7. C.C., a chiropractor, became interested in alternative dentistry and attended various seminars presented by proponents of alternative medicine and dentistry. C.C. consulted with different health care professionals, including dentists, medical doctors, and nutritionists, and became familiar with alternative dentistry and homeopathic remedies. C.C. believed that the amalgams in her teeth had become toxic and were inhibiting her recovery to full health. At one of these seminars in 1995, C.C. submitted to a test that purportedly revealed she suffered from heavy metal poisoning. She also examined her blood through a powerful microscope and found her blood to be unusual, which reinforced her belief that she was pre-cancerous.

12. In March of 1995, C.C. visited a dentist named Ira Windroff in South Florida. Dr. Windroff took a panoramic X-ray and X-rays of C.C.'s individual teeth. After the X-rays, Dr. Windroff referred C.C. to another dentist, who performed a root canal on C.C.'s tooth #19, which is in the lower left quadrant.

26. Respondent placed vials of various substances, including heavy metals, bacteria from root canal teeth, and homeopathic remedies, on C.C.'s lap to determine whether the substances triggered a response from C.C.'s autonomic nervous system. He placed his fingers on her individual teeth to determine whether that prompted a response from C.C.'s autonomic nervous system. Respondent believed that by ART he could determine the condition of C.C.'s internal organs, evaluate her dental problems, and identify the homeopathic remedies that would best promote healing.

27. In addition to using ART, Respondent visually inspected C.C.'s teeth with a dental mirror, used a dental explorer to examine the edge of fillings and cracks in the teeth, probed her gums, percussed tooth #19, and palpitated all of her teeth. Although his dental records for this patient do not reflect that he did so and he could not remember having done so prior to C.C.'s deposition, the evidence established that Respondent reviewed the X-rays taken by Dr. Windroff.

31. Respondent told C.C. that the root canals that had been performed on tooth #3 and tooth #19 contained toxins and were blocking her recovery. He also told her that the removal of her root canal teeth and any toxic area around the root canal teeth should be given higher priority than the replacement of her amalgams.

32. Respondent told C.C. that he could not help her if she did not have her two root canal teeth extracted.

33. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether C.C. consented to the extraction and treatment with the Sanum remedies. That conflict is resolved by finding that Respondent adequately explained to C.C. how he intended to extract the two teeth and what she could expect following the extractions. Although C.C. did not ask to have those two teeth extracted, she clearly agreed to have the extractions.

The Florida Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the American Dental Association did not recognize ART as a reliable methodology for testing toxic conditions of the teeth.

35. On December 21, 1995, C.C. returned to Respondent for the extraction of tooth #3 and tooth #19. Respondent extracted the two teeth and removed bone in the vicinity of each tooth that he thought was necrotic, a procedure referred to as cavitation. Respondent testified that he encountered soft, mushy bone following the extractions. He removed hard bone in the extraction area with a small rotary burr. He removed soft tissue and bone with a curette.

38. Prior to her visit to Respondent, C.C.'s teeth #5 and #17 had been extracted. Respondent injected the area where tooth #5 had been with the Sanum remedies using a stabident drill, a dental drill that is usually used to administer anesthesia. He also injected the Sanum remedies where tooth #17 had been. Following the extractions of teeth #3 and #19, Respondent irrigated the extraction wounds with the Sanum remedies. Respondent injected the right sphenopalatine ganglion area and the left and right otic ganglion areas, the superior origin and inferior origin pharyngeal constrictor muscles, and the submandibular ganglion with a one percent solution of Xylocaine that also contained drops of Notakehl. Respondent testified he used Xylocaine, an epidural grade anesthetic, as a carrier for Notakehl. Some of the injections were made into the oral cavity while others were made through the face. Consistent with homeopathic practice, Respondent believed that these injections would promote healing.

