Questions for Johnny Johnson, DDS

March 6, 2016
Dr. Johnson,
First some history: Back on February 16, 1984, The Tampa Tribune printed an article titled,
Fluoride-tainted pasture grass may harm cattleThe fluoride found in the countys grass could
cause a bone-brittling and tooth-mottling disease in cattle if consumed during a long period.
Did the gladiolus grower, the mule breeder and the cattle rancher have a right to complain?
Industry responded, named liberated fluorides a menace and looked for a market for fluosilicic
acid. EPA regarded use of fluosilicic acid for fluoridation an ideal solution to a long-standing
problem. In AlaskaToxic Waste Becomes a Product for Two Bits. The ADA calls fluoride a
nutrient. In Colorado, the journal Fluoride reported Cathy Justuss horses showed signs of
fluoride poisoning. David Kennedy, DDS, visited Pagosa Springs, CO and produced this video.
The Pagosa Daily Post reported: Personal Stories: Cathy Justus--Deadly Remedy: Strange
illnesses lead horse breeder to challenge fluoridation of Pagosas water. Do you consider the
horse and animal information and studies presented here to be credible scientific evidence?
A Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) comes with delivery of hazardous chemicals. One from
the City of Fort Myers states: Chronic Exposure: Intake of 6 mg or more/day may result in
brittleness of bones, anemia, weakness, stiffness of joints and progressive changes in teeth and
skeletonAllergic responses to fluoride have been reportedReproductive abnormalities were
reported in animals Before addressing the relevance of these warnings to humans, note that
every one of these listed symptoms were identified among horses in Pagosa Springs, CO, and/or
Hitchcock, TX. Does the dental community recognize the existence and validity of a MSDS?
The opening statement in your Fluoridation Monograph says that fluoridated water is Safe in
that it causes no adverse health effects in anyone at optimal levels and it is Effective because it
provides cavity reductions simply by drinking the water. What brings people to oppose this
concept are uncontrolled systemic exposure to fluoride and a desire for pure drinking water,
not for the reasons you claim in your closing paragraph on page 50.
The dental community has known since 1962 that African-American children had double the
risk of dental fluorosis as whites. Augusta, Georgia, with a large African American population,
was told the usual Fluoridation is Safe and Effective with no mention of blacks being more
susceptible to toxic effects of fluoride. Exposed to uncontrolled amounts of systemic fluoride,
80.9% of 12-14 year old children exhibited dental fluorosis. Moderate-to-severe fluorosis was
found in 14% of the children. Michael Connett of FAN has discussed and documented the
fluorosis disparity issue. Reverend William Owens, President of the Coalition of African
American Pastors, has requested fluoride hearings by the House Subcommittee on Oversight.
*As President of the American Fluoridation Society, you owe Reverend Owens an explanation
as to why African Americans are not being warned that they are especially vulnerable to
harm from fluorides. (Please copy the Naples Daily News and the Tampa Bay Times.)
*What do you suggest officials in fluoridated cities tell African Americans?

In your Fluoridation Monograph you define dental fluorosis as a cosmetic changefaint white
streaks or spots that improve the quality of life, as whiter appearing teeth are considered
desirable in our society. When defined from a medical perspective, fluorosis is a sign of fluoride
toxicity or fluoride poisoning, effecting tooth enamel in children and bones and joints in adults.
The sanitization of fluorosis and the dismissal of toxicity are a must for anyone proposing water
fluoridation as the minutes of this 1951 Conference of USPHS and State Dental Directors reveal.
Do you support deliberate deception and dismissal of toxicity by promoters of fluoridation?
Also, in your Fluoridation Monograph, you acknowledge that dental fluorosis is seen in both
fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, and you say severe dental fluorosis is virtually
nonexistent in the US by citing Fig.1 of a CDC report of fluorosis surveys. Referring to Fig. 3, you
correctly state that 40.7% of adolescents aged 12-15 had dental fluorosis but you left out the
disturbing fact that since the last previous survey, the prevalence of mild fluorosis has more
than doubled and moderate and severe rates have nearly tripled. The US Public Health Service,
Package Inserts, the Handbook of Poison and the World Health Organization all say to stop or
reduce fluoride exposure if dental fluorosis appears. Considering these statements and the
rising fluorosis rates, how can you justify exposing our citizens to additional fluoride?
Cosmetic repair of severely fluorotic teeth has been described as difficult and cosmetic dentist
Bill Osmunson, DDS, MPH, has revealed that lifetime costs to correct dental fluorosis may
exceed $100,000 per person. A CDC study reveals that approximately 2% of US school children
may experience esthetically objectionable fluorosis that is attributable to water fluoridation.
In your Fluoridation Monograph, you state, For most cities, every $1 invested in water
fluoridation saves $38 in dental treatment costs. What will you say to a public official who
calculates the cost of repairing the objectionable fluorosis the 2% are expected to exhibit?
Regarding skeletal fluorosis, you and the ADA accurately state that crippling skeletal fluorosis is
extremely rare in the US. In reality, the relevant facts of the issue are that the early symptoms
of skeletal fluorosis include stiffness or pain in joints, osteosclerosis of the pelvis and vertebral
column, calcification of ligaments and possibly, repetitive stress injury. (Section 10(h) of the
affidavit by EPA scientist Robert Carton, PhD.) Considering that brittleness of bones, stiffness
of joints and progressive skeletal changes are listed in the Fort Myers MSDS, how can you
justify withholding/ignoring this early fluorosis symptom information, especially when seeing
that skeletal fluorosis may be misdiagnosed as rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis?
Referring back to the Fort Myers MSDS, you will see that allergic responses to fluoride have
been reported. Reuben Feltman, DDS, and Biochemist George Kosel, BS, MS, did a 14 year
investigation on ingestion of fluorides. In a progress report published in Dental Digest, Feltman
said that 1 percent of their study cases presented undesirable effects. Of note was Case #1, a 7 yr. old
school girl whose discomfort was such that most of her time in school was spent in the nurses room.

Her symptoms included itchy skin rash, headache, epigastric distress, generalized weakness and
listlessness. Her symptoms disappeared when fluoride was withdrawn. What would your
recommendation be if the source of this girls fluoride was the public water supply?

Feltman and Kosels final fluoride ingestion report, published in the Journal of Dental Medicine,
reaffirmed the one percent adverse reactions to fluoride finding. The reactions were said to affect the
dermatologic, gastro-intestinal and neurological systems. George Waldbott, MD, became aware of

the adverse effects of fluoridated water in 1954 and he had encountered several hundred cases
of fluoride toxicity by the time his 1980 article, Fluoridation: A Clinicians Experience was
published in the Southern Medical Journal. As predicted by Feltman and Kosel, the Fort Myers
MSDS and the Physicians Desk Reference, stiffness or pain in joints, dermatologic, gastrointestinal and neurological system issues were among the symptoms experienced by Dr. Waldbotts
patients. Case #6 is of interest in that A 13-year old schoolgirl had increasingly severe
migraine-like headachesSimultaneously, pain and numbness in the arms and legs and a
distinct deterioration in her mental alertness interfered with her attendance at school.
Relationship to fluoridated water was confirmed by avoidance and re-exposure plus double
blind testing by another physician. Please explain how you came to the conclusion that No
credible scientific evidence exists to support allergic reactions to fluoride in CWF.
Chemist DeLoss Winkler, PhD, experienced extreme sensitivity to fluoride. His symptoms
included chronic fatigue, muscular weakness and muscular aches. Doctors were of no help. He
and his wife finally determined fluoridated water was the cause of his illness and in an affidavit
he said, As in my case, the average physician, having been told emphatically by the Public
Health Service and the American Dental Association that fluoridation is safe, is unaware that
fluoride in the public water supply can cause severe illness. Aliss Terpstra has suffered from
chronic fluoride hypersensitivity since birth in fluoridated Grand Rapids, Michigan. She suffers
unpleasant and sometimes debilitating symptoms from intake of water containing any more
than 0.2 ppm natural fluoride. Canadian and US doctors were not able to diagnose or help her.
Today, one of her biggest challenges is coping with accidental fluoride exposure from food and
water when traveling. Tort Law dictates a Duty to Warn when evidence of harm is known.
After seeing dental and medical documentation of harm from systemic fluoride exposure
including that from CWF, do you suggest public officials ignore their duty to warn obligation?
The safety, effectiveness and logic of fluoridation are brought into question when you see that in 1999,

the CDC said that research suggested fluoride acts primarily topically via 3 mechanisms, the
third being that fluoride interferes with the enzyme activity of plaque bacteria. Is it within the
purview of dentistry to assess the health effects of swallowing a dental agent that interferes
with enzyme activity? What does the endorsement by the AMA tell you about safety?
The ADA, in their July, 2000, JADA Cover Story, The Science and Practice of Caries Prevention
reaffirmed fluorides topical mechanisms of action, adding the fact that bacterial acid converted
topical fluoride into the hydrogen fluoride (HF) molecule which then diffuses into the cell,
thereby inhibiting essential enzyme activity. Regarding hydrogen fluoride, this Univar USA
MSDS for hydrofluosilicic acid says under the heading Conditions to Avoid, May React with
Strong Mineral Acids to Liberate Hydrogen Fluoride or Hydrofluoric Acid which are Highly Toxic
and Corrosive. Also stated is, Hydrogen Fluoride has been Listed as a Special Health Hazard
Substance by the State of New Jersey. How can you rationalize fluoridation when fluoride
acts topically and the resulting hydrogen fluoride formed is listed as a special health hazard?

