Science

Fluoride Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin in World’s Most Prestigious Medical Journal

By  | 
The movement to remove industrial sodium fluoride from the world’s water supply has been growing in recent years, with evidence coming out against the additive from several sources.

Now, a report from the world’s oldest and most prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, has officially classified fluoride as a neurotoxin — in the same category as arsenic, lead and mercury.

The news was broken by author Stefan Smyle, who cited a report published in The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, in the March 2014 edition, by authors Dr. Phillippe Grandjean and Philip J. Landrigan, MD. The report, which was officially released in 2014 and published in the journal, can be viewed by clicking here.

Fluoride Classified Along with Mercury, Lead and Others

As noted in the summary of the report, a systematic review identified five different similar industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene.

The summary goes on to state that six additional developmental neurotoxicants have also  now been identified: manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. The authors added that even more of these neurotoxicants remain undiscovered.

Also in the report, they note that neurodevelopmental disabilities, including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, are now affecting millions of children worldwide in what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Because of the documented health risks of fluoride, many people have launched campaigns to remove the chemical from their water supplies, to varying degrees of success.

Such initiatives usually begin through the are often controversial and emotionally charged because of the reputation fluoride still enjoys among mainstream dentistry practitioners.

In addition to fluoride in city water supplies, the substance can also be found in certain foods, especially in heavily processed brands of tea that may be grown in polluted areas (see this list for more info).

If you’ve ever noticed the warnings on toothpaste labels you probably know just how serious fluoride poisoning can be, especially for children if they swallow too much at one time.

Because of this threat, many parents have begun eschewing fluoridated toothpaste brands altogether and are using more natural brands such as Earthpaste, Desert Essence, Uncle Harry’s Toothpaste Dr. Bronner’s toothpaste line, or even making their own from a combination of ingredients such as coconut oil, organic neem leaf powders, essential oils like peppermint or cinnamon, and other natural ingredients.

The fluoride added to our water supply is mostly seen as a cumulative toxin that accumulates in our bodies and can manifest itself in problems over time, including dental fluorosis, or far worse health problems.

Global Fluoride Prevention Strategy Recommended

In the Lancet report, the authors propose a global prevention strategy, saying that “untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.”

They continue: “To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.”

The report coincides with 2013 findings by a Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health that concluded that children in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores that those who live in areas with low amounts of fluoride in their water supplies.

Sodium fluoride in drinking water has also been linked to various cancers. It is functionally different than the naturally-occurring calcium fluoride, and commonly added to drinking water supplies and used by dentists who posit that it is useful for dental health.

Fluoridation is Actually Uncommon in Europe

Currently, fluoride is added to water supplies across much of North America, but as this list of countries that ban or reject water fluoridation shows, the practice is actually not too common, or banned entirely throughout most of Europe and in several other developed nations across the world.

Since most places in America still add fluoride to the water a high quality water filter is recommend to filter out the fluoride, and it can be especially important to avoid exposing yourself to too much fluoride in your daily shower or bath.

 Courtesy of Humans Are Free
  • Eddie
  • david hunter

    That’s why yanks are so dumb

    • Your1Friend

      This may very well be.

      We have been poisoned for decades.

  • Making Sense of Fluoride
  • KCTennant

    PALMER COLLEGE OF CHIROPRACTIC REFUSES TO TEACH ABOUT THE RISKS & FAILURES OF VACCINES OR THE FACT THAT FLOURIDE CAUSES MORE CANCERS THAN ANY OTHER CHEMICAL (And it remains in Davenport, Iowa’s municipal water supply). PALMER COLLEGE HAS DEFRAUDED & DEPRIVED STUDENTS / DOCTORS / PATIENTS etc of critical information necessary to empower people to make Informed Decisions.-Dr. Kenneth Tennant

    • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

      Crack-pot back-crackers don’t need to draw more attention to themselves. They really are nutty already and don’t want people figuring that out.

    • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

      Crack-pot back-crackers don’t need to draw more attention to themselves. They really are nutty already and don’t want people figuring that out.

  • Your1Friend

    America and Americans have always been testing ground for fake science by fake scientists.

    There should be little wonder why many Americans take the Republican Agenda seriously!

  • http://benjamindavidsteele.wordpress.com/ Marmalade

    One of the main problems isn’t even mentioned in this article. Lead is far worse than fluoride. But one of the dangers of fluoride is that it increases the body’s absorption of lead. Urban areas that have high levels of lead pollution also tend to have heavier use of fluoridated water.

  • Phylum Sinter

    The report covers much more than just fluoride. It’s not a bad read overall… this part i found interesting:

    “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.44 Confounding from other substances seemed unlikely in most of these studies. Further characterisation of the dose–response association would be desirable.”

    7 points! but as they mention, there’s not a hard limit for what safe exposure to it is (and then they go on to) –

    “The occupational health literature45 suggests that solvents can act as neurotoxicants, but the identification of individual responsible compounds is hampered by the complexity of exposures. In a French cohort study of 3000 children, investigators linked maternal occupational solvent exposure during pregnancy to deficits in behavioural assessment at 2 years of age.46 The data showed dose-related increased risks for hyperactivity and aggressive behaviour. One in every five mothers in this cohort reported solvent exposures in common jobs, such as nurse or other hospital employee, chemist, cleaner, hairdresser, and beautician. In Massachusetts, USA, follow-up of a well-defined population with prenatal and early childhood exposure to the solvent tetrachloroethylene (also called perchlorethylene) in drinking water showed a tendency towards deficient neurological function and increased risk of psychiatric diagnoses.47”

    I want to know if my double osmosis filtering setup is capable of removing this “tetrachloroethylene” as much as i want to know if it’s capable of removing lead or fluoride, personally.

    Their recommendations at the end are great too:
    “Recommendations for an international clearinghouse on neurotoxicity

    The main purpose of this agency would be to promote optimum brain health, not just avoidance of neurological disease, by inspiring, facilitating, and coordinating research and public policies that aim to protect brain development during the most sensitive life stages. The main efforts would aim to:

    •Screen industrial chemicals present in human exposures for neurotoxic effects so that hazardous substances can be identified for tighter control

    •Stimulate and coordinate new research to understand how toxic chemicals interfere with brain development and how best to prevent long-term dysfunctions and deficits

    •Function as a clearinghouse for research data and strategies by gathering and assessing documentation about brain toxicity and stimulating international collaboration on research and prevention

    •Promote policy development aimed at protecting vulnerable populations against chemicals that are toxic to the brain without needing unrealistic amounts of scientific proof”

    It’s a little bit shocking that there isn’t such a committee or panel already setup to handle issues of neurotoxicity, i know there are WHO recommendations in regards to healthly limitations of TDS in water standards as are the EPA/FDA standards, but nothing regarding the use of specific neurotoxins. It seems like a no brainer. So intended.

  • http://www.jamesrobertdeal.org James Robert Deal

    Sodium fluoride is rarely used. It comes as a granule and is used in small water systems. The most common fluoride is fluorosilicic acid. FSA is even worse than sodium fluoride because it leaches lead leavily. It comes as a liquid in a tanker truck. http://www.fluoride-class-action.com/safewater

    • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

      Fluoride ions are fluoride ions. They do not behave differently as they strengthen dental enamel if they have originated from different sources. If you have legitimate evidence to the contrary, provide it – properly cited.

      • 1875

        Obviously you failed high school chemistry.

    • Johnny Johnson

      Attorney Deal,

      You might remember me from Clarksburg, West Virginia, where you testified by phone to their Water Board, trying to trash CWF in the usual manner. You may also recall that I debunked each of your points effectively, with the credible, peer reviewed, scientific literature.

      Law and science are different fields. Stick with what you know. What you are stating is blatantly inaccurate.