Although Respondent testified he did not take X-rays because of the patient's history of radiation poisoning, his medical history does not reflect that history. Respondent did not chart C.C.'s teeth, which is a routine practice. His description of his examination was vague, his findings were vague, and his proposed treatment plan was vague. His records did not reflect that he had viewed X-rays of the patient, did not reflect that Notakehl was injected with Xylocaine, and did not reflect the anesthetic that was used to numb the mouth during the extraction. The most serious deficiency is that his records provide no justification for the extraction of two teeth or for the cavitation procedures that followed, a basic requirement of Section 466.028(1)(m), Florida Statutes.

Attorney David Wilzig of Los Angeles, who has a special interest in dental malpractice cases, has filed suits on behalf of at least nine victims. The suits charged that the dentist(s) diagnosed nonexistent “cavitations,” removed health jaw tissues alleged to contain them, and sent specimens to Bouquot who confirmed the alleged NICO diagnosis. Some of the plaintiffs also had teeth removed unnecessarily, and some required extensive medical and surgical treatment to repair jaw damage and disfigurement caused by the NICO surgery. Many of the cases involved activities by the dentists that constituted the unlicensed practice of medicine (rather than dentistry). These included diagnosis via ART (a quacky muscle-test procedure); phony diagnosis of mercury poisoning; and neural therapy injections into breasts, stomach, shoulders, and/or other body parts. In some of the suits, Bouquot was named in addition to the dentist(s) who performed the improper procedures. Most of the suits have been settled with payment of undisclosed amounts.

The woman visted Connealy's center in 2007 for a consultation about bio-identical hormones and was introduced to Panahpour by the medical staff. After conducting a dental examination, Panahpour falsely advised the woman that she had mercury poisoning and required (a) removal of two teeth and all of her amalgam fillings, (b) repair of previous root-canal treated teeth that were badly infected, and (c) surgery to remove bone fragments from two sites where wisdom teeth had been extracted 45 years earlier.

Panahpour's treatment resulted in (a) infections that required medical treatment and additional surgery, (b) pain in the mouth and teeth, and (c) difficulty chewing and misalignment of the jaws because the crowns and other restorations did were too large.

In 2007, Wesley R. Shankland, II, D.D.S., who operates the Central Ohio Center for Facial Pain in Columbus, Ohio, settled charges against him by entering into a consent agreement under which (a) his dental license will be suspended for six months; (b) he must complete 300 hours of continuing dental education that includes at least 40 hours in ethics, (c) he must not utilize any "alternative" dental or medical treatment without informing the patient that the procedure is nonstandard, (d) his ability to prescribe narcotics and psychiatric drugs will be restricted during 2008, and (e) his records must be available for review and monitoring by a physician or dentist who is experienced in the management of chronic pain. In addition to being one of NICO's leading proponents, Shankland improperly advises that amalgam fillings and root-canal-treated teeth are problematic. The dental board's complaint not specify whether any of its concerns were related to these nonstandard theories and practices.

Aetna considers surgery (including scraping of “infected cavities” and removal of root-canal-treated teeth) and/or any other therapies (e.g., rinsing the “cavity” with colloidal silver and administering chelation therapy and intravenous vitamin C) and bone graft replacement for the treatment of neuralgia inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) related diagnoses to be experimental and investigational because the clinical significance of this syndrome is in question.

Osteomyelitis near tooth sockets is not common. Deceptive dentists typically list routine (and often unnecessary) extractions as "surgical extractions" (thus charging more) and then scrape out bone from the socket and tooth roots, claiming that an "infection" or osteomyelitis exists. NICO advocates may also remove every tooth with a root canal treatment, regardless of success or failure of the treatment. They claim that root canal treated teeth are "toxic" and cause "cavitations," without any valid biological basis or clinical data to support these assertions.

Removal of root canal-treated teeth without cause

Price also performed poorly designed studies that led him to conclude that teeth treated with root canal therapy leaked bacteria or bacterial toxins into the body, causing arthritis and many other diseases. This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid .

Correction of a "bad bite" can involve irreversible treatments such as grinding down the teeth or building them up with dental restorations. The most widespread unscientific treatment involves placing a plastic appliance between the teeth. These devices, called mandibular orthopedic repositioning appliances (MORAs), typically cover only some of the teeth and are worn continuously for many months or even years. When worn too much, MORAs can cause the patient's teeth to move so far out of proper position that orthodontics or facial reconstructive surgery is needed to correct the deformity.

Some dentists who espouse TCM theories claim that areas of the body are "represented" by the tongue and the teeth, These claims have no anatomical basis and should be regarded as preposterous.

In the mid-1980s the FDA forced Huggins to stop marketing mineral products with false claims that they would help the body rid itself of mercury. Huggins has also claimed that root canal therapy can make people susceptible to arthritis, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and other autoimmune diseases. As with mercury-amalgam fillings, there is no objective evidence that teeth treated with root canal therapy have any adverse effect on the immune system or any other system or part of the body . Huggins's dental license was revoked in 1996. During the revocation proceedings

the administrative law judge concluded: (a) Huggins had diagnosed "mercury toxicity" in all patients who consulted him in his office, even some without mercury fillings; (b) he had also recommended extraction of all teeth that had had root canal therapy; and (c) Huggins's treatments were "a sham, illusory and without scientific basis."

They may also remove all root-canal-treated teeth, most of the vital teeth close to the area where they say a problem exists, and even parts of the jawbone.

Grossman L. Pulpless teeth and focal infection. Journal of Endodontics 8:S18-S24, 1982.

There is a difference between bad teeth and diphtheria or any communicable disease. Much is made of this by those who oppose fluoridation, and I have discussed this point in this memorandum, but right now we are discussing the principle of enforced mass medication.

It is strongly contended that enforced mass medication may be proper where there is a communicable disease, but it is a far different thing to have enforced mass medication where no communicable disease is involved. I belabored this point in my own mind for a considerable length of time. Of course tooth decay isn't contagious, but so what? Do you claim that it is good? Of course it isn't. Bad teeth have caused a lot of discomfort and pain. Bad teeth have also caused a lot of ill health. Everyone knows this is true if they only stop and think.

There is no question that anything that will generally improve the condition of teeth, will generally improve the health and energy of the people. Many of the great afflictions of mankind are not contagious, such as poor eyesight, automobile accidents, arthritis, rheumatism, fallen arches, cancer, heart disease, and a host of other things.

This first-hand experience can't help but impress me far more than it could impress anyone by telling them about it. When people put up such a kick over vaccination which can save their lives, it is not at all surprising that there is opposition to fluoridation which can only save teeth.

Father died (1937) in office some ten years after this episode-but not from the smallpox. He had a lot of people at his funeral, some of whom wouldn't have been there if he hadn't been so mulish about this vaccination business. I hope everyone at my funeral has good teeth.

Some weeks ago, I spent a day in Grand Rapids inspecting their equipment and reports on fluoridation. Most of the day was spent with the chemist in their water plant, and considerable time with several physicians in their Health Department. They have been fluoridating water in Grand Rapids for over ten years. Their reports certainly give the lie to a lot of statements made by antifluoridation literature about what has happened there. From their death rate, and also specific death rates on specific causes of death, they might even make a case for asserting that fluoridation improved health on other than the teeth factor. However, the general health level of the people is rising all over the United States and, of course, there is really no evidence that fluoridation helps anything but teeth, but their carefully documented reports clearly refute the charges made by those who oppose fluoridation. Anti-fluoridation literature usually throws a few left hooks at Grand Rapids. I have heard all sorts of wild statements concerning death rates, and also death rates on specific illnesses in this City. The U.S. Health Service has worked with them in the particular project of fluoridation. They have carefully inspected and supervised it every step of the way. They worked with their water department and with their health department. The carefully documented reports of their health department clearly indicate that Grand Rapids is becoming a healthier place to live in all the time. There is not the slightest evidence that fluoridation has hurt anybody. There is, however, conclusive evidence that the children who have drunk fluoridated water for the maximum period have reduced their tooth decay by not less than 60%.

