350 page Gaia Research / PHARMAPACT scientific protest against the

Department of Health’s intention to destroy the nation’s health with

the toxic fluoridation of the nation’s water supply.

 We reproduce it here as an indigenous introduction to this latest assault on the health of all our peoples.

Contrary to experience in most developing countries, this effort by Gaia Research represents one of only four protests submitted in opposition to the Department of Health’s draft regulations that were published for public comment. Local authorities in South Africa now need only call a public meeting and hear objections
(which it is not obliged to consider).

 AT THE END OF THIS STRING, SO AS TO FORM YOUR OWN OPINION, WE BRING YOU

LINKS TO THE WORLD’S PREMIER SCIENCE-BASED ANTI-FLUORIDATION WEBSITES.

(The letter below followed a similar 15 February letter to Dr Smit. The italicized script is new material.)

I once again specifically invoke the Bill of Rights, The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996 as follows: Section 32 (1) (a) Everyone has the right of access to – any information held by the State - that is required for the exercise or the protection of any rights, and Section 33 (1) Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, and (2) Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.

I require the complete minutes of each respective evaluation, inclusive of any conclusions reached;

I require a complete set of documents relied upon to take the idiotic decision to propose fluoridation

(You state that water fluoridation is Department policy. Precisely who set this policy and when exactly?);

I require a complete set of counter-documentation motivating as to why my own motivated position should not be adopted as being the superior (& more prudent) position. (You simply dismiss 300 pages of current scientific concerns  as not contributing to the regulations. I require detailed motivation);

I require a written explanation as to why the overall non- and de-fluoridation recommendations of the August 1997 “O’Hickey Report” have been conveniently ignored. (Your reply ignores the issues and raises additional questions as to why fluoridation strategy is in advance of de-fluoridation and whether budgetary restraints might cause the former to negate implementation of the latter far greater priority);

I require a written explanation as to why this highly controversial matter was not considered by a more broadly qualified and representative scientific and consumer-based forum, instead of the obviously pro-fluoridation biased NFC, who apparently arrogantly believe that they have the right to take this appalling decision on behalf of 40 million fellow citizens, 85 % of who stand absolutely no likelyhood of a positive health outcome, but rather singly face considerable risk therefrom, and the remaining minority target group of whom will in most instances certainly be more harmed thereby;

I require a written explanation as to why Professor Owen at a 29 January 1999 meeting with SASWA, took the unscientific position that fluoride is not a medicine, but rather a nutrient. I pointed out in my 8 September 1998 letter that fluoride is a Schedule 1 and 2 medicine and a Category B Hazardous Substance in terms of South African legislation, Acts 101/1965 (SAMMDRA) and Act 15/1973 and regulations pertaining thereto. If Owen is basing his position on the fraudulent US National Academy of Science / Institute of Medicine’s Dietary Reference Intakes Document, how does he assume to command the authority to override two current Acts of Parliament, especially in the light of the documentation which I submitted on both 24 August and 8 September 1998, exposing the  fraudulent pseudo-science constituting this position (Unanswered letter from International Society for Fluoride Research -15 signatories- to National Academy of Sciences & Dietary Reference Intakes-Review by Richard Foulkes) (You have completely avoided addressing all these critical scientific issues.)

(What new scientific information has now made it possible to classify fluoride as a nutrient?)

(You reply to the scheduling question that “the fluoride concentration of the drinking water and age of the child should be taken into account when determining the dosage and control of the fluoride intake of a child therefore necessitates scheduling of the product”. It is unlikely that scheduled intake will be consumed over a lifetime, yet fluoridated water will. How do you ensure control from other sources, eg seafood & tea?);

I require a written explanation as to why Section 12 (2) (c) of the Bill of Rights is being ignored in that the fluoridation of public water supplies subverts our fundamental “right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without informed consent”. Similarly Article 7 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which declares that: “In particular, no one shall be subject without their free consent to medical or scientific experimentation”. (A 1964 Irish ruling has no bearing in SA 99)

I require a detailed written response as to why the alternative of bottle or metered dosing mouth rinses at schools where fluoride is seriously deficient is not being pursued instead. These methods will not only be more selective and cheaper, but also safer, and can accommodate informed parental consent and be correctly augmented with calcium and magnesium supplementation which are the true limiting and more critically deficient minerals than fluoride in dental and skeletal derangements. (Why would it be necessary to poison nearly everyone’s water at considerable risk to the majority, when only a limited age-group “theoretically” stand to benefit and could more practically and cost-effectively be targeted via school mouth-rinse programmes? What ”proof” do you have that water fluoridation is the most cost-effective measure in preventing dental caries in communities? Should you be able to produce even one well-controlled trial confirming cost-effective improvement from water fluoridation over school mouth-rinsing, would this be reliably extrapolatable to the local demographics of the underprivileged communities you purport to wish to serve?  I think not. Prove it…or drop it !).

