Amazing Cancer Cure

A wealthy corporation was looking to hire a new accountant. In the interview, all the applicants were asked the question, “What is two plus two?” The winning applicant looked at the interviewer and replied, “What do you want it to be?”

There is a conflict of interest in the world of science whenever a powerful corporation with a vested interest in the outcome is paying for the research. There have been countless instances in which a corporate scientist will turn to his boss prior to beginning an experiment and ask, “What result do you want?” We have all had a good chuckle over the tobacco industry’s repeated assurances that, “There is no evidence linking cigarette smoking to cancer.” Likewise, the dangers of vinyl chloride, DDT and leaded gasoline were kept under wraps for years thanks to industry’s refusal to allow any of their researchers to find evidence of harm.

Whenever your pet theory comes under criticism, it is natural to defend it. When you have a reputation at stake or a monumental financial interest in your pet theory, it is only natural to defend it at all costs. Nowhere is this more evident than in the US Public Health Service’s defense of the fluoridation program. Before anyone makes up their mind about this controversial topic, there is one story that must be told. It is the story of William Marcus and the Battelle study.

Concerned by compelling data showing an increase in cancer rates among fluoridated cities, Congress mandated a cancer assay on sodium fluoride. Much to the chagrin of pro-fluoride public health officials, the job was awarded to an independent contractor with no vested interest in the study’s outcome. The results, released in the early 1990's, were alarming. The bodies of the test animals were riddled with cancerous tumors. One of the most disconcerting findings was of a particular cancer called osteosarcoma, a cancer of the bone that was noted in the male rats but not the females. The early fluoridation trials in the 1940's also noted an increase in osteosarcomas among young men but not women—a finding that was dismissed at the time as anomalous. Today’s demographics show the same trend: an increased rate of osteosarcomas (as much as seven times more) in young men residing in fluoridated cities. The finding of the Battelle study had confirmed the link. They had positively identified fluoride as a carcinogen. It was poised to put an end to water fluoridation.

At the EPA headquarters, a senior toxicologist named William Marcus found the results of the Battelle study particularly interesting. He had spent years trying to produce osteosarcomas in test animals, trying a myriad of toxic chemicals without success; yet here in fluoride they had discovered a commonly-available substance that produces these cancers at levels lower than what humans are getting after a lifetime in a fluoridated city. He made it a point to attend a conference where the results would be discussed.

The results were reviewed by a government agency—an agency which had to answer to the US Public Health Service. Dr. Marcus was flabbergasted as he sat in the meeting where it was announced that each and every one of the cancerous tumors had been downgraded by the review board. They had downgraded the tumor classifications until the finding was changed from a clear evidence of carcinogenicity to one of “equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity.” The review board had altered the study’s findings in a last-ditch effort to rescue fluoridation.

Dr. Marcus couldn’t believe it. In his twenty-five years at the EPA he had never seen that. He had seen one or two instances where there was an argument as to what defines a tumor in a particular tissue, but he had never seen every endpoint downgraded by a review board without input from the original researchers. He smelled a rat.

He showed the slides to an independent board of certified veterinary pathologists, all of whom agreed the original cancer findings were correct. Upon further investigation, he encountered colleagues who admitted they were coerced to alter the results. There was strong administrative pressure not to release any data which might cast fluoride in a bad light.

Dr. Marcus sent several memos to his supervisors in which he expressed his concerns and asked for further review of the cancer assay. For doing so, he was fired. This type of unethical pressure from politicians was the reason the union of EPA scientists was formed. This union of 1500 scientists has unanimously adopted a position of opposition to water fluoridation. In June of 2000, the president of this union testified before Congress, asking for an inquiry into the fraudulent downgrading of the Battelle study and a moratorium on water fluoridation.

There is a puzzling tendency in our society to consider all chemicals innocent until proven guilty. Leaded gasoline, for example, was known to be dangerous decades before it was actually removed from our environment. The same is true of DDT and benzene, vinyl chloride, nicotine and Malathion. The list is endless. The reason for the delay was always resistance from industry—the same industry which funded (controlled) the toxicological studies. Their strategy is usually the same: repeatedly insist there are no scientific data showing evidence of harm. Those who bring out evidence to the contrary are vilified and labeled fanatics. These attempts to protect their balance sheets or their reputations are powerfully successful. As a result, it is often years or even decades until the toxin is proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt and is finally removed from our environment.

The US Public Health Service made a mistake in 1953 by throwing their enthusiastic support behind water fluoridation without waiting to study the issue. It can be said that they are riding the back of a tiger and can’t get off. After fifty years of pushing fluoride on the American public, they are looking at severe damage to their reputation—not to mention the possibility of lawsuits—if they were to now admit they were wrong. But their mistake doesn’t have to be our problem. We have the opportunity to protect ourselves from their bureaucratic bumbling, simply by voting no in November.