With thanks to Myrl "Will Ketcher" Jeffcoat ... who advertises the
quackery of Stephen Barrett and voluntarily requested to join his
'snake-oil vigilantes' propaganda team!
www.BreastImplantAwarenress.org/myrl.html
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/snake-oil.htm
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/QuackWatchWatch.htm

http://web.archive.org/web/20070210005131/http://www.rvi.net/~fluoride/000070.htm

EXCERPT:

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. D. Scott Navarro of Blue Cross/Blue Shield, as chairman of his
workshop, suggested that the cost of litigation defending fluoridation
should be borne by taxpayers, professional organizations, health
groups, universities, and research institutes.

Colleen Wulf of the Ohio Department of Health. As chairman of her
workshop, she reported that her committee suggested the formation of a
nonprofit organization which would coordinate with the CDC and ADA,
pointing out that CDC has already drafted promotional materials for
fluoride and that the ADA and the USPHS had already formed the Ad Hoc
Committee to Plan for the Legal Defense of Community Water
Fluoridation. She suggested that the name of the new group might be
something like "Coalition for Improved Dental Health or something
similar."

ASLAP
As a matter of fact, the name of the group ended up being the American
Oral Health Institute, incorporated in the state of Ohio on February
19, 1985 as a not-for-profit corporation. In 1985 and 1988, this
organization came out with the first and second editions of a book,
titled Abuse of the Scientific Literatune in an Antifluoridation
Pamphlet (ASLAP), edited by Coleen A. Wulf, Karen F. Hughes, Kathleen
G. Smith, and Michael W. Easley. The 215-page second edition of this
book attacked the 1982, 1983, 1986, and 1988 editions of a very well
referenced Question and Answer pamphlet titled Lifesavers Guide to
Fluoridation by Dr. Yiamouyiannis that was effectively being used to
fight fluoridation.

The preparation of this book was a collaborative effort of 18 federal
and state health officials who were promoting fluoridation. Those with
an asterisk after their name were invited to or attended the
University of Michigan on August 9-10, 1983 symposium discussed above.
There was not a single scientist among them: 10 were dental hygienists
(Colleen A. Wulf*, Karen F. Hughes*, Kathleen G. Smith*, Linda S.
Crossett*, Elizabeth King, Sharon Pierce, Ruth Nowjak-Raymer, Beverly
Wargo, Geraldine Wirthman, and Karen Zinner), 2 were dentists (Michael
Easley* and Elizabeth Bernard), 5 had degrees in public relations,
education, psychology, or public health (James Collins*, Taimi M.
Carnahan*, Claire Gelband, Judy Harvey, and Helen S. Hill), and one
had no college degree at all (John Small*). The person who wrote the
introduction was a psychiatrist (Stephen Barrett). . .

page 186

Consumer Reports
With the help of fluoride promoters, Consumer Reports prepared and
published a two-part article on fluoride in its July and August 1978
issues. The writer of these articles was Mr. Joseph Botta. Mr. Botta
holds a Master of Arts Degree in English, but no scientific degree. In
this article he passed along the same lies and slander used by the
promoters to the trusting readers of Consumer Reports.

The Consumer Reports article on fluoridation is the most artfully
written piece incorporating the lies and slander necesssary to
discredit the research and personalities of scientists showing that
fluoridation is harmful. It is by far the Number One article
distributed by the government bureaucrats in their promotion of
fluoridation. This is not because government bureaucrats are not
skillful liars. It is because, by having their spoon-fed material
rewritten and published by a "consumer" magazine, their lies become
more believable. Dr. William Bock of the Centers for Disease Control
thought it was so good that he ordered 10,000 reprints and paid for
them with federal tax dollars. The American Dental Association gave
Mr. Botta an award for writing it.

This Consumer Reports article was used by U.S. Public Health Service
bureaucrats to provide a "scientific" foundation for their views on
fluoridation. The situation has become ludicrous. For example, Dr.
Vernon Houk, the director of the Environmental Center for Health of
the Centers for Disease Control, traveled all the way from Atlanta,
Georgia, to St. Paul, Minnesota, to give his "expert" testimony by
reading from the Consumer Reports article.

