IFIN BULLETIN: IFIN #686: Sensitivity to fluoride and 
supersensitivity to the truth .

October 27, 2002

Dear All,

Here is an interesting exchange between Phil Robertson from Geelong, Australia (whom I met on my recent visit, along with the patient he describes) and a rather rude dentist from Redding, California, which appeared on Redding.com. It is followed by a letter from Ailsa Boyden.

What is fascinating about Robertson's experience in this case is that his patient was tested in a double blind study, with both a doctor (M.D.) and lawyer in attendance. The patient was able to identify which glass of water contained the fluoride. Officials from the Minister of Health (for Victoria) refused to accept the validity of this test, because they claimed not enough time elapsed between the consumption of the glasses of water and the patients' symptoms. When Robertson offered to have the double blind test repeated according to any protocol the Ministry of Health required, they declined on the basis that they didn't want to put the patient through a "health threatening experience". This was an extremely lame excuse, considering the patient was prepared to do this, her doctor was prepared to let her, and the ministry denied that fluoride could cause such symptoms, so there should have been no cause for alarm, from their point of view!

Paul Connett.

Toxic Effects of Fluoride in Clinical Practice Phil Robertson - 11:05pm Oct 25, 2002 PST Guest User


Like Dean German, The Surgeon General and Elwood Mogengator, twenty years ago I also thought fluoridation was just a safe form of dental health treatment.

After graduating in natural medicine in 1979 I began my practice in Melbourne, Australia. Melbourne was fluoridated in 1977. I started treating a woman in her early 30's for joint and muscle pain. Over the previous two years she saw many doctors for these symptoms and they had diagnosed her with early onset arthritis.

Treatments provided her with temporary relief only. She then asked me if her troublesome symptoms could be coming from the recently added fluoride in Melbourne tap water as she felt unwell after drinking it.

At the time I suppose I knew as much about sensitivity to fluoride in tap water as any dentist or surgeon general might, so I couldn't help but disregard her question as it made no sense to me.

But my patient found she could drink fluoride free mineral water or tap water in unfluoridated cities without any problems. Upon returning to Melbourne, tap water once again caused burning in her throat and arthritic pain in her joints. Again she asked could it be the fluoride.

I rang the government health department, the dental advisor told me such effects were not possible. I made the mistake of accepting his authority and passing his information on to the patient as fact. But by now I was becoming unsure about those 'facts'. So medical tests were carried out.

After conducting the tests her medical doctor found it was fluoride that was causing her symptoms. After purchasing an expensive filter that removed fluoride from tap water, a very happy patient let me know she could now drink the water again without getting symptoms.

I was now both astonished and embarrassed by my previous and the health department's current mistaken belief that fluoride was perfectly safe for everyone.

How many other patients could be also diagnosed with "arthritis" by their doctors when they may only be suffering from fluoride toxicity?

Since then I have seen patients suffering from other fluoride related symptoms. Asthma is another symptom that medical testing has demonstrated can be triggered by fluoride.

Isn't that interesting? What symptoms are found in one of the industries that used to advertise their fluoride for water fluoridation? Asthma is widespread in this aluminum smelting industry and scientific research now links the increased asthma deaths with fluoride exposures in these workers.(see Scand J Work Environ Health 2000 Dec;26(6):470-5) @website: www.fluoridealert.org/aluminum-respiratory.htm

Why does fluoride have to be removed from the superphosphate before it is spread onto pastures? No, it is not because it then provides the fluoride for water fluoridation!

It is because it has been found to cause joint problems in grazing animals.

Interesting again! Just how does the Surgeon General imagine the toxic effects of this same chemical suddenly become healthy therapeutic ones by putting it into drinking water? If he has found out how to do that could he please show us his or the dental profession's magic wand?

I once asked a dentist I knew how on earth could they have got it so wrong about the toxic effects of fluoride. He told me that was was easy to explain.

His profession specialized in being "expert tooth mechanics" with little training in toxicology. So it was not surprising that things had gone wrong with their advice on fluoride.

Perhaps the dental profession may need that magic wand to help talk their way out of the terrible mistake they have made with fluoridation.

I trust that readers will not fall for the same unbelievably mistaken advice the dental advisor gave me in Melbourne about the safety of fluoridation just because dentists may still be naively handing it out today in Redding.

Phil Robertson

Elwood Mogengator - 08:35am Oct 26, 2002 PST (#1 of 1)

Another quack heard from

Mr. Robertson says that he is a graduate in natural medicine. Well, isn't that special? What the hell, pray tell, is that? I notice that he "practiced" in Australia, not this country. See, I told you they've run out of American quacks and are now scouring the world for them.

Talk about equivocal evidence. Mr. Robertson cites the case of one woman who seems to have been suffering from fluoride hysteria. Now is that a small study, or what?

Stay tuned. The next foreign quack the antifluorides bring you is going to be Dr. Mbongo from the Congo! I can hardly wait.

The Editor, Redding.com

Dear Sir or Madam,

Elwood Mogengator's rabid response [Oct. 26, 2002] to Philip Robertson's report [Oct. 25, 2002] of adverse health effects from the consumption of fluoridated water is puzzling: particularly as he attacked the messenger instead of the message. The vitriolic attack seems to be a red herring to divert people from the truth - that fluoride CAN and DOES have detrimental effects.

It appears that Elwood Mogengator is unaware that Holland's medical doctor Hans Moolenburg proved, by way of double-blind placebo trials, that some of his patients DID suffer adverse effects from consuming fluoridated water. Dr Moolenburg was in the unique position whereby approximately half of his patients lived in a fluoridated area and the rest lived in a non-fluoridated area so he was able to witness the increasing trend toward poorer health in a percentage of his fluoridated patients.

"Fluoridation - The Freedom Fight" tells of Dr Moolenburg's successful struggle to help free Holland from the tyranny of fluoridation and also details his fluoridation trials.

Elwood Mogengator's fluoridation education might be well served if he/she were to read the above-mentioned book and also Dr George Waldbott's collaborative effort "Fluoridation - The Great Dilemma" in which great detail is given to adverse health findings as a result of fluoride consumption.

As the former President John F. Kennedy said, "Many enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." Yes, thinking can sometimes be uncomfortable, especially when truthful conclusions arrived at are diametrically opposed to those one prefers to believe!"

Yours sincerely,

Ailsa Boyden Australia.

Home      Medicine