---

     Dear Norma Sommers gave me these transcripts and commentaries and pressed me to get it posted and available for you. 
     These will show you their intended avoidance-of-truth or full facts disclosure techniques established from the beginning by the industry secured proponents and their strategy to use endorsements instead of facts, reasonable discussion, or debates of full scientific research. 
     Their use of their solicited "endorsements" of the PTA ("Let me tell you, the PTA is a honey--"), Teachers Unions, and every other union or charitable organization possible, along with the directly benefited AMA and the ADA,, was established as protocol to convince and "legitimize" the disposal of this toxic waste Fluoride (HFA and variants) overburden of the  Mining, Smelting and Refinery Industries and sell it as "good for children's  teeth" with the voting (and end paying) public!

---

Three options are offered for your examination of this Proponents of Fluoridation 1951 Conference:

1.  Short Commentary-- then link to full transcript

2.  Commentary developed in Book: Grim Truth About Fluoride, Chapter VII , by Dr. Robert M Buck -- then link to full  transcript

3. Or Full Transcript (in PDF)

Compare this event to that recorded in: 
"The Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law" - Univ. Florida (Spring 1999) pages 239-240  "Their Strategy - 1983!"

Fourth Annual Conference

FEDERAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (1951) Proc 
Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors with the Public Health Service and the Children's Bureau,
US Dept of Health, Education & Welfare
Library RK 21.C55 1951 (also available in Volume 5 of Hearings, 89th Congress, Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare Appropriations for 1967; and are recorded as Case # 8425, Exhibit 108, of Public Utilities Commission of California, 1966; copies also from Health Action Network Society, #202-5262 Rumble St, Burnaby BC V5J 2B6 Canada

This 52 page transcript (with highlighting) is offered here in PDF (link below)
But let us prepare you for that reading:

That document, includes the words of of one of the early Fluoride promoters, Dr. Frank A. Bull (perfect name for his job), and shows the evidence that promoters were "economical with the truth" and used diversion, deception, spin, influence peddling, convincing "silly women" (biblical phrase describing the most gullible) and all dirty tricks from the beginning.  This Conference between Promoters and their solicited Dentists, Health Depts, Education Leadership and their Unions (including their object PTAs) is one of the best known examples amongst those who have studied the topic and dates from as long ago as 1951, just as the big push for universal water fluoridation really got going. It is a transcript of a 1951 meeting of State Dental Directors in the US at which Dr. Frank Bull, Director of Dental Education for the State Board of Health in Madison, Wisconsin, and provides insights from Dr. Bull's experience on how to get fluoridation accepted, or at least approved (Federal Security Administration 1951)). Here are some quotes from Dr. Bull's presentation: 
 

"Now we tell them this, that at one part per million dental fluorosis brings about the most beautiful looking teeth that anyone ever had" [p 11] 

"... Dr. Bain used the term `adding sodium fluoride'. We never do that. That is rat poison. You add fluorides. ... But this toxicity question is a difficult one." p 12] 

"One thing that is hard to handle is the charge that fluoridation is not needed. They talk of other methods, and when they get through adding up all the percentages of decay that we can reduce by such methods, we end up with a minus. When they take us at our own word they make awful liars out of us. And that will be brought up." [p 15] 

"Now, why should we do a pre-fluoridation survey? Is it to find out if fluoridation works? No. We have told the public it works, so we can't go back on that. Then why do we want a pre-fluoridation survey?" [p 17] 

"The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass over, `We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay,' you say" ...[p 20] 

"And certainly don't stress the cost." [p 20] 

"Let me tell you, the PTA is a honey when it comes to fluoridation. ... They said `What can we do?' We said, `How many of these PTA people can you get down to your council meeting on Monday night?" They didn't think they'd have any trouble getting a couple of hundred. `Well,' I said to this dentist, `how much does that room hold?' He said, `Fifty.' I said, `That will be good. Get them down.' They were down. The council pulled it out from underneath the table, and put it above board, voted, and they got fluoridation."[p 21]

---

Full Transcript (with highlighting in yellow beginning on page 14) is offered here in PDF
Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors - PDF
-- The "Meat" of Dr Bull's  pure "Bull" (deceitful dis-informatiion load) starts on page 13 (of 52)!

CHAPTER VII

Dr. Bull Enters the Arena
 

      COMPLETE understanding of the U. S. Public Health Service fluoridation promotion is hardly possible without a down-to-earth view of the antics of Frank Bull, D.D.S., for some years its coach.

