EXCERPT:

http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000070.htm

A glimpse into his character can be gained through his habitual use of
words to mean their exact opposite. For example, in an article
entitled "Poison Mongers," Dr. Barrett refers to people who are trying
to stop the addition of fluoride, a poison, to the water supply as
poison-mongers.

~~~~~~~~

FLUORIDE … The Aging Factor
How to Recognize and Avoid the

Devastating Effects of Fluoride
by Dr. John Yiamouyiannis

Excerpts from the book, with permission from the author.
Chapter 17 . . . The Conspiracy: The Second Generation

At the center of the second-generation conspiracy is John Small. While
he is only a high school graduate with no college degree, his
credentials do include six years as an information officer for a
government department on chemical warfare. He is now and has been the
U.S. Public Health Service ‘expert’ on fluoridation since the 1960s.

Mr. Small’s functions at the USPHS include the writing and printing of
anonymous memos, on USPHS letterheads, covering up the harmful effects
of fluoridation, and distributing these memos to promoters of
fluoridation, and when necessary, geting his hands on memos and
reports put out by the government (even the White House) and rewriting
them so they no longer express their original concerns about the
toxicity and ineffectiveness of fluoridation. Most of the information
supplied to dentists and physicians concerning fluoridation comes
either directly or indirectly from Mr. Small. He is the cover-up
supervisor, an expert relied upon by the USPHS to supply answers to
Congress.

He also has the task of harassing, intimidating, and destroying anyone
whose publications, utterances, or activities work to the detriment of
fluoridation. In some cases, he calls upon other divisions of the
Public Health Service to ‘neutralize’ studies or articles showing
adverse effects of fluoridation.

In 1969, when Dr. Yiamouyiannis was a biochemical editor for Chemical
Abstracts Service, the world’s largest chemical information center and
the largest division of the American Chemical Society, he began to
publicly express his concern about the health risks associated with
fluoridation.

Mr. Small contacted his employer and communicated his displeasure with
the statements of Dr. Yiamouyiannis. Dr. Yiamouyiannis was notified by
his employer several times and finally told that if he spoke out
against fluoridation one more time, he would be fired. He was told
that $1.1 million in federal funding was in jeopardy if Chemical
Abstracts Service did not shut him up.

After the meeting, his employer wrote to Small, "I have again talked
to Dr. Yiamouyiannis and I have again made my position as strong and
as clear as possible. He will not repeat this kind of performance and
remain as an employee of Chemical Abstracts Service." Within weeks
after Dr. Yiamouyiannis next spoke out against fluoridation, he was
put on probation, was told that he would never receive a raise again,
and was advised to find another job. He was ultimately forced to
resign.

Two years later, Dr. Yiamouyiannis was appointed science director of
the National Health Federation where he was able to devote more time
on the fluoridation issue.

During the 1970s, the fluoridation battle was stalemated. On one side,
those opposing fluoridation were winning elections to stop
fluoridation. On the other side, there was the force and money and
power of the USPHS, the ADA, and industry that kept fluoridation
going. In 1978, Yiamouyiannis served as a consultant and witness in a
court case in Pennsylvania that proved fluoridation was harmful and
banned it. The fluoridation promoters had to do something.

ADA’s White Paper
In 1979, the American Dental Association came out with a "White Paper
on Fluoridation" characterizing fluoridation opponents as either
"uninformed or misinformed" or "self-styled experts whose
qualifications for speaking out on such a scientific issue as
fluoridation were practically nonexistent or whose motivation was
self-serving." It suggested that dentists should propagandize
politicians while they are in the dental chair. The White Paper
proposed setting up the conspiracy between the American Dental
Association, Centers for Disease Control, Environmental Protection
Agency, National Center for Health Statistics, National Institute of
Dental Research, state dental societies, and state dental directors
for "identification of communities where the timing for political
action is favorable as well as unfavorable and where the opponents of
fluoridation are considering the initiation of referendums" and for
"promoting fluoridation."

It urged that "individual dentists must be convinced that they need
not be familiar with scientific reports . . . on fluoridation to be
effective participants in the promotion program" and that the ADA
should cooperate with the USPHS to get EPA to soften its statements
regarding fluoride as a contaminant. It suggested behavioral studies
to "help anticipate the behavior of opponents of fluoridation," e.g.
studies that would determine "Why would some persons deny the
life-long health benefits of fluoridation to children? What kind of
mentality would reject the opinion of those who are qualified by
education, training and experience . . ."

