Content starts here


Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)


The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 


However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 


Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 


Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 



  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):



Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 



There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 



  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh:
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999):
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011):
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 


“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)


It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.


As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 


Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 


However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 



Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:



For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 


View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 


 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)


If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 


They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 


WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial


My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 


Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 


Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 


Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 


  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 


When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.




Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 


Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week:  


It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.


Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 


When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 


Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 


On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 




Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  




But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 



View solution in original post




This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.  

Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."





This forum only accepts 20,000 charactors, so I cannot post all the fluoride cancer studies.  

Here are some, in response to your claim, "Fluoride is NOT a carcinogen."


Known Carcinogen: Pal (2014): Fluoride, a well-established environmental carcinogen, has been found to cause various neurodegenerative diseases in human. Sub-acute exposure to fluoride at a dose of 20mg/kgb.w./day for 30 days caused significant alteration in pro-oxidant/anti-oxidant status of brain tissue as reflected by perturbation of reduced glutathione content, increased lipid peroxidation, protein carbonylation, nitric oxide and free hydroxyl radical production and decreased activities of antioxidant enzymes. Decreased proteolytic and transaminase enzymes' activities, protein and nucleic acid contents and associated DNA damage were observed in the brain of fluoride intoxicated rats. The neurotransmitters dopamine (DA), norepinephrine (NE) and serotonin level was also significantly altered after fluoride exposure. Protective effect of resveratrol on fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative dysfunctions was evaluated. Resveratrol was found to inhibit changes in metabolic activities restoring antioxidant status, biogenic amine level and structural organization of the brain. Our findings indicated that resveratrol imparted antioxidative role in ameliorating fluoride-induced metabolic and oxidative stress in different regions of the brain.

Known Carcinogen:   McCully (2009) “. . . Depletion of thioretinaco ozonide from cellular membranes is suggested to underlie the carcinogenic and atherogenic effects of fluoride and other electrophilic carcinogens.”

Known carcinogen (increase incidence): Marigold (1969)  explained that fluoride has a paradoxical action on cancer.  Some of the most effective anti-cancer drugs have contained fluoride and yet other inorganic fluoride compounds are powerful carcinogens such as dimethylaminoazobenzene who’s cancer-producing ability is enhanced seven times as much as by substitution of fluoride with other halogens.

Known carcinogen (chronic exposure - shorter life span): Taylor (1954) carried out a total of 12 experiments involving 645 mice. The data indicated that drinking water containing as little as 1ppm of fluoride shortened the life span of cancer-prone mice by an average of 9%, regardless of whether they died of cancer or another disease.  In contrast, 1953, Fleming36 transplanted sarcoma 37 into young adult mice and guinea pigs.  For a few weeks, one group received 20 ppm NaF in drinking water and another 1,000 ppm intraperitoneally while controls received no fluoride. The fluoride treated animals lived longer, lost less weight and had tumors inhibited by fluoride.   One striking difference between Taylor’s and Flemming’s studies is “time and dosage,”  Taylor had chronic low dose exposure while Flemming had acute high dose.

Known carcinogenic: Taylor (1965) reported observations from 54 experiments, 991 mice bearing transplanted tumors and 58 experiments with 1817 eggs implanted with mouse cancer tissue.  Sodium fluoride accelerated the growth of cancer tissue.  Taylor’s work has been repeatedly confirmed.  Note: Talyor’s first study was criticized because he did not control the fluoride in animal feed, probably CaF.  His subsequent work did control for total fluoride exposure and the results were confirmed.

Known Carcinogen: Suzuki (1991) “We tested the induction of mutagenic effects by in vivo and in vitro bone marrow micronucleus tests. A significant increase in micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was observed 24 H after intraperitoneal injection of sodium fluoride at a dose of 30 mg/kg body weight. In the in vitro micronucleus test, the frequency of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes was increased significantly at concentrations of 2 and 4 MM. These results indicate that the micronucleus test may be useful in evaluating the cancer risk of sodium fluoride.”39

Known Carcinogen:  Pati (1987) “Genotoxicity of Sodium fluoride was evaluated in mice in vivo with the help of different cytogenetic assays.


Known Carcinogen:  Tazhibaev (1987) “The test animals were fed with low-grade food during 2-5 months under conditions of acute and chronic action of hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride induced by inhalation, that resulted in the pronounced impairment of the chromosomal apparatus of the bone marrow cells in the rats. A principal possibility has been established of modification of the hydrogen phosphide and hydrogen fluoride cytogenetic effect by the alimentary action. In particular, it has been found that the effect is significantly higher when the rats are fed with a low-grade ration than under conditions of balanced nutrition.”


NTP mutagenic: According to the National Toxicology Program “the preponderance of evidence” from laboratory “in vitro” studies indicate that fluoride is a mutagenic compound. Many substances which are mutagens, are also carcinogens. As is typical for in vitro studies, the concentrations of fluoride that have generally been tested were usually, but not always, higher (millimolar levels) than the concentrations found in human blood (micromolar levels). In Khalil (1995), the authors found a statistically significant mutagenic effect at a concentration of just 1 micromole (0.019 ppm). This is similar to blood fluoride concentrations among individuals living in fluoridated communities. More recent research has found effects at 24 uM (Zhang 2009) and 34 uM (Tiwari & Rao 2010).

The relevance of the in vitro findings are further amplified by the fact that there are certain “microenvironments” in the body, such as the bones (3,708 ppm Eble DM 1992 JPHD), teeth, kidney (50 fold increase over plasma, NRC 2006), bladder, and pineal gland (21,000 ppm, Luke 1997; 2001), where the cells can be exposed to fluoride levels many times higher than the fluoride levels found in the blood (between none detected and 0.01 ppm). 

