Fluoride and: Delta Dental - Follow the Money Part 2

More great news regarding unsafe fluoride products, and after years of waiting, finally, the FDA announced on May 14, 2025, that it will be taking prescription fluoride supplements for children off the market.

“Ending the use of ingestible fluoride is long overdue,” Kennedy said in a statement Tuesday.

Research clearly shows that ingesting fluoride is linked to reduced IQ, behavioral issues,  thyroid issues, gut microbiome issues, and more. Here is a list of fluoride health effects, including cancer. 

And in case you weren’t already aware… the fluoride supplements never were approved by the FDA to treat cavities.

image credit

Hawaii does NOT fluoridate their water. Utah has now banned fluoride from their water systems, and in Florida, they have banned the addition of fluoride to public drinking water systems across the state. 

But, what happened to the fluoride legislation that would have dealt with the fluoridation problem here in Arkansas? Sadly, it failed this legislative session. Let’s proceed.

Shockingly, through water fluoridation, water systems have become a toxic waste dump for us to be forced to consume! The water they are forcing upon us is not clean potable water; it’s toxic, because of the added fluoride that is a by-product of the phosphate fertilizer industry!

If you may recall, hydrofluorosilicic acid is considered a hazardous substance and must be disposed of following strict environmental regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Now, where in the world is all this toxic waste going to be dumped? Maybe the United States could sell the industrial waste product (fluoride) to China so that they can make more prescription drugs and sell it back to us. (Using ridicule in order to expose this mess.) Once you go down this rabbit hole, you will find a lot more alarming information.

The corrupt CDC, WHO, EPA, and State Health Departments have been controlling the dangerous narrative for decades, but things are changing. And, let’s not forget about the American Dental Association (ADA). The chemical companies greatly depend on the ADA’s endorsement of water fluoridation. This house-of-cards is destined to fall!

Yes, more good things are happening because in May 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an investigation into the marketing of fluoride toothpastes by Colgate-Palmolive and Proctor and Gamble. Here is the recent press release from his office that describes the companies’ promotions as “misleading, deceptive, and dangerous.”

Fluoride supplements, drops, and toothpaste especially pose an acute and long-term risk to children because of a fluoride overdose.

Those who have bought into the propaganda of water fluoridation and those who continue to endorse it as a safe and effective public health measure are finding out the danger that has been perpetrated upon the public. Our Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) has been extremely silent regarding this issue and manages to be out of the office when called about water fluoridation, along with Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Delta Dental collaborates with our health department (ADH), a fitting example of a public-private partnership!

This is another lengthy report, but it needs to be put together from past articles so that the reader can get a better perspective of the players and what’s been going on here in Arkansas for many years and in other states that fluoridate. It’s interesting information, so you might consider reading further.

This has been written especially for HHS to review.

Arkansas’ corrupt Public Health Committees in both the Senate and House have been locked down for years, and to our detriment, they are NOT putting the public’s health first! The Arkansas Public Health Committees refuse to repeal the fluoride mandate!

Why? Well, special interest groups have controlled these committees for many years now.

Once again, we believe one special interest group is Delta Dental, and we wonder how many legislators accepted campaign donations from Delta Dental through another front group or lobbyist(s). So, we looked and found that Delta Dental bribed both Democrats and Republicans in Arkansas for the past 18 years with $259,750 in campaign donations to mandate fluoride in Arkansas. It looks like these figures are accurate, so check out Open Secrets Follow the Money for the details.

Delta Dental has been a major player in this fluoridation fiasco. They have bamboozled many dentists and even some doctors who believe when they helped “assist” in the forced fluoride mandate by putting up the front money or loaning the water systems money to install fluoridation equipment that they were doing it out of the goodness of their hearts… but were they?

When fluoridated systems are funded privately (by special interest groups) and not publicly voted on by the people, isn’t this coercive?

For decades, Delta Dental has had a long-standing financial and advocacy support for the malevolent practice of community water fluoridation.

Delta Dental’s involvement in promoting water fluoridation varies by state.

Both Arkansas and Kentucky have put up political resistance in their legislative sessions, and both states allege undue influence by Delta Dental. Read it for yourself. See this letter of propaganda from Delta Dental of Kentucky and friends sent to the House Standing Committee on State Government.

This letter from Delta Dental of Kentucky goes against the federal judge ruling in Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 445 Filed 09/24/24.

In a major blow to the EPA, a federal judge has ruled that fluoride may pose a risk to children’s IQ.

A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an “unreasonable risk” to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such.

Here is the court ruling on our lawsuit against EPA:

Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 445 Filed 09/24/24 (80 pages)

Some excerpts from the above ruling:

From Page 15

b. Key finding

30. The hazard identification step of the hazard assessment here is satisfied; exposure to the chemical fluoride is associated with the adverse effect of reduced IQ in children, and particularly in boys

From pages 79 and 80

V CONCLUSION OF LAW

121. Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States – presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii).

122.  The Court thus orders the Administrator to initiate rulemaking pursuant to Subsection 6(a) of TSCA. See id. §§ 2605(a), 2620(a).

123.  The Court defers ruling as to whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of their costs of suit and attorneys and expert witness fees. Parties are ordered to submit a proposed supplemental briefing schedule regarding costs and fees within two weeks of the date of this order.

Defendant shall respond two weeks thereafter. The Court will take the matter under submission unless it orders a hearing.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2024 ______________________________________

            EDWARD M. CHEN

           United States District Judge

Judge Chen wrote in his 80-page ruling Tuesday, September 24, 2024: “If there is an insufficient margin, then the chemical poses a risk.”

Policymakers at the local and state level do not need to wait to take action. The federal government doesn’t mandate fluoridation, and thus local and state decision-makers can take action immediately. We have a very thorough decision made by the federal courts based on extensive evidence.

Also, the public didn’t sign up to have a chemical added to public drinking water that could adversely affect the brain. And while a cavity can easily be filled, damage to the brain is permanent, and the consequences are lifelong. There are no second chances when it comes to impaired brain development.

If the State Health Department, State Legislators, or Governor don’t take action to follow the Federal Court Ruling, it should be up to the local water operators to ban fluoride and remove fluoride from the public water supplies.

Delta Dental claims to be the nation’s largest provider of dental benefits, serving more than 89 million people across all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico… but many people DO NOT care for the stingy benefits that they offer. Seems they pay out as little as they can!

