fluoridationfacts.com & fluoride.website
1960 PDF Copy (opens in a new window):
Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Chapters 19, 20 and 21)
Author: Philip R.N. Sutton.
Published by Melbourne University Press, 1960.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Permission has been granted for "Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Chapters 19, 20 and 21)" to be published on the web-site of Australian Fluoridation News (AFN) As a consequence of the AFN being a sub-domain of www.fluoride.website, it will therefore also appear on the latter mentioned web-site (this has been conditionally agreed by the AFN author, Glen Walker).
This monograph has been split into 10 sections, plus this introduction.
Page 1. Preface, etc.;
Page 2. Introduction;
Page 3. Grand Rapids study;
Page 4: Evanston study;
Page 5. Brantford studies;
Page 6. Newburgh study;
Page 7. Discussion;
Page 8.1 to 8.3. Criticisms and Comments;
Page 9. Further Criticisms and Comments;
page 10. References and Glossary.
General Introduction and Foreword
A note from the publisher (Susan B Sutton) I prepared this book for publication following the death of the author PHILIP R.N. SUTTON; as a result of this there may be some minor inconsistencies, or errors in the compilation of the glossary and index. I decided to complete Philip's many years of work as a token of the great affection we held for him, and the high regard we had for his remarkable dedication and perseverance in this field over 35 years.
Susan B. Sutton (Daughter-in-law)
Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Chapters 19, 20 and 21) has been scanned. Please report any errors to the webmaster in the first instance. Thank you.
FOREWORD, By Professor Albert Schatz, Ph.D., Philadelphia, USA.
NB. Professor Schatz discovered the antibiotic Streptomycin which was the first effective means of treating human tuberculosis. For this and other research, he received honorary degrees and medals, and was named an honorary member of scientific, dental and medical societies in Europe, Latin America and the United States. He was a recipient of France's highest award for services to humanity.
Here's freedom to him who would read,
Here's freedom to him who would write.
There's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
But they whom the truth would indict.
Robert Burns (1759-1796)
The importance of this book transcends fluoridation because it is concerned with science, values, ethics, integrity and professionalism. The book is also concerned with democracy; that is, with freedom of speech and a free press. The "fluorocracy", on the other hand, has too often engaged in censorship; opponents of fluoridation have been denied opportunities to speak at meetings and publish in professional journals. In a democracy, every individual should have the opportunity to publish what he wants, provided that he writes with propriety, pays whatever publication costs may be involved and assumes responsibility for what he has printed.
The fluoridation controversy is symptomatic of a deep-seated pathology in present-day science. The magnitude of that malady; that is, misconduct in research, which the public is well aware of, motivated the U.S. Academy of Sciences to convene a Panel on Scientific Responsibility and the Conduct of Research. (Responsible Science Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process. Vol. I, Washington D.C.1992). The Panel's investigation, which cost $888,000, precluded consideration of certain kinds of scientific misconduct which specifically apply to fluoridation. Polluted science has occurred "when new scientific evidence threatens fluoride's protected pollutant status. The government immediately appoints a commission, typically composed of several veteran fluoride defenders and no opponents. Usually, these commissions dismiss the new evidence and reaffirm the status quo. When one didn't in 1983, the government simply altered the findings." (Griffiths, J., 1992, Covert Action No, 42, page 26.)
The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminium industry. The government has not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation's drinking water. Since 1950, when fluoridation was sanctioned, approximately 143,000 tons of fluoride are pumped into two-thirds of the reservoirs of the U.S. each year! (Griffiths, 1992).
One may also be interested in what I call "the pig mentality". In 1952, a U.S. Congressional Investigation concerned a recommendation by the U. S . Department of Agriculture that farmers not add to the water or feed of pregnant pigs because the fluoride did something to the unborn pigs. When one of the investigating committee asked whether "it might be wise for the U.S. Public Health Service or some group of people to enquire what might happen to pregnant women and the unborn child when they are given fluoride", the answer was, "There is more money available for matters that have economic value than there is for health." (Schatz,A. 1976 Cancer News Journal Vol. ll, No. 4.)