The "Big Lie" in this article and the phrase most often quoted from it
is the claim that "The simple truth is that there's no "scientific
controversy" over the safety of fluoridation." In 1990, Dr. Edward
Groth III, the technical director for Consumer Reports, nullified this
claim by stating: "The point is that this is a legitimate scientific
controversy. Proponents of fluoridation insist that there are no
grounds for controversy at all, and with that, I totally disagree."
This hasn't stopped proponents from quoting the same phrase to this
day.

Who is Stephen Barrett?
Dr. Stephen Barrett, a psychiatrist, helped in the preparation of the
1978 Consumer Reports article and of the 1988 book Abuse of the
Scientific Literature in an Antifluoridation Pamphlet. He has close
ties with the American Dental Association, the American Medical
Association, and the U.S. Public Health Service. He is a recipient of
the FDA award for "quack-busting" and is a coauthor, along with
William Jarvis and others, of the 1993 book Readers' Guide to
Alternative Health Methods, published by the American Medical
Association. In this book, he cites, and gives summaries of, the two
publications mentioned above to inform his readers about fluoridation.
He is a science and editorial adviser to the American Council on
Science and Health.

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. Now a monger is one who sells something, e.g. a
fishmonger is a person who sells fish. Therefore, it is quite evident
that a poison-monger is a person who sells poison. Thus, one opposed
to having fluoride added to the water supply is exactly the opposite
of a poison-monger. The word usage of Dr. Barrett is comparable to the
process called "Newspeak" described in George Orwell's 1984, where
what is true becomes false and what is false becomes true. The first
few paragraphs of Dr. Barrett's article "Poison-Mongers" is the best
example of how Dr. Barrett has used "Newspeak." "In hundreds of
American communities citizens have voted against healthier teeth.

"Why?

"They were confused by poison-mongers.

"These alarmists in our society are using confusion and a scare
vocabulary as weapons against fluoridation. They are cheating all of
us, but especially our children.

"The benefits of fluoridation are supported by 10,000 scientific
studies which prove the poison-mongers are wrong.

"What do the poison-mongers say?

"Instead of telling you that fluoride is found naturally in all water,
they call it a 'pollutant'.

"Instead of telling you that fluoride is a nutrient essential to life,
they call it a poison'.

"Instead of the big truth, that fluoridation has never harmed anyone,
they tell the big lie and say it causes hundreds of ailments."

This article was published in newspapers across the country and was
printed in the November 1976 issue of the Journal of the American
Dental Association. It has also been used by the U.S. Public Health
Service in its 'education' of Congressmen and in its campaign to get
various areas around the country fluoridated.

A closer look into Dr. Barrett's personality can be obtained by
examining his correspondence in 1972 with a group of people in
Minnesota interested in stopping fluoridation. On March 8, 1972, Dr.
Barrett wrote to one of these people, saying:

"I read your letter in Prevention [magazine] with some interest. There
have been other attempts to defeat the fluoridationists in court but
most have failed. Before investing money, I would like to have full
details of what you plan."

 

Thanks, Stephen J. Barrett, MD."

In another letter to these people, dated April 4, 1972, Dr. Barrett
wrote:

"Thank you for your recent telephone call. I am sorry that I could not
immediately make the financial commitment which you requested. I know
how enthusiastic you are and did not want to raise your hopes until I
had a chance to discuss the matter with my group.

 

I am part of a group which is vitally concerned about fluoridation and
which has raised a considerable amount of money. We are not yet sure
whether it would be more practical to lobby or to go to court in
Pennsylvania. The reason your lawsuit interests us is because it might
be more practical for us to join your effort rather than go it alone.

 

"Thus we would need to have a detailed, written description of the
plans of your suit. Our attorneys would then be in a position to study
how it would effect Pa. law and also to estimate the chances of your
suit being successful. We would also need some detail as to how the
Attorney General's favorable attitude will be used to advantage
without this becoming apparent to the American Dental Association.

 

"We realize you are hesitant to say too much about your plans. On the
other hand, we could not make a total commitment unless we had full
knowledge of what we would be getting for our investment. We realize
this asks a lot of you. On the other hand, we think we have a lot to
offer.

 

"You may be assured that whatever information you send us will be
handled with appropriate discretion.

 

"Sincerely yours, Stephen Barrett, M.D."

On April 12, 1972, he wrote another letter to Miss Mary Bernhardt, the
person at the American Dental Association responsible for promoting
fluoridation, and related the following:

"Dear Miss Bernhardt:

 

"At about 6:20 this evening, I received another phone call from Mike
Liptak, the organizer of MOFF [Minnesotans Opposed to Forced
Fluoridation]. He said that at 4.30, Judge Gordon McRae ordered an
injunction 'to keep the fluoride out of Brainerd.'

 

"He said that there were 1500 people who watched the trial and that
the judge had cautioned them about becoming emotional. They were very
quiet. The case presented by MOFF included an affidavit from Dr.
Waldbott. The attorney general of Minnesota defended and was given
'five days for rebuttal.' According to Mr. Liptak, who again said he
went to school with the attorney general, the attorney general said he
'would not furnish a rebuttal'. He merely stated that the new
Minnesota law required fluoridation.

 

"Mr. Liptak added that there was an additional legal action scheduled
for September. In about two weeks, 500 local citizens were planning to
gather at a meeting where the vice-president of a local bank would get
from them '3 year notes for $50 each' to help finance the suit. He
explained that such mass action would not get them much publicity in
Prevention magazine and the National Health Federation. It was their
plan to seek further injunctions of this type with eventual
overturning of the new state laws. He again asked me for a
contribution, even a token one. He added that there might be money
left over for use in another state such as Pennsylvania.

 

"On 5/14, Dr. Gross will try to contact leaders of the pro
fluoridation forces in the Minnesota Dental Society and will also call
the American Dental Association attorney. We have Mr. Liptak's
confidence and hope to continue to use it to our advantage. Perhaps
the dental society should consider entering the suit as a guardian of
the children. It might also be helpful if some quick way could be
devised to dissuade the Brainerd residents from their imminent
investment in foolishness.

 

"Best wishes, Stephen Barrett, M.D."

Ironically, Dr. Barrett is a co-founder of the National Council
Against Health Fraud.

Subsequently, he and Mary Bernhardt got together and published a book
called The Health Robbers, in which they refer to those opposing
fluoridation as health robbers. Excerpts from this book, which consist
primarily of the substance of his poison-monger article, were
reprinted in newspapers around the country, as well as in Family
Health Magazine.

Teaming up with others of his kind, including Drs. Thomas Jukes,
Warren Winklestein, and Joel M. Boriskin, Dr. Barrett complained about
and tried to prevent Dr. Yiamouyiannis from speaking before the
Faculty Club of the University of California, Berkeley. Together they
claimed that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was some disreputable person not
deserving a forum at the University of California campus.

In another action, Dr. Barrett, Dr. Boriskin and Dr. William Jarvis,
who also is on the board of the National Council Against Health Fraud,
wrote letters of complaint to the National News Council concerning an
article published in the National Inquirer which pointed out that
higher cancer risks were associated with fluoridation.

An indication of how Barrett's 'Newspeak' is passed down the line to
local dentists is evident from the experience Dr. Yiamouyiannis had
when he was called in by local residents of St. Charles, Missouri for
a debate on fluoridation. When Dr. Michael Garvey, a local dentist,
heard that Dr. Yiamouyiannis was going to be the opposition speaker,
he refused to participate in the debate.

According to the November 12, 1982 St. Charles Post: "Dr. Garvey said
American Dental Association Officials had told him, 'running up
against Dr. Yiamouyiannis is not recommended'. The man is well-known
as an antifluoridation speaker, Dr. Garvey said. 'This guy is a
terror.'"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

page 203

Why haven't Consumer Reports, Stephen Barrett and others who issue
false and defamatory statements been sued for libel and slander? Why
haven't bureaucrats responsible for illegally spending tax monies to
influence elections been prosecuted and sent to jail? Why haven't
bureaucrats who have lied in court while under oath been prosecuted
for perjury?

In many cases they have. However, when legal action was taken against
Consumer Reports, the court didn't even allow a hearing on the case.
The court claimed Consumer Reports' right to freedom of speech
outweighed the plaintiffs right to due process of the law.

When charges concerning Dr. Schneiderman's alleged perjury in the
Pittsburgh court case were brought before the district attorney's
office, they pointed out it would be virtually impossible to convict
anyone on perjury and they rarely, if ever, prosecute such cases.