Delta Dental operates as a network of non-profit and for-profit dental insurance companies. Through their philanthropic arms, such as the Delta Dental Community Care Foundation and the Delta Dental Institute, they fund various oral health initiatives, including workforce development and community health programs.

Organizations like:

• Delta Dental Foundation

• American Dental Association Foundation

• Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

…offer grants for:

• Dental care in rural or underserved areas

• Oral health education initiatives

• Preventive care innovations

Delta Dental, through its affiliated non-profit foundations, offers grants to water systems to cover the cost of installing fluoridation equipment. So, this expands Delta Dental’s influence over our public health policies and potentially steers dental practices toward favoring insurance-based “preventive” models. Frankly, the main goal for them is to work to translate their efforts into contracts with government programs (e.g., Medicaid, FEDVIP).

Also, state health departments and local agencies sometimes award grants for:

• Mobile dental clinics

• School-based dental sealant programs

• Community fluoridation infrastructure

Yes, Delta Dental definitely helps entrench policy making and makes it more difficult for local governments to reverse decisions without losing infrastructure investments. And yes, they could profit from influencing policies.

Don’t forget that our state healthcare policy and services are tied up with Delta Dental:

Delta Dental is a provider of dental insurance plans available to Arkansas state employees through the Arkansas State Employee Benefits Advisors (ARSEBA).

Also, Arkansas Oral Health Coalition, a non-profit organization (NGO) is made possible by a grant from the Delta Dental Arkansas Foundation!

Delta Dental, through its various state-based foundations and the Delta Dental Institute, invests in programs to increase oral health access and “education”.

Lots of planning is going on behind the scenes because in 2023, the Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation awarded a Strategic Initiative Grant of over $46,000 to the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute. This grant funded the development of a comprehensive playbook designed to assist non-profit dental clinics in Arkansas with implementing third-party billing systems, including Medicaid and private insurance. Looks like the goal was to enable these clinics to generate more revenue streams, therefore expanding their services to more people.

So, Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation partnered with the Winthrop Rockefeller Institute on a state-level oral health initiative.  Is it any wonder that Arkansas’ SB347 (Act 1025) was thrown into this last session? This bill requires the Arkansas Medicaid Program to increase reimbursement rates for certain dental services, leading to millions of taxpayer dollars. The Act now mandates higher reimbursement rates for specific dental services under the Arkansas Medicaid program and it raises the annual reimbursement cap for adult dental services from $500 to $1,000. 

Yes, we know that Delta Dental has collaborated with Medicaid programs in various states to administer dental benefits for eligible beneficiaries. Here’s an example in Michigan:

• Healthy Kids Dental (HKD): Administered by Delta Dental, this program offers dental benefits to Medicaid-enrolled children under 21 across all 83 counties.

• Healthy Michigan Plan (HMP): Delta Dental partners with health plans to provide dental benefits to low-income adults aged 19–64.

• MI Health Link: For individuals dually eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, Delta Dental administers dental benefits in select counties.

Yes, Delta Dental wants to get their hands on that Medicaid money!

Side note: And we know that illegal aliens can qualify for 1) Emergency Medicaid, also known as Emergency Medical Services for Aliens (EMSA). Also, illegal aliens in Arkansas can also access healthcare services through 2) Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and community health clinics. These facilities offer primary and preventive care on a sliding fee scale based on income and provide services regardless of immigration status. And finally, under the 3) Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), hospitals are required to provide emergency medical care to anyone in need, regardless of immigration status or ability to pay. This ensures that illegal aliens can receive emergency services without fear of being reported to immigration authorities, which needs to be redetermined immediately.

Unfortunately, the taxpayer is on the hook through legislation that deals with Medicaid.

Did you know that dentists can apply for research or service grants from federal agencies like:

• NIH (National Institutes of Health) – especially through the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR).

• HRSA (Health Resources and Services Administration) – supports dental access for underserved populations.

• CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) – may fund public health initiatives that involve oral health programs.

One point about the CDC that needs to be brought out is: the CDC provides funding to help some communities implement or maintain water fluoridation, primarily through state health departments, but we should remember that now Secretary Kennedy of HHS does NOT recommend fluoridation.

• The CDC’s Division of Oral Health awards cooperative agreements and grants to state and tribal health departments.

• These funds may be used to:

• Start new community water fluoridation systems

• Upgrade equipment or infrastructure

• Train local water operators and public health officials

• Monitor and evaluate fluoridation levels

Major concerns have been raised about the CDC’s relationships with industry groups. For example, ties between CDC officials and organizations like the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), which is associated with major food and beverage companies, have led to questions about potential conflicts of interest and the influence of corporate interests on public health policies.

Delta Dental and the CDC initiatives are a lot alike.

So, does Delta Dental influence lawmakers? YES!

It’s common to see a revolving door by former politicians or regulators who get hired into a very lucrative corporate position (e.g., board seats, legal teams).

Consequently, politicians can shape policy favorably in hopes of future corporate or non-profit group employment somewhere.

Here’s how this works, whether it’s legal or illegal:

• So, is it lobbying or bribery/quid pro quo?

• Campaign bundling or money laundering for contributions?

• PAC or Super PAC donations… or, a direct payment for a vote?

• Hiring former politicians/officials… or simply extortion and/or coercion?

Note: Dark money comes in whenever corporations funnel money through non-profits (501(c)(4) groups) that aren’t required to disclose donors. Also, they can fund political ads and lobbying without transparency.

Thus, if they are not technically buying a politician, these types of practices often result in policy outcomes that are favorable to the corporate donor.

Secure Arkansas is calling for more oversight and more accountability through:

• The Arkansas Ethics Commission, state auditors, and federal agencies (e.g., HHS, CDC). We want them to better monitor how public funds and grants are used, especially look into public-private partnerships.

• Grants are subject to audit and reporting requirements to ensure transparency and compliance.

This is what Secure Arkansas wrote in July 2015:

Remember what happened with SB359/Act 197 Fluoride Mandate bill from 2012?  Most of the legislators that voted for SB359 received a campaign donation from Arkansas Dental PAC for their YEA votes for the fluoride mandate bill.   This data was collected from the Arkansas Secretary of State website filings on each individual legislator.  You can do your own search here (ie. type in “Arkansas Dental PAC” and the year in the search boxes to bring up pdf files of PAC quarterly reporting forms, but that site isn’t very user-friendly).  