Infants are our most vulnerable when it comes to systemic fluoride exposure. Ekstrand has
revealed that the relatively acid environment of the stomach ensures that more than 90% of
ingested fluoride will be in the form of hydrogen fluoride. Levy calculated that a 3 month old
infant on powdered formula reconstituted with fluoridated water could receive up to 1.57 mg
fluoride/day, which, subsequently, would convert to over 1.4mg HF/day. The CDCs Fact Sheet
on hydrogen fluoride says it damages cells and causes them to not work properly. (More Info)
What scientific reference says that it is safe to ingest any amount of hydrogen fluoride?
How can anyone say it is safe to reconstitute powdered formula with fluoridated water?
It is relevant to see that under the heading Wide Spectrum of Symptoms, Dr. Waldbott
reported that, in an acid body fluid (gastric juice, urine) fluoride tends to form the irritating
hydrofluoric acid (hydrogen fluoride). To him, this provided a reasonable explanation for the
fluoride induced gastric hemorrhaging in a 9 year old boy and why some infants had gastrointestinal bleeding from daily ingestion of vitamins containing 0.5mg of fluoride. Package
inserts for sodium fluoride tablets have warned, upon overdose, Vomitus and excreta should
be washed away immediately to prevent external burns. (Hydrogen fluoride?) Can you
explain why dentists should not leave the issues of fluoride safety and toxicity to toxicologists
and risk assessment specialists such as Brian Dementi, PhD, and Kathleen Thiessen, PhD?
In Fluoridation Facts the ADA repeatedly calls fluoride a nutrient. On what scientific basis
can hydrofluosilicic acid, sodium fluoride and/or hydrogen fluoride be called a nutrient? (See)
Is the ADA being scientific, when, in their 2005 version of Fluoridation Facts (p27), they use a
1986 reference to state, Ingested or systemic fluoride becomes incorporated into forming
tooth structures(which) contributes to long lasting protection against dental decay.?
In spite of, The ADA continually reviews available scientific evidence, and revises its
statements based on the most current scientific information (p19), to perpetuate the
fluoridation myth, Fluoridation Facts ignored CDC 1999 and their own JADA 2000. Also, on
page 13, using a 1962 reference, ADA reported children in fluoridated Newburgh, NY, had
70% less decay than the children in un-fluoridated Kingston. In reality, at the end of the 50
year study in 1995, there obviously was no difference in caries reduction between the two
cities. The only difference was an increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis in both cities.
Please explain how it is that you consider Fluoridation Facts to be a valuable resource that
merits being distributed to public officials considering or re-considering water fluoridation.
And finally, two more things to consider: The EPA is not being honest with the American public.
Endorsements are not science as illustrated by the fact that the AMA is not prepared to state:
No harm will be done to any person by water fluoridation.
You have been responsible for fluoridation decisions in Pinellas County, Florida as well as in
many other cities around the US including Reading, PA. After looking at some of what you call
their science-fiction claims, are you, as president of the American Fluoridation Society,
prepared to state No harm will be done to any person or animal by water fluoridation.?

Resources

For those interested in preventing caries

J Dent Res. 2016 Jan 12. pii: 0022034515625907. [Epub ahead of print]

Sugar Consumption and Changes in Dental Caries from Childhood to Adolescence.

The higher the sugar consumption along the life course, the higher the dental caries increment.
Even the low level of sugar consumption was related to dental caries, despite the use of
fluoride.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26758380

For Fluoridation
Perspectives on the Science Supporting Floridas Public Health Policy for Community Water
Fluoridation Michael W. Easley, DDS, MPH
The Anti-Fluoridationist Threat to Public Health J. E. Dodes, DDS; M. W. Easley, DDS, MPH
Fluoridation: A Triumph of Science Over Propaganda M. W. Easley, DDS, MPH
Water Fluoridation Benefits vs. Claims Made by Those Opposed to Water Fluoridation
Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
Fluoridation Facts American Dental Association

Against Fluoridation
General Comments on the Fluoridation of Drinking Water for Prevention of Dental Caries
Kathleen M. Thiessen, PhD, Risk Assessment Specialist
Fluoride in Drinking Water Brian A. Dementi, PhD, Toxicologist, Virginia Department of Health
Statement by Hardy Limeback Dr. Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS
50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation Paul Connett, PhD
10 Facts About Fluoride Fluoride Action Network
Request for Truthfulness and Full Disclosure in Annual Water Quality Reports Kenneth Case
A Case Against Fluoride 255 pages of articles, documents and letters assembled by Case.