     In the 1940's and early 1950's Dr. Bull was "a director for dentistry" in the Wisconsin State Department of Public Health. Such functionaries are organized in the Association of State and Territorial Health Directors. The U. S. Public Health Service holds them in tow by means of annual con ferences.

     Dr. Bull was assigned by the USPHS to coach its satel lites on the several state payrolls, at the fourth annual con ference, from June 6 to 8, 1951, in Washington, D. C., with the PHS and the Children's Bureau (then in the U. S. Depart- of Labor, but now in HEW) ----coach them on how to "sell" fluoridation to local communities.

     The PHS had only recently decided to "go all out" for fluoridation. At the fourth conference the prime object was to lay strategic plans. Dr. Bull's task was to brief his fellow "dental health directors" on what to do. He was, so to speak, to train them as barkers for fluoridation's "patent medicine show."

     The proceedings became so incredibly outspoken that op ponents of the PHS drive strove to obtain copies of the offi-

37

---

38   The Grim Truth

cial stenographic report. They were unsuccessful. It had been suppressed. However, one member of Congress ex pressed in action, rather than words, his disregard for the tactics he had witnessed. He snagged a copy of the transcript and smuggled it to the foes of fluoridation. It was nearly reduced to tatters by the thumbing-over that it suffered.

     Movie cameras and a sound track would be required to do Dr. Bull full justice, but the following quotations from his recorded admonitions will suffice. He said:

     What are some of the objections?

     The first ---- isn't fluoride the thing that causes mottled enamel (fluorosis)?

     Now, we tell them this: that, at one part per million, dental fluorosis brings about the most beautiful teeth that anyone ever had.

     And we show them pictures of such teeth. We don't try to say there is no such thing as fluorosis, even with 1.2 parts per million, which we are recommending, but you have got to have an answer.

0            0            0

     And, incidentally, we never use the term "artificial fluori dation." There is something about that term that means a phony. We call it "controlled fluoridation."

0            0            0

     Incidentally, we never had any "experiments" in Wis consin. To take city of 100,000 and say: "We are going to experiment on you and if you survive we will learn some thing from it" ----that is kind of rough treatment on the public. In Wisconsin we set up "demonstrations." They weren't "experiments."

0            0            0

     Now, in regard to toxicity ----
     I notice that Dr. Bane [of the Children's Bureau] used the term "adding sodium fluoride." We never do that. That is rat poison. You add "fluorides."ever do that. That is rat poison. You add "fluorides."

---

About Fluoridation    39

     Never mind that sodium fluoride business. All of these things give the opposition something to pick at and they have got enough to pick at without giving them any more.

0            0            0

     But this toxicity question is a difficult one. I can't give you the answer on it. I can prove to you that we do not know the answer to that one; because we had a city of 18,000 people which was fluoridating its water for six to eight months. Then a campaign was started by an organized opposition on the ground of toxicity. It ended up in a referendum and they threw out fluoridation.

0            0            0

     One thing that is a little hard to handle is the charge that fluoridation is not needed. They talk of other methods and when they get through adding up all the percentages of decay that we can reduce by such methods, we end in a minus.

     When they take us at our word, they make awful liars out of us—the research workers.

0            0            0

     You have got to get a policy that says: "Do it." What kind of public health program is it if you say to the com munity: "If you want to, do it"?

0            0            0

     When we are having the press in, and the public in, don't have anybody on the program who is going to go ahead and oppose us because he wants to study it some more.

0            0            0

     The best technique is the reverse technique; not to refute the thing, but to point out where the opposite is true. When they say: "Yes," you say "No."

     Now, where dentists do not seem interested, do not let them stymie you—what we do on an occasion like this is to arrange for the PTA [Parent-Teacher Association] or some group, to ask for some of us to come in and talk about fluoridation. In this way you get in without forcing

---

40    The Grim Truth

yourself, and you can build a fire under the dentist. This is promotional work.

0            0            0

     You have got to knock their objections down.

0            0            0

     The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether; just pass it over.

0            0            0

     Let me tell you the PTA is a honey when it comes to fluoridation. Give them all you've got.

0            0            0

     If you can ---- I say if you can because five times we have not been able to do it----keep fluoridation from going to a referendum. At the same time, do not tell the people that you are just starting on the fluoridation program in order to promote something else because you are never going to promote anything that comes up to fluoridation in an urban community.

     Dr. Glover Jones, of Texas, the record shows, here inter rupted Dr. Bull's monologue to report that some 30 or 40 cities in his state, on the point of fluoridating, backed away from it when a research program of the University of Texas was said to have shown that fluoride had worsened the con dition of cancer-prone white mice.

     "That knocked the pins from under us," Doctor Jones said.

     In reply, Dr. Bull said:

     I wish I knew the answer. I do not know why they didn't include a letter from two thirds of the deans of dental schools of the universities, saying that fluoridation is a rat poison and should not be used.

     You know how we handled it in this rat poison business? We said that it was unfortunate it didn't kill every rat. What do we care what happens to. rats? You know these research people. They can't get over the feeling that you have to

---

About Fluoridation    41

have test tubes before you start applying it to human beings. 
     These fellows [research people] can just take the state ments of the ADA, or the USPHS, or the deans of the dental schools, or research workers and they can prove to you that we are absolutely crazy for thinking about fluoridation.

     That was more than ten years ago. But in 1961 the Penn sylvania State Department of Health circulated a pamphlet entitled How to Appeal to the People on Fluoridation ---- Guide No. 5. It harmonized so well with Dr. Bull's 1951 instructions to partisans that it is hard to deem it other than a rewrite job.

     It advised fluoridation promoters to work on city fathers (aldermen) and on mayors to veto attempts to bring the issue to a (popular) vote; to avoid open debate; to ridicule opponents.

     Among other things, the Pennsylvania Health Department's pamphlet said:

Fluoridation is no longer a debatable point. There are not two sides. When you permit the opposition to argue the case with a proponent in public debate you are giving credence to the idea that fluoridation is debatable.

Never let the antis state something against fluoridation and then catch yourself answering them. Keep them on the defensive. Ridicule them. Try to get the people to laugh at the antis.

     However, in cautioning campaign speakers to prevent a public vote, the Pennsylvania pamphlet advised:

     Do not get pulled into the position where you say you are opposed to a referendum. This is like saying you are against motherhood. It will antagonize people when you say that you do not want fluoridation to be brought up for a referendum. You compound the wrong even more when you say the people cannot decide on scientific issues. You imply the people are dumb.

     Fluoridation is a decision for elected officials, the city

---

42 The Grim Truth

council and mayor. If they do not act on it, they are neg lecting their official duties . . . . . It is their duty to deter mine what our water should contain to keep us healthy.

     To teen-agers, the Pennsylvania Health Department said, in its Guide No. 5.
 

     You can have a better looking smile. That's what fluorida tion can do for you. You won't hesitate to put on a little lipstick to enhance what nature has given you, so why hesitate to have fluoride in the water? It enhances the water and prevents the teeth from going bad.

     Whom are you going to believe? Your own doctor and dentist, or some individual who writes an emotional letter to the editor?

     Could one reasonably ask for more convincing testimony than the foregoing paragraphs afford in revealing the rowdy approach to public discussion of a serious public question by officials who call themselves scientists?

     I think not.

     But, apparently, Dr. Bull's influence was not confined to state health department payrollers.

     In 1954, three years after Dentist Bull had advised the Fourth Annual Conference on how to parry established facts, camouflage furtive deeds with deceptive words and "build a fire under" balky dentists, the Interstate and Foreign Com merce Committee of the U. S. House of Representatives held public hearings on the unsuccessful Wier bill, enactment of which would have outlawed fluoridation.

     One Alex T. McFadyen, then executive secretary of the Grand Rapids (Michigan) Chamber of Commerce, ad dressed to the committee an intemperate letter of protest saying, among other things:

     We urge the fullest investigation and opportunity for presentation of evidence in favor of fluoridation, and re futing unwarranted, unfounded and malicious and false reports of adverse effects.

---

About Fluoridation 43
 

     The latter have included, falsely, increased juvenile de linquency, moral degeneration, heart, brain, respiratory and circulatory disorders and deaths, and other dreamed-up and trumped-up charges, all of which are disputed by the records.

     Even abortions were alleged to have increased, which is similarly denied by the records. [Emphasis added.]

     The record does not indicate that Mr. McFadyen offered any of the "evidence" of which his letter spoke.

---

A FULL transcript (with some highlighting in yellow beginning on page 14) is offered here in PDF Fourth Annual Conference of State Dental Directors - PDF
(Dr Bull's  pure "Bull" starts on page 13 of 52)