The initial start-up costs came from Delta Dental of Arkansas.  Some legislators received over $4,000 for this ONE VOTE.  This can be validated at this website.  Click here for the House vote on SB359, and click here for the Senate vote.

Also, Secure Arkansas wrote this in February 2012:

1) Former State Senator David Johnson - Currently David Johnson is the general counsel at Central Arkansas Water (CAW). His job consists of leading the utility’s legislative agenda by drafting and steering the agency’s biennial legislative package.)

After sponsoring a bill that mandates fluoridation of public water supplies (Senate Bill 359/Act 197 of 2011, Regular Session), Arkansas Senator David Johnson (D) receives $7,500 in campaign donations over two months from dentists:

10/13/11 – Arkansas Dental Political Action Committee, $1,000
11/17/11 – Arkansas Dental PAC, $500
11/23/11 – DBH Management Consultants (represents Delta Dental of Arkansas), $2,000
12/30/11 – Scott Bolding (dentist and investor), $2,000
12/30/11 – Oral & Facial Surgery Center, $2,000
Source: Arkansas Secretary of State

Senator Johnson’s profile page
Is there money to be made from fluoridation?

Moreover, Secure Arkansas wrote this in September 2018:

2) State Senator Missy Irvin – ( Currently Chair of the Senate Health Committee)

Senator Irvin and ALEC support the harmful fluoridation mandate for our drinking water. Irvin was paid well for her fluoride “yes” vote when the calamitous, forced mandate occurred here in Arkansas in 2011. It was sponsored by former Senator David Johnson. (Delta Dental is an ALEC corporate member.) Irvin is now the Co-Chair of Public Health-Senate Health Services AND a member of the Senate Public Health, Welfare, and Labor Committee. Controversially, she serves her masters on the ALEC Health and Human Services Task Force! The public should find this disagreeable!

Additionally, this article in 2015:

3)  Apparent Fluoride Deception Used by Lynn Mouden, DDS, MPH

Former Director of Oral Health in Arkansas and Current Chief Dental Officer for
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
in Promoting Water Fluoridation in Arkansas in 2011

image credit
Lynn Mouden, DDS, MPH,
former Oral Health Director (Arkansas Department of Health)

current Chief Dental Officer at
U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
email: lynn.mouden@cms.hhs.gov

What exactly happened that caused ACT 197 / SB359 (the water fluoridation mandate) to be passed in Arkansas, anyway? Who were the players when it was implemented? Was money involved? Who was paid off (or “financially induced”)? Which legislators received money before and after this vote?  Was there a conflict of interest?  How did a small town dentist from Weston, Missouri, end up in Washington, D.C?

Secure Arkansas decided to look into these questions and retrace what happened, and we discovered by reviewing the 2011 IRS 990 filing of Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation that Lynn Douglas Mouden, DDS, MPH (Master of Public Health) was a director of TWO different organizations AT THE SAME TIME: Delta Dental Foundation of Arkansas AND Arkansas Department of Health’s Office of Oral Health – both which promote fluoride. Mouden used a non-existent survey to try to prove that people in a non-fluoridated area have more cavities than a fluoridated area. Mouden also used Delta Dental, medical professionals, and PEW to move his way up from small town dentist to the office of Chief Dental Officer at the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).  Mouden’s whole career appears to be built on lies, cover ups, and junk data. Keep reading to find out more…

Isn’t this a direct conflict of interest between the Arkansas Department of Health and Delta Dental? (See our previous articles: “Delta Dental Exposed – Follow the Money – Part 1” and “ADH Jeff Stone Comments + More Shocking News On Delta Dental” for more info.)

• Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation 2011 IRS 990 Filing (Lynn Mouden, Director)
  2011 provided a grant to Arkansas Children’s Hospital Foundation of $225,000
  2011 provided a grant to UAMS of $150,000
  2011 provided a grant to Arkansas Mission of Mercy of $100,000

• Arkansas Department of Health (ADH), Office of Oral Health (Lynn Mouden, Director. His salary: $117,396.86)

In case you weren’t aware, the Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas is the vehicle that is used to fund the Delta Dental Foundation of Arkansas. These funds appear to be excess profits from Delta Dental Plan. It also appears that Delta Dental Plan is charging excess premiums in order to fund Delta Dental Foundation. Delta Dental Foundation provides the grant money for the startup costs for all fluoridation installation.

Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas INC  2011 IRS 990 Filing

• 2011 President & CEO Ed Choate- Total compensation $504,792

• 2011 Provided a grant of $2,341,306 to Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation

• 2011 Provided a grant of $200,000 to Univ of Arkansas Medical Service (UAMS)

• 2011 Provided a grant of $50,000      to Arkansas State Dental Association

This money influence is used by powerful figures to taint the truth and control the fluoride agenda across America and the world! The deception goes much deeper than most people realize. You must follow the money and the players to reveal the truth.

As you can see by reading the Bio of Lynn Douglas Mouden, DDS, MPH (Master of Public Health), this man is involved in many entities. (Apparently, his Bio was removed!!)

Current job: February 15, 2012 to present

Chief dental officer at the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)

Previous jobs:

• Director of the Office of Oral Health for the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH)

• Board Member Arkansas Department of Health (ADH)

• Associate Bureau Chief for the Missouri Bureau of Dental Health

• Chaired the American Dental Association (ADA) National Fluoridation Advisory Committee

• Chaired CAPIR Prevention Subcommittee; CAPIR stands for Council on Access, Prevention and Interprofessional Relations (American Dental Association)

• Scientific Advisory Board Member National Children’s Oral Health Foundation

• Founder and International spokesperson – Prevent Abuse

• Past President Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors (ASTDD),                    ASTDD Membership List

• Founder of the International Program – PANDA  Coalition – Prevent Abuse and Neglect through Dental Awareness. The coalition was founded in Missouri and developed by Delta Dental of Missouri as the corporate sponsor. P.A.N.D.A. coalitions are now in place in 46 US states and 7 international programs.

