement by Harold Hillenbrand, Los Angeles Times, May 11, 1965.

14. Exhibits available.

15. Report of the ad hoc Committee on Fluoridation of Water Supplies, National Research Council, publication 214, November 29, 1951.

Expert Committee on Water Fluoridation, first report, World Health Organization, Palais Des Nations, Geneva, 1958.

16. Waldbott, G. L.: "Why Physicians Are Uninformed About Fluoride." Address delivered before the Minority Opinions Forum, at University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kans., November 17, 1965.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES J. DELANEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. FOGARTY. Mr. Delaney, we are delighted to have you this morn

ng.

Mr. DELANEY. I subscribe to the statements made by the previous witness. He substantiates what appears in my statement, but he has documented it in much more detail.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to express my views on a situation which is of deep concern to me and many of my constituents. I refer to the Public Health Service advocacy of fluoridation of public water supplies, and, more importantly, its efforts to silence dissent on this critical issue.

First of all, let me make it abundantly clear that I am strongly in favor of the best dental health for our children. Further, I want to reaffirm that I continue to be an enthusiastic supporter of the broadest scientific investigation and research. Indeed, it is because I do favor scientific investigation, Mr. Chairman, that I come before the committee today. I am profoundly disturbed to learn that the U.S. Public Health Service is advocating the injection of sodium fluoride into our public water supplies, prior to the completion of any long-term scientific investigation into the residual effect this highly poisonous chemical may have on the many vital organs of the body.

Fluorine is lethal in a variety of forms and in very small amounts. I submit, therefore, that it is imperative that studies in depth be conducted to determine the residual toxicity of this substance before Federal funds are expended to promote its use in community water supplies.

Fifteen years ago, my Select Committee To Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Foods and Cosmetics set off an examination of chemical additives that showed many "accepted" food additives-products which had been in use for years to be generally harmful or harmful to specific segments of the population. Their dangerous nature had never been discovered because the effects were not spectacular, and no one had taken the trouble to more thoroughly explore the negative aspects of their character.

For example, lithium chloride was used as a salt substitute for years until it was discovered to be highly toxic to many persons on low salt diets. Cumarin was used for 75 years as a flavoring ingredient in ice cream and baked goods until it was found through clinical tests to produce serious liver damage. And the powerful wonder drug chloromysetin, extremely popular with physicians, was just recently discovered to cause serious blood disorders, such as aplastic anemia, and death.

With regard to fluoridation of water, a number of scientists expressed to my committee the belief that the safety of this procedure had not yet been sufficiently demonstrated. And the fact is that since that time precious little research has been conducted for the purpose of finding the more negative effects of the use of this substance.

Mr. Chairman, we do not know how many people are allergic to fluorides in drinking water, nor how many have kidneys which are unable to eliminate fluorides from their systems. The fluoridation proponents rely almost exclusively on epidemiological studies of communities which have had fluorine, primarily naturally occurring fluorine, in their drinking water for many years to prove that such communities do not differ greatly from nonfluoride areas with regard to illness.

The primary and most dangerous fallacy in this approach is that it deals with numbers and not with people. All observations are related to the group under study, and not the individual case. It does not show, as clinical study would show, the effects of fluoride ingestion on persons with kidney ailments, fluoride allergies, or other pertinent afflictions. There has been no long-term clinical research on the harm this material may be causing in the quantities now being used. While scientific literature is rich with data on the variety of toxic effects of fluoride, very few researchers have examined the results of ingesting fluoride at the level prescribed for public drinking water. And-after almost 20 years of artificial fluoride use-we are still in the dark as to the long-term cumulative effects of these small doses on humans.

A study conducted by the University of California concluded that 1 part fluoride per 1 billion parts air a relatively normal mixture in areas of moderate industrial air pollution-retards the growth of citrus trees by 20 percent. The British Medical Journal reported that Dr. Roger Berry of Oxford University and Dr. Wilfred Trillwood, the director of pharmaceutical services for an Oxford Hospital group, have completed research which shows a small amount of fluoride, one-tenth the amount usually used in public water supplies, can and does retard the growth of human cells.

On December 23, last year, the Washington Daily News reported that a 64-year-old man died in Texas because "he apparently drank too much water containing too much fluoride for too long a time." Incidentally, the individual involved in this case was diabetic, and drank more than the average amount of water daily. Of course, this may be only an isolated incident, but it certainly should caution us against believing in "safety by assumption."

Day after day we read in the press that products once declared to be cures for various ills and diseases of the body are now found to be extremely harmful. In the month of February alone, I noted three incidents of this nature reported in the press. On February 9, the New York Times reported that three research scientists of the Department of Nutritional Sciences, Berkeley, Calif., expressed concern over the residue of agricultural pesticides found in the ovaries of marine animals. On February 16, the Washington Post contained an article which said that the drug Elipten, prescribed for the control of epilepsy, was withdrawn from the market because it causes sexual precosity in some children and masculinizes young girls. And on February 17, an article appeared in the Washington Star reporting that five physicians of the Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital discovered degeneration of body tissues in a number of patients who used the drug methysergide to prevent migraine headaches. Mr. Chairman, I believe this problem was placed in perspective for us by Dr. James L. Goddard, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, when he observed in a speech last February 17 that his agency is not getting all the knowledge necessary to make the best judgments it can. "Our mission," Dr. Goddard said, "is simply life protection. We are quite aware that if we make a mistake in judgment, some members of the public may not live to see it corrected."

Congress, too, Mr. Chairman, is vitally concerned with life protection, and wants to assure that our scientists have all the knowledge