Bone mineral is regularly broken down by osteoclasts as part of the bone remodeling process, the fluoride sequestered in bones (and other tissues) may be periodically released, exposing bone cells to increased fluoride concentrations. This might help explain why fluoride has been associated, in both human and animal studies, with osteosarcoma (bone cancer). One in vitro study, for example, found that 10 to 19 ppm fluoride caused mutagenic effects in bone cells after 24 to 48 hours of exposure. (Mihashi 1996). According to the authors:

Known Carcinogen: “Significant increases in the frequencies of chromosome aberrations were induced in a dose- and treatment time-dependent fashion when NaF was administered to [rat vertebral bone] cells at 0.5 and 1.0 mM [=9.5 to 19 ppm] for 24 and 48 h. The results indicate that NaF is genotoxic to rat vertebrae, providing a possible mechanism for the vertebrae, as a target organ of NaF carcinogenesis.” 

Known Genetic Damage:  Humans and apes have been found to be more susceptible to fluoride-induced genetic damage than rodent cells. (Kishi 1993). Chromosome breaks occurred in human and ape cells at fluoride concentrations (19 to 114 ppm) that had no effects on rodent cells.  (Note: Fluoride varnish is 22,600 ppm)

Known Mutagenic:   1990 NTP  “In summary, sodium fluoride is mutagenic in cultured mammalian cells and produces transformation of Syrian hamster cells in vitro. The reports of in vivo cytogenetic studies are mixed, but the preponderance of the evidence indicates that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured mammalian cells. These mutagenic and clastogenic effects in cultured cells are supported by positive effects in Drosophila germ cell tests that measure point mutations and chromosome breakage. In vivo tests in rodents for chromosome aberrations provide mixed results that cannot readily be resolved because of differences in protocols and insufficient detail in some study reports to allow a thorough analysis. The mechanism(s) by which these effects result from exposure to sodium fluoride is not known.”

Preponderance of Evidence:  2001 Bassin “The effects of fluoride as a mutagen, carcinogen, and antimutagen are inconsistent, but the preponderance of evidence in cultured mammalian cells indicate that sodium fluoride can induce chromosome aberrations and sister chromatid exchanges.”

Capable: 1993 Environment Canada “Fluoride (as sodium fluoride) should be considered capable of inducing chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei, and sister-chromatid exchanges in vitro in mammalian cells, although the results from such studies have been inconsistent.”

Genotoxic:  1991 HHS “Genotoxicity studies are highly dependent on the methods used… Despite the apparently contradictory reports appearing in the published literature, fluoride has not been shown to be mutagenic in bacteria (Ames test). In some studies fluoride has been reported to induce gene mutations in both cultured rodent and human cells. Fluoride has also been reported to transform rodent cells in vitro. Although there is disagreement in the literature concerning the ability of fluoride to be a clastogen (induce chromosome aberrations) in cultured cells, it has been suggested that fluoride can cause chromosome aberrations in rodent and human cells. Fluoride induced primarily chromatid gaps and chromatid breaks, indicating that the cells are most responsive in the G stage of the cell cycle, i.e., after chromosome duplication in preparation for cell division. Negative results reported in some cytogenetic studies are likely the effect of inadequate test protocols…. Although the mechanism(s) by which these cellular effects result from exposure to fluoride is not known, a number of possible mechanisms have been proposed to explain the genetic activity observed. These mechanisms have been based on the observed reactions of fluoride in solution with divalent cations or necleotides, or the physiological and inhibition protein synthesis, or a result of the direct inhibition of DNA polymerase. Fluoride can react with divalent cations in the cell so as to affect enzyme activities that are necessary for DNA or RNA synthesis, or chromosome metabolism or maintenance; it may react directly with DNA as part of a complex; or it ca disrupt other cellular processes such as cell differentiation or energy metabolism.”



Known Carcinogen: Zhang (2009)   “Twenty four agents were used to evaluate this screening assay. We selected the agents, ranging from DNA alkylating agents, oxidative agent, radiation, DNAcrosslinking agent, nongenotoxic carcinogens, precarcinogenic agents, which included . . . sodium fluoride, acrylamide . . . . The results showed that all 20 tested known carcinogenic and genotoxic agents were able to induce gadd153-Luc expression at a sublethal dose.. . . .”

Known Genotoxic, Mutagenic, Teratogenic:  Ercivas (2009)      “In this study we

concluded that NaF, in 5 and 10 lg/ml NaF concentrations cause genotoxic alterations. So genotoxic, mutagenic and teratogenic effects of NaF need to be carefully screened and evaluated together with other long-term effects using in vitro and in vivo animal test models.”




Regular Contributor

Your opinion is opposite to that in the reports prepared by teams of distinguished scientifoc experts who are selected on the basis of their expertise to look at all scientific sides of issues. These systematic review panels debate the evidence and draft a final report and recommendations.

Since the 2011 California Carcinogen Identification Committee decision by unanimous vote that fluoride does not cause cancer in any concentration. additional systematic reviews finding no risk to cancer from fluoridation has included the Australian National Health and Medical REsearch Council, the Ireland Health Research Board, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Royal Society of New Zealand, the HHS Community Preventive services Task Force and the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks. Perhaps I've missed a few.

The public can have high confidence in the evaluation of the science that occurs through such processes, whatever their findings might be. In the case of community water fluoridation, every such panel of experts that has met to review and critique the evidence has concluded that community water fluoridation is safe and effective.

C. Haynie, M.D.



Charles and David,


Lets look briefly at SCHER and cancer.  Several places in the SCHER report report no effect, I will only bring out the point that SCHER did find some evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride.  Dose was not determined.  For both sides, read the report.  I'm only showing one side to refute the idea that there is not evidence of fluoride causing cancer.


Genotoxicity studies

In general, fluoride induced mutations in cultured cells at concentrations that were slightly cytotoxic and reduced growth rate.

no significant increase in frequency was observed in human fibroblasts at concentrations below 4.52 mg F/L and for Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells below 226 mg F/L.