P.A.N.D.A. Coalition Members:

• Delta Dental Plan of Arkansas

• Office of Oral Health, Arkansas DHHS

• Arkansas State Dental Association

• Arkansas Child Abuse, Rape and Domestic Violence Commission

• Arkansas State Dental Hygienists’ Association

• Arkansas Dental Assistants’ Association

• Arkansas State Dental Association

• Arkansas Child Abuse, Rape

• UAMS Department of Dental Hygiene: Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation made a $2 million commitment to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). Leaders from UAMS backed Act 197, which requires Arkansas cities with more than 5,000 residents to fluoridate their water supply. Delta Dental pledged it would provide $500,000 to cover start-up costs for the 32 communities that would be affected by the bill. At the same time the Lynn Douglas Mouden, DDS MPH was the  Director of the Office of Oral Health for the Arkansas Department of Health and at the same time he was also one of the directors of Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation as shown on the 990 IRS 2011 filing for Delta Dental Foundation.

• University of Arkansas – Fort Smith, Department of Dental Hygiene

• DHHS Child Protective Services (Dept of Health & Human Services)

• AR Coalition Against Domestic Violence

It appears to us that this man has made his way to Washington, D.C. by falsifying many reports… or at least by making false claims.

There is a national alliance between the Arkansas Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (as well as other entities) mentioned in the link directly below.  This alliance involves supposed “interests in the oral health of the public”.

Arkansas Oral Health Surveillance Plan 2013

The Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) is promoted through a CDC cooperative agreement.  This cooperative agreement between ADH and CDC has been requested via FOIA request to the Arkansas Department of Health.

Dr. Lynn Douglas Mouden, the recently appointed Chief Dental Officer for the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), received the Fluoridation Merit Award (May 11, 2012) in recognition for his advocacy for water fluoridation and his accomplishments in Arkansas. (It is Secure Arkansas’ opinion that he should return that award! The PEW Report was one of many of the pieces of junk data that Lynn Mouden used to get SB359 passed. Mouden used the Pew report that gave Arkansas an “F” and used it to his advantage. More info about that below…)

Delta Dental and the Arkansas Department of Health have used what appears to be bogus surveys and junk science to convince the Arkansas Legislators into passing SB359/ACT197 into law. Secure Arkansas has sent several FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests to the Arkansas Department of Health to get to the bottom of the information deception used in passing SB359 / ACT197 (toxic fluoridation of public drinking water) into law in 2011.  We have also attempted to get the raw data that Lynn Douglas Mouden, DDS, MPH made available to the legislators to convince them that people drinking non-fluoridated water had more cavities than people drinking fluoridated water because his claim simply isn’t true. Senator David Johnson and Senator Jason Rapert also used a lot of this bogus data in both the Senate and House Public Health Committee hearings on March 1, 2011 to actually make policy when they passed SB359 out of committee. . (The link takes you to SB359 and you can scroll down on there to view the Senate and House votes.) At present, the raw data used by Lynn Douglas Mouden, DDS, MPH former Director of the Office of Oral Health for the Arkansas Department of Health does not exist. This raw data is the survey supposedly done comparing Perry County, AR which is a non-fluoridated area to Morrilton, AR which is a fluoridated area.

ADA stated that the PEW Report, released in February 2010, used incorrect data that gave Arkansas an “F” rating. This is the same report that was used by Senator David Johnson and Senator Jason Rapert to convince the Arkansas legislators that fluoridation should be considered for the “greater good” of Arkansas. Out of the eight benchmarks used, the Arkansas State Dental Association stated that two of the benchmarks are proven, effective means to improve oral health. The other six benchmarks are PEW’S Opinion with unproven efficacy. Out of the eight benchmarks, only one applies to fluoridation. ADA went on to say that they don’t agree with everything in the report as stated by Dr. Tankersley (former ADA President). This report was also about Medicaid funding. The Arkansas legislators were misled into believing that the PEW report was all about fluoridation. (This shows more deception in getting SB359 passed into law.) ADA stated the PEW report used incorrect data for Arkansas and that Arkansas should have received a “D” and not an “F”. ADA discredited the PEW report due to incorrect data being used.

According to Lynn Mouden of the Office of Oral Health (part of the Arkansas Department of Health): “PEW played a big role in the passage of this law. Arkansas stakeholders laid the groundwork, but Pew brought to the table their own public health understanding and knowledge. The Pew report card shined a new light on this topic, and their staff worked well with state and local stakeholders to help provide momentum for the bill that was signed into law.”

But our guess is that PEW deliberately used incorrect data to get the Arkansas legislators to pass SB359, and Secure Arkansas believes that Lynn Mouden knew this data was incorrect and used it to his advantage. The Arkansas legislators stated many times that they didn’t want to see Arkansas at the bottom of the heap with an “F” rating.  Dr. Lynn Mouden told Shelly Gehshan, former director of Pew’s dental campaign, “You need to help us change the grade.” (It was an “F”)

Mouden worked with Pew to sponsor a public opinion survey of Arkansas voters to show a strong majority supporting water fluoridation. Second, Pew provided funding for the advocates to hire an experienced government affairs firm that actively educated legislators about SB359. Pew staff also provided fact sheets and technical assistance. This erroneous data was sold to the legislators as TRUTH.  (See pages 7 -9 of this document.)

Dr. Mouden also said that the Delta Dental Foundation “showed great leadership” by making the financial investment to cover the capital costs, especially for new fluoridation equipment. You need to realize that Delta Dental has deep pockets with an endless supply of money. Remember:  money talks. Many of the groups that testified before the committee received large grants, and most of the legislators had money dumped into their campaign funds prior to – and after – the vote. The funds came from DBH Management Consultants, Arkansas Dental PAC (Senator Jason Rapert’s client for which he is a financial advisor), and Delta Dental PAC.

Here’s just one example:

after sponsoring the bill that mandates fluoridation of public water supplies (Senate Bill 359/ Act 197 of 2011, Regular Session), Arkansas Senator David Johnson (D) received $7,500 in campaign donations over two months from dentists:

10/13/11 – Arkansas Dental Political Action Committee, $1,000

11/17/11 – Arkansas Dental PAC, $500

11/23/11 – DBH Management Consultants (represents Delta Dental of Arkansas), $2,000

12/30/11 – Scott Bolding (dentist and investor), $2,000

12/30/11 – Oral & Facial Surgery Center, $2,000

Source: Arkansas Secretary of State

Senator Johnson’s profile page

Is there money to be made from fluoridation?