It is for the children that America labors, and that's all right with me. Besides leaving the next generation with the national debt and the atomic bomb, I see nothing wrong with leaving them better teeth, particularly at such bargain rates.

Fluoridation isn't going to help you if you put your teeth in a glass of water at night, but it will help all of the children, and if you think you are paying too much for other peoples' children, then give thirteen cents or even twenty-five cents less to the community fund next year-that will cover it. Now, of course, I am not really telling anyone to give less to the community fund, but I think I am showing that the argument about cost is nonsense.

Some anti-amalgamists have used a voltmeter to measure supposed differences in the electrical conductivity of the teeth. One such device—the "Amalgameter"—was sold by Huggins during the early 1980s. In 1985, after another company took over its marketing, the FDA concluded that the device was misbranded because accompanying literature alleged that it could be used to recommend the removal of dental fillings.

There is overwhelming evidence that amalgam fillings are safe. Since 1905, although billions have been used successfully, fewer than fifty cases of allergy to the amalgam have been reported in the scientific literature. In 1986, the American Dental Association Council on Ethics, Bylaws, and Judicial Affairs concluded that "removal of amalgam restorations solely for the alleged purpose of removing toxic substances from the body, when such treatment is performed at the recommendation of the dentist, presents a question of fraud or quackery in all but an exceedingly limited spectrum of cases." The ruling was triggered in part by the case of an Iowa dentist who had extracted all 28 teeth of a patient with multiple sclerosis. The dentist received a 9-month license suspension followed by 51 months of probation.

Removing good fillings is not merely a waste of money. In some cases, it results in loss of teeth. In 1985 a $100,000 settlement was awarded to a 55-year-old California woman whose dentist removed her silver fillings. Based on testing with a Dermatron

(a phony electrodiagnostic device), the dentist claimed that six of her fillings were a "liability" to her large intestine . In removing the fillings from five teeth, the dentist caused severe nerve damage necessitating root canal therapy for two teeth and extraction of two others.

The amalgams were placed in opposing teeth, so they would grind against each other. This enhanced the already enhanced rate of release of materials.

In recent years, Hal Huggins has also targeted root canal therapy, claiming that it can make people susceptible to arthritis, multiple sclerosis, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and other autoimmune diseases. As with amalgam fillings, there is no objective evidence that teeth treated with root canal therapy have any adverse effect on the immune system or any other system or part of the body. Huggins's dental license was revoked in 1996. During the revocation proceedings, the administrative law judge concluded:

He had also recommended extraction of all teeth that had had root canal therapy.

In fact, amalgam is composed mostly of complex compounds where the mercury is bound chemically to the other ingredients. Although mercury by itself is classified as a toxic material, the mercury in amalgam is chemically bound to other metals to make it stable and therefore safe for use in dental applications. In fact, amalgam is the most thoroughly studied and tested restorative material now used. Compared to the rest, it is durable, easy to use, and inexpensive. The safety and effectiveness of amalgam have been reviewed by major U.S. and international scientific and health bodies, including the American Dental Association; the National Institutes of Health; the U.S. Public Health Service; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the Food and Drug Administration; and the World Health Organization. All have concluded that amalgam is a safe and effective material for restoring teeth.

Resistance to Wear Highly resistant to wear, but porcelain can rapidly wear opposing teeth if its surface becomes rough. Highly resistant to wear, but porcelain can rapidly wear opposing teeth if its surface becomes rough. Resistant to wear and gentle to opposing teeth. Resistant to wear and gentle to opposing teeth.

Metal colors do not mimic natural teeth.