Yours sincerely

It is with deep regret that I have witnessed your having apparently been brought under the perilous influence of the perverse pro-fluoridation proponents controlling the Directorate Oral Health, as per your relying on their either ignorant or blatantly mischievous propaganda to answer questions in Parliament. 

I would have expected you to have taken a position on such a long-standing and unresolved controversial public health issue as this, based on a personal investigation of the far broader scientific and toxicological facts, rather than merely on the criminally selective pseudo-scientific dental propaganda put forward as fact by those claiming fluoridation of the drinking water supply to be indisputably safe and efficacious, in particular for the disadvantaged communities. You have clearly been seriously misled by your advisors and I trust that these enclosures will serve to alter your position and precipitate an appropriate reshuffle.

Rather than succumb to the temptation to flood you with documentation, I have restricted my efforts at this stage to a mere 60 pages of editorials and scientific reports from the peer reviewed multidisciplinary publication: FLUORIDE, the official journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research, whose Editorial Board and contributors provide a far more appropriate range of scientific disciplines and objective opinion than that to which you have been selectively exposed. The journal publishes scientific reports on biological, chemical, ecological, industrial, toxicological and clinical aspects of fluorine compounds. The ISSN number is 0015-4725. The names and affiliations of the Editorial Board are included herewith to illustrate the weight and range of expertise supporting its broad editorial objectivety.

Besides the ignorant or deliberate omission of such crucial data from the pro-fluoridation reports, these also rely on and cite ad nauseum, elsewhere well-criticised and refuted seriously flawed studies as the only basis for their ridiculous claims and inferences repeatedly made for the efficacy and especially the safety of clearly unconstitutional [Act 108 of 1996, Bill of Rights, Sect12, (2)(c)] and hence illegal forced oral fluoride mass-medication for the alleged prevention of caries, which would render any regulations invalid. The Dept. of Oral Health and yourself, by introducing into and perpetuating such dis-information in the public arena are seriously prejudicing the possibility of any truly informed consent referenda.

Contrast the gross capitalistic political American scene with that of the more socialistic Europe, and an entirely different scenario emerges, including the rejection of fluoridation in Sweden by its Fluoride Commission and the introduction and subsequent stopping of fluoridation in recent times in eg Czechoslovakia, Holland and Denmark and more recently in the German Democratic Republic, the USSR and Finland. Even  Asia, eg modern Japan, which introduced fluoridation in 1952, reversed its policy and stopped fluoridation as long ago as 1972. Significantly the resurgence of caries predicted by dental and WHO 'experts' never materialised, but on the contrary, caries incidence has actually been observed to correpondingly increase with fluoridation in Australia, Britain, Canada, Sri Lanka, Malta, India and the USA. As with nuclear power, no true democracy has introduced water fluoridation in recent history.

Why should South Africa, whose concerned citizens and scientific community have for so long resisted attempted forced mass-fluoridation under totalitarian Nationalist rule, now capitulate under socialist democratic ANC rule, especially considering more enlightened and informed international trends to the contrary? The chrono-exponentially accumulating evidence of serious diverse toxicity at relatively low doses, particularly in malnourished populations and some sub-groups, plus recent confounding evidence for paradoxical toxicity at low doses previously generally regarded as safe, begs serious reconsideration.

The sad irony is that the disadvantaged communities which this pseudo-preventative measure is untruthfully supposedly intended to benefit, and who are blindly putting their faith in the judgement of the people's government, are in fact going to be the main victims. The only certain benefit of fluoridation will be for the dental and medical industries and allied services which will profit from the resultant clinical and sub-clinical pathologies, which social and financial burdens will eventually come back to haunt the State, but only after the current criminal culprits are well retired on their secure government pensions, if not severely crippled, cancer riddled, or prematurely dead and buried as a result of this deed.

I am confident that the International Society for Fluoride Research will be more than willing to assist the honourable Minister with a more objective evaluation of current recommendations. The Minister owes it to the nation to properly follow-up these serious concerns before embarking on another health debacle, otherwise destined for the courts. The Society may be reached via its Secretary, Professor Gene Miller, Biology Department, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84322-5305, USA.

As with previous controversial reports from this office, you may rest assured that my documentation and viewpoints are well-intentioned and well-founded and the consequences of ignoring same, actionable.  

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Thomson

Director, Gaia Research Institute

National Co-ordinator, PHARMAPACT

cc Dr. FJ Smit, Directorate Oral Health

    Prof. GW Miller, Secretary, International Society for Fluoride Research.

Dear Dr Zuma

SECOND SUBMISSION OF SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTATION PROTESTING THE MINISTRY

AND DIRECTORATE, ORAL HEALTH'S INTENTION TO INTRODUCE REGULATIONS

PROVIDING FOR MASS FLUORIDATION/MEDICATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES

Rather than repeat the contents of my previous letter, enclosed herewith, I shall reserve comment to the public statements of the Dr FJ Smit, Director, Oral Health and the Professor CP Owen, Chairman of the National Fluoridation Committee, in addition to the proposed regulations.

Needless to say, my Institute, my concerned colleagues in PHARMAPACT and the SA Safe Water Association and I, reject with utter contempt, the insulting attempt by the NFC to pass-off this mass public drinking water medication by fluoridation as actually being for the proven benefit of our nation.

In the absence of public knowledge of the suppressed but well-established hazards of uncontrolled mass medication with this hazardous substance, I am speaking for every man, woman, child, animal and plant who/which will be poisoned to premature death if this insane and evil deed is perpetrated by these either grossly ignorant fools, or servants of Satan intent on compromising the health of all human beings and other water-dependant living creatures, in service of greedy profit for the medical industrial complex, who assuredly are the only ones set to benefit by the suffering instituted by this evil deed. 

No, I am not being melodramatic. The facts are laid out here, (as well as elsewhere) in a conservative 300 page scientific submission herewith, being mostly peer-reviewed published scientific papers by the most highly accredited fluoride researchers in the world, a who's who of multidisciplinary scientists, significantly with no vested interests, which is far more more than can be said for the majority of pro-fluoridationists, proclaiming to be the experts but now having the facts legally brought forceably to their attention.  May this be the recorded beginning of their and your being so informed, and hopefully the dis-indoctrination and essential continuing re-education, with subsequent action answerable to God, as well as the lesser courts of modern fast degenerating so-called civilised society. 

The international scientific data aside, lets examine the moral, practical, constitutional and legal aspects pertaining to South Africa. In terms of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, no. 101 of 1965, fluorides are Schedule 1 and 2 drugs below and above 0,25 mg per recommended daily dose respectively. Logically, at the intended 0,7 mg/L fluoridation level, we will be forced to consume litres of this chronic protoplasmic / enzyme poison / medicine / rodenticide / insecticide every day of our lives at just below the acute poison dose, if consuming no other form of fluoride, which except for the true bushmen, is just about impossible, meaning most of our citizens will be acutely, as well as chronically poisoned. Still think I am being melodramatic? Back to the Statutes.

In terms of the Hazardous Substances Act, no. 15 of 1973, fluoride is a Category B Hazardous Substance, classed along with the other poisons, including arsenic, cyanide, dieldrin and methyl bromide, to name just a few of the more well-known pesticides. The Constitution, Act no. 108 of 1996, mercifully grants us, in terms of Section 8 of the Bill of Rights, Freedom and security of the person, to everyone, "the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right- (c) Not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent. " I trust that the enclosed documents will be appropriately conveyed to all communities before they are forced to accept water fluoridation, which consent is what the regulations at hand are intended to subvert.

Anti-fluoridationists are traditionally summarily dismissed by the proponents as "a minority group". This argument now fails on many counts. By way of record, enclosed herewith is a letter from the CEO of the Christian Coalition, endorsing PHARMAPACT's educated and well researched efforts against fluoridation of public water. This grouping, largely of African composition, pledge the support of their membership of 5,500 churches, with their following of 8,5 million members. This represents just one interest group expected to reject fluoridation when presented with the TRUTH. We also understand that especially the Muslim and other spiritual communities will reject fluoridation, and that most consumer organisations will raise their protests should these regulations actually be implemented.