Positive genotoxicity findings in vivo were only observed at doses that were highly toxic to animals, . Chromosomal aberrations and micronuclei in bone marrow cells were observed

Fluoride has only been reported to be positive in genotoxicity tests at high concentrations (above 10 mg/L), 

 An increase in sister chromatid exchanges (SCE) and micronuclei has been reported in peripheral lymphocytes from patients with skeletal fluorosis or residents in fluorosis-endemic areas in China and India, 


Carcinogenicity studies

Carcinogenesis studies have been conducted by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP).  The studies SCHER used have been strongly disputed.  Rats and mice can tolerate much more fluoride than humans mg/kg bw.  




"On the basis of the results from the most adequate long-term carcinogenicity studies, there is only equivocal evidence of carcinogenicity of fluoride in male rats and no consistent evidence of carcinogenicity in mice (ATSDR 2003)."   


SCHER requires unequivocal evidence.    


"No carcinogenicity studies have been conducted using (hydro)fluorosilicic acid, sodium silicofluoride, disodium hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicate or hexafluorosilicic acid."   Are we to suggest the lack of studies is proof of safety?  No.


Epidemiological studies

"Early epidemiological studies did not find a consistent relationship between mortality from all types of cancer and exposure for fluoride, including the consumption of fluoride- containing drinking water."


That doesn't sound convincing that fluoride exposure is safe.  We need more study.  Do we keep medicating while we decide whether smoking or fluoride or lead or thalidomide is really harmful?



Two studies from the US found a higher incidence of osteosarcoma among males less than 20 years of age living in fluoridated communities compared with non-fluoridated communities (Cohn 1992, Hoover 1991). 


One case-control study found an association between fluoride exposure during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among males, but not among females (Bassin 2006).


The Harvard Fluoride Osteosarcoma study was conducted as a hospital based case- control study in 11 hospitals in the USA and was limited to subjects below the age of 20. 




SCHER agrees that epidemiological studies do not indicate a clear link between fluoride in drinking water, and osteosarcoma and cancer in general." 


The weight of evidence needs to get to an almost impossible level.   Scientists force everyone to ingest more fluoride because scientists need to do more research to have absolute certainty.    


That is an unreasonable standard.





Regular Contributor

The point is that taken as a whole the literature on fluoride and cancer is held by expert panel reviews to be unrelated.

Because hydrofluorosilicic acid and its salts completely and irreversibly dissociate in water, there is no need to study that because fluoridated water has only fluoride ions. It has been conclusively proven by the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance work of Finney et al (2006) (Reexamination of hydrofluorosilicic hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement) that there is complete decomposition of fluorosilicate species at neutral pH values on dilution in water. They also showed the presence of surviving fluorosilicate species at low pH values (3 and below) which is irrelevant for water treatment which by quality regulation is neutral pH..

It is disappointing that fluoridation opponents continually demand specific study of hydrofluorosilicic acid in drinking water when the complete decomposition and Finney's NMR study has been explained many many times. HFSA components are simply not in a simple equilibrium relationship following hydrolysis. One cannot study something that doesn't exist.

C. Haynie, M.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Bill O & Dr. Sauerheber,


The World Health Organization and the IARC have presented lists of known and possible carcinogens, categorized into 5 groups.   The lists are comprehensive and exhaustive.  The IARC list includes 1006 substances, and the WHO list includes 983 substances.


Group 1 includes substances that are known to cause cancer.


Group 2A includes materials in which the Agency is less certain about cancer.


Group 2B includes substances in which there is even less certainty.


Group 3 includes materials which are “non classifiable.”


And there is one material listed in Group 4 which is considered “probably not carcinogenic.”  It is Caprolactam.  


You will not find Fluoride on any of these all-inclusive, far reaching lists.  I suggest you take your spin to the IARC, the World Health Organization, or the American Cancer Society and try to convince them.  They all disagree with you, as do all experts in the field of Cancer Research.

Bronze Conversationalist

Yes. And notice that fluoride is listed as a Group 3 carcinogen. This is because the cancer causation demonstrated in animals is not necessarily adequately known to occur in humans. Note the recognized description for group 3:


"agents for which the evidence of carcinogenicity is inadequate in humans but sufficient in experimental animals may be placed in this category when there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans." 


Why ask me to contact the WHO? I didn't do the research work with fluoride on animal cancers. And intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical. There is no method of growing bone cells in culture to do fluoride cancer caausing screening assays, so one can put all their eggs in one basket and rely on standard tissue culture tests and hope that bone cells would also follow the same result, but I wouldn't. Bone tissue is far different than other tissues and accumulates fluoride like a sponge compared to other tisssues.

So the WHO leaves it listed as a group 3 carcinogen but this is because everyone wants to have the full answer immediately, even when the full answer may never be known.

As for me, I do not accept that fluoride had absolutely no involvement in any way with Ted Kennedy's son getting bone cancer in Boston after fluoridation began there when he was a young child . Yes lethal bone cancer is extremely rare (thank God), but the most efficient way to generate it in animals is with chronic fluoride exposure for years. I don't rely on organizations to make a final decree for any issue that is technically nearly impossible to fully prove beyond doubt.


Fluoride is not a nutrient and is only a contaminant in the human body. It is in bone where it does not belong and causes formation of poor qualty bone structure.  I choose not to ingest it, but certainly wish the water district would leave my kitchen sink alone, with sterile water that is otherwise clean and devoid of added chemicals, rather than what they insist on me buying, or else I get no tap water at all because fluoridationists insist (unlawfully) it be fluloridated.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Your point is taken, Dr. Sauerheber.  However, substances are placed into Group 3 when “there is strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity in experimental animals does not operate in humans.


You are quite right when you say that, “intentional exposures in intact live humans would be unethical.” 


Nevertheless, strong evidence does exist that using tobacco causes cancer.  Where does this evidence come from?  No one is intentionally, unethically exposing people to tobacco to come up with an answer.  The evidence comes from stats like this:  As of 2014, 16.8% of the population of the United States used tobacco.  A lot of people use this stuff.  That’s how we know.


