"If at any time it was found that fluoridation was deleterious to the health of the people they [the U. S. Public Health Service] would certainly withdraw their endorsement."
Dr. Francis A. Arnold, Jr.
Chief, National Institute of Dental Research U.S. Public Health Service
(From Dr. Arnold's testimony before the Irish High Court, Dublin, March 15, 1963, as reported in the British Dental Journal, Volume 114, page491, 1963).
A Struggle with Titans – George Waldbott
My son asked me recently, about my fluoride article, he couldn’t find it on Substack.
“What fluoride article?” I asked, as I hadn’t written one yet.
I guess I’m flattered that he would assume his old man must have written on the subject by now. In a way he’s right, it’s been on my to-write list for too long. So here goes.
One thing you find when you first enter the fluoride chamber of the rabbit-warren is just how much has been written about the subject over the last 60+ years. When I contrast the sheer scale of my ignorance against the backdrop of this research history, I can see just how successfully my ignorance has been constructed.
Who am I writing this for?
Well, I think I’m writing it to me, before I knew anything about the subject, and hopefully anyone else like me (my son), who by now is curious.
I think the short documentary in the masthead alone should be enough to totally reframe someone’s relationship to the Official Story of Fluoride, and also to do what they can to avoid it.
Considering how much has been written on the subject already, what can I add to the space, besides being a booster for further awareness?
I want to look at fluoride through the same lens I’ve brought to childhood vaccination, that of the 3-legged stool:
NSE: Necessity, Safety and Effectiveness.
In a way they both have the same framework:
They are a mass delivered “medication”.
They are both meant to be prophylactic and preventative of a defined problem.
They both run roughshod over informed consent.
They both cause widespread health damage.
Discussion of that damage is widely, and effectively suppressed and censored.
Now a note about my 3-legged stool.
If something is not Necessary, then whether it is Safe and Effective is irrelevant.
If it is not Safe, then Necessity and Effectiveness are irrelevant.
If it is not Effective, then Necessity and Safety are irrelevant.
Any failure of one leg, collapses the whole stool.
As you will see, all three legs fail in this story, miserably.
The whole Official Story is baseless and was ginned up to serve a purpose other than our child’s teeth.
I’m going to rely on and collate a range of great content I’ve come across.
But first, let’s do a bit of history…
The video in the masthead does a stellar job on the history of how we got here, on the origin of the Official Story.
Further to that here are some further comments from A Midwestern Doctor
Comments - The case against fluoride
Many industries, particularly the aluminum and phosphate producers produce fluoride as a byproduct of their production process. These industries ran into repeated issues with poisoning or killing workers and the surrounding communities from fluoride gas leaks, so industry concocted the idea of having fluoride be good for the teeth in order to get them out of liability in these lawsuits (since it could be argued in court Fluoride can't be toxic if it is good for teeth). Despite exerting heavy pressure on the FDA, the FDA was not willing to grant them this due to the evidence of harm for fluoride and the absence of benefit from it.
—
When the Manhattan project was being conducted, uranium centrifuges did not yet exist, so the only way that was possible to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons was to dissolve it in fluoride and separate the resulting gas by density. The Manhattan project ran into the same issues the previous industries had run into, and on the basis of national security, it was decided that fluoride needed to go into the water so that we could make atomic weapons and win the war. Bill Clinton declassified documents that showed as such (this was first detailed in The Fluoride Deception).
The Hidden History Of Fluoride
1944 The Journal of the American Dental Association on October 1, 1944 warned that “We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to 3.0 ppm of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in bones as osteoporosis, and we cannot run the risk of producing such systemic disturbances in applying what at present is a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development of dental disfigurement in children. In the light of our present knowledge or lack of knowledge of the chemistry of the subject, the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for good.”
1944 Oscar Ewing is put on the payroll of the Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), as an attorney, at an annual salary of $750,000. Within a few months, Ewing was made Federal Security Administrator, with the announcement that he was taking a big cut in salary. The US Public Health Service, then a division of the FSA, comes under the command of Ewing , and he begins to vigorously promote fluoridation nationwide.