      Incidentally, milk and orange juice comes in tankers. They do a body good too!!

      Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
      President, American Fluoridation Society

      • 1875

        Please list one safety clinical trial on fluoride here please .___________________________ Thanks

        • Jen Chamberlin

          ^ Waiting on that

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            well if the activists want double blind
            tests , Why dont they do them?? Because they know it is a load of
            rubbish and would be impossible to carry out. Due to the amount of
            fluoride in the environment This is just the usual flannel from the
            activists to try and scaremonger the public
            And where is the
            scientific proof that fluoride at .7PPM destroys brain Cells ?? There
            is none
            And I also ask for proof that fluoride at .7PPM causes any
            problem with the Pineal Gland, There is none.
            If there were any
            problems with fluoride at .7PPM they would have been found long
            before now with at least 200 million people enjoying the advantages
            of fluoride in Community Drinking Water.
            If the scaremongering was
            true there would be thousands of case histories and medical records
            about the problems
            But what do we see. Nothing. Wonder why

      • johndmac

        Let’s hope the American Fluoridation Society’s “Information Director,” Steven D. Slott DDS, is being reprogramed at your cult’s toothquarters:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/9c0c7ef7087d8410aa553780598ab5e52b13860545bd47f2143b35088cebfcf8.jpg

    • Johnny Johnson

      Attorney Deal,

      You might remember me from Clarksburg, West Virginia, where you testified by phone to their Water Board, trying to trash CWF in the usual manner. You may also recall that I debunked each of your points effectively, with the credible, peer reviewed, scientific literature.

      Law and science are different fields. Stick with what you know. What you are stating is blatantly inaccurate.

      Incidentally, milk and orange juice comes in tankers. They do a body good too!!

      Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS
      President, American Fluoridation Society

    • Billy Budd

      Sodium fluoride is in fact commonly used for the smaller water systems because the equipment is less expensive and the material is easier for the water utility employees to handle. Mr. Deal doesn’t get much right.

    • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

      I think I would believe the CDC before I believed some lawyyer who is part of the Fluoride Action Network
      Now why would they have a tame lawyer, to threaten communities that dont stop fluoride? And now they have 2. M Connett is running it
      Another lawyer
      The question that needs to be asked is where is all the money coming from to support the bully business
      The Natural Health industry makes 34 billion a year and FAN is part of it. I think that answers the question

      Remember, if the arguments against
      fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public
      scrutiny on their own merit, without legal help. Or threats of. If
      they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are
      not.

      Maybe that is why they need a lawyer in charge, To bully
      and threaten towns, because the fairy tales dont stack up.

      And
      also if the arguments against fluoride were so good, The illnesses
      and associated medical problems that fluoride is supposed to cause,
      at .7PPM, would have well and truly been investigated in the 70 years
      of its use, And what do we find as real evidence that will sway the
      authorities. Nothing

      And if the arguments against
      fluoride were so good , Why do they ban anyone from their social
      media pages who questions there ideology?Could be they cant answer
      the hard questions, because there fairy tales dont stack up

  • http://www.nielsenfitness.com Nielsen Fitness

    I am glad to see there is now worldwide recognition for fluoride being a toxin. It is dangerous and completely unnecessary to add it to toothpaste and/or drinking water. I hope my local constituents take massive action to protect those who don’t drink filtered water.

    • Big BIrd

      No eating bananas then for you – dangerous K49 potassium present. No walnuts either. No apples for you either – too much formaldehyde. Better be careful about breathing oxygen too – pure 02 is fatal.

      The original article in The Lancet has been widely discredited – shameful it made it into The Lancet in the first place. Dose and exposure is also ignored in the fluoride debate!!

      • Emma Gunn

        Yes but in people with God-given healthy immune systems uncontaminated with your toxic vaccines and other assorted pollutants we are able to fight off any chemical assaults through a healthy diet, a healthy mind and exercise.. that so-called assortment of ‘toxins’ you mentioned is nothing more than a smokescreen.. designed with the sole purpose and intent of obfuscation and intimidation. Do you really think that in this day and age people are somehow unable to think for themselves and to do their own research? I feel sorry for you, I really mean that.

        • http://www.nielsenfitness.com Nielsen Fitness

          Great point Emma – a healthy body can break-down and get rid of most of the pollutants we are exposed to daily. And Big Bird you have good humour.

        • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

          I do, if they think vaccines are toxic rather than a modern marvel, that has saved many millions of lives and defeated goodly number of diseases. It’s like you’re confusing being able to to google ideas passed around and echo chamber with actually being scientifically literate.

          • Emma Gunn

            I don’t understand you.. I’m clearly confused. World Health Organization documents are available online. What was your point again?

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            Most recently, efforts have
            been made to summarize the extensive database through systematic
            reviews. Such reviews concluded that water fluoridation and use of
            fluoride toothpastes and mouthrinses significantly reduce the
            prevalence of dental caries. WHO recommends for public health that
            every effort must be made to develop affordable fluoridated
            toothpastes for use in developing countries. Water fluoridation,
            where technically feasible and culturally acceptable, has substantial
            advantages in public health; alternatively, fluoridation of salt and
            milk fluoridation schemes may be considered for prevention of dental
            caries.

          • Emma Gunn

            Aside from the fact that fluoridated water and toothpaste tastes like sh*t.. actually I’ll stop there. I rest my case.

          • Emma Gunn

            Aside from the fact that fluoridated water and toothpaste tastes like sh*t.. actually I’ll stop there. I rest my case.

        • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

          I do, if they think vaccines are toxic rather than a modern marvel, that has saved many millions of lives and defeated goodly number of diseases. It’s like you’re confusing being able to to google ideas passed around and echo chamber with actually being scientifically literate.

      • Ping2

        Give us a source please to back your claim that the article in the Lancet “has been widely discredited.” Or is it just in your opinion?

        • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

          There’s a lot. The article in the Lancet is pretty good, but the article it references is the discredited one, mostly because it’s a shotty metastudy of even weaker chinese studies. And if fluoride had such effects we’d find them given all the very available data we have.

          • Emma Gunn

            More like you would find them but you wouldn’t necessarily make them available to the public, no?

        • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

          There’s a lot. The article in the Lancet is pretty good, but the article it references is the discredited one, mostly because it’s a shotty metastudy of even weaker chinese studies. And if fluoride had such effects we’d find them given all the very available data we have.

    • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

      Remember the first rule to bullshit
      detection? If they try to use the word ‘toxins’ to scare you?

      It’s probably bullshit.

      • Emma Gunn

        Nobody’s trying to ‘scare’ anyone.. some people are simply trying to educate.. so what term would you use to describe thalidomide, DDT, glyphosate, toluene, asbestos, formaldehyde, benzene? How else would you describe these chemicals and pollutants? Because fluoride is in the same class as every other carcinogen. So I really fail to see how ‘toxin’ is so far off the mark.

      • Emma Gunn

        Nobody’s trying to ‘scare’ anyone.. some people are simply trying to educate.. so what term would you use to describe thalidomide, DDT, glyphosate, toluene, asbestos, formaldehyde, benzene? How else would you describe these chemicals and pollutants? Because fluoride is in the same class as every other carcinogen. So I really fail to see how ‘toxin’ is so far off the mark.

        • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

          Fluoride is just a natural mineral found in all things and at the levels used in community Fluoridated Water There is no danger or ever has been to human health,
          If I am wrong, show me a case history of somebody who has has had a illness or disease caused by fluoride alone at .7PPM

        • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

          Fluoride is just a natural mineral found in all things and at the levels used in community Fluoridated Water There is no danger or ever has been to human health,
          If I am wrong, show me a case history of somebody who has has had a illness or disease caused by fluoride alone at .7PPM

          • Emma Gunn

            I think the precautionary principle comes into play here.. the onus is on you to prove that fluoride does no harm.