But what about fluoride?


In the U.S., 69% of the population (224,733,000 people) expose themselves to a substance which has about 2000 times more of a concentration of fluoride in it than optimally fluoridated water (which is what we are talking about here).  This substance, toothpaste, is brushed up against and into the teeth and into the thin membrane of the gums, in proximity to the upper and lower jaw bones.


Many of these people use electric toothbrushes which serve to more efficiently grind this substance into the thin lining of the gums.    


Now think about that.  About a quarter of a billion people (in this country alone) are brushing 2000 times the concentration of fluoride as optimally fluoridated water directly into their teeth and gums twice a day, every day, for their entire lives, against the mandible and maxilla, simply by brushing their teeth.


We know that chewing tobacco will cause bone loss simply because users place it into their mouths.  So we know that the mandible is injured by tobacco via the thin lining of the gums.  In light of that fact, I have to wonder why toothpaste doesn’t cause this bone cancer, in the same area that chewing tobacco injures bone, that you are so worried about. 


With a Quarter Billion people who grind toothpaste into their teeth & gums every day, why don’t we know that toothpaste (with 2000 x the concentration of fluoride as fluoridated water) causes bone cancer in the upper & lower jaw bones?  We don’t know it because it doesn’t happen.  This is why hospitals aren’t over-run with bone-cancer victims who brush their teeth every day.  And I would consider a Quarter Billion people unharmed, who use a high concentration of fluoride every day, twice a day, “strong evidence that the mechanism of carcinogenicity does not operate in humans from the use of fluoride. 

Trusted Contributor

It is truly horrific that these noted governmental agencies and some doctors, who are not research scientists and who have no time to truly study fluoridation, are enforcing this practice of dumping industrial waste into the public water supply. Here are the CDC links to NIOSH specifications of hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate, which are the most commonly used fluoridation compounds in the United States:


If any of these ‘enforcing’ doctors actually understood what these chemicals are, then this crime against the masses is on them! 

Regular Contributor

Sirpac . .

It is sad that someone so utterly unaware of the subspecialty of oral public health can make claims like this. Even more tragically some will be persuaded..

You should attend a National Oral Health Conference

or the American Public Health Association annual meeting

so you could understand who the advocating professionals are and why they are credible and legitimate sources of information.

Clearly you have no idea the exact nature of the "chemicals."   They are water additives that are highly regulated for purity and physical characteristics.  They have more specifically stringent criteria for purity from heavy metal contamination that do medications.   National Sanitation Foundation water testing shows that the actual arsenic from water additives is less than 0.1% of that which EPA deems protective of human health.

Here's a graphic representation of how utterly unimportant fluoridation water additive contaminants are -

The daily arsenic intake from fluoridation is 0.14 micrograms a day, the daily intake from normal, healthy food is 56.3 micrograms per day.  The truth about these claims that somehow the drinking water is contaminated from fluoridation is illustrative of the abysmal falsehoods so often used to oppose what the CDC considers one of the great public health accomplishments of the 20th Century.




Thank you for your suggestion to attend a dental public health Conference.


I have.   They had a class on fluoridation and I had previously asked to participate.  They refused.


At the end they had question/answer and I asked one question, "Please provide one study of MEASURED evidence reporting significant cost savings in the public at large from water fluoridation."


Yes, many claim fluoridation is cost effective, but the dental speakers looked at the back wall and did not respond.  Finally an insurance speaker said something like, "this is the type of question we need the experts." and he looked at the dental  speakers at the table and they sat silent looking at the back wall.  Finally someone in the audience (a student) shouted Maupome.  I responded, "yes indeed, measured evidence of cost effectiveness of fluoridation in the community at large.  And did you note the cost savings was enough to pay for equipment repairs?  Not enough to pay for chemicals or equipment installation, dental fluorosis treatment, promotions, or operations.  Just enough to pay for equipment repairs.  And did you note that comparing the children in the two largest groups, those without fluoridation actually had lower dental treatment costs?"   The speakers were silence.  And then they took the next question.


Yes, there are a great deal of public health professionals who promote fluoridation, but they don't look at the research which does not support their position.


Charles, I took my MPH prior to dental school.  I almost walked out of my MPH program during the last week of school, I was so disgusted with Public Health.  The professor told us it was not our job as pubic health professionals to evaluate the science.  We were to promote policy, not review science.  I raised my hand and asked, "what if my boss tells me to promote tobacco smoking?"  The professor paused, several students turned around and glared at me.  The professor said, "you are to promote tobacco smoking, but don't do it to the best of your ability."   At that point I knew public health was not a profession I could be comfortable with.


30 years later, the Dean of my public health school visited Portland and we had alumni meet him and come to support the school.  I told him about my experience and he said he recognized the problem and they were trying to change that practice of being blind obedient servants of policy.


I was speaking with a public health dentist on the phone about 10 years ago regarding fluoridation.  He said, "we will promote fluoridation until a judge tells us otherwise."  I asked about scientific evidence.  He responded, "I don't care about science and I don't care if it is right or wrong, I only care if a judge tells me the policy is wrong."


Obviously, I do not have much respect for that type of blind obedience, unquestioned loyalty to policy, because sometimes policy is flawed.  And if a policy is flawed, it may take generations to change, or a judge to order a change.


My other profession, dentistry, is only marginally better.  Dentistry at least claims to go with science and promotes science.  Indeed, tradition and policy rule, but as individual clinicians, we can step out and protect patients even if our profession refuses to change their flawed policy and recommendations.


Now to your second point on purity of chemicals.  Most of the chemicals added to make fluoridated water are industrial waste products of the phosphate mining industry, not pharmaceutical grade.  Many are concerned with the contaminants. Personally, I do not think the contaminants pose the greatest risk.  They are a problem, but not the big problem.  Fluoride is the big problem.


So I called up the National Sanitation Foundation after reading their criteria for chemical safety.  They require chemicals to not have contaminants in them which will increase the concentration of the contaminant more than 10% of the EPA's Maximum Contaminant Level.  My question to the NSF was, "the MCL for the contaminant fluoride is 4 ppm.   10% of 4 ppm (the MCL) is 0.4 ppm.  However, fluoridation is at 0.7 ppm  


Why does NSF permit fluoride to be added to public water in greater concentration than 10% of the MCL?  The person I talked to said they would get back to me.  And to their credit they did.  The response was, "NSF regulates the contaminants in the contaminant added to water, but they don't regulate the contaminant itself."  I responded, so if we called the hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride by any other name, NSF would pull their approval because the concentration of contaminant would be above 10% of EPA's MCL.  But since the name is fluoride, then more than 10% can be added.  The NSF person said, "yes, that's about right."   Since then, my understanding NSF has rewritten their guidelines to give fluoride an exemption.


And do you know how the the statement came to be that fluoridation was one of public health's greatest achievements of the 20th Century?  I've heard it was by three people at the Oral Health Division.  Good marketing, but lacks facts, evidence and science.  


I consider fluoridation to be one of dentistry's darkest hours and one of public health's greatest blunders of the 20th Century.   Fluoridation started about the same time as the Tuskegee study of syphilis on black men and their families.  The ethics of public health back then was not good and if the idea of fluoridation were to come up today, I'm proud to say the policy would be blocked for lack of ethics.  


Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH 


Thank you all for participating in this thread. I understand that you all are passionate about the topic, however, please remember to be respectful and honor the TOS and community guidelines. Continuing to violate TOS and community guidelines will lead to this thread being closed.



AARP Moderation Team

Trusted Contributor

To the AARP moderation team: Please don’t close this thread! There is much true and good information here regardless of the bullying by some trolls. This conversation must be open and public, because historically the entire fluoridation scheme has been done in secrecy, without any true informed consent or public discourse. Also, if every threat is closed because of bad behavior, then many would know how to manipulate any thread. This stifles free speech! It would be a wiser policy to wipe out the comments that are there just to attack another commenter (i.e. ad hominem) and not focus on the issue. Punishing everyone due to troll attack is very unfair and gives the trolls exactly what they want, which is to stop public discussion about this issue. Thus, please do not close this thread!  

Trusted Contributor

It would be a shame to have this thread closed. There is much true and good information here regardless of the bullying by some trolls. If every threat is closed because of bad behavior, the opponents would know how to manipulate any thread. It would be a wiser policy to wipe out the comments that are there just to attack another commenter (i.e. ad hominem) and not focus on the issue. Thus, please do not close it! 

Regular Contributor

I  certainly have no problem with this thread being closed. For  the benefit of your readers who seek accurate information on this healthcare issue, I am simply providing evidenced information to correct misinformation posted on your site  by fluoridation opponents, who do so all over the internet.



Steven D. Slott, DDS



Bronze Conversationalist

The NAM upper intake level for fluoride in infants up to 1 year old is 0.7.- 0.9 mg per day. And in children up to 8 years old is 2.2 mg/day.  If these were actually followed, then fluoridated water would need to be avoided since 1 mg of fluoride is ingested simly from drinking and eating 1 liter of water if it were the only fluoride source. Soups, stews, etc. and water-based drinks including formula, etc. provide more fluoride daily than allowed. The desired level should be zero since it is not a mineral nutrient and in fact is a contaminant of the bloodstream. It is called an "allowance" rather than a requirement for a reason--it shouldn't be there at all----we are not designed to need it. 


And these limits merely help avoid significant dental fluorosis in childhood and crippling skeletal fluorosis after lifetime drinking and eating. The limits do not prevent proven effects on developing brain or the formation of bone of poor quality that fluoride ingestion causes at any concentration. There is no blood fluoride level low enough to prevent incorporation into bone, which begins the process of formation of poor quality bone.  Read the Newbruynn text writen by a fluoridation promoter. Fluoridation of bone is progressive through life and from drinking water leads to levels in bone that cause bone pain and weakening.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor



Yes, as I said, the daily upper limits for infants and children ages 0-8 are considerably lower than the 10 mg per day limit above the age of 8.  The reason for this is due to chance of mild dental fluorosis during the teeth developing years of 0-8.  Mild dental fluorisis is a barely detectable effect which causes no adversity on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth.  As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more  decay resistant, this effect is considered by many to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.  


Those parents who are concerned with mild dental fluorosis, in spite of the increased decay resistance of these teeth, may certainly avoid using fluoridated water for their children during these years if they so choose.  Otherwise, there is no need to do so.  There is  no valid evidence to support the claim that the “desired level should be zero”.  Nearly any substance in the bloodstream other than perhaps plasma and blood cell components, could be considered to be a “contaminant”.  This obviously does  not mean that the desired level for all substances is zero.


There are no “proven” adverse effects on the brain, bones, or any other bodily system, from optimally fluoridated water.  The National Academy of Medicine does not concern itself solely with  dental fluorosis.  If there was a concern for any other adverse effects of fluoride in infants and children,  the NAM upper limits for daily fluoride consumption would reflect this......and, this limit would not jump to 10 mg at age 8 if there were concerns other than dental fluorosis.


Optimally fluoridated water has no adverse effect on bone.  Even long time fluoridation opponent Hardy Limeback reported this finding in a 2010 study he co-authored.


“ While we cannot definitively rule out an effect of low-level fluoride accumulation over long periods of time, especially if specific individuals have a genetic or disease background that renders them unusually susceptible to fluoride, it nevertheless appears that the contributors to bone health are too many and varied, and any possible effect of municipal fluoride ingestion is too small, for municipal water fluoridation to be a significant determinant of bone health within the general public”

The Long-term Effects of Water Fluoridation on the Human Skeleton.

Chachra D, Limeback H, et al.

Journal of dental research 89(11):1219-23 · November 2010 



 Steven D. Slott, DDS




Thank you for your professional response.