Average Number of Visits To Complete Minimum of two; matching esthetics of teeth may require more visits.

Minimum of two; matching esthetics of teeth may require more visits. Minimum of two

8. In September of 2004, Ms. Shepherd visited with Mr. Pontius in Provo, Utah. Ms. Shepherd's daughter, Jill Grammar-Williams, was a witness to these procedures and the entire discussion. Mr. Pontius. again performed a procedure called "muscle testing" in order to diagnose Ms. Shepherd's health. Mr. Pontius had Ms. Shepherd stand up and place her left arm out to the side, He touched a part of her body and then pushed the left ann. This time the left arm did not go down to Ms. Shepherd's side. Mr. Pontius concluded that she no longer had the mercury poisoning nor the gangrene under her teeth. At this point Ms. Shepherd was in a lot of pain and the tumors were visible on her arm. Ms. Shepherd was told by Mr. Pontius that her ailments had to get worse prior to healing.

The Public Health Service then took over to determine precisely what amount of fluoride in the water would prevent decay without causing staining. Years of "shoeleather epidemiology" by Dr. H. Trendley Dean traced the dental status of 7,000 children who drank naturally fluoridated water in 21 cities in four states. In 1943, he reported that the ideal amount of fluoride was one part per million parts of water. This concentration was demonstrated to result in healthy, attractive teeth that had one-third as many cavities as might otherwise be expected—and no staining.

One such test was conducted in the neighboring cities of Newburgh and Kingston, New York. First, the children in both cities were examined by dentists and physicians; then fluoride was added to Newburgh's water supply. After ten years, the children of Newburgh had 58% fewer decayed teeth than those of nonfluoridated Kingston. The greatest benefits were obtained by children who had drunk the fluoridated water since birth. Other studies showed that teeth made stronger by fluoride during childhood would remain permanently resistant to decay. As the evidence supporting fluoridation accrued, thousands of communities acted to obtain its benefits.

Too much fluoride can cause dental fluorosis, which, in its mildest form, causes small, white, virtually invisible opaque areas on teeth. In severe form, fluorosis results in brownish mottling. However, dental fluorosis is not caused by artificial fluoridation, because the levels are kept low enough to avoid this effect.

Automatically recommend replacement of amalgam fillings or removal of teeth that have root canals

Go beyond dentistry by diagnosing "heavy metal toxicity" or diseases other than those of the mouth, gums, teeth, and associated tissues.

Does the dentist use a water spray to cool your teeth while drilling?

Be cautious about dentists who recommend elaborate treatment plans. In 1996, a reporter on assignment for the Reader's Digest visited 50 dentists in 28 states and found that their fees, examinations, and recommendations varied widely. The visits cost from $20 to $141. The reporter brought along his own x-ray films and told the dentists he had ample insurance coverage. Before embarking on the study, the reporter was checked by four dentists who agreed that he had only one immediate problem (one molar needed filling or a crown), and that work on another tooth might be advisable. Only 12 of the dentists agreed with this appraisal, and 15 failed to note a problem with the molar. One dentist recommended crowning all of the reporter's teeth, at a cost of $13,440. Other estimates ranged from $500 to $29,850. The reporter also visited a dental school clinic where the student and a department chairman independently recommended capping both teeth, which would cost $460 .

amalgams for teeth #l, 2, 5, 12, and 31 in the mouth of patient #1,

10. Subsequent to replacement of amalgams referenced in paragraph 9, patient ftl experienced pain in teeth which had amalgams replaced.

24. Subsequent to administration of the EDS testing referenced in paragraph 23, Respondent told patient #3 that all of the patient's wisdom teeth were infected and that the infection was draining down the back of the patient's throat into the meridians of the patient's shoulders.

25. On or about June 2, 1997, Respondent performed oral surgery by extracting four wisdom teeth from the mouth of patient #3.