Ref: May 25-27 Hearings before the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.A by-product of aluminum manufacture is toxic. Ewing’s public relations strategist for the fluoride campaign was the nephew of Sigmund Freud, Edward L. Bernays. Bernays conducts a public relations campaign to promote fluorine ingestion by applying Freudian theory to induce public acceptance. It was one of Bernays most successful campaigns.
1952 US Representative Dr.A.L.Miller, Chairman of the Special Committee on Chemicals and Foods, stated, “I sometimes wonder if ALCOA Aluminum and its subsidiaries might not have a deep interest in getting rid of sodium fluoride, a toxic waste product of the aluminum industry. In this connection it is interesting to note that the person in charge of the public health, Oscar Ewing, is also an attorney for ALCOA.”
Watch Abby Martin in this short video.
Necessary?
Let’s start off with this:
If you are in the US (or here in Australia) you would be forgiven for thinking the whole world adds fluoride to its water. Nope.
Obviously, the teeth of the world are not all rotting and falling out of their mouths.
Statements from European Health, Water, & Environment Authorities on Water Fluoridation
Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” most of the western world, including the vast majority of western Europe, does not fluoridate its water supply.
At present, 97% of the western European population drinks non-fluoridated water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain. Wikipedia confirms that these countries don’t fluoridate: Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, and Latvia. Although some of these countries fluoridate their salt, the majority do not. (The only western European countries that allow salt fluoridation are Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland.)
Despite foregoing “one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” tooth decay rates have declined in Europe as precipitously over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises serious questions about the CDC’s assertion that the decline of tooth decay in the United States since the 1950s is largely attributable to the advent of water fluoridation.
50 reasons to oppose fluoridation.
Only eleven countries in the world have more than 50% of their populations drinking artificially fluoridated water (Australia, Brunei, Chile, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Guyana, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, and the United States).
The Hidden History Of Fluoride
1971 Germany bans water fluoridation.
1973 Netherlands bans water fluoridation.
This goes straight to the heart of the question. If it was necessary, then European teeth should be cavity riddled.
Do you remember the last time a beautiful Dutch or German woman smiled at you, and you saw all her rotten teeth? Neither do I.
Now let’s look at Necessity from a different angle.
Children aged 6-17 average 2.1 cavities in their permanent teeth:
Cochrane Collaboration (2015): 26% (0.5 cavity per child)
CDC3 (2018): 25% (0.5 cavity per child)
So, the absolute best you can say, for this whole charade is that it MIGHT lead to one less cavity per every two kids, or 0.5 a cavity per child.
Big, bloody deal.
Do you really think that they are that interested in your teeth that they would create a global system to hopefully reduce your child’s “cavity risk” by half a cavity?
Why not just put it into toothpaste and leave it at that?
Why force feed it to as many as possible?
Obviously, there is much, much more to this story, than half a cavity.
Anyway, half a cavity is actually being generous.
Large surveys from three Australian states have found even less of a benefit, with decay reductions ranging from 0 to 0.3 of one permanent tooth surface (Spencer 1996; Armfield & Spencer 2004).
In fact, the data clearly shows decay rates were coming down well before the put fluoride in the water.
TOOTH DECAY WAS COMING DOWN BEFORE FLUORIDATION STARTED
Modern research shows that decay rates were coming down before fluoridation was introduced in Australia and New Zealand and have continued to decline even after its benefits would have been maximized. (Colquhoun 1997; Diesendorf 1986). As the following figure indicates, many other factors are responsible for the decline of tooth decay that has been universally reported throughout the western world.
Does that familiar?
It should, if you know your childhood vaccination history. That is the same story. Childhood diseases were already well down long before the vaccines came along and claimed credit.
Fluoride Is Not an Essential Nutrient
As acknowledged by the CDC, the fluoride content of a tooth has little bearing on whether or not the tooth will develop a cavity. According to the CDC:
“The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel, and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”
SOURCE: CDC. 2001. Recommendations for using fluoride to prevent and control dental caries in the United States. Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Review 50(RR14):1-42.In short, people can have perfect teeth without consuming fluoridated water or any other fluoride product. As with teeth, no other tissue or cellular process requires fluoride. Accordingly, it is now accepted that fluoride is not an essential nutrient.
Safe?
First, let’s look at what this thing called fluoride is and where it comes from.
WHERE DOES THE FLUORIDE ADDED TO WATER COME FROM?
The main chemicals used to fluoridate drinking water are known as “silicofluorides” (i.e., hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate).
Silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products; they are unprocessed industrial by-products of the phosphate fertilizer industry.
Since these silicofluorides undergo no purification procedures, they can contain elevated levels of arsenic — moreso than any other water treatment chemical.
In addition, recent research suggests that the addition of silicofluorides to water is a risk factor for elevated lead exposure, particularly among residents who live in homes with old pipes.
There is far too much to write about when it comes to the unsafety, dangers and toxicity of fluoride.
It is industrial waste after all, and it’s not SAFE in any amount. But its effects are slow, and long term and the normal person will never make the connection between the water they drink, the toothpaste they use and the problems they have.
I want to start here though, with Oxidative Stress:
Fluoride & Oxidative Stress
A vast body of research demonstrates that fluoride exposure increases oxidative stress. Based on this research, it is believed that fluoride-induced oxidative stress is a key mechanism underlying the various toxic effects associated with fluoride exposure. It is also well established that fluoride’s toxic effects can be ameliorated by exposure to anti-oxidants. One implication of this research is that people with inadequate intake of anti-oxidants (e.g., vitamin C, flavonoids) will be at increased risk of fluoride toxicity.
The research cited below includes:
1) A recent, comprehensive review on fluoride and oxidative stress research,
2) Studies finding increased oxidative stress among individuals with skeletal fluorosis,
3) Studies finding anti-oxidants can ameliorate fluoride toxicity.
To understand oxidative stress as a model for all disease, I strongly recommend Dr Thomas Levy’s presentation here.
Also, this is important to know.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIAL TO DEMONSTRATE FLUORIDATION’S EFFECTIVENESS OR SAFETY.
Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized studies are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
Now let’s focus on what is known about just one aspect of its toxicity: neurotoxicity:
FLUORIDATION’S NEUROTOXICITY
There is no question that fluoride is neurotoxic - it damages the brain, as documented by hundreds of recent human and animal studies.
It can not be declared safe.
2006: The National Research Council published Fluoride in Drinking Water,1 the most authoritative review of fluoride’s toxicity. It stated unequivocally that “fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body.”
2012: A Harvard-funded meta-analysis2 found that children ingesting higher levels of fluoride tested an average 7 IQ points lower in 26 out of 27 studies. Most had higher fluoride concentrations than in U.S. water, but many had total exposures to fluoride no more than what millions of Americans receive.
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.” Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, Harvard study co-author, Danish National Board of Health consultant, co- editor of Environmental Health, author of over 500 scientific papers
2017: A National Institutes of Health (NIH) - funded study3 in Mexico found that every one milligram per liter (1 mg/L) increase in fluoride in pregnant women’s urine – approximately the difference caused by ingestion of fluoridated water4 - was associated with a reduction of their children’s IQ by an average 5-6 points.
Leonardo Trasande, MD, a leading physician unaffiliated with the study, said it “raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water.”5
2018: A Canadian study6 found iodine-deficient adults (nearly 18% of the population) with higher fluoride levels had a greater risk of hypothyroidism (known to be linked to lower IQs). Author Ashley Malin, PhD, said “I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure.”7
2019: Another NIH-funded study8 in the Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics found every 1 mg/L increase in fluoride in Canadian pregnant women’s urine was linked to a 4.5 decrease in IQ in their male children. The physician editor of JAMA Pediatrics said “I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water”9 if she was pregnant.
2019: A Canadian study10 found a nearly 300% higher risk of ADHD for children living in fluoridated areas. This reinforced earlier studies linking fluoride to ADHD in Mexico (2018)11 and the U.S. (2015).12
2019: Another NIH-funded study13 in Canada found that babies fed formula mixed with fluoridated water averaged 6 IQ points less than those mixed with non-fluoridated water. Losses of non-verbal IQ were even more serious, an average of 13 points.
2020: The National Toxicology Program’s draft scientific review14 documented 27 out of 29 higher quality studies linked higher fluoride with significantly lower IQs, 13 out of 14 at levels equivalent to fluoridated water.
All the references can be found here.
So, not “safe” in any way, shape or form. Its toxicity has been proven repeatedly, and over decades.
Promoters use analogies such as 1 ppm is equivalent to one cent in $10,000 or one inch in sixteen miles to make it appear that we are dealing with insignificant quantities of fluoride. Such analogies are nonsensical without reference to the toxicity of the chemical in question. For example, 1 ppm is about a million times higher than the safe concentration to swallow of dioxin, and 100 times higher than the safe drinking water standard for arsenic; it is also up to 250 times higher than the level of fluoride in mother’s milk.
The case against fluoride - Steve Kirsch's newsletter
Once you swallow it, the risks strongly outweigh the benefits. IQ drops significantly and other negative health outcomes accrue. It’s not a close call.
Comments - The case against fluoride
A Midwestern Doctor
The best book I have seen that explains the pathologic effects of fluoride is titled "Fluoride the Aging Factor." It essentially makes the case that fluoride at a very low dose disrupts the structures of many proteins in the body due to its high electronegativity interfering with the hydrogen bonds they depend on for their three-dimensional stability. The most common side effect which is observed from this is weakening of collagen in the body, and in areas where individuals have high amounts of fluoride in their water (a few villages in India best showed this pathological process), they age quickly and have a weakened or deformed bone structure. From having looked at this for a while, I do believe that fluoride does long-term damage to the bones of the body (which may also come from Fluoride chemically altering the bones, which in theory is how it "helps" your teeth).
—
There is a decent amount of data that shows water fluoridation significantly increases cancer rates (this can be found within fluoride the aging factor).
—
There are a variety of endocrine affects that result from fluoride. The primary one is that fluoride weakens the thyroid gland, likely due to the fact the thyroid gland preferentially accumulates iodine, and fluoride substitutes for iodine (a related issue also exists with bromine which is used to bleach most flour). Hypothyroidism is become extremely common in the population (and it's one of the most common issues that integrative medicine practitioners treat and sometimes achieve miraculous results from addressing). One, but not the only, potential cause that has been put forward for this is the fluoride exposure. Additionally, baths in fluoridated water were previously used as a treatment for hyperthyroidism.
Fluoride & IQ: 76 Studies
As of July 18, 2022, a total of 85 human studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence.
Of these investigations, 76 studies have reported that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans.
The studies which reported an association of reduced IQ with exposure to fluoride, are based on IQ/cognitive examinations of 28,234 children (73 studies) and 689 adults (3 studies).
The Mother-Offspring fluoride studies provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the prenatal and postnatal of life can damage a child’s developing brain.
There are 9 studies that did not find an association between fluoride and IQ, click here.
Note: On January 13, 2022, we added a 2020 study by Prabhakar et al. as it only became available on PubMed in January 2022.
Fluoride Is A Carcinogen
Fluoride was found to be an equivocal carcinogen by the National Cancer Institute Toxicological Program.[1]
Further studies by the New Jersey Department of Health have now confirmed a 6.9 fold increase in bone cancer in young males.[2]
Earlier studies had found a 5% increase in all types of cancers in fluoridated communities.[3]
“In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical,” stated Dr. Dean Burk PhD who spent over three decades with the national cancer institute.