What do you consider to be the upper limits of fluoride ingestion for infants and children?  (SAFE)


What dosage of fluoride is required or recommended to prevent dental caries? (EFFECTIVE)


References please. 



One area of communication which breaks down between us is consideration of the contribution of fluoride from fluoridated water versus total fluoride exposure.  I would mostly agree with you on risks from fluoridated water. . . if fluoridated water were the only source of fluoride. 


However, I have never seen studies comparing fluoridated water with no fluoride exposure.  Just not possible because fluoride comes from many sources and fluoridation usually contributes between a third to two thirds total individual exposure. 


Therefore, a statement claiming "There are no “proven” adverse effects on the brain, bones, or any other bodily system, from optimally fluoridated water," has several serious problems. 


1.   Studies are not possible.   Sort of like saying that there are no "proven" adverse effects living on Mars.  The problem is obvious, no one has been there.


2.  The statement is intentionally trying to decive the reader, or is not taking relative source contribution, total exposure seriously.  Water fluoridation is only one source of fluoride.  And not everyone drinks the same amount of water, swallows the same amount of toothpaste, eats the same amount of fluoride in food, etc.


3.  The word "proven" is troublesome when evaluating risk, and I presume that is why you used the word in quotations.  We can do RCT studies of benefit, but RCT studies on risk are not ethical.  In the end, risk is a judgment call.  Sort of like driving fast in the mountains, going around a curve can have risk and the driver needs to use judgment based on all factors of road conditions, traffic, car and driver etc.   The same with chemical risk.  Not all humans have the same tolerance for chemicals.  Age, kidney function, dosage, synergistic effects, and a host of other concerns for each individual.  To "prove" harm for an individual, we would need to harm them, which is not ethical.


4.  The judgment of "proof" for chemicals such as fluoride requires weighing all factors such as degree of freedom of choice, degree of benefit, degree of harm, and total dosage.  All three areas are complex and need a "global" consideration.


From a Public Health standpoint, if the lack of fluoride caused/permitted a highly contagious lethal disease, certainly mass medication should be considered.  (Courts have been reasonably consistent giving Public Health strong police powers for quarentene, treatment, etc.)   Caries is not considered highly contagious or highly lethal.  Yes, bacteria moves from one person to another and a few die from oral infections.  But everyone (probably) has the bacteria in their mouths and deaths are extremely rare.   Indeed, Public Health officials will force medication or isolate the contagious individual to protect the public.  We do not isolate a person with dental caries from the rest of the public.


Would we consider going house to house and requiring each person to swallow a fluoride supplement pill to protect the spread of dental caries?  No.  Well, that is preciesly what water fluoridation does.  Goes house to house, with police powers, and gives each person an additional Rx dose of fluoride without the person's consent.


Nor would we consider removing those individuals who refuse the Rx fluoride supplement from their homes and isolating them from others in the community.

Ethics of fluoridation are problematic. 


Before we even consider the evidence of risk, we must determine the dosage needed to prevent dental caries.  Once the dosage needed to prevent caries is determined, then we need to determine whether that dosage is safe.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH




Regular Contributor

Just terriffic, a bunch of YouTubes to justify opposition to what the CDC considers one of the great accomplishments in public health in the 20th Century.


Here's a systematic review from the Community Preventive Services Task force published in a peer reviewed journal .. more worthwhile than an infinity of YouTube videos.


American Journal of Public Health, June 2016 Volume 50, Issue 6, Pages 790-796.  Economic Evaluation of Community Water Fluoridation:  A Community Guide Systematic Review.  Tao Ran, Sajal K. Chattopadhyay.  The Community Preventive Services Task Force, Community Guide Branch, Division of Public Health Information Dissemination, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia



Periodic Contributor

Fluoridationists love to tear apart any study that dares to taint fluoride in any way. I think we can all do that with any study because science is never settled.


I think it's time to look at the studies which gave birth to fluoride use for dental decay


The Kingston/Newburgh; Grand Rapids/Muskegon and others were the first experimental cities used to test the hypothesis that ingested fluoride via the water supply safety reduced tooth decay.  Both Newburgh and Grand Rapids were fluoridated.  The trials were set to last from 10 - 15 years but were cut short after only about five years - before the teeth of those born into the experiment had even erupted.  Newburgh was the only city to look at health effects.  Preschoolers and adults weren't studied and long term effects never considered.  


Dr. Hayne, Slott and Johnson - please tell us why those early fluoridation studies are valid by today's standards - or even by the standards of 1945 when they began.


Thank you for your consideration

Trusted Contributor

So the DOCTORS AND DENTISTS who are listed there on YouTube....are no longer credible BECAUSE they are on YouTube??  Is THAT what you're saying??   Hahahahaha......  Ya, that makes ALL KINDS OF SENSE doesn't it??

Ya know what?? We should go after their licenses because somebody interviewed them on YouTube.....HOW DARE THEY ALLOW THEIR INTERVIEWS BE SHOWN THERE?? (sarcasm intended)

Maybe someday someone will interview YOU and post it on YouTube....then the rest of society will know you for what a "farce" you are....BECAUSE YOU WERE PUT ON YOUTUBE.......RIGHT???

(That IS what you're saying, you know).

Periodic Contributor

Here are fluoridationists Steven Slott and Johnny Johnson on YouTube:

Bronze Conversationalist

"...the political profluoridation stance has evolved in to a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues." - Dr. Edward Groth, III, Senior Scientist at Consumer Union (1991) 


The most interesting thing about that video of the presentation by JJ & SS originally used in Green Bay is that slide that JJ quickly goes past claiming it lists claims by opponents that are ALL FALSE. This misrepresentation of the opposition position is known as the 'straw man fallacy.' It is a rhetorical deceit. In a subsequent presentation in Cortland, JJ did spend a few minutes misrepresenting a couple of those points. 


I took a screenshot of that slide in order to actually read it. 


  • Not only does the WHO data verify the 20th global decline of cavities regardless of fluoride status of water beginning before fluoridation and continuing after some fluoridated communities ceased fluoridation, it has been reported on in multiple journals. Sadly, 21st century data shows an increase in cavities in several countries including America & Canada, even in long fluoridated communities. Fluoridation was coincidental, not causal. (Diesendorf 1986; Colquhoun 1990, 1997, 1999; Künzel 2000; Maupomé 2001)


  • Technically you can't be allergic to fluoride since it is a poison, but yes allergic type reactions are well documented and previously addressed in this thread.


  • Ditto for thyroid problems. They are not only very well documented as being caused by or exasperated by fluoride, many fluoride doctors advise patients avoid fluoride - despite the ATA's silence on the topic. I have it on good authority that they don't want to provoke a political storm with other groups - cowards. 


  • The derisive reference to the "2012 Harvard study" that lists fluoride as brain poison ignores not only the EPA scientist characterization of fluoride as a 'gold standard developmental neurotoxicant' (Mundy et al. 2009; 2015), it also ignores the recent high quality studies by American and Canadian researchers with expertise in neuortoxicity (Bashash et al. 2017; Thomas et al 2018; Yu et al 2018; Choi et al. 2015) There are dozens of human and hundreds of animal studies that find fluoride neurotoxic - even in low doses consistent with fluoridation. Only a handful claim not to find evidence of harm, and I believe every one of those few have been found to have serious design flaws. 


  • The 2015 Cochrane Review, like the 2000 York Review, didn't say fluoridation didn't have an effect, they said the effect was small and there not only was no evidence of safety, there was evidence fluoridation significantly increases dental fluorosis, plus the studies claiming benefit were all low quality and at high risk of bias, so they had low confidence in those findings of benefit. They also opined the relevance of fluoridation in the 21st century was doubtful. I believe it was that last statment that JJ and company managed to lobby the Cochrane to drop from their evaluation - an exceptional feat of interference with an independent review by lobbyists. 
    • Here's how the 2000 York Review senior scientists responded to similar attacks on their research: "It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review's findings have been made in press releases.... The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis." - Professor Trevor Sheldon, chair of Advisory Board of 2000 York Systematic Review of Water Fluoridation, Head of Dept of Health Studies, University of York  (2003)
    • 2015 Newsweek article w/comments from scientists on meaning of Cochrane Report


  • "ChildSmile" - how is this one word "false" - it's a reference to alternatives to fluoridation that are effective at reducing cavities in populations of poor kids without adding uncontrollabe doses of this drug to municipal water. 


  • "Pharmaceutical Grade" - again, how is this "false" .... what it alludes to is that the chemicals added to our water are contaminated waste products of industry, invariably contaminated with aluminum, lead, arsenic, etc. (Mullenix 2014)

  • Fluorosis of teeth is a sign of toxicity. Well, yes.... dental fluorosis is the evidence of cell death during formative stages of tooth development. There is substantial evidence of other toxic damage during this same period. But just on teeth:

    • “Enamel fluorosis is a developmental disturbance caused by intake of supraoptimal levels of fluoride during early childhood.The enamel defects consist of horizontal thin white lines, opacities (subsurface porosities), discolorations, and pits of various sizes. The molecular mechanism underlying enamel fluorosis is still unknown.…. We can hypothesize that fluorosis is due to a combination of direct cytotoxic effects causing cell death, the delayed development of tight junctions, which are necessary to form a sealed barrier between apical and basolateral surfaces, and a direct inhibitory effect of fluoride on vectorial calcium and/or bicarbonate transport.” - Rácz et al., 2017


I could go on down the list - but here is that deceptive slide that JJ flashed in a sleight of hand attempt to deceive his audience.  

Deceptive Slide - Strawman MisrepresentationDeceptive Slide - Strawman Misrepresentation


Bronze Conversationalist

The AFS VP, Myron Allukian, doesn't usually comment online - but he uses his connections at Harvard to engage others as shills in endorsing policy and parrotting marketing bullet points. He's been promoting fluoridation since the 1960s. The latest copy and paste by AFS Communictions Officer, is a document from those the VP and his associates duped into compliance.


Everyone at Harvard does not agree with that prepared statement.  

Neither do experts in other prestigious institutions. 


Expert in Neuroscience: “Prevention of chemical brain drain should be considered at least as important as protection against caries.” - Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health (2014)


Expert in Neuroscience & Behavioral Psychology: There’s no doubt that the intake of fluoridated water is going to interrupt basic functions of nerve cells in the brain, and this is certainly not going to be [for] the benefit of anybody……The addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake.” - Dr. Robert Isaacson, 2006 National Research Council panelist on Fluoride in Drinking Water (2007)


Expert in Dental Public Health: “I now realize that what my colleagues and I were doing was what the history of science shows all professionals do when their pet theory is confronted by disconcerting new evidence: they bend over backwards to explain away the new evidence. They try very hard to keep their theory intact — especially so if their own professional reputations depend on maintaining that theory……..It is my best judgement, 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.” - Dr John Colquhoun, former chief Dental Officer of Auckland, New Zealand (1998)


Expert in Legal Analysis: “The cessation of all compulsory water fluoridation schemes should be the goal of all public health agencies, ethical lawmakers, and informed citizens.” - Prof. Rita F. Barnett-Rose, J.D. at Dale E. Fowler School of Law, Chapman University (2014)


Expert in Pediatric Sensitivity to Pollutants: “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)


Dean of Public Health at University of Toronto: “We tested for all the things we could think of that could act on neurodevelopment. But we haven’t found anything else that was a potential confounder...Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure. It also suggests that the pre-natal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children… to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.- Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash study for which he was the lead investigator (2017) 



Bronze Conversationalist

It was stated here that fluorosis does not adversely affect the health of teeth. Really? Normal teeth enamel is a layer that protects underlying bony dentin from exposure to the oral environment. Fluorotic hypoplasia refers to the fact that the enamel covering is not as thick as normal in the discolored area. Long term teeth protection requires normal thick enamel, not a thinned layer that cannot possibly last as long as a thick layer throughout a person's life. 


The Kumar data and others do not ever demonstrate that fewer caries exist in teeth regions that are fluorotic that is ever larger than experimental error. The less enamel covering there is, obviously the less protected the tooth is.


As far as Limeback arguing there may not be adverse bone symptoms due to lifelong consumption of fluoride water, there are no people in the U.S. who have ever been exposed to fluoridated water for the average human lifespan of 75 years yet (the practice only started in 1945). Further, as a participant in the NRC report he was complicit in the textual statement that bone fluoride levels in areas drinking 1 ppm F water are around 2,500 mg/kg while not stating the very data shown in the accompanying table that indicated bone pain in persons having bone fluoride levels below that (around 1,700 mg/kg). It's amazing how one can see what one want to see and not see what one doesn't want to see. The NRC study was not allowed to investigate water fluoridation at 1 ppm, so if you don't look at the raw data you may be trapped by the misjudgments of those who too cursorily summarize the data.


And there is no mechanism to assess bone strength in vivo in a person who has consumed fluoidated water for decades, so the effect that any fluoride accumulated amount has on bone is determined by analyzing the structure of fluoridated bone at various concentrations in vitro. There is zero doubt that fluorotic bone is abnormal bone becaue it is a perturbant that induces formation of bone of abnormal unit size and shape.


Blood comonents are all known and are published in the Merck Manual and most all Nursing Texts where each component has a known specific physiologic function. Fluoride has no physiologic function and is thus only a contaminant and of course is not listed as a required normal blood component in any reference source. It is not a nutrient and has no place in human blood, as stated previously.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.



In case you missed my post.  


Rather than talking about the messangers, please answer my question about excess exposure. . . 60% with dental fluorosis, 20% with moderate/severe:






Bill Osmunson DDS MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

“The Texas GOP’s official opposition to fluoridation is another example of the diversity of support for our movement.   From Ralph Nader, the Green Party's presidential candidate in 2000, to Libertarians like Dr. Ron Paul, to Democrats and Republicans at every level of government, and everything in between in countries with multi-party systems.  Opposition to fluoridation is clearly an issue we can all proudly find agreement on.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2018) 


Politics make strange bedfellows. Regardless of whether you self-identify as 'conservative' or 'liberal', no one wants to suffer from arthritis or dementia in old age. No one chooses decades of restrictions because of irritable bowel or kidney disease. No one wants to see their children struggle with learning disabilities or hide their smile because of embarrassment over stained teeth. No one wants broken bones because fluoride accumulation weakened them. 


And no one wants to be bullied by arrogant doctors who use political campaigns and social media in order to establish fluoridation mandates that force contaminated product into the bodies of convenient consumers regardless of the adverse impact on individual health! 


See Erin Brockovich's Position on Fluoridation:



Regular Contributor

It is true that the Texas GOP platform opposes fluoride.  It also opposes vaccination mandates thereby promoting polio, measles, and other childhood infectious disease.   It want the US to abandon the United Nations and force the organization to leave NYC.  It is stuff full of ideas that most Americans would find bizarre.


You cite a science denying political document and other lone-wolf individuals like Erin Brockovich.


The support for fluoridation comes from nearly 150 legitimate organizations, societies and experts.


Here is a convenient place to read what the many organizations supporting fluoridation have to say, in their own words



Trusted Contributor

In addition to the dosage issue, which is impossible to control, water saturation of 0.7ppm-1.2ppm silicofluorides does not mean dosage. Dosage depends on how much fluoride anyone is exposed to daily. This includes drinks, food that has been exposed to fluorides in the water, bathing, dental products, and so on. It is obvious that no-one can determine exactly how much fluoride anyone ingest or absorbs daily. So, how is this 'opminum level' nonsense anything other than a red herring issue? The 'optimum level'  babble is truly the biggest nonsense, which should be obvious to anyone, even with a fluoride damaged brain. Also, who gave some dentists a medical license to practice internal medicine or medicate the entire public without regard to individual conditions? These fluoride promoters are not the personal physicians of the entire public!


To All,


The Fluoride Action Network has the largest compilation of fluoride research available and I can highly recommend reviewing for your consideration.


Another significant source of research is the IAOMT at


Of the many pages of research and topics raising concerns with fluoride use, here are a sampling:


“The recommended Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water should be zero.”  Carton RJ. Review of the 2006 United States National Research Council Report: Fluoride in Drinking Water. Fluoride. 2006 Jul 1;39(3):163-72.  


Carton worked at the EPA for many years.


“The ‘optimal’ intake of fluoride has been widely accepted for decades as between 0.05 and 0.07 mg fluoride per kilogram of body weight but is based on limited scientific evidence.”
“These findings suggest that achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake, while fluorosis is clearly more dependent on fluoride intake.”  Warren JJ, Levy SM, Broffitt B, Cavanaugh JE, Kanellis MJ, Weber‐Gasparoni K. Considerations on optimal fluoride intake using dental fluorosis and dental caries outcomes–a longitudinal study. Journal of Public Health Dentistry. 2009 Mar 1;69(2):111-5. 


Many know these authors who are strong promoters of fluoridation.  Even the dosage of fluoride is based on limited scientific evidence.  EPA has also chosen 0.06 mg/kg as their RfD or reference dose. 


Consider a 5 kg or 12 pound infant.  At 0.06 mg/kg the "optimal" intake would be about 0.3 mg of fluoride a day.  Infant formula made with public water would be less than 2 cups of milk for the infant.. . not enough.  Mother's milk contains no detectible fluoride in most samples.


Knowing infants on fluoridated water get too much fluoride, the EPA does not even include infants in their Dose Response Analysis or Relative Source Contribution.   I disagree.  If governments send out fluoride to everyone without their consent, the EPA needs to include everyone in their determination of what is safe.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH