Kenneth Case is a retired teacher with 35 years in science and media education experience.

He holds a B.A. with a major in Biology and M.A. in Media Sciences. Raised by parents in health care professions, Case has always had a strong interest in health, and served as a medic in the Army. After being diagnosed with cancer in 1993, he diligently studied cancers causes and prevention. In the course of his successful treatment, both U.S. and German doctors instructed Case not to ingest fluoridated water. John R. Lee, MD, directed him to his paper titled Fluoridation and Cancer. Thus began his vigorous investigation into the science and politics of water fluoridation. http://www.scribd.com/doc/16887647/John-Lee-MD During the past twenty years, Case learned that a number of governmental agencies and many doctors are being influenced by the politics of water fluoridation. As you would imagine, he was reluctant to believe that our government would knowingly minimize or repudiate the science involved in water fluoridation, but sadly, this is the case. Following are five examples of places to start your research in order to understand why anti-fluoridation advocates like Case are concerned. 1. In 1951 the U.S. Public Health Service participated with State Dental Directors to plan unethical fluoridation strategies: Now, in regard to toxicityI notice that Dr. Bain used the term adding sodium fluoride. We never do that. That is rat poison. You add fluorides. Never mind that sodium fluoride business, because in most instances we are not adding sodium fluoride anyhow. All of those things give the opposition something to pick at, and they have got enough to pick at without our giving them any more. But this toxicity question is a difficult one. I cant give you the answer on it..dont let them raise the question of rat poison if you can help it.If it is a fact that some individuals are against fluoridation, you have just got to knock their objections down. The question of toxicity is on the same order. Lay off it altogether. Just pass it over. We know there is absolutely no effect other than reducing tooth decay. If it becomes an issue, then you will have to take it over, but dont bring it up yourself. http://www.scribd.com/doc/111489362/1951-Proceedings 2. Why EPAs Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation A referenced document of explanation. A powerful and succinct indictment of water fluoridation by EPA scientists, written after the EPAs firing of Dr. William Marcus because he refused to stop reporting his findings of fluoride carcinogenicity and toxicity. http://www.nteu280.org/Issues/Fluoride/NTEU280-Fluoride.htm http://www.scribd.com/doc/90207300/Wm-Marcus-PhD-EPA-Senior-Science-Advisor 3. The experience of Richard Foulkes, M.D. A highly regarded former Special Consultant to the Minister of Health (British Columbia) and former fluoride proponent turns to persuading others to condemn the practice of water fluoridation. http://www.scribd.com/doc/90830396/Foulkes-MD-Letters-and-Kingston-Newburgh-and-1951-Proceedings 4. The experience of Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH A dentist explains to the British Medical Journal why he reversed his opinion after twenty-five years of promoting the addition of fluoride to drinking water. He explains the costs of correcting unsightly fluorosis. http://www.scribd.com/doc/88687940/Osmunson-BMJ-Letter 5. The experience of John Colquhoun, BDS, PhD Why I Changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation A former Principal Dental Officer (Auckland, New Zealand) realizes that his colleagues and he were doing what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. http://www.fluoridation.com/colquhoun.html (A very important graph is on last page after references.)