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            Here is the argument in a nutshell:
            The mathematical part if this – if we consider risk prevention, we
            must decide how much risk is acceptable. As risk increases, tolerance
            should decrease. As risk approaches infinity, tolerance should
            approach zero.

            In order to use
            this principle, we must quantify risk, any
            risk of permanent harm or total harm should be considered infinite.

            Some systems as fragile, meaning they have a non-linear
            response to harm. For example, if you fell from 1 foot 100 times you
            would probably be fine, but if you fell once from 100 feet you might
            be killed. As height from which one falls increases, harm
            dramatically increases until it is complete (death). However, below a
            certain threshold there is no harm, and and so small falls do no
            accumulate damage.

            So putting this
            in the fluoride model as the concentration increases so does the risk
            of damage to the human body. But at the level used by most of the
            world in CFW being .7-1PPM there is little or no risk ,So the
            Precautions do not apply, And as such there is no precautionary
            principle

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            As i asked before you show me the medical records I know it does not cause harm, because you cannot produce any proof

    • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

      Also
      on that same list of over 200 substances are such commonly ingested
      substances as aspartame (artificial sweetener), ethanol ( beer and
      other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), caffeine, nicotine,
      and tetracycline. Do you worry about brain damage when you take an
      aspirin? Open a packet of sweetener? Drink a beer? Have a cup of
      coffee? If not, why? Think maybe it’s because you understand that
      at the concentrations at which we normally ingest these substances
      they are not toxic? The same is true for fluoride. Fluoride at the
      optimal level is not toxic, neuro or otherwise.

      • Emma Gunn

        Seriously? It depends on whether the INDIVIDUAL is immunocompromised a lot of the time

      • Emma Gunn

        Seriously? It depends on whether the INDIVIDUAL is immunocompromised a lot of the time

  • Toby
  • David Arbulich

    THIS IS UTTER INSANITY AT ITS BEST….USE YOUR FUCKING BRAIN PEOPLE WE HAVE BEEN USING FLUORIDE FOR HOW MANY YEARS?? ARE WE ALL DYING OR ARE WE LIVING LONGER THAN EVER?? STOP THE INSANITY!

    • Iwonderwhy

      Nah bro, think about all the times in history where people did really dumb medical things for a long-ass time until someone proved it was bad for you. Educate yourself mate.

      • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

        Perhaps, but it was scientists and medical professionals that eventually evaluated the situation, discovered the problems and initiated the changes. It most certainly was not a bunch of activists distorting and misinterpreting science that made any changes.

      • David Arbulich

        Here’s the difference brosky: We now have SCIENCE as our God and all-fact-loving Savior. Vs previous times where people were like, perhaps, you, doctors who drained the blood out of patients to “leak the devil out of them.” We now have a science-based approach. The VAST MAJORITY of science minded folk do NOT agree with this “fluoride is the devil” argument. So if one or two articles come out from a puritanical/holistic/anti-gmo/anti-vaccine/organic is soooo the way/etc bias, we need to weigh this out with the overarching data supporting that ingesting small amounts of Fluoride is NOT the oh-so-bad people want to believe (yeah brosky the government is sending plains in the air to chem-trail us into submission and while they are at it they found out Fluoride makes us stupid so they were like YESSSSS control the masses with Fluoride conspiracy theory!!!)

    • B-ri

      This is a very unproductive comment, my friend

      • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

        It’s really not. The CDC did a very nice list of the 10 things that contribute the most to our health modernly and fluoride very much made the list for the very accurate reason that it does.

      • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

        It’s really not. The CDC did a very nice list of the 10 things that contribute the most to our health modernly and fluoride very much made the list for the very accurate reason that it does.