A study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association suggests that dentists in fluoridated areas earned larger gross and net incomes.

Stay tuned for more revealing truth about the topic of toxic water fluoridation!  We’ve uncovered more information which we can’t wait to share with you…

Your friends and family may also sign up to receive our Action Alerts by clicking here.

Freedom from fluoride poison is vital to our health!

Finally, Secure Arkansas wrote this article in December 2015:

4)  Delta Dental and the Fluoride Exposure

“Fluoridation is the greatest case of scientific fraud of this century, if not of all time.”

    — Robert Carton, Ph.D., former U.S. EPA scientist, on “Marketplace” Canadian Broadcast Company Nov 24, 1992.

As usual, this article is full of useful information, links, and data that will take time for you to process, so please don’t just glance over it.

Fluorides have little or no effect on decay prevention in humans.

In 1990, Dr. John Colquhoun was forced into early requirement in New Zealand after he conducted a study on 60,000 school children and found no difference in tooth decay between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. He additionally found that a substantial number of children in fluoridated areas suffered from dental fluorosis. He made the study public. In 1998, he summarized the reasons for opposition to fluoridation.  Dr. Colquhoun’s conclusion was — in his best judgment — reached with a high degree of scientific certainty that fluoridation is invalid in theory and ineffective in practice as a preventive of dental caries. It is dangerous to the health of consumers.  Read this affidavit of Dr. John Colquhoun in support of motion for a Summary Judgment.

image credit

Secure Arkansas is bringing attention to the Arkansas Governor’s office that apparent fraud was used to set policy upon which the legislators based their vote in support of the Fluoridation Mandate SB359/ACT197 of 2011. An investigation is being requested to bring charges against the departments and individuals involved that used the bogus data presented to the legislators. At the time that Dr. Lynn Mouden was the Director of Oral Health – Arkansas Department of Health; he was also the Director of Delta Dental of Arkansas Foundation.  This is a direct conflict of interest and abuse of public trust.

See 2010 Arkansas Code, Title 5 – Criminal Offenses, Subtitle 5 Offenses Against The Administration of Government, Chapter 52 – Corruption in Public Office

• § 5-52-101 – Abuse of public trust.

• § 5-52-104 – Soliciting unlawful compensation.

• § 5-52-105 – Attempt to influence a public servant.

• § 5-52-106 – Misuse of confidential information.

• § 5-52-107 – Abuse of office.

• § 5-52-108 – Compensation for speeches and appearances.

5-52-101. Abuse of public trust.  

(a) A person commits the offense of abuse of public trust if the person:

(1) Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept on behalf of any person, political party, or other organization any benefit from another person upon an agreement or understanding that the other person will or may be appointed a public servant or designated or nominated as a candidate for public office;

(2) Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit, and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section;

(3) Solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept any benefit as compensation or consideration for having as a public servant given a decision, opinion, recommendation, or vote favorable to another or for having otherwise exercised his or her discretion in favor of another; or

(4) Offers, confers, or agrees to confer any benefit upon a public servant, and the receipt of the benefit is prohibited by this section.

(b) It is not a defense to a prosecution under this section that the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or use of discretion, except for the benefit, was otherwise proper.

(c) Abuse of public trust is a Class D felony.

There were two false and bogus reports that were used to convince the legislators to pass SB359/ACT197:

1. The PEW Report that gave Arkansas an “F”! The PEW Report that has been so widely used is proven to not be accurate! Even the Arkansas State Dental Association (ADA) had issues with the PEW report. (see slide 2)  ADA stated that six out of the eight benchmarks was PEW’s opinion with unproven efficacy. PEW had a lot of collaboration with appropriate state officials, which resulted in erroneous findings for Arkansas. ADA stated that they don’t agree with everything in the report. Click here to see the Fluoride Connection between the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and PEW.

2. Survey conducted in a Fluoridated Area and Non-Fluoridated area kindergarten students. It is Secure Arkansas’ belief that these 2002 dental screening studies that were supposedly conducted for kindergarten students in schools in Morrilton, Arkansas, and Perry County, Arkansas never existed! We believe the data was falsified based on interviews from witnesses who were actually present at the time the surveys were supposedly conducted in each school district!

• Witnesses claim the 2002 dental screenings/study never happened at Morrilton Elementary

• Witnesses from Perry County, Anne Watson Elementary in Bigelow claim that no study/dental screenings were done in their school in 2002

• Witnesses from Perry-Casa Elementary, now merged into Two Rivers Elementary, claim they did not remember any 2002 study/dental screenings done there or at that time

• We have found NO proof that this study was ever conducted!  If our fluoride mandate was based on a false report, then we must have the governor nullify and void ACT 197, and since fluoride is now listed_as_a_neurotoxin, a call for a moratorium on water fluoridation in Arkansas is in order.

The Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) requires that NSF/ANSI Standard 60 be followed and that the NSF information for certification should be supplied by the supplier of the chemicals. NSF 60 “Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects” state that for the fluoridation products to receive the NSF/ANSI 60 mark of approval, they must be subjected to toxicological “studies,””toxicity studies,” “assay,” and “testing” of many types. NSF requires “”toxicology review to determine that the product is safe at its maximum use level.”

The Carroll Boone Water District (CBWD) has requested NSF/ANSI standard 60 section 3.2.1 information requiring proper product disclosure and toxicological information and studies from 49 manufacturers and suppliers in the United States and Canada. CBWD. To date, the Carroll Boone Water District has not received any reply to their request.

To ensure that the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 section 3.2.1 issue is met, the water operators MUST include a request for NSF 60 section 3.2.1 information in every bid for any fluoride product: the fluoride product supplier must provide all product disclosure, toxicological,  information, and studies provided to NSF for product certification plus sending the same information to the water operator requesting the information in a bid for the fluoride product.

NSF Mission

NSF International is dedicated to being the leading global provider of public health and safety-based risk management solutions while serving the interests of all stakeholders, namely the public, the business community, and government agencies. Our mission is carried out by over 2,100 global employees, including microbiologists, toxicologists, chemists, engineers, and environmental and public health professionals.

The following is from NSF International Standard/American National Standard:

NSF/ANSI 60 – 2013 Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals – Health Effects

(The link brings you to a preview. The full version is available for purchase at the ANSI store.)

Here are some important excerpts:

3.1 General  (Page 4 & 5)

Direct additives shall be evaluated and tested in accordance with Annexes A and B. The Single Product Allowable Concentration (SPAC) of a contaminant shall be calculated as outlined in Annex A. Under the provisions of this Standard, a product shall not contribute any contaminant to drinking water in excess of the contaminant’s SPAC.

Direct additives under this Standard shall be:

• the treatment or water supply product itself;

• the product-specific contaminants listed in each of the product sections of this Standard; and

• other constituents as identified in the formulation review.

Figure 3.1 provides an overview of the evaluation process.  (see page 6)

3.2 Formulation submission and review

3.2.1 The manufacturer shall submit, at a minimum, the following information for each product:

• a proposed maximum use level for the product, which is consistent with the requirements of Annex A;

• complete formulation information, which includes the following:

• the composition of the formulation (in percent or parts by weight for each chemical in the formulation);

• the reaction mixture used to manufacture the chemical, if applicable;

• chemical abstract number (CAS number), chemical name, and supplier for each chemical present in the formulation;

• a list of known or suspected impurities within the treatment chemical formulation and the maximum percent or parts by weight of each impurity; and

• the source and type of water used in the manufacture of the treatment chemical as well as any available documentation regarding quality monitoring of such water source, if applicable;

• a description or classification of the process in which the treatment chemical is manufactured, handled, and packaged;

• selected spedra (e.g. UV/Visible, infrared) shall be required for some additive products or their principal constituents; and

• when required by Annex A a list of published and unpublished toxicological studies relevant to the treatment chemicals and the chemicals and impurities present in the treatment chemical.

————————————

On November 24, 2015, an FOIA was sent to Mr. Rogers of ADH from Secure Arkansas for the following information:

1. Provide a copy of the dental screening request made by Perry County Hometown Health Coalition to the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health in 2002.

2. Provide a copy of the response sent from the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health, to Perry County Hometown Health Coalition concerning the dental screening request.

3. Provide a copy of the dental screening request made by any school in Morrilton, Arkansas, to the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health, in 2002.

4. Provide a copy of the response sent from the Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health, to the Morrilton, Arkansas school concerning the dental screening request.

*The source information leading to the above request was derived from a report put out by the Arkansas Department of Health titled “Oral Health in Arkansas: The Facts”

The following quote is from page 2  “Oral Health in Arkansas: The Facts” by ADH:

“Two separate but parallel studies were conducted in Morrilton and Perry County, Arkansas. The data from these neighboring communities, on opposite sides of the Arkansas River, vividly showcase the efficacy of water fluoridation. In January of 2002, elementary school students in Perryville, Casa, and Ann Watson schools received dental screenings at the request of the Perry County Hometown Health Coalition. In October of 2002, all kindergarten students from the City of Morrilton also received a dental screening at the request of the school. (Secure Arkansas does not believe the school requested the dental screenings since ADH never did this study, according to witnesses.) Comparing the data from fluoridated Morrilton to the data on the same age students in Perry County showed twice the decay rate for non-fluoridated Perry County children.

Reference:  Arkansas Department of Health, Office of Oral Health 2002. (We are unable to find this oral health report.)

=============  End of FOIA of 11/24/2015   =============

Seems to us that if the alleged Perry Co.and Morrilton studies were actually done, the ADH would be using it as major bragging rights.  We can’t seem to find any mention of a study done in Morrilton and Perry County or anything about the 2008 survey of which ADH seems to have no documentation, either. (See ‘past accomplishments’ page 6-9 of the below Arkansas Oral Health Plan). Yet, in this article, they talk about the importance of gathering data so that Arkansans oral health needs can be addressed over a ‘lifespan’.

That begs the question:  if this is so important, why did ADH not maintain all past data that has been gathered?

We have mentioned the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) and Pew Charitable Trust earlier in this article, so we wanted to share a little more information about these (needs an adjective) groups.

National Sanitation Foundation International (NSF)  

(NSF)

Total Assets  $259,129,500 for 2013

Total Revenue  $101,608,572 for 2013

NSF International President and CEO is Kevan P. Lawlor –  total Compensation as reported on IRS 990 form for 2013 is $2,503,542. The compensation of the other officers of NSF International is also listed on the 990 form for 2013.

Kevan P. Lawlor was elected President and Chief Executive Officer of NSF International in September 2003. NSF International is the Public Health and Safety Company, a not-for-profit organization founded in 1944. NSF provides technical risk management solutions to manufacturers, to the government, and to the public, particularly related to the food and water industries. NSF provides services to clients operating in over 100 countries. These services include product certification, standards development,management systems registration, laboratory testing, training and education and food safety audits for retailers and suppliers.

Fraudulent Fluoridation Certification by National Sanitation Foundation (NSF)

by Attorney James Robert Deal

The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) certifies fluoridation materials to be safe. Based on this certification, some states and some water districts require that fluoridation materials be added to drinking water. NSF Rule 60 states that some 20 toxicological tests of fluoridation materials must be done. NSF has admitted that the tests are not done. Because states and water districts make the decision to require fluoridation based on NSF’s certification, and because said certification is false and fraudulent, and because NSF is usurping the role of the FDA in certifying the fluoride drug to be safe, the FDA should to order NSF to cease in its certification of fluoridation materials to be safe.

PEW Charitable Trust  

PEW Charitable Trust

Total Assets $809,837,957 for 2014

Total Revenue $327,878,042 for 2014

PEW President and CEO is Rebecca W. Rimel.  Total Compensation as reported on IRS 990 form for 2014 is $1,093,758. The compensation of the other officers of PEW Charitable Trust is also listed on the 990 form for 2014.

The PEW Report that has been so widely used is proven to not be accurate! Even the Arkansas State Dental Association (ADA) had issues with the PEW report. (see slide 2)  ADA stated that six out of the eight benchmarks was PEW’s opinion with unproven efficacy. PEW had a lot of collaboration with appropriate state officials, which resulted in erroneous findings for Arkansas. ADA stated that they don’t agree with everything in the report.

