Welcome to FluoridationFacts.com, incorporating the Australian Fluoridation News Archive and HREX fluoride-related files.

About Us

Contact Us

Useful Links

Translation

Site Map

Infodocs

Opinion Polls

Pictures

Propaganda

Unethical Con.

News Centre

Press Release

Political

Register

Dental Data

Forums/Reviews

Papers

Statements

Aus F News

Copy List

DR WILLIAM MARCUS

DOCTOR WILLIAM (BILL) MARCUS. Bill was the victim of one of the most sinister events you will ever hear about. The following story is taken from 'The Fluoride Report', April 1994 edition.

THE FLUORIDE REPORT, APRIL 1994.

VICTORY FOR THE TRUTH: LABOR SECRETARY REICH ORDERS EPA SCIENTIST DR BILL MARCUS REINSTATED. EPA Corruption Exposed.

On February 7, Secretary of Labor Robert B Reich ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reinstate whistleblower Dr Bill Marcus in his former (or comparable) position at EPA. Almost two years after being fired. Dr Marcus has finally emerged victorious over the unsavory individuals who tried to punish him for challenging the falsehoods propagated by his own agency and the Public Health Service about the safety of fluoride. He will receive back pay, legal expenses and $50,000 in damages.

At a February 10 press conference hosted by the National Whistleblower Center, Dr. Marcus said: "I have finally been vindicated". He expressed his hope that this verdict " will serve as the first, albeit small step in bringing responsible science, science undaunted by fears about job security or other reprisals, back to the US Environmental Protection Agency".

Although Marcus was ordered reinstated by Administrative Law Judge David A Clark, Junior, on December 3, 1992, the EPA appealed the decision to Labor secretary Reich, delaying Dr Marcus' reinstatement for over a year. Mr Reich blasted the EPA's excuses for firing Dr. Marcus. He said, " the true reason for the discharge was retaliation". Specifically, Dr Marcus "authored and disseminated a memorandum criticizing a draft report concerning toxicology and carcinogenesis studies, which the EPA contemplated using in regulating fluoride levels."

Mr. Reich also noted that an EPA investigator was ordered by a superior to shred evidence gathered during the investigation, and that EPA withheld evidence that would have supported Dr. Marcus in court. Because these acts were perpetrated under the jurisdiction of EPA's Inspector General, John C Martin, the National Whistleblower Center has asked President Clinton to remove Martin from office.

Not mentioned by Mr. Reich but recorded in the hearing before Judge Clark, is clear evidence that the EPA tampered with witnesses, threatening EPA employees with dismissal if they testified on Dr. Marcus' behalf. EPA management also forged some of his time cards, and then accused him of misusing his official time. At the press conference Dr Marcus asserted that his boss, Margaret Stasikowski, committed perjury. Her superior, Tudor Davies, Office Director of Science and Technology, who made the final decision to fire Dr Marcus, was accused by Mr Reich of accepting the report of the Inspector General without validating any or the findings, contrary to accepted practice. Dr Marcus noted that all the officials who participated in his firing are still employed by EPA and " making decisions about drinking water that affect public health.

WHY BILL MARCUS WAS FIRED: the "May Day Memo"

As revealed in the decision by Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, the key to the firing of Dr Bill Marcus was the memorandum he wrote on May 1, 1990, to a superior at the EPA. The memo was a detailed analysis of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Report #393, the long-awaited report of NTP's animal study conducted to determine if fluoride in drinking water causes cancer.

Dr. Marcus called the report "disturbing". Why? Because the NTP termed the results "equivocal", while the actual data indicated a causal relationship between fluoride and bone cancer in male rats, according to Dr Marcus. In his memo, he pointed out that fluoride accumulates in bone, and this is where the cancers occurred. He noted that the rats had less fluoride in their hones than humans would accumulate in their bones at the EPA's approved "safe level" of 4 mg/l. He stated, "This is the first time in my memory that [test] animals have lower concentrations of the carcinogen at the site of adverse effect than do humans". He also criticized the Public Health Service (referenced in the NTP report) for misrepresenting the results of the Yiamouyiannis / Burk study showing 10,000 excess cancer deaths a year from fluoridation.

Animals used as controls are not supposed to receive any of the chemical given to the treated animals, Dr Marcus' memo continued. In the NTP study, however, the control animals were given six to seven times more fluoride than humans receive from fluoridated water. When the number of cancers in the controls were plotted according to the amount of fluoride in their feed, they fitted nearly into the dose response relationships seen in the treated group, adding weight to the claim that fluoride is a probable carcinogen.

Commenting on the genetic toxicology studies included in the back of the NTP report, Dr Marcus stated that "There were three different short-term in vitro tests performed on fluoride and all these tests proved fluoride to be mutagenic. EPA's own guidelines require that in vitro tests be taken into consideration when positive. In this case, the mutagenicity of fluoride supports the conclusion that fluoride is a probable carcinogen". One other study was mentioned, the Ames test, which was negative. Dr Marcus dismissed these results because the inventor of the test, Dr. Bruce Ames, has gone on record stating his test is inappropriate for chemicals such as fluoride.

Dr Marcus then raised the possibility that some of the test results had been altered by a review panel. He cited data showing that a rare liver cancer, hepatocholangiocarcinoma, was found, but then dismissed. There was evidence that other types of tumors were found but were downgraded by a review committee. Consideration of all these factors, Dr Marcus' memo concluded, changes the 'equivocal' findings of the [NTP] board to "at least some evidence, or clear evidence of carcinogenicity". He asked that an independent panel be convened to re-evaluate the raw test data.

Dr. Marcus, a senior science advisor, received no response to his memo from EPA management.