      • David Arbulich

        Sorry if I came across rude and in all caps. I’m just tired of people not fact-checking data and simply blinded by their own presuppositions only picking data that leads to their own conclusion. I know you can say the same about ME that I am just biased. But the whole movement for “organic” “non gmo” “flouride is soooo bad” etc all relates to the most ignorant base of fans who tend to err towards being NOT scientifically minded. SCIENCE RULES!! NOT FEAR BASED PURITANICAL IGNORANCE.

    • Seabreezes1

      The 2013 IOM study entitled “Poorer Health, Shorter Lives” said that not only do U.S. children have more cavities than 11 of their 16 peers in other industrialized countries, we have more cavities than children in lower rated countries…. and poorer health to boot. They noted this is a reversal of our health status from 1950 and could not point to a cause….. 75% of our population drinks fluoridated water, more than in any of the other countries.

      2013 IOM Report: https://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/US-Health-in-International-Perspective-Shorter-Lives-Poorer-Health.aspx

      • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

        Because of sugar. You look at the populations of otherwise similar groups with fluoride and without it, and check the carriers. That’s how science works. You don’t compare populations that don’t eat an American diet with those that don’t and then blame the water.

      • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

        Fluoridation opponents have a fixation on correlation = causation as long as it supports their self-inflicted paranoia. I think I could put together a graph that showed increases dental decay was correlated with an increase in drinking bottled water. – or an increase in cell phone use – or anything else that has increased in the same period of time.

      • David Arbulich

        First of all no one is arguing about CAVITIES in the US. Yes the US is addicted to sugar we get it. But where you say 1950’s health status was better….very biased opinions and searching for YOUR answer to be correct. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1102e7dd5ffe3518601d0523af421fcf543a31107b63d69bfbca9a144579b399.png

        All the RELEVANT data is saying our life expectancy is only increasing per the chart below and pretty much any un-biased scientific approach here…

    • Ice Helm

      Actually we are dying earlier now// When no chemicals existed decades and centuries ago we lived to be way over a hundred years old if not older.Now a days people have so many diseases that once did not even exist and more will surely come.Tell me why that is? Is it possible because the diseases you have today are man made? hmm?? and where are they coming from hmm? Tell me the reason for chemicals in your food such as meats? Tell me the reasons for chemicals on your crops that has caused sickness and death? Tell me how so many people once lived healthy and beyond our years with out this crap in our food?.Tell me why people are so dumb to not even remember this!

      • David Arbulich

        Really? Really? Really? Please do some research and realize WE ARE LIVING SOOOOOO MUCH LONGER NOWADAYS THAN OUR RECENT ANCESTORS. Life expectancy is up like 30 years vs the recent past so I have no idea where you are getting your data from. This is what I am talking about where do you people get your information from? The Bible?

        • Ice Helm

          Yup! drink more fluoride it has already worked lol.

  • http://www.fb.com/SonsDeserveDads Nathan J Burke

    Hmm, the study mentioned here only mentions fluoride in one section and in that section only quotes one study which examined the effects of fluoride AND OTHER AGENTS in regions in China. To say that the study resulted in fluoride being classified as a neurotoxin is misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.

    Remember, correlation is not the same thing as causation.

    https://openparachute.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/repeating-bad-sicence-on-fluoride/

    • 1875
      • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

        He is one of the more reliable debunkers of anti-F propaganda.

        • 1875

          Ken is also averse to a clinical safety trials. Shows he is dishonest like you

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            and how many have the anti fluoride lot done to prove the dangers of fluoride??
            I see our friendly woo practitioner is posting again

            Remember

            Natural
            Health is essentially rich shysters making money out of “mummy
            kiss it better”

          • 1875

            You are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

            Typical of a fluoride fundamentalist.

          • johndmac

            Why are your comments so retarded?

    • marilee meyer

      so we need proof of harm instead of indication of harm? it will be too late for the affected but you may prove your point.

    • johndmac

      Remember, ignorance is not the same thing as intelligence.

    • johndmac

      Remember, ignorance is not the same thing as intelligence.

    • Steve Vogel

      Do yourself a favor do your own research and question everything.