Pew children’s dental initiative released:  The Cost of Delay. This PEW report used erroneous data. For the full report, click here, and also see Fluoridation Advocacy Pew’s Contributions pages 7-9. For details of PEW’s involvement in Arkansas. “Arkansas stakeholders laid the groundwork, but Pew brought to the table their own public health understanding and knowledge.”  PEW graded each state on its policy responses to actions each state did to improve dental health among low-income children. The Partners of PEW appear to be in bed with the dental professionals and the oral health division of CDC in promoting the toxic fluoridation of our public water supply.

The PEW report has 8 benchmarks that were used to come up with a grade for each state. Only benchmark #3 is for fluoride. The Pew Center released the study in February 2010 with the support of Kellogg Foundation and DentaQuest Foundation. Arkansas received a “F” due to two benchmarks using incorrect data.  Per the PEW report, Arkansas only met benchmarks 4 and 8. If the correct data had been used, Arkansas would have received at least a “D”.

The Arkansas Health Department (ADH) knew or should’ve known that the Pew data was in question when ADH and David Johnson used this report to pass the mandate, since it was called into question a year before ACT 197 was enacted into law.

Pew admits  After Pew released its 2010 report, Arkansas legislators enacted laws to expand community water fluoridation.  The state senator who sponsored these bills specifically cited Pew’s “F” grade as the impetus for his efforts.  PEW tries very hard to cover their ‘mistakes’ 2 years after their mistakes cost us our freedom of choice regarding what we put into our bodies.

From their site:

Overall State Grades  

In the map below, states were given specific points for each benchmark, and grades—on a scale of A to F—were based on the total points earned. Learn more about how each state performed in our state fact sheets.

From the American Dental Association (ADA) News May 6, 2013

“Pew used the federal government’s Healthy People 2010 sealant goal—instead of the 2020 goal—because we [ADA] felt it was unfair to grade states on a benchmark more than seven years before it was supposed to be achieved. Further, Pew did not use sealant data for low-income children—data that was collected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services—because officials there informed us that they did not have a high level of confidence in the quality of these 2010 statistics. In addition, relying on these data would underestimate state efforts because many sealant programs do not seek reimbursement from Medicaid.”

The state senator who sponsored these bills specifically cited Pew’s “F” grade as the impetus for his efforts.

DentaQuest Foundation and W.K. Kellogg Foundation are both supporting PEW in their report. Check out their IRS filings below.

DentaQuest Foundation  IRS 990-PF 2013 filing

Provided a $90,000 grant to Pew Charitable Trusts

W.K. Kellogg Foundation IRS 990 PF 2013 filing From IRS 990 PF – 2013 filing the following grants are shown: (some of these entities testified before the Public Health Committee supporting fluoridation)

Provided a $250,000 grant to Arkansas Public Policy Panel

Provided a $500,000  grant to Arkansas Department of Human Services

Provided a $600,000 grant to Arkansas Community Foundation, Inc.

Provided a $150,000 grant to Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families

Provided a $152,000 grant to  University of Arkansas Foundation

Provided a $100,000 grant to University of Arkansas

The Arkansas Legislators, the Arkansas Department of Health, and Delta Dental relied so heavily on misrepresenting the data in the PEW report that they must have known it was in error to pass SB359/ACT197.

Here are the PEW report benchmarks: (Please note that only benchmark #3 pertains to fluoride)

Benchmark #1 State has sealant programs in place in at least 25% of high-risk schools.

Benchmark #2 State does not require a dentist’s exam before a hygienist sees a child in a school sealant program

Benchmark #3 State provides optimally fluoridated water to at least 75 percent of citizens on community systems. (This is the only benchmark that addresses fluoride)

Benchmark #4 State meets or exceeds the national average (38,1%) of children ages 1 to 18 on Medicaid receiving dental services. Arkansas received a Yes.

Benchmark #5 State pays dentists who serve Medicaid-enrolled children at least the national average (60.5%) of Medicaid rates as a percentage of dentists’ median retail fees

Benchmark #6 State Medicaid program reimburses medical care providers for preventive dental health services.

Benchmark #7 State has authorized a new primary care dental provider

Benchmark #8 State submits basic screening data to the national database. Arkansas received a YES.

The way the PEW report was rigged, Arkansas could have passed only benchmark 3 for fluoridation and still gotten a failing grade of “F”.

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”

— Soren Kierkegaard

So, public policy was set in Arkansas based on what we think could be a fraudulent study and a fraudulent PEW report!

Delta Dental Foundation  

Total Assets $53,614,047

Total Revenue $8,250,697

Delta Dental Foundation President and CEO is Laura L. Czelada. Total Compensation as reported on IRS 990 form for 2014 is  $3,899,548. The compensation of the other officers of Delta Dental Foundation is also listed on the 990 form for 2014.

Why is Delta Dental so concerned with water fluoridation??  Is it for the children, or could their motive possibly be investments and/or money?

Remember what happened with SB 359/Act 197 Fluoride Mandate bill from 2012?  Most of the legislators that voted for SB359 received a campaign donation from Arkansas Dental PAC for their YEA votes for the fluoride mandate bill.   This data was collected from the Arkansas Secretary of State website filings on each individual legislator.  You can do your own search here (ie. type in “Arkansas Dental PAC” and the year in the search boxes to bring up pdf files of PAC quarterly reporting forms, but that site isn’t very user-friendly).  

The initial start-up costs came from Delta Dental of Arkansas.  Some legislators received over $4,000 for this ONE VOTE.  This can be validated at this website.  Click here for the House vote on SB 359, and click here for the Senate vote.

Big money is involved all the way around!  See below for information that could possibly expose Delta Dental and their questionable practices of shuffling money around the country.

Centers for Disease Control (CDC)  

CDC Exposed as Private Corporation Colluding with Big Pharma

CDC isn’t what it appears on the surface is the fact that this supposed government agency is listed in the official Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) directory as a for-profit corporation.

CDC Lacks Scientific Integrity

Center for Disease Control (CDC)

Current Director – Dr. Tom Frieden, MD, MPH

Former CDC Director Julie Gerberding sells 38,368 shares of Merck Stock for $2.3 Million

CDC is in bed with Big Pharma

By the way, the FDA also promotes drugs based on bogus industry studies and payments from the drug manufacturers. In 2013, a series of investigative reports revealed a concerning “pay-for-play” arrangement involving pharmaceutical companies, academic researchers, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Again, these sorts of public-private partnerships are one of many ways in which the FDA participates.

How Conflicts of Interest Have Corrupted the CDC

Conflicts of interest have become more the rule than the exception with the CDC. CDC receives heavy funding from industry through the CDC Foundation.

The following report by the British Medical Journal by Jeanne Lenzer shows how the CDC’s conflict of interest may have affected the organization’s decisions on the majority of its issues.  This is due to the government ties.

The infamous revolving door between the government and the drug industry is another factor that has done an awful lot to destroy scientific integrity and government accountability. One classic example is Dr. Julie Gerberding, who headed up the CDC— which, among other things, is charged with overseeing vaccines—from 2002 to 2009 before becoming the president of Merck’s vaccine division, a position she currently holds today.

As studies show, the source of funding alters scientific conclusions, so research reveals that industry-funded research is riddled with flaws, shortcomings, and outright fraud. As reported by the Progressive Review. Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well-respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world – published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

Here is the CDC’s disclaimer on their site, which is highlighted in YELLOW below:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) includes the following disclaimer with its recommendations: “CDC, our planners, and our content experts wish to disclose they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products . . . CDC does not accept commercial support.”

Secure Arkansas does not believe this is a true statement since big business is in bed with them through the CDC Foundation, and the CDC Foundation in turn provides grants to the CDC.

“Despite the agency’s disclaimer, the CDC does receive millions of dollars in industry gifts and funding, both directly and indirectly, and several recent CDC actions and recommendations have raised questions about the science it cites, the clinical guidelines it promotes, and the money it is taking. Notably, the report demonstrates how the agency has been less than honest in its publication of disclaimers in its own studies when stating that “they have no financial interests or other relationships with the manufacturers of commercial products.”- British Medical Journal (BMJ)

CDC has a direct “Conflict of Interest” due to its connection to the CDC Foundation. It appears that a conflict of interest has become more of a rule than a general exception.  CDC receives heavy funding from industries, and the CDC Foundation is discussed below.

The concept that the CDC represents the public good needs to be seriously re-evaluated!

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Foundation  

Total Assets  $85,430,998 for 2013

Total Revenue  $44,000,355 for 2013

CDC Foundation President and CEO at that time was Charles Stokes. Stokes’s total compensation as  reported on IRS 990 filing for 2013 was $445,522.00. Prior to becoming President of the CDC Foundation, Mr. Stokes worked with the Missouri Department of Health, serving as deputy director for the Department from 1983 through 1995. He currently serves as vice chairman of the Atlanta-based Raoul Foundation Board. (It is the guess of Secure Arkansas that Mr. Stokes and Mr. Lynn Mouden knew each other very well because they are from the same area. Mr. Lynn Mouden also has close ties with Delta Dental of Missouri and the P.A.N.D.A. organization. Click here for more information.)

The CDC Foundation was established_by_Congress as an independent, non-profit organization, and the CDC Foundation connects the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with private-sector organizations and individuals to build public health programs for CDC.

See “CDC exposed as for-profit corporation colluding with Big Pharma to corrupt government”.

The following is the mission statement of the CDC Foundation as stated on their IRS 990 filing for 2014:

“The CDC Foundation helps the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) do more, faster by forging effective partnerships between CDC and others to fight threats to health and safety”  (from IRS 990 filing for 2013, page 1, Part I, item 1)

The following three links list the CDC’s Corporate Partners, the Foundation Partners, and the Organization Partners:

CDC Foundation Corporate Partners

CDC Foundation Foundation Partners

CDC Foundation Organization Partners

This article shows that bogus data, surveys, and reports were used to pass the Arkansas Fluoride Mandate bill SB359/Act197. It also seems that this same bogus information appears in many of the pro-fluoride reports that were used to sell this toxic water fluoridation to the legislators and public. It is also believed that Dr. Lynn Mouden used this bogus data to land a job in the Washington, DC area as Chief Dental Officer at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS/CMCS).

Hopefully, this information can be used to correct this injustice on the public, which is harming the environment, humans, plants, and animals.

——————————————

   Did corruption occur? Was there:

• Fraudulent activity, documentation, and/or invoicing?

• Kickbacks via contractors or shell non-profits?

• Undisclosed board membership or investment in related companies?

A study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association suggests that dentists in fluoridated areas earned larger gross and net incomes.

See 41-3: “Impact of Water Fluoridation on Dental Practice and Dental Manpower” from the Journal of the American Dental Association, Vol. 84, Feb. 1972, pp. 355-367

“Dentists in fluoride-deficient communities appear to be busier in their practices than dentists in fluoridated communities, who feel less overworked and spend more time on each patient. Dentists in fluoridated communities earned larger gross and net incomes in 1965, even with degree of specialization, effort, etc., held constant. The differential persisted, even though it was reduced in a 1967 income survey. Fluoridation appears to extend the existing pool of dental manpower to cover a substantially larger population – Copyright 1973, Biological Abstracts, Inc.

So, this study published in the Journal of the American Dental Association suggests that dentists in fluoridated areas earned larger gross and net incomes!

Readers, fluoridation is about industry getting rid of literal crude hazardous waste products, silicofluorides, for a profit. We ARE the dumping ground!

On April 7, 2025, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. directed the CDC to revise its recommendations on community water fluoridation, expressing concerns about health risks associated with fluoride.

This month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has just announced a broad reorganization! EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin is taking the agency towards “its scientific expertise and research efforts to program offices” that focus on major issues like air and water.

Stay tuned!

Your friends and family may also sign up to receive our Action Alerts by clicking here.

Freedom from fluoride poison is vital to our health!  

As always, our articles may be viewed on our website at  SecureArkansas.com. Once there, you may:

• view current articles on the main page;
• view older articles by clicking “Posts & Articles” at the top left of the main page and scrolling down.
• view additional past articles by clicking the “Next Page” button at the bottom right.

To find information about a topic, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!

Click here if you’d like to sign up to receive Secure Arkansas email alerts.

Securing the blessings of liberty,

Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com

Disclaimer:

Legal Advice is Not Provided

The material in our emails/alerts and on our websites is only intended to provide general information and comment to the public. We make an effort to ensure that the information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites is accurate and timely, but we can’t and don’t guarantee that. Nor do we guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information contained on websites to which our websites or emails provide links.

Information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites should not be taken as legal advice. Legal matters can be complicated. For assistance with a specific legal problem or question, please contact a knowledgeable lawyer for assistance.