Researchers suspect a connection to cancer because half of ingested fluoride is deposited in bones, and fluoride stimulates growth in the end of bones, where osteosarcoma occurs.
Effective?
By now, the question of Efficacy is irrelevant, as two legs of the NSE stool have already collapsed, but from completeness, let’s do it.
Does it do what they say it does?
Is Water Fluoridation Effective?
According to most major sources, estimates of fluoridation effectiveness amount to at most a reduction of only one-half cavity per child. Low end estimates find no significant reduction at all. Children aged 6-17 average 2.1 cavities in their permanent teeth1:
Cochrane Collaboration2 (2015): 26% (0.5 cavity per child)
CDC3 (2018): 25% (0.5 cavity per child)
Iowa Fluoride Study4 (2018): No significant reduction
World Health Organization data5 (2005): No evidence of fluoridation’s effectiveness
There is already a consensus including CDC, Cochrane Collaboration, the Iowa Fluoride Study and others that fluoride’s effectiveness in preventing cavities is mainly topical (not swallowed).
The Cochrane Collaboration is considered the gold standard of evaluating effectiveness. It said the cavity reduction referenced above was “based predominantly on old studies and may not be applicable today.”
“Over 97% of the 155 studies were at a high risk of bias, which reduces the overall quality of the results… We did not identify any evidence… to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults… There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across socio-economic status.”
The Iowa Fluoride Study (IFS), funded by the National Institutes of Health, is the most comprehensive, ongoing research project in the U.S., the only one measuring all sources of fluoride ingestion. The 2018 study from IFS referenced above found no significant correlation between ingested fluoride and cavity reduction, further validating a 2009 study6 from IFS that stated:
“ … achieving a caries-free status may have relatively little to do with fluoride intake (emphasis in the original) … recommending an ‘optimal’ fluoride intake is problematic.”
Finally, World Health Organization data show cavity rates in children (age 12) have dropped as much in nations that don’t fluoridate (darker solid lines) as in nations that do (red/yellow dotted lines). (See graph)
And lastly this from Dr Robert Yoho.
Dr. Mercola interviewed Dr. Bill Osmunson HERE in December 2020 about the dangers associated with water fluoridation. Dr. Osmunson said that recent studies revealed lower IQs if children were exposed in utero to fluoride. Control groups from cities with no fluoridation had about a standard deviation higher IQs. He described how the litigation to ban fluoride was being stalled.
Update: Rachel Levine, the first openly transgender four-star officer in the armed forces and now Assistant Secretary for Health, recently put the release of a detailed report about fluoride’s toxicity on hold. For more about the associated lawsuit and all the red tape that is being wound around the truth, see THIS reference from January 2023.
Top 10 Ways to Reduce Fluoride Exposure
Water Filters: One way of avoiding the fluoride from tap water is to purchase a water filter. Not all water filters, however, remove fluoride. The three types of filters that can remove fluoride are reverse osmosis, deionizers (which use ion-exchange resins), and activated alumina. Each of these filters should be able to remove about 90% of the fluoride. By contrast, “activated carbon” filters (e.g., Brita & Pur) do not remove fluoride. For more information on water filters, click here.
In Australia, we used these guys to install a reverse osmosis system. They were very good to deal with. No point telling them you were referred by Unbekoming, they won’t know what you are talking about.
Thanks for being here.
Please consider a small paid subscription (donation). The money goes to help covid vaccine injured Australians.
I am always looking for good, personal GMC, covid and childhood vaccination stories. You can write to me privately: unbekoming@outlook.com
If you are Covid vaccine injured, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment
If you want to understand and “see” what baseline human health looks like, watch (and share) this 21 minutes
If you want to help someone, give them a book. Official Stories by Liam Scheff. Point them to a safe chapter (here and here), and they will find their way to vaccination.
Here are three eBooks I have produced so far:
FREE eBook: A letter to my two adult kids - Vaccines and the free spike protein
Fluoride