It is also important to understand how fluoridation was originally "sold" to the public. "The public relations strategist for the water fluoridation campaign was none other than Sigmund Freud's nephew, Edward L. Bernays ... known as "the father of public relations" Bernays pioneered the application of his uncle's theories to advertising and government propaganda. The government's fluoridation campaign was one of his most stunning and enduring successes ." ... "Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute the invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country - our minds are moulded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of." (Griffiths, 1992).
Now let us return to democracy to which this book on fluoridation makes a major contribution. "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." (James Madison). This book gives us that kind of knowledge about fluoridation.
According to Sir Arthur Amies, "The passion to regulate the lives of others is deep-seated in many individuals. When this is based on political expediency, it is bad, and when it is inspired by an idealism which wishes to inflict benefits on others, it can be dangerous." (Schatz, A. 1976. Increased Death Rates in Chile Associated with Artificial Fluoridation of Drinking Water, with Implications for Other Countries. Anthony University Jour. of Arts. Science and Humanities. 2: 1. Copies of this publication may be obtained from the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis expressed a similar concern as follows: "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the ... purposes are beneficial."
Philip R.N. Sutton's book presents and interprets the proverbial handwriting on the wall for fluoridation.
About The Author: PHILIP R.N. SUTTON, D.D.Sc. (Melb) L.D.S., F.R.A.C.D.S. 1914 - 1995.
Dr Sutton wrote his first article pointing out errors in fluoridation trials, in the Medical Journal of Australia, thirty-five years ago. He continued to study and write about fluoridation, published numerous articles and two previous books on this subject.
In 1935, on his twenty-first birthday, he graduated with honours from the University of Melbourne, having completed the five-year course of the Bachelor of Dental Science. He immediately undertook post-graduate study and research in Physiology and Biochemistry and established a private practice in Brighton, Victoria which he conducted for twenty-five years.
On the outbreak of war in 1939 he enlisted in the Australian Army, serving in the Dental Corps for a total of five years. In North Borneo he was a member of an Australian Army medical team which saved British and Australian servicemen who had just been released from a small prisoner-of-war camp where they had been dying from starvation at the rate of six a day. Observations he made at that time formed the basis of a thesis submitted to the University of Melbourne which gained him the degree of Doctor of Dental Science - the highest dental research degree.
After the war he persuaded the Professor of Statistics at the University of Melbourne to establish a course, now called Statistics for Research Workers, and, having completed the course, joined the Statistical Society and was later elected chairman of the Biometric Society.
He was invited to become one of the Foundation Fellows to form the Royal Australasian College of Dental Surgeons. Dr Sutton was elected to the Council of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Dental Association (which appointed him as its representative on the Preventive Dentistry Committee which employed a public relations consultant to promote fluoridation, which had just been introduced into Australia. Therefore, because of that association, at that time he could have been said to be a promoter of fluoridation.
In 1956 he was appointed a Senior Research Fellow of the University of Melbourne and took his family for a year to Raratonga island, South Pacific, where he provided free dental treatment and studied tooth abnormalities in Polynesians which resulted from their diet and habits.
On his return to Melbourne in 1957, Professor Sir Arthur Amies, Dean of the Faculty of Dental Science, asked him to check the numerical data published from the original fluoridation trials and the scientific methods used in them. He discovered so many errors that to record them he was forced to write a 72-page monograph Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Melbourne University Press, 1959). He published a second 142-page edition in 1960 which answered the criticisms of the first edition, showing that they were false. This book remains scientifically unchallenged.
In 1964 Sir Arthur Amies invited him to become the first Senior Lecturer in Dental Science, a position from which he resigned eleven years later to have more time to continue his Pacific islands studies of Polynesians and Micronesians.
During a year's leave, in 1970-1971, he worked in London at the Maudsley Hospital for psychiatric patients, with the cooperation of Dr Denis Leigh the Secretary General of the World Psychiatric Association and Editor of the Journal of Psychosomatic Research. The aim was to extend his knowledge of the relation between mental stress and acute dental caries (which he had published in Nature in 1962; N.Y. State Dental Journal, 1965; Advances in Oral Biology, Vol. 2, 1966, Academic Press).
He published a second book Fluoridation, 1979: Scientific Criticisms and Fluoride Dangers as a 285-page submission to the Victorian Government-sponsored Committee of Inquiry into the Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies. This led to him being flown to Edinburgh to give evidence for several days before the inquiry into fluoridation in the High Court.
Dr Sutton had wide-ranging research interests and publications apart from fluoridation, such as his series of papers on the relation between mental stress and dental decay, the initial article being his first publication in Nature. He became a regular contributor to the "ideas" scientific journal Medical Hypotheses, which has published all the eleven papers he has submitted.
Philip Sutton was internationally respected as a dentist and medical researcher and a great gentleman.
Almost without exception, Philip Sutton is mentioned in the references of world publications on fluoridation.
Philip Sutton was noted as a strong fluoridation critic, but never once stooped to personalities because of his strong conviction that honest science is where debate should be confined.
Philip, as he was affectionately known around Australia, was always available for discussions and advice on fluoridation and practical help in dentistry.
Philip Sutton published the first warning about fluoridation deceptive claims made about the first experimental fluoridation plants. His book Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials, published 1959 is only now acknowledged by the fluoridation hierarchy as correct, even though throughout the years since he published his research, the Health Departments of the U.S.A. and government employed dentists throughout the world aggressively attacked his printed data.
It is now documented in the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council 1991 Study into Fluoridation that:
"...The quality of the early intervention trials was generally poor."
So it took over 30 years before Philip Sutton's research data was acknowledged as correct by the Australian Government and other international organisations.
It would be difficult to find a more academically qualified and practical dental doctor with qualifications that set him above the so-called "experts" foolish enough to criticise his work.
Philip Sutton gave evidence at fluoridation enquiries around Australia, he also attended public meetings, often speaking on fluoridation. He always answered the questions that usually came fast and furiously.
The world has lost a great scientist, but he left a standard of quality research in his publications (including articles published in most countries of the world), and in his books, suggesting a standard that should continue to form the basis of proper debate on fluoridation.
To the end of his life Dr Sutton was a seeker of truth. Unfortunately he did not live to see this his final work published as he died on 12th March 1995.
The family of Dr Sutton wish to particularly thank Mr Glen S.R. Walker for the support and great friendship he gave to their father during his lifetime. They wish also to acknowledge the invaluable hours of learned advice and assistance he so willingly gave to them in preparing this book for publication.
Before the first edition of that monograph ["Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials"] was published in 1959, as a matter of courtesy a copy of the final draft was sent, for his information, to the Federal President of the Australian Dental Association, Dr (later Sir Kenneth) Adamson - who was well known to me.
At Dr Adamson's request, the monograph was discussed with him for several hours in the presence of a friend of his, a consultant physician with extensive knowledge of academic statistics, who, to Dr Adamson's obvious surprise, did not make any criticism. This was not unexpected, for during its preparation it had been most carefully checked by Professor Maurice Betz, the head of the Department of Mathematical Statistics in the University of Melbourne.
Of course, the results published in the monograph threw considerable doubt on the pro-fluoridation stance which had been adopted by the executive of the Australian Dental Association. Therefore, having failed to find any errors in the monograph himself, Dr Adamson sought criticisms from others by sending copies of this final draft to a number of fluoridation "experts", including the authors of the five studies which were discussed in the monograph. Some of their replies to Dr Adamson were later published in the February, 1960, issue of the Australian Dental Journal as "Book Reviews". However, none of the published Criticisms were written by authors of the Grand Rapids and Newburgh studies. Upon inquiry, the Australian Dental Journal said that replies had been received from authors of those two studies, but that the language of their replies, particularly that of Dr David Ast of the Newburgh trial, was so immoderate that it had been considered unwise to publish their comments.
These criticisms of the monograph were backed up by an editorial in that issue which mentioned Part One of the first edition, which had been reprinted from an article by the present author, with Professor Sir Arthur Amies, in the Medical Journal of Australia, I February, 1958(a). That editorial in the Australian Dental Journal (1960) stated:
"It is important, however, not to be stampeded by this criticism [in the monograph] since to be of value it must have the hall-mark of informed authority."
That dental editor was so biased towards fluoridation that he was prepared to brush aside the fact that Part One of the monograph, that article in the Medical Journal of Australia, had as co-author the "informed authority" Professor Sir Arthur Amies, Dean of the Faculty of Dental Science, University of Melbourne, who had closely studied fluoridation since its inception, and who had carefully considered the material in Part Two before it was published.
The editor of the Australian Dental Journal contended that this article (Sutton and Amies, 1958a) contained a "fundamental error", in that it stated that proposals to fluoridate domestic water supplies are almost entirely based on the results of the Brantford, Grand Rapids, Newburgh and Evanston projects. He claimed that the scientific basis of fluoridation was established firmly before those trials. However, he could not have read the reports of those four trials in which all the authors stated that their trials were set up to test the fluoridation hypothesis. For instance, the authors of the Grand Rapids study (Dean et al. 1950) stated:
"... in 1945, three studies to determine the caries prophylactic value of artificially fluoridated drinking water were started in the United States and Canada."
There would have been little point in establishing these long-term trials (planned to last for ten years) if the editor of the Australian Dental Journal had been correct, and the scientific basis of fluoridation had been established firmly prior to these trials.
Sadly, as the evidence against fluoridation has mounted over the years, the executive officers of the Australian Dental Association, instead of reassessing their stance, have become more and more dogmatic in their statements regarding this process. This attitude has jeopardized the status of dentistry as a scientific discipline which maintains an open mind, so that opinions can be modified as new scientific facts emerge which show that the views held are no longer tenable.
It should be known that there is no evidence that the great mass of dentists in private practice have studied fluoridation data. As in the case of most scientific matters, which they have neither the time nor the specialized training to investigate, their opinions are based on those expressed by the executive officers of the Association who, they assume, provide them with a well informed and honest appraisal of scientific subjects. Unfortunately that assumption, in the case of fluoridation, is not justified.
The same situation occurs in other countries. The President of the International Society for Research on Nutrition and Vital Substances, Professor H.A. Schweigart, pointed out in 1967 that the German organization of dentists had requested the fluoridation of drinking-water on behalf of its 35,000 members, but that most of the members were not consulted. He stated:
"The fluoridation of drinking-water releases a fluorine circuit which includes vegetables, fruit and other horticultural products as well as milk, and has an uncontrollable effect on the human organism."
At least some executive officers of the A.D.A. have promoted fluoridation for many years, saying that it is efficacious and absolutely safe. It seems they are now so afraid of losing "face" that they are prepared to make false statements and to mislead even their own members about this medication. Such an incident occurred in an anonymous newsletter distributed to all the members of the Australian Dental Association in 1989. This bulletin was entitled "Disaster in Canberra". No mention was made of the dental effects of this "disaster" - the cessation of fluoridation in Canberra by order of the A.C.T. Legislative Assembly. The "disaster" seems to be the fact that that decision was contrary to the policy of the executive officers, and to the advice they had given during "... a vigorous lobbying campaign to inform members of the Assembly of the Association's views on fluoridation" and, therefore, was damaging to their prestige and image. The newsletter said that another study which purported to reach the same conclusion as Dr Diesendorf's [which the newsletter criticized] was by Colquhoun in New Zealand. The newsletter stated:
"When the data was re-examined for previous fluoride exposure by the N.Z. Medical Research Council Colquhoun's "findings" evaporated."
This statement in the ADA News Bulletin is false. The Director of the Medical Research Council of New Zealand stated in a letter, dated 8 January, 1990, to Dr John Colquhoun, that:
"... this Council has not at any stage set out to re-analyse your research data, nor has it contracted others to do so."
In reply to a request by the present author for a copy of their "analysis" cited by the Executive of the A.D.A., the Administrative Officer of the New Zealand Medical Research Council, in a letter dated 7 February, 1990, stated (in part):
"Neither this Council nor any of its research Units or investigators have produced a paper on this work [by Dr Colquhoun] nor am I aware of the possible source of this information."
These two letters show that the statement by the Executive of the A.D.A. is not true.
A similar statement to that in the ADA News Bulletin was incorporated into a long (10-page) misleading letter to members of the ACT Legislative Assembly and was a factor in tricking some of them into reversing their vote and restoring fluoridation to Canberra, without waiting for the finding of a five-member Parliamentary Committee which the Assembly had set up to investigate this matter. The report of this committee was published in February 1991 (See Appendix II).
The concept of fluoridation arose from the results reported from "naturally fluoridated" areas of the U.S.A., during investigations into the cause of the unsightly condition then called "mottling" of the teeth ("dental fluorosis"). The main investigator was Dr Trendley Dean (1934), who became known as "the Father of Fluoridation".
In 1983, Dr Rudolph Ziegelbecker, of the Institute of Environmental Research, Graz, Austria, commented on these studies. One of them showed that with a fluoride concentration of 0.5 ppm in Wisconsin the DMF rate per 100 children aged 12-14 years, was 710 - twice that of the DMF rate (342) in children of the same age in Colorado, where the fluoride concentration in the drinking-water was also 0.5 ppm. He found that:
"The calculation shows that in Wisconsin, fluoride in the range from 0.12 to 0.5 ppm was not correlated with caries incidence" and he stated that "This study by Dean, used by the respondents [in a High Court case in Edinburgh] to support the hypothesis that fluoride reduces the caries incidence, is clearly unsound in its premises and conclusions and gives no one evidence that fluoride reduces caries incidence."
Ziegelbecker also considered the famous diagram showing the dental caries / fluoride relationship in 21 cities in the U.S.A. This was prepared by Dean, Arnold and Elvove in 1942 and was published in many text-books, having a marked influence in promoting the idea that the prevalence of dental caries was inversely related to the fluoride content of drinking-water.
Ziegelbecker (1983) stated that this chart of the "inverse relationship" between fluoride ingestion and dental caries prevalence was based on:
"... an inexcusable illicit selection of data"
... because dental surveys from more than 650 counties and cities were known to Dean, but that he had:
"...selected 21 cities in such a manner that the result supported the thesis of the "inverse relationship" between the natural fluoride content of the common water supply and the caries incidence in children."
(More than forty years after its publication this false diagram was still used, being tendered in evidence in 1981 by the pro-fluoridation respondents in that High Court case in Edinburgh, who stated that it was a careful and important study.)
Contrary to the contention of the editor of the Australian Dental Journal, there is no doubt that the early results reported from the Grand Rapids trial brought about the endorsement of fluoridation by the U.S. Public Health Service in 1950 (Lohr and Love, 1954), and undoubtedly formed the basis of later proposals to fluoridate drinking-water.
The editor of the Australian Dental Journal did not make further comments on that paper (Sutton and Amies, 1958a) after Associate-Professor Noel Martin, the main advocate of fluoridation in Australia, had failed, in two long letters to the Medical Journal of Australia on 22 February and 14 June 1958 (Martin, 1958a, 1958b) to point out any errors in the paper.
In a reply to Martin's letters it was noted (Sutton and Amies, 1958b) that:
"Despite the fact that the length of his [Martin's] criticisms considerably exceeded that of the paper, he did not indicate even one error in the statements made in demonstrating that there are disturbing features in the published reports of fluoridation trials."
The same Associate-Professor Martin was appointed on 12 November, 1959 by the Dental Advisory Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia to be the chairman of a committee of three - the other two members were professors of statistics - to investigate the contents of the monograph Fluoridation Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. Apparently, even with their expert assistance, he was not able to criticize the book and hoped that the matter would be forgotten, for more than three years later his report had not been submitted. However, this was noticed, and he was then instructed (25 March, 1963) to present it at the next meeting of that Committee of the NH&MRC. He did so, but his report was not released.
After the passing of the Freedom of Information Act, under the provisions of that Act, the chairman of the Anti-Fluoridation Association of Victoria sought for two years to see that report by Associate-Professor Martin. When the report was not forthcoming the matter was taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (in effect, a court) in July 1985, the respondent being the Secretary of the Commonwealth Health Department. After a lengthy case in the Tribunal it was announced that although the other records of the NH&MRC were available, Associate-Professor Martin's report could not be found, and that no further search would be undertaken by the government to locate this official report by Martin and his committee.
(There is no doubt that this report existed at one time for Sir Arthur Amies, who was then a member of the Dental Advisory Committee of the NH&MRC, told the present author that he had read it, but that it was merely fluoridation propaganda and had not provided any valid criticism of the monograph. Presumably it had been removed from the NH&MRC files and destroyed.)
Soon after the first edition of the monograph was published, the stored printer's type at the Melbourne University Press (which was usually held for at least six months) was melted down without authority by an unknown person, thus almost preventing the publication of a second edition. However, the type was re-set, at considerable expense ...
There are accounts of similar attempts being made in other countries to prevent the publication of books which criticize fluoridation. One well-known case was the book The Toxicology of Fluoride, edited by Professor T. Gordonoff. According to Professor Albert Schatz (1965), one publishing house set the type:
"But it was then warned that if it went ahead and published this particular book the dental community would stop patronizing it. In the face of this threatened economic boycott and enticed by an offer of compensation to cover all expenses incurred (approximately 10,000 Swiss franks), the publisher "dropped" the book."
It was published two years later by Schwab & Co. As Schatz said in 1965:
"There are powerful forces which now have a vested interest in perpetuating fluoridation because their reputations depend on its continuation."
Suppression of discussion regarding fluoridation
The same vested interests are promoting fluoridation today, in the 1990's using similar techniques to prevent the spread of the knowledge that fluoridation has failed: The repression and abuse of opponents of this process and the suppression of published evidence against it, and making it difficult to publish new material which those interests consider even questions fluoridation.
This discouragement of the discussion on fluoridation is still pursued very actively. The U.S. Public Health Service (U.S.PH.S.) - now the Department of Health and Welfare - distributes enormous funds to its many agencies. It also finances many research grants, both in the U.S.A. and in other countries. This control of grants has a restricting effect on the scientific discussion of fluoridation, for since 1950 it has been a process strongly promoted by the U.S.PH.S. American professors have admitted that they have to think of their grants and, therefore, avoid the subject of fluoridation. This is understandable for, apart from the financial aspects, if they questioned fluoridation there would be a distinct possibility that they would be added to those who are abused and whose personal reputations are attacked.
The refusal to consider any material which questions fluoridation is well illustrated by the experience of Professor Albert Schatz. In 1976 he published reproductions of photostat copies of three envelopes he had used in 1965, each containing the same short article about increased death rates associated with fluoridation in Chile. He had written previously to L.C. Henderson, the editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association about this paper but had not received a reply. The photographs show that the editor had refused to accept each of the three envelopes, in succession, and that they had therefore been returned, unopened, to Professor Schatz (his name was on the outside of each envelope).
In 1961, the American Dental Association's Bureau of Public Information, in a re-issue of a publication entitled Comments on the O12Donents of Fluoridation, grouped several reputable scientists with alleged members of the John Birch Society, the Ku Klux Klan, an escapee from a hospital for mental patients, and others, in an obvious attempt to injure their reputations by "damning by association." That dossier condemned the 300 members of the Medical-Dental Committee on the Evaluation of Fluoridation, solely because they were such a small proportion of the 300,000 physicians and dentists in the U.S.A.
Mr Ralph Nader, the consumer advocate, said in 1971:
"... you just don't expect to be treated well by H.E.W. [a branch of the U.S.PH.S.] in its massive research granting if you come out against this kind of thing [fluoridation]. It's a matter of professional intimidation here."
In 1988 Bette Hileman, an associate editor of Chemical & Engineering News, stated that John S. Small, information specialist at the U.S. National Institute of Dental Research, had admitted that he keeps files on anti-fluoridation organizations and their leaders, and she said that Ralph Nader had branded such activities as an "institutionalized witch-hunt".
An attempt was made to prevent the distribution of the monograph Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials (Sutton, 1959) in the U.S.A. by, amongst others, the Nutrition Foundation Inc., which wrote to the distributors, Cambridge University Press, New York, on 20 January, 1960, declaring that:
"The professional standing of the Cambridge University Press among scientists and educators would seem to preclude publication of such a book by Cambridge University Press."
In his reply (25 Jan., 1960) the manager of the Cambridge University Press said:
"... if you find inaccuracies in Dr Sutton's book, we should be most grateful if you will point them out to enable us to make changes in any future printing."
He did not receive a reply to his letter.
When this attempt to suppress the monograph failed, the Journal of the American Dental Association published an extensive criticism of it. That influential journal, in July 1960, devoted a three-page editorial to attacking the monograph. It stated:
"Last year the Melbourne University Press of Australia published an 83 page booklet by Mr P.R.N. Sutton entitled Fluoridation Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials. It is now being circulated to a limited extent in the United States.
The following review prepared by J. Ferris Fuller for the New Zealand Dental Journal is herewith republished in full as it skillfully points out many of the errors and omissions in reporting which Mr P.R.N. Sutton has less skilfully employed in compiling his observations on the errors and omissions in fluoridation."
By twice incorrectly using the term "Mr", the editor of the J.A.D.A. conveyed to readers, particularly to American ones, that the author of the monograph was a layman, for all dentists and medical practitioners in America are given the title of "Dr" If the editor of J.A.D.A. had read even the title page of the monograph he must have known that the author had received the postgraduate degree of Doctor of Dental Science from the University of Melbourne. Therefore it appears that this "mistake" was made deliberately to deceive his readers.
Then followed the criticism by J. Ferris Fuller shown on pages 327 to 330.
However, the editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association was so keen to denigrate the monograph that he failed to check the claims made in the "book review" which he re-published. Apparently he did not realize that the criticism by Colonel Fuller, although superficially "skillful", was based on misquotations - that this critic condemned statements which the author of the monograph had not made, nor did he realize that Colonel Fuller had concocted many false and misleading comments of his own.
The most important publication which enables a reader to locate articles and books on dental subjects is the annual Index to Dental Literature published by the American Dental Association. This lists not only all articles and letters, but also all books and pamphlets published during the year, and has the reputation for being a comprehensive list. The Indexes for the years 1960 and 196 1, which should have listed the first and second editions of the monograph did not do so, nor did they mention the favourable reviews.
However, they indexed the unfavourable ones, so that these omissions were obviously made intentionally by staff of the American Dental Association to suppress this criticism of fluoridation trials, which were the foundation for the endorsement of this process by that Association.
The following pages are a reprint of the second edition of that monograph: Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials, 1960, Melbourne University Press, which has been out of print for many years.