I have your letter of April 22, 1995. I might set forth some of the cardinal features of the Pittsburgh and Houston cases: Judge John P. Flaherty presided over the trial in the case of Paul Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, No. GD-4585-78 on the docket of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. On November 16, 1978, Judge Flaherty handed down his decree. The critical parts of his opinion read as follows:

"Over the course of five months, the court held periodic hearings, which consisted of extensive expert testimony from as far away as England. At issue was the most recent time-trend study of Dr. Burk and Dr. Yiamouyiannis, which compared cancer mortality in ten cities which fluoridated their water systems with ten cities which did not fluoridate over a period of twenty-eight years from 1940 to 1968. The study concluded that there was a significant increase in cancer mortality in the fluoridated cities."

Judge Flaherty added,

"Simple prudence indicates that the best evidence must be scrutinized now, not after tragedy has struck."

"The sole question before the court is whether or not fluoride may be a carcinogen."

His principal finding was,

"Point by point, every criticism defendants made of the Burk-Yiamouyiannis study was met and explained by the plaintiffs. Often the point was turned around against defendants. In short, this court was compellingly convinced of the evidence in favor of the plaintiffs."

"Whenever the public health may be threatened, a court of equity has a duty to act. Therefore, a preliminary injunction prohibiting the addition of fluoride to the water supply at the Neville Island facility of the West View Water Authority shall issue."

Contrary to what has been said by promoters of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, Judge Flaherty's jurisdiction to make and enter his findings on November 16, 1978 was expressly sustained and upheld as appears in Aitkenhead v. West View, 397 Atl. 2d 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979). Nor were his findings ever disturbed on appeal. It was later held that Judge Flaherty's jurisdiction ceased and did not continue after he entered his decree on November 16, 1978, as appears in Aitkenhead v. West View, 442 Atl. 2d 364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).

I should add that Judge Flaherty has since become a Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He is very famous as an appellate jurist in the United States, not only in as the author of often-cited and well-regarded opinions, but as having been instrumental in rooting out judicial corruption in his State. His career has been especially brilliant and useful.

Judge Anthony Farris presided over the trial in the case of Safe Water Foundation v. City of Houston, District Court of Texas, 151st Judicial District, No. 80-52271. On May 24, 1982, Judge Farris entered his findings of fact on the record of the case. His main findings were as follows:

"That the artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, such as is contemplated by [Houston] City Ordinance No. 80-2530, may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man."

The scientific facts were found in these cases, and were never overruled. What remains at issue are legal doctrines which someday will certainly be reversed. It is an ancient principle, frequently enunciated by the chancellors of England, that equity delights to do justice, and not by halves, -- in other words, once equity takes jurisdiction, the powers of equity continue to the end of the cause. And the preservation of a man's health from whatever may annoy it was mentioned by Sir William Blackstone, not as a legislative power, but as among the absolute rights of individuals.

Dear Dr. Henderson,

I am an American citizen, a lawyer by profession, now living with my family in Quebec.

About two weeks ago, I received some correspondence from Mr. Peter S. Morgan of Scottsdale, Arizona, who is concerned about artificial fluoridation of public water supplies. He had received a letter from you, dated August 24, 1990, in which you said that "Mayo Clinic, after extensive studies, has enthusiastically embraced and promoted fluorination of water for dental purposes. Subsequent studies have only reinforced this stance." I am sorry to see that the illustrious name of Mayo Clinic should be tarnished by a public stance, at this late date in the history of science and medicine, at once so shocking and irresponsible.

Some years ago, I acted as principal trial lawyer in two causes for plaintiffs whose forensic objective was to prove that adjusting the level of fluoride in public water supplies to an average level of about 1.0 ppm, by the addition of hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium silico fluoride or some comparable industrial waste product, such as the good name of Mayo Clinic has been used to endorse, strongly tends to induce human cancer on a large scale. I examined the leading experts in the world on both sides.

The first of these was Paul Aitkenhead v. Borough of West View, No. GD-4585-78 on the docket of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas in Pennsylvania. In that cause, on November 17, 1978, Hon. John Flaherty, now Justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, found the evidence clear and convincing that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies causes a large quantity of human cancer. His jurisdiction was sustained on appeal in 397 Atl. 2d 878, and his findings have never since been revised or disturbed on appeal.

The other cause was Safe Water Foundation of Texas v. City of Houston, No. 80-52271 on the docket of the Texas District Court for Harris County in the 151st Judicial District. In that matter, on May 24, 1982, Hon. Anthony Farris found a preponderance of the evidence showed that artificial fluoridation of public water supplies "may cause or may contribute to the cause of cancer, genetic damage, intolerant reactions, and chronic toxicity, including dental mottling, in man; that the said artificial fluoridation may aggravate malnutrition and existing illnesses in man; and that the value of said artificial fluoridation is in some doubt as to the reduction of tooth decay in man." His findings were sustained on appeal in 661 S.W. 2d at 192.

In the wake of the findings of Judge Flaherty, the provincial government of Quebec established a commission under the direction of Dr. Benoit Bundock to review the world literature. In November, 1979, the commission returned a report of 210 pages to the environment minister. The findings in the Bundock Report are comprehensive, and parallel the findings of Judge Farris. In light of these results, the provincial government suspended execution of the mandatory fluoridation act, Chapter 63 of Quebec Laws of 1975, according to the maxim, Salus populi est suprema lex. Since then there has been a change of government, but an advisory council in the environment ministry advised a continuation of the moratorium, which accordingly remains in effect to this day.

Is it possible that those responsible at Mayo Clinic have overlooked these developments? If so, it would not be the first time that the medical profession has been misled, and then misled the public, as I can illustrate:

In the transcript of the hearings before Judge Farris, in volume 5 on pages 950-965, the testimony is found of a doctor of medicine with impressive credentials and graduate degrees, a high-ranking public health officer for the city of Houston. She claimed to have ordered a complete review of world literature, made extravagant pronouncements on the benefits and safety of artificial fluoridation of public water supplies, and gave her personal approval to the fluoridation ordinance which had been passed by the municipal council. I then went through a long list of papers, articles, monographs, and reports, written or given by distinguished scientists of the world, all part of mainstream literature on the subject, and published by various governments or good journals in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan. She admitted her failure to read or review any of the exhibits which I handed to her for inspection one at a time. When I placed her in the hands of opposing counsel, she admitted her want of expertise, then was excused by the court.

The unfortunate performance of this physician was preceded by the same kind of statements about extensive studies and enthusiastic endorsements as appear in your letter to Mr. Morgan.

There is no study anywhere in world literature, published either before or since the acceptance of the doctoral thesis of Edward Growth at Stanford University in 1973 featuring a reasonable control for known or unknown variables, and showing that the natural or artificial presence of fluoride in drinking water reduces tooth decay in man. There are, however, a number of articles which indicates that, in light of massive data now available and giving perspective not earlier enjoyed, the natural or artificial presence of fluoride in drinking water does not reduce tooth decay in man: the most significant of these are Imai, Relationship Between Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water and Dental Caries in Japan, 6 Fluoride 248 (1973); Ziegelbecker, Naturlicher Fluoridgehalt des Trinkwassers und Karies, 122 GWF Wasser/Abwasser 495 (1981); Colquhoun, Child Dental Health Differences in New Zealand, 9 Comm. Health Stud. 85 (1987); andYiamouyiannis, Water Fluoridation and Tooth Decay: Results from the 1986-1987 National Survey of U.S. School Children, 23 Fluoride 55 (1990).

My greater concern is cancer. Thirty-five years ago, it was established that fluoride (as NaF) in water promotes cancer, and this was then covered up. I can document this remarkable, historic, and critical instance of public health fraud, as it appeared in the Final Report of the Newburgh-Kingston Fluorine-Caries Study, 52 JADA 290 (1956):

At the beginning of the fifth decade of this century, Dr. Alfred Taylor at the University of Texas did a series of preliminary experiments by which it appeared that cancer-prone mice consuming water containing fluoride had shorter life spans than those drinking distilled water. Because the mice in both the control and experimental groups ate chow containing measurable fluoride, Dr. Taylor replicated his earlier work. He ran a series of twelve experiments, using 645 cancer-prone mice. Here Dr. Taylor used chow containing negligible fluoride, and he found that cancer-prone mice drinking water containing 1.0 and 10.0 ppm fluoride had shorter life spans, as carefully measured for statistical significance. Dr. Taylor published these results in Sodium Fluoride in the Drinking Water of Mice, 60 Dental Dig. 170 (1954), so as to call them to the attention of the dental profession, which at the time was watching the surveys then underway at Newburgh and Kingston, New York, with interest.