    • Ben

      Nathan, I read the study and was going to say what you said. lol
      Study mentions Fluoride barely, and the study it refers to is of various studies in China, and I’m getting the feeling that they are talking about Fluoride contaminated water, in those studies. Not water with substantially lower, and controlled levels. So we’re talking about regular ingestion of fluoride contaminated water.
      So I’m definitely not convinced I should throw out my toothpaste. Still not gunna drink fluoride either 😉

    • Christopher Roy

      What’s strange is how hard you people are fighting to defend fluoridation. Since when does your city care so much about your dental health that they need to be doing this when so many just want uncontaminated water. Right or wrong about fluoride, the hippies deserve to have the choice of having regular water available to them. And if fluorine is so important to you, you can just go buy it.

  • Peter Smith

    And we allow Fluoride to be added to our water and toothpaste !! Should we believe scientists and governments when they tell us some poison is safe?

    One “Belief system” is the same as any other “Belief system” following it we have to give up our self responsibility. Our inherent built in compass.

  • MKulnir

    Take the trace amount of Flouride out of the municipal water supply and watch children’s teeth rot.
    http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/calgary/tooth-decay-calgary-fluoride-water-1.3450616

    • NeilP

      Only if they are fed a junk food diet. Feeding our children with a healthy low sugar diet is a little bit more sensible than adding poison to the water, wouldn’t you say?

    • Melissa

      Actually, in places that don’t add fluoride to water, dental caries have continued to decline.
      http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/who_data01/

      • andyk304

        And there were controls for fluoridated toothpaste?

    • Marianne Sandy

      lol….really? YOu’ve got to be kidding me! Oh no, that sounds like a dentist or dental worker drinking the koolaid without reading the research.

  • DaveH79

    Got to love how the *anonymous* author (yeah, you can trust this!) of this article (that so many are sharing on Facebook and elsewhere) cites the “2013 findings from Harvard University” as a separate study. It’s the EXACT same study! LOL. It’s as if the person writing this article didn’t even read the research they’re quoting from.

    Oh, and BTW, the research talks about *high* levels of Fluoridation in CHINA. It also couldn’t actually confirm whether other chemical levels in the water were within normal limits — especially LEAD. So yeah, there’s more than a few problems with this single study.

    And seriously, wtf is “Waking Science” anyway? It’s a random website that just popped up online, and is completely anonymous. Just someone looking to make a few quick bucks off the gullible.

    • Melissa

      If you look at the meta analysis, some of the studies included people who were also exposed to lead or had iodine deficiencies and it demonstrates that being exposed to fluoride and lead is worse that being exposed to either in isolation. In many studies included, the people were not also exposed to lead.

      • cecily

        Flouride leaches lead from the water pipes.

        • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

          “Will
          water fluoridation result in pipe corrosion or increased lead in
          drinking water?
          Water fluoridation will not increase
          water corrosion or cause lead to leach (dissolve) from
          pipes and household plumbing fixtures. Although lead in public
          drinking water is typically found to be very low or is below
          laboratory detection, there are locations where old lead pipes,
          solder, or plumbing fixtures in old homes may experience leaching of
          lead into water. This is principally a problem in some older homes
          because newer homes have been constructed in accordance with new
          plumbing standards that prohibit the use of lead in plumbing pipes
          and fixtures. Ask your local water utility system if there have been
          problems with higher lead levels in water from older homes in your
          community. Claims by some that fluoride might result in increased
          lead leaching from pipes and fixtures has not been substantiated in
          the peer-reviewed literature.”

          http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/faqs/additives.htm

          • cecily

            That cdc link is no longer available. The acid flouride will leach lead from pipes. There is another type of common flouride additive that doesn’t have the same issue, but since both are in use the warning must be made.

    • Joshua Johnson

      Hitler used fluoride on the Jews. That’s enough information for me.

      • DaveH79

        He also used guns. By that logic, maybe you should work to help repeal the 2nd amendment too.

      • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

        That’s enough misinformation for you. I mean if you can go from 0 to Hitler in 4.stupid seconds then by golly that’ll do for you. Ignoring that the west does much better data collection in these areas and would easily notice a difference in the populations enough that we figured out their teeth were rotting way more often.

      • sharkonwhisky
    • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

      So places in china that cannot fix the water to point of poisoning children with fluoride might also poison children with lead?

      I daresay a lot is the low sample size of weak chinese studies and the difference between urban and rural populations. You get better water in the cities.

    • Ping2

      And the Lancet normally publishes unsound articles, and doesn’t vet them first? No. I trust the Lancet. If it publishes, I think you can trust the source. You can make ANY source appear dubious if you ignore the facts.

    • Ping2

      His source is “The Lancet.” perhaps the most prestigious medical (scientific) journals in the world. Are THEY just some “random medical journal”? Or do you think that their editorial committee might have checked and vetted the statement that “Fluoride is now officially classified as a neurotoxin” before they went to print? No ifs, no buts. A definite statement.
      I trust them implicitly, and will accept what they say before I listen to all the doubters who didn’t study the research, the methodology used, the credentials of the researchers, and the conclusion to which they came.
      What possible benefit can there be to the world of medicine to doubt the report?
      And who would be so crass as to stake their reputation on a rebuttal of a report by such a prestigious and reliable medical journal?
      The world is full of false prophets and snake oil salesmen. Witnessing you pit your strength against the Lancet is risible. Just because “Waking Science” carried the report doesn’t detract from it’s accuracy, irrespective of their credentials in your eyes.

      • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

        The only evidence you and other anti-F activists can provide demonstrates that exposure to excessive levels of fluoride ions (much higher than found in optimally fluoridated water) can cause health problems – that is not in dispute.

        Exposure to excessive levels of any substance (oxygen, water, caffeine, vitamin A, vitamin D, to name a few), can cause health problems or death. Caffeine, salicylate (aspirin) and ethanol are on the same neurotoxin list as fluoride. You seem to be completely oblivious to the concept that dose makes the poison.

        What anti-F activists fail to provide is legitimate evidence to show that drinking water containing 0.7 ppm fluoride (natural or added) is harmful or that it does not protect against dental decay.

  • B-ri

    I highly recommend reading both the linked article from The Lancet, as well as the cited study (Choi. et al 2012), which actually provides the data on developmental impacts of fluoride. They are both an interesting read. Here is the study by Anna Choi and her colleagues
    https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10579664/3491930.pdf?sequence=1

    Fluoride has already been recognized as a neurotoxin, as demonstrated in animal model study and a clinical study involving adults, which showed that abnormally high concentrations of fluoride had severe neurotoxic effects (concentrations ranged from 20mg/L – 80mg/L [Chioca et al. 2008; Mullenix et al. 1995]). Thats some bad shit, no doubt.

    The article cites that the US government, in response to recommendations by the National Research Council, is aiming to lower the concentration of fluoride in drinking water from 1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L, and is considering lowering the maximum allowed concentration, currently set at 4.0 mg/L (Choi et al. 2012). The reported 7 point drop in IQ is a result of high concentrations of fluoride, up to 11.5 mg/L.

    It is critical to consider the importance of concentration in studies like this. Many chemicals, both organic and non-organic, can have widely variable effects based on concentration. For the adult brain, neurotoxic effects come from very high concentrations of fluoride. For us developed adults, I doubt there is a risk. Children, on the other hand, are clearly more vulnerable to this. The impacted children in China were exposed to concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L, however, children in the United States are exposed to 0.7-1.2 mg/L on average. That being said, we absolutely need to work to prevent untested, foreign chemicals from entering the systems of fetuses, infants, and children. Nobody here can argue that fluoride has absolutely no effect on the developing brain. However, nobody here can argue that fluoride is somehow a supertoxin polluