8/2/2019 Foulkes Letter & 1951

1/3

RICHARD G. FOULKES, B.A., M.D.P.O. Box 278 Abbotsford, n.c, Canada, V2S 4N9

Telephone 604 850 3171November 9, 1998

Dear Ken;You asked me to tell you about the events that led me from being a promoter of

fluoridation to one who is involved in trying to persuade others to condemn the practice. Ishall relate the events and the lessons that I have learned from them. This story may be ofhelp to others.

In December, 1973, I presented a report to the people and Government of BritishColumbia (Canada) entitled Health Security for British Columbians (2 volumes). I hadbeen appointed by the provincial Cabinet in 1972 "to study and report on the entire healthcare system of the province and to make reconunendations that could lead to itsrationalization". My official title was "Special Consultant to the Minister of Health".

I was appointed to this position as a result of my standing in the health servicesconununity as a physician and as the administrator of one of the province's largest andmost active general hospitals, as a participant in various committees dealing with healthpolicy and because of numerous published articles on the delivery of health services. I hadalso been in rural general medical practice prior to entering the health care administrationfield which some felt gave me a unique perspective.My report was a review of the entire health care system of the province and presentedthe government with a total of264 reconunendations. One of these (reconunendation 245)advocated that the government consider the mandatory fluoridation of public watersupplies.

The decision to make this recommendation was based on the acceptance of the adviceof the Division of Preventive Dentistry of the B.C. Health Branch, the College of DentalSurgeons of B.C., the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of British Columbia and otherorganizations involved in dentistry and public health nationally. I assumed that thosepresenting the case for fluoridation had examined all sides of the issue. Looking back,with the benefit of hindsight, I know now that this assumption was naive - and incorrect.

For the past 7 years (to 1998) I have reviewed all of the pertinent published papers,articles and reports concerning fluoride and fluoridation. I have attended international

8/2/2019 Foulkes Letter & 1951

2/3

Chronology 2 Page-2 Foulkes

showed that the experimental trials commenced in 1945 were largely invalidated. Withregard to safety, there was no reference to studies reported to 1972 on the toxic effect offluoride on animals, plants and humans. There was no mention of the concerns regardingthe safety of fluoridation that had been expressed by the World Health Organization(WHO 1970) and by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS 1971). Both of theseorganizations agreed on the need for further research. Why was this not passed on to me?Finally, there was no discussion that the chemical that was being used in B.C. forfluoridation at that time and proposed for the future to provide fluoride ion was not apharmaceutical grade product but an industrial toxic waste.

From 1972 to the present, much has been published that has shown conclusively thatthe systemic use of fluoride (i.e., water fluoridation) is not effective in thereduction/prevention of dental caries but is associated with many serious health effectsresulting from sensitivity and from chronic accumulation in populations ingesting fluorideover a long period of time. Fluoridation has also been shown to be a threat to theenvironment, including the marine and fresh water ecosystems.

In spite of this contrary evidence, the effectiveness and safety of fluoridation ispromoted with a zeal that approaches fanaticism and with the support of Governments inCanada, U.S.A., Australia, Ireland (Southern), New Zealand and the Ll.K.Was my recommendation in 1973 accepted? No. Fortunately for-the people of BritishColumbia, the politicians to whom I reported were more in tune with the feelings of thevoting public who had strongly defeated fluoridation in the major population areas ofGreater Vancouver and the capitol city of Victoria. British Columbia is the leastfluoridated province in Canada and the few fluoridated communities, still carrying out theprocess, are decreasing in numbers every year.

There is a lesson to be learned from this incident. All of us must abandon ourdependence on authority. We must recognize that we are all vulnerable to propagandaand to the adoption of a mind set that is not based on evidence. We must question thosewho offer a panacea whether it be to abolish tooth decay or some other affliction. And,never assume that what we are told is the truth until both sides of controversial issues areproperly examined.

Richard G. Foulkes, B.A., M.D.

8/2/2019 Foulkes Letter & 1951

3/3