Claimed pro-fluoridationist support groups mostly have financially vested interests in the iatrogenicity of fluorde and actually exist, survive and prosper as a result of the attendant increased disease incidence. The mission statement of the Oral Health Association of South Africa, for example is "To represent, protect, and promote the interests of our members and the Oral Hygeine profession". We note with alarm, the fraudulently misleading claim by professor Owen, that apart from creating resistence to decay, fluoride has been used, with some evidence, for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis, being good news for woman, a medical claim if ever there was one, and unsubstantiated at that, as attested to by all evidence to the contrary. Most revealing, is the now actual admittal by Owen, that "a reduction in the need for dental fillings, most of which contain mercury (another toxic 'safe' dental material), will have a 'positive side effect' ". Fluoride is obviously the big money spinner.

Most of the arguments for fluoridation are critically flawed and actually represent little more than either gross ignorance, or deliberately false propaganda, as will be witnessed by the accompanying documentation, including the paradoxical South African data. Dr Smit writes to the SA Safe Water Association that "The verdict of the scientific community is that fluoridation, at the recommended levels, provides major benefits without adversely affecting human health or the environment" and that "Reputable scientific research on fluorides published in scientific journals endorse the safety and cost-effectiveness  of water fluoridation". These so-called scientific jounals are nothing other than in-house trade publications. For real objective, non-vested interest scientific research, I suggest a serious change of reading material to FLUORIDE, the journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research. Regarding the deliberate emotive claims to "benefit the deprived communities", these are false, since these communities suffer the most disfiguring dental fluorosis of all. See in particular the position of Dr Susheela and others in the accompanying documetation, which deals with the Third world situation.

Regarding the disadvantaged communities, please see also the references to mal-nutritional fluoride toxicity potentiation, in particular calcium, magnesium, and vitamin C. It can be confidently stated that the target communities will benefit more from de-fluoridation in most cases, and that the phenomenon of dental fluorosis is just the tip of the iceberg of fluoride toxicity. In the final analysis, the so-called advantaged communities benefit only by topical applications of fluoride (mainly via nutritious dietary, where organic food fluorides are in contact with the teeth), and through the use of fluoridated dentrifices, where diet is relatively poor, but are in fact being severely poisoned by the ingestion of these products, be it deliberate or unintentional. It is timeous to re-evaluate the continued availability of all fluoride products intended for ingestion and also to re-schedule all non-ingested products, including toothpastes and rinses as drugs, with appropriately strict labeling requirements in keeping with such hazardous materials, if not actually banned outright. There is no substitute for essential de-fluoridation and proper nutrition, which should be the priority of the Department of Health.

In closing I must address the actual proposed regulations itself, which resemble Nazi occupational law, which is not off the mark, since the Nazi's reportedly prioritised the fluoridation of water in the occupied territories as well as in the concentration camps, as did various governments their minority reservations, eg American Indian, Australian Aboriginal and New Zealand Maori peoples, prior to poisoning the oppressors themselves as the originators took the true reasons for fluoridation with them to the grave, and subsequent officials fell for the pharmaceutical/medical propaganda of the day. These shameful aspects of fluoridation remain hidden from public record, since they were medical experiments and were popular with oppressive governments for their potential for riot control, fluoride being a major component of tranquilisers and anaesthetics, in addition to being a sterilising agent. On the subject of regulations, it is telling that there are strict protocols to be followed in alerting the public when fluoridation is stopped for any period of time, including the mandatory use of press and radio, yet no such strict emergency procedures in the event of over-dosing, including a major spill, which event is at variance with the required "fail-safe" criteria.

Having run out of time to comment further I will leave you with these thoughts and the accompanying peer-reviewed independent scientific documentation.

Cover / Poster protest, September 1998;

Contents page to Main Submission, September 1998;

Letter 2 to the Minister of Health, 8 September 1998;

(Letter of endorsement of PHARMAPACT standpoint from 8.5 million member Christian Coalition);

International Society for Fluoride Research. - Mission and Officers;

Earlier Cover / Poster protest: August 1998;

Earlier Letter 1 to the Minister of Health, 24 August 1998;

Earlier Contents page, August 1998 submission. (60 pages);

Basic outline of Sections A, B, C, D & E;

Detailed outline of Sections A, B, C, D & E;

Detailed outline of Sections A, B, C, D & E, each followed by the bulk of submitted documents;

Section A: Some South African scientific articles at variance with the official line re the assumed safety of the recommended 0.7 ppm of fluoride and the claimed efficacy thereof. (6 pages);

Section B: Official error, fraud, corruption and cover-ups perpetuating the lies about fluoride efficacy and non-toxicity: accredited scientists blow the whistle. (118 pages);

Section C: Fluoride Chronology 1989-1997. (11 pages);

Section D: Three special topics essential to understanding the low-dose chronic toxicity of fluoride:

 1) Mineral / nutrient interactions with fluoride: aluminum, calcium and magnesium. (14 pages);

 2) Pre-skeletal chronic fluoride intoxication. (7 pages);

 3) How can science illuminate ethical debates: a case study on water fluoridation. (18 pages);

Section E: Synoptic references (15 pages) / articles and abstracts (97 pages).

Categories:

Dental caries (11pages);

Bone effects (26 pages);

Dental fluorosis (17 pages);

Neuro / Brain (6 pages);

Cancer and mutagenicity (12 pages);

Reproductive (3 pages);

Misc. adverse effects: allergy, hypersensitivity, gastrointestinal and skin irritation. (12 pages);

Are fluoride’s effects over-rated? (5 pages);

Deaths / poisonings (3 pages);

Ethics and legalities (2 pages).

Dr Phillip Granjean, M.D., Professor, Department of Environmental Medicine, Odense University, India. (Advisory member of the WHO Fluorides and Fluorines Task Group).  "Letter to Dr J Cotruvo, US EPA, Head Office of Drinking Water, recording  the deliberate exclusion of information casting doubt on the advantage of fluoride", 27.6.1985;  

Dr B Hileman B.Sc., Exerpt: "Fluoridation of Water", (Voices of Opposition Have Been Suppressed Since the Early Days of Fluoridation), Chemical and Engineering News, Aug, 1988;

Dr Phillip Sutton, D.D.Sc., F.R.A.C.D.S., University of Melbourne,"The Failure Of Fluoride" (Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials). Editorial, Fluoride, 1990, 23:1, 1-4;  

Dr Robert Carton, Ph.D., Vice President, National Federation of Federal Employers (Representing more than a 1000 scientists, lawyers, and engineers at US EPA Headquaters). "Testimony before the Drinking Water Committee, Science Advisory Board of the Environmental Protection Agency", Nov.1, 1991;

FDA /NAS ARBITRARY ALTERING POSITIONS ON "NUTRIENT" FLUORIDE (1973-1993);

Dr Robert Carton, Ph.D., Index of letters exposing cover-up of false safety standards (1971-1979), comparative charts, and "Letter to EPA Administrator concerning erroneous and false safety standards for fluoride", Oct. 11, 1993;

Dr. Richard Foulkes, B.A., M.D. "Presentation to the California Assembly Committee of Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials", April 18, 1995;

Dr John Lee, M.D."The Myth of Financial Savings from Fluoridation", May 6, 1995;

Dr William Marcus, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor, Office of Science and Technology (previously Senior Toxicologist, Office of Drinking Water, fired for blowing the whistle on cover-up of cancer studies results, reinstated by court order, awarded damages, but demoted as retribution). US EPA "Letter to the Director, Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency", June, 13, 1995;

Dr Robert Carton, Ph.D., "Corruption and Fraud at the EPA" (Report on the circumstances concerning the above-mentioned Marcus debacle). July 28, 1995; <

Dr AK Susheela, Ph.D., F.A.Sc., F.A.M.S., Professor of Histochemistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. National Co-ordinator, Sub-Mission, "Control of Fluorosis", Government of India. Letter to Rotary International: "World Health Problems Due to Excess Fluoride Ingestion Through Water and Food", 24 February, 1996; 

Dr Albert Burgstahler, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, University of Kansas. Summary of "Statement to The Health and Welfare Committee, Kansas State Senate - Concerning Proposed Legislation to Mandate Further Fluoridation", February 28, 1996;

Dr Phillip Sutton, M.D., Senior Research Fellow in the Department of Oral Medicine and Surgery, Dental School, University of Melbourne. Chapter 10: The Question of Delayed Onset of Caries. In "The Greatest Fraud: Fluoridation". 1996, ISBN 0949491128;

Dr Albert Schatz, Ph.D., Former Professor of Science Education, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. "Low-Level Fluoridation and Low Level Radiation: Two Case Histories of Misconduct in Science", 1996;

Dr J W Hirzy, Ph.D., Snr. Vice-President, National Federation of Federal Employees, Press Release: "EPA Scientists Take Stand Against Fluoridation", 7 July, 1997 and variant paper, July, 1997;

Dr David Hill, Professor Emeritus, The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Updated presentation:

"Fluoride: risks and benefits? Disinformation in service of big industry", August, 1997 (23pages);

NATIONAL FEDERATION OF FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. Press Release: "Dietary Reference Intakes, Prepublication Copy" (fluoride safety deception). September 23, 1997;

SCIENTISTS AND PROFESSIONALS OPPOSED TO FLUORIDATION. "Letters" to Calgary Operations and Environment Committee, including from Dr Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., formerly, Head, Toxicology Departmant, Forsyth Dental Centre, Harvard Medical School, and Dr Paul Connett, Ph.D., Professor of Chemistry, St Lawrence University, New York. Ten pages of letters, 09/10/97;      

Professor W Burgstahler, Ph.D., (University of Kansas) & 14 credentialed professional scientists. "Unanswered Letter to President, National Academy of Sciences", (protesting fraudulent inclusion of fluoride as an essential nutrient, against all scientific evidence to the contrary), October 15, 1997;

Dr Richard Foulkes, BA., MD., "Review "NAS Dietary Reference Intakes", Fluoride, 1997, 30:4;

Dr. T Murakami, (Vice-President of the Japanese Society for Fluoride Research). "Dose for Incipient Acute  Fluoride Intoxication: True Science and False Science". Fluoride, 1998, 31:1; >

Dr Kosei Takahashi, M.D., Department of Internal Medicine and Biostatistics, Tokyo University Medical School, Japan. "Fluoride-Linked Down Syndrone Births and Their Estimated Occurrence Due to Water Fluoridation", Abstract of Research Review, Fluoride, 31: 2, 1998;

Drs Robert J Carton, Ph.D., and J William Hirzy, Ph.D., National Treasury Employees Union. Proceedings of the 23^rd Annual Conference of the National Association of Environmental Professionals. "Applying the NAEP Code of Ethics to the Environmental Protection Agency and the Fluoride in Drinking Water Standard", San Diego, California, 20-24 June 1998.

"Research Links Low Levels of Fluoride and Aluminum to Alzheimer's and Kidney Damage";

Dr Bruce Spittle, University of  Otago Medical School, Dunedin, New Zealand. Abstract of Editorial and Review: "Combination of Fluoride and Aluminum has Unforseen Effects in Drinking Water", (Paradoxical toxic effect of low doses of aluminum fluoride), Fluoride, 1998, 31: 2;

Dr SPS Teotia, Postgraduate Department of Human Metabolism and Endocrinology, LLRM Medical College, India. "Dental Caries: a disorder of high fluoride and low dietary calcium interactions" (30 years of personal research), Fluoride, 1994, 27: 2;

Dr A Machoy-Mokrzynska, Institute of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Pomeranian Medical Academy, Poland. Guest Editorial:"Fluoride-Magnesium Interaction",  Fluoride, 1995, 28:4;

John R Marier, Researcher Emeritus, National Research Council of Canada. Recipient, Canada Centenial Medal, Certificate of Merit, American  Society for Magnesium Research. Fellow, American College of Nutrition. "The Question of Fluoridation", Fluoride, 28: 4, 1995;

CONTENTS:

     Cover poster protest:

     Covering letter to Minister of Health, copied Dr FJ Smit and Prof GW Miller;

Contents page;

     Executive Committee and Board of Editors, Intnl. Soc. for Fluoride Research;

     Editorial. Prof Burgstahler."Autoritarianism vs Scientific Evidence"(31; 3. 98);

     Unanswered letter, 15 signatories to National Academy of Sciences (Oct 97);

     Discussion. R Ziegelbecker. "Fluoridation in Europe" (31;3. 98);

     Edit. Dr Spittle, Prof Burgstahler. "Death Knell for Fluoridation?" (31:2. 98);

     Discuss. Dr Colquhoun. "Why I Changed My Mind re Fluoridation" (31:2.98);

   Review of Report by Dr Foulkes. " NAS Dietary Reference Intakes" (30:4. 97);

     Review of Research by Prof Diesendorf et al. "New Evidence ….. " (30:3.97);

     Editorial. Prof Miller. "Fluoride: A Toxic Substance" (30:3.97);

Review of Research by Dr K Akinawa. "Re-exam. Acute Toxicity…" (30:2.97).

END

( http://www.fluoridation.com/index.htm /  http://www.fluoridation.com/isfr.htm /  http://www.fluoridation.com/abstract.htm )

http://www.fluoride-journal.com/

http://www.fluoridealert.org

http://www.zerowasteamerica.org/Fluoride.htm