Few studies since run have been better designed or as large, or, for that matter, had plainer meaning in a practical sense. Dr. Taylor's work was understood to mean that fluoride in water promotes cancer, and that artificial fluoridation could not be implemented, as those responsible in the American Dental Association and the United States Public Health Service well knew. Their culpable knowledge of the meaning of Dr. Taylor's work may be inferred by the fact that they deliberately and cynically concealed it. You will say this is impossible, but the awful truth is rather too clear from the public record:

Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Human Oral Keratinocytes by Sodium Fluoride, 140 Mutation Res. 43 (1984), and Sodium Fluoride-Induced Morphological and Neoplastic Transformation, Sister Chromated Exchanges, and Unscheduled DNA in Cultured Syrian Hamster Embryo Cells, 44 Cancer Res. 938 (1984), and Cytotoxicity, Chromosome Aberrations and Unscheduled DNA Synthesis in Cultured Human Diploid Fibroblasts Induced by Sodium Fluoride, 139 Mutation Res. 193 (1984); and also Jones and co-workers in Sodium Fluoride Promotes Morphological Transformation of Syrian Hamster Embryo Cells, 9 Carcinogenesis 2279 (1988), together with several others which have been published very recently.

It came as no surprise to informed scientists, therefore, when news broke earlier this year, in the Medical Tribune and in other publications, of an NTP study, which, as closer examination shows, reveals that rats exposed to fluoride in water, in doses much lower than were used to produce cancer by benzene, displayed a higher incidence in precancerous oral lesions, a higher incidence of oral tumors and cancers, a higher incidence of thyroid tumors, and the unique presence of a rare bone cancer. The NTP study also shows that mice exposed to like doses of fluoride in water displayed the unique presence of a rare liver cancer. Actually, there is no excuse in feigning shock and attempts to downplay these results. It has been known and published, literally for decades now, that fluoride in water has been observed to promote cancer in laboratory animals.

I have been admitted to the Pennsylvania Academy of Science in recognition of my acquired expertise in epidemiology. After some years of work, I joined Dr. Dean Burk and Dr. Pierre Morin in the preparation of an article concerning the fluoridation-cancer experience of some 18 million people over thirty years. This article was refereed and reviewed over some eight months, and then published under the title A Current Restatement and Continuing Reappraisal Concerning Demographic Variables in American Time-Trend Studies on Water Fluoridation and Human Cancer, 61 Proc. Pa. Acad. Science 138 (1988). The abstract says,

"This article reviews an important phase of the debate concerning a striking association between artificial fluoridation of public water supplies and increased crude cancer death rates in large central cities of the United States from 1940 through 1968. The authors believe that this association reveals a causal relationship between water fluoridation and human cancer. Critics insist that the association is explained by demographic changes in the two groups of central cities which have been compared. The authors evaluate the major papers of these critics, and show that, if all available and pertinent data are standardized by the indirect method for age, race, and sex, the association between fluoridation and cancer remains substantially intact, but somewhat reduced. Attention is also given to a recent suggestion that the association can be explained by changes in population sizes of the twenty cities observed. Analysis of this proposal reveals that, in the cities considered during the period observed, changes in population size were essentially an inverse index of population aging, and yielded adjustments parallel to those of age, race, and sex. It is concluded that artificial fluoridation appears to cause or induce about 20-30 excess cancer deaths for every 100,000 persons exposed per year after about 15-20 years."

Dr. William Marcus in the water standards division of the United States Environmental Protection Agency has expressed grave concerns about the danger of fluoride in the environment in a paper he gave at a recent meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C. I am honored to state that Dr. Marcus has approvingly cited our article in an official memorandum of May 1, 1990.

In drawing upon the heroic example of Dr. Ignaz Semmelweiss, and the legal meaning thereof as expounded by Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr., on whose analysis Dr. Dean Burk relied in his testimony before a subcommittee of Congress on April 6, 1976, I wish to remind those responsible at Mayo Clinic that, at least in the absence of extreme emergency, if a physician forcibly prescribes a drug or medicine, precisely as fluoride is described in the Physicians Desk Reference, over the protest of his patient, and in so doing refuses to head fair warnings of lethal effects of such drug or medicine, -- or, if such physician advises his patient to take a drug or medicine, knowing of evidence of its lethal properties, -- and , in either event, if such patient dies, then such physician may be guilty of murder or manslaughter. And if the measure in question consists in mass treatment of a population, and a large number of human deaths follow, then it may be, in my opinion, a case of genocide or some other species of crime against humanity, contrary to the customary law of nations. And, in light of existing precedents, I believe that neither domestic law nor official power nor social pressure nor economic hardship would be a defense sufficient to prevent condemnation or censure. Primum non nocere!

I shall be happy, at the request of any physician or committee at Mayo Clinic, to forward copies of any or all of the articles or transcripts mentioned in this letter, as well as a complete set of our figures and calculations in respect to the epidemiological data hereinabove discussed.

Respectfully yours, John Remington Graham