He negligently used banned testing procedures, inappropriate and scientifically invalid methodologies and performed experiments without informed consent, As a result of his negligence amalgam restorations were unnecessarily and inappropriately removed and as a consequence several teeth required endodontic procedures."

A few American preachers have had to admit that the miraculous gold crowns God gave them were actually placed months or years before by their dentists.* Few folks will check their dental history to verify what they already are sure is a miracle. As for cross-shaped fillings, molar fillings on the chewing surface are usually this shape, as decay occurs in the anatomical pits and fissures between the cusps. In human molars and premolars that pattern of nooks and crannies is a cross. In dogs, who have the same number of teeth, but many more cusps on each molar, there is no cross. Fillings made of silver amalgam are shiny when first placed, though may darken with time, and grinding the teeth can continuously burnish these fillings. Shine an incandescent penlight in your mouth and your back teeth may shine with golden crosses, too, as the yellow light bounces off the silver surfaces. Of course, people will see what they desire and expect to see, and reinforce one another in delusion and illusion. It is these dependable aspects of human perception and psychology that honest magicians and unethical charlatans alike depend upon.

The "holy teeth" stories may seem a silly and absurd example, but these tales share in common with other healing anecdotes some important aspects that illustrate a determined lack of critical inquiry. If these stories were true, it would be easy to test the claims; yet believers show a curious lack of interest, and even hostility to, such independent investigation. It reminds me of the notable lack of concern that Freud's "hysterics" showed to their reported afflictions (blindness, paralysis), which led to the theory that the symptoms serve a purpose and the afflicted preferred the symptoms to the responsibilities of wellness.

We need model legislation to tighten the laws against predatory practitioners. We also need to help the smaller states overcome the problems they face in being unable to afford to enforce the rules to protect the public. We also need to put "teeth" into the punishment for offenses. Too often the guilty get a slap on the wrist, write off the cost of their defense as a cost of doing business, and go right back to bilking the public.

I next went to explore "DentaZyme" a spray which purportedly is "potent enough to inhibit oral bacteria from forming" and will "protect" my gums and teeth, although it doesn't say from what. It is implied that "DentaZyme" is for stopping poor oral hygiene, and that "this problem is a primary cause of respiratory illness as well as heart and gastrointestinal problems". This is patently false. I quote directly from the Gero Vita Web site:

Poor oral hygiene leads to far more serious problems than cavities and gum disease. It's one of the primary causes behind such conditions as respiratory illnesses as well as heart and gastrointestinal problems. DentaZyme is one of the first oral sprays potent enough to inhibit oral bacteria from forming. It not only protects your gums and teeth, but it also helps deter harmful bacteria from invading your vital organs. And, it comes in a convenient, easy-to-use oral spray that fits in your purse or pocket.

Several teeth should be removed and "cavitations" in her lower jaw should be scraped out.

Clark subsequently arranged for all of Mrs. Figueroa's front and molar teeth to be removed, prescribed more than 30 dietary and herbal supplements to be taken during a 12-week period, and badly burned her breast while administering treatment with a "Zapper" device.

They are also used to determine "allergies," detect "nutrient deficiencies," and locate alleged problems in teeth that contain amalgam ("silver") fillings.

Unnecessary follow-up procedures can also be a serious problem. I know of several patients who had healthy teeth extracted after being misdiagnosed with an EAV device. In another case, a man who consulted a physician about rectal bleeding and abdominal cramps was examined only with a Dermatron and told that his colon was fine. Unfortunately, the man had colon cancer—which was not diagnosed until at least seven months later when he consulted another doctor. Two others I know about had advanced cancers were erroneously told they were cancer-free. One of them was sold 33 products to get rid of "parasites" and other nonexistent problems. One victim who tried to get a refund was told that the products had been electrically specifically modified for her and could not be used for anyone else.

They are also used to determine "allergies," detect "nutrient deficiencies," and locate alleged problems in teeth that contain amalgam ("silver") fillings.

