Thursday, 5 April 2012

Who has opposed Fluoridation and what has happened to them?

~ Dr. Phyllis Mullenix

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was one of the scientists who had their careers destroyed for reporting data that contradicted Fluoride propaganda.

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a toxicologist at Children’s Hospital in Boston, who also worked in neuropathology at Harvard Medical School, recently performed research into fluoride and the intelligence of rats.  In 1982 she was asked to perform the research as part of her studies on the toxicity of therapeutic agents used in treating leukaemia and other diseases.

Mullenix was invited to work at the Forsyth Dental Canter, arguably the world’s leading dental research institute. Five years later, her research was underway.

Mullenix discovered a significant reduction in the intelligence of rats when they were subjected to Fluoride in their water supply. During her research, Dr. Mullenix was surprised that there were virtually no published studies regarding fluorine and its effects on the human brain.

Harold Hodge (He was quite old in the early 1990's) was brought in as a consultant on Mullenix’s research.
During Hodge’s consulting of Mullenix’s work, he never mentioned the CNS studies that he proposed fifty years earlier. When shown the newly declassified memos that clearly spell out Hodge’s active role in CNS research on fluorine, Mullenix said she was “flabbergasted”.

Mullenix eventually came to see Hodge as a “monster” who actually steered her research toward studying fluoride effects on the central nervous system, probably to see what the results would really be, as the CNS experiments from the 1940s apparently were prematurely terminated.

Mullenix today feels that Hodge and one of his University of Rochester pals used her “like a little puppet.”
See “The Fluoride Deception”, Page 28 ~ By Christopher Bryson

When Mullenix tried interesting the NIDR in the declassified memos, she was rudely treated like a “crackpot.”  The NIDR is evidently part of the U.S. government’s damage control effort on fluoride’s harmful effects. When Mullenix read the declassified study on fluorine and the dental health of Manhattan Project workers and compared it to the originally published version, she said, “This makes me ashamed to be a scientist.”  Mullenix wonders if all other studies done on fluoridation safety were done like that one.  Only the federal government knows for sure, in its secret archives.

Reference: Mullenix’s experiences with Hodge, the NIH, and her reactions to the newly declassified documents were originally published in Griffiths and Bryson, “Fluoride, Teeth and the Atom Bomb”, July 1997.

The Christian Science Monitor commissioned the article, but did not publish it.  It is published on the Internet, as well as other articles regarding Mullenix’s findings and advocacy work she was doing.

She had nothing to do with the fluoride issue originally, but became involved as part of her work, when steered into it by Hodge. All she “knew” about fluoride when she started was that it was supposedly good for teeth. She did not initiate her research, but was doing it because she was asked.  Her research results were published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology (Vol.17, No. 2, pp.169-177, 1995), the leading scientific journal in the field.

Before that paper was published, she presented her findings at the NIDR in Maryland, a division of the National Institute of Health (NIH). When she arrived at the NIDR, in her words, "I had no idea what I was getting into.  I walked into the main corridors there and all over the walls was 'The Miracle of Fluoride'.  That was my first real kick-in-the-pants as to what was actually going on".

She said the display ridiculed people who were against fluoridation. "I thought, 'Oh great!'  Here's the main NIH hospital talking about the 'Miracle of Fluoride' and I'm giving a seminar to the NIDR telling them that fluoride is neurotoxic!"

After her presentation she met with toothpaste representatives who asked her if she was saying that their products lowered the IQs of children, and Mullenix responded with, “Basically, yes.”  That marked the end of her career.

When she excitedly announced to her employers that her paper on the intelligence of rats was being published, three days later she was fired.  Her employers asked her which journal was going to publish her work. By that time, she realized that they wanted to block its publication, so she did not tell them.

Subsequently, funding has dried up for that kind of research, although immediately after Mullenix was fired, Colgate gave a $250,000 grant to Forsyth (for a job well done?). The unique equipment Mullenix developed to test rat intelligence was mysteriously destroyed before she could recover it.

Dr. Mullenix was then given an unfunded research position at Children's Hospital in Boston, but with no equipment or money. Mullenix said, "The people at Children's Hospital, for heaven's sake, came right out and said they were scared because they knew how important the fluoride issue was…Even at Forsyth they told me I was endangering funds for the institution if I published that information."

Mullenix has since applied to the NIH for a research grant to further her research, and was turned down.  The NIH told her that fluoride had no central nervous system effects, period.  How the NIH concluded that, when virtually the only published research shows deleterious effects, is curious indeed.  The work Mullenix did, as well as other recent studies, has shown that the fluoride ion is particularly damaging to the brain's hippocampus region, which is its learning canter.

Reference: Dr. Robert Isaacson of Binghamton University, New York conducted two studies using low levels of Aluminium fluoride and sodium fluoride. The results were published in 1992 and 1994, predating Mullenix’s publication, and the results were similar.  Isaacson’s study was spurred by data that showed Alzheimer’s disease having a higher incidence in fluoridated areas.

Mullenix’s fate is common. Other scientists who had their careers ruined for coming up with the “wrong” answer regarding fluoridation include Dr. Allan S. Gray of British Columbia and Dr. John Colquhon of Auckland, New Zealand.

~ Trendly Dean

Trendley Dean himself was opposed to the Newburgh test, fearing fluoride’s toxicity.

Manhattan Project personnel, led by Hodge, covered up Dean’s opposition.
See “The Fluoride Deception”, Chapter 9, Pages 78 / 90 ~ By Christopher Bryson


~ Anne-Lise Gotzsche

Anne-Lise Gotzsche’s “The Fluoride Question, Panacea or Poison?” is an excellent survey of fluoridation. She was a medical journalist in London who investigated fluoridation for years. She has a sensible attitude, taking both the pro and anti-fluoridation people to task when needed.

The book is an easy read and covers the main issues surrounding fluoridation, although written before the more pernicious conflicts of interest of fluoridation’s proponents were discovered.  As with anybody who looks into fluoridation and is not on the payroll of a bureaucracy or corporation that promotes fluoride, Gotzsche demonstrated how shamelessly political the fluoridation effort was.

Science was trampled in the rush to fluoridate.  Many scientists went so far overboard that they became evangelists instead of scientists.  Some began making up the science as they went along, such as the infamous Frederick Stare.

Stare made up a new concept that he called “mineral nutrient fluoride,” a pro-fluoridation idea so unfounded that even the PHS shot it down.
See :“The Fluoride Question, Panacea or Poison?” Pages 79 / 80 / 96 / 168 ~ By Gotzsche, Anne-Lise

Incredibly, such an irresponsible idea that fluoride is an essential nutrient is alive and well today, with the National Academy of Sciences publishing a report in 1997 titled "Dietary Reference Intakes” that lists fluoride right up there with calcium and Vitamin D.  Many responsible scientists have protested it.

Fluoridation pioneer Basil Bibby even recommended adding lead fluoride to the water supplies in 1945.

Gotzsche discussed that whatever the propaganda about helping teeth, dentist business goes up in fluoridated areas, not down. By 1970, Newburgh, New York and Grand Rapids, Michigan, the recipients of the first trial fluoridation experiments, had twice the dentists per capita as the national average.
See “The Fluoride Question, Panacea or Poison?” Page 8 ~ By Gotzsche, Anne-Lise

In a 1972 report by the ADA, it is stated that dentists make 17% more profit in fluoridated areas as opposed to non-fluoridated areas
(Douglas et al., "Impact of water fluoridation on dental practices and dental manpower", ~ Journal of the American Dental Association; 84:355-67, 1972).

No comments:

Post a Comment