It suggested that ADA’s responses to opponents of fluoridation should
be prefaced by: "The ADA reiterated its longstanding support of
fluoridation . . . Numerous studies have shown . . . There is no
evidence of any relation . . . Investigators have observed . . . ." It
suggested that "The advice of behavioral scientists should be sought
with regard to more realistic, convincing rebuttals" and that "The ADA
should produce a step-by-step manual for the development and conduct
of a fluoridation campaign . . . The ADA should provide field
assistance if needed in a fluoridation campaign or cooperate with the
[US]PHS and state health departments in providing such assistance."

Strategies of the Second Generation
This conspiracy solidified in the formation of a planning committee to
organize a symposium (sponsored by the United States Department of
Health and Human Services (USDHHS), USPHS, Health Resources and
Services Administration, Bureau of Health Care and Assistance,
Maternal and Child Health Division, Centers for Disease Control,
Center for Prevention Services, Dental Disease Prevention Activity,
the W. K Kellogg Foundation, Delta Dental Health Plan of Michigan,
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan, and Medical Products
Laboratories). This symposium took place at the University of Michigan
on August 9-10, 1983.

Members of the planning committee included Mr. Small, Mr. James
Collins of the CDC, Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS, Dr. Robert
Mecklenburg, Chief Dental Officer of the USPHS, Dr. William Warren,
Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health and Human Services,
Dr. Joel Boriskin, chairman of the American Dental Association’s
National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, Dr. Wilbert Fletke of the
ADA, Dr. Anthony Kiser of the ADA, Ms. M. Lisa Watson of the ADA, Ms.
Martha Liggett of the American Association of Dental Schools, Dr.
Michael Easley, formerly of the Ohio Dept. of Health and CDC, and Dr.
Ray Kuthy of the Illinois Department of Health, who were and/or are
some of the central figures in the conspiracy.

The stated purpose of the meeting was to "discuss the status of
organized opposition to fluoridation; to analyze probable motives
influencing the antifluoride movement; to assess the need for a
national fluoridation strategy; to develop political and legal
strategies for the defense and promotion of fluoridation; and to
evaluate past legal and political profluoridation initiatives,
focusing on the defeats as well as the victories."

An examination of the seminar speakers, their affiliation, and the
content of their presentations provides a further look into the
"unamerican" nature of this taxpayer-supported event.

Speakers included:

Dr. William T. Jarvis, a member of the board of advisors of the
American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the National Council
Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). He spoke on the "Psychology of
Antifluoridationism." With regard to those opposing fluoridation, he
stated: "I do not believe in providing such people a public platform
from which they can create confusion and doubt about fluoridation . .
. For several years I have put on fluoridation debates in my dental
classes, taking surveys before and after to determine attitudes toward
fluoridation. Invariably, each class became more antifluoridationist
as a result of the debate."

Dr. Sheldon Rovin, a member of ACSH and coauthor with Stephen Barrett
of the book, The Tooth Robbers, a book defaming antifluoridationists.
He spoke on how to win fluoridation battles through the political
process, pointing out that "if it is at all humanly possible, the
referendum should be avoided." In the discussion following, Dr. Myron
Allukian asked what could be done to stop antifluoridationists from
getting signatures to put fluoridation on the ballot.

Dr. Stephen Corbin of the USPHS. As chairman of his workshop, he
reported that his committee felt "the lead entities, namely the U.S.
Public Health Service and the American Dental Association" should
accept a plan "to close the ‘windows of vulnerability’ in our
defense." He suggested avoiding trials based on the merits of
fluoridation. Finally, he suggested that a mandatory state
fluoridation law be developed. During the following discussion, Dr.
Easley suggested a conspiracy to deny those seeking relief through the
courts their right to due process.

Dr. Dennis H. Leverett of the University of Rochester. As chairman of
his workshop, he reported that his committee felt that fluoridation
was "a political rather than a scientific situation" and encouraged
research on the adverse effects of fluoridation "that will presumably
show no effect or will show equivocal results."

Dr.
…