In 2003, Anthony G. Roeder, D.D.S., of Paoli, Pennsylvania, permanently surrendered his dental license to settle charges of unprofessional conduct. The settlement agreement indicates that the dental board was concerned with his substandard treatment of two women . One case concerned a woman who suffered severe pain after he unnecessarily removed amalgam fillings in 11 other teeth. At his direction, the woman also underwent EDS. In the other case, he injected homeopathic "remedies" into the patient's gums.

Some dentists maintain that facial pain, heart disease, arthritis, and various other health problems are caused by infected "cavitations," within the jaw bones, that are not detectable on x-ray examination or treatable with antibiotics. Calling this condition "cavitational osteopathosis" or "neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO)," advocates claim they can cure the patient by locating and scraping out the affected tissues. They may also remove all root-canal–treated teeth and most of the vital teeth close to the area where they say an infection exists. There is no scientific evidence to support this assertion or the diagnostic and treatment methods based on it. Proponents of this dubious theory have formed the American Academy of Biological Dentistry.

The fact is, however, that when sugar is used in moderation as part of a normal, balanced diet, it is a perfectly safe source of calories and eating pleasure. Sugar is a factor in the tooth decay process, but what counts is not merely the amount of sugar in the diet but how long any digestible carbohydrate remains in contact with the teeth. This, in turn, depends on such factors as the stickiness of the food, the type of bacteria on the teeth, and the extent of oral hygiene practiced by the individual.

Listerine and similar so-called antiseptics, wrote Kallet and Schlink, were "of trifling worth for the galaxy of purposes" listed in their advertising. The proprietors worried the public mind with "groundless fears." They exaggerated the germ-killing potency of their wares. They did not tell of hazardous germs which were not killed. And they failed to advise that the massacre of bacteria in a test tube was no proof that a proprietary would kill germs in mouth, teeth, gums, or tonsils. Listerine's merits as an antiseptic, said the founders of Consumers' Research, citing the AMA, were "infinitesimal," and, by appropriating his name, Listerine debased "the fame of the great scientific investigator who first established the idea of antisepsis." No antiseptic should be advertised, Kallet and Schlink believed, "without a forthright and standard statement of germicidal power based on a standard test made by a designated testing agency, official and not for profit."

12, 1933; data on growth of Consumers' Research in M. C. Phillips, Skin Deep: The Truth about Beauty Aids—Safe and Harmful (N.Y., 1934), vii-viii; F. J. Schlink, Eat, Drink and Be Wary (N.Y., 1935); Rachel Lynn Palmer and Sarah K. Greenberg, Facts and Frauds in Woman's Hygiene (N.Y., 1936); Bissell B. Palmer, Paying through the Teeth (N.Y., 1935). There were many other similar books, and the Nation and New Republic published like material.

Drinking water containing a larger than average amount of fluoride ion causes mottling of the teeth with white spots. In general, only mild or very mild mottling of the enamel is caused by the concentration of fluoride recommended in the fluoridation of drinking water. The disadvantage of occasional mild mottling of the enamel is far outweighed by the advantage of great decrease in dental caries.

The natural occurrence of moderate to high concentrations of fluoride in certain regions has made it possible for scientists to search without delay for possible bad effects by carefully comparing rates for such diseases as cancer, heart disease, birth defects and allergies in regions with high, medium and low concentrations of fluoride. All studies have agreed: the only adverse effect is staining of the teeth when the fluoride concentration is several times as high as that recommended for artificial fluoridation.

Regardless of the actual compatibility test results. . . , Respondent used the same dental material to restore their teeth.

Respondent's diagnostic basis for extracting KP's teeth was an EAV device.

Watson says: The more Mercury that goes into people's teeth, the more of it that will end up in our water supply. I am delighted, therefore, that San Francisco-based Clean Water Action is supporting my bill, and I look forward to other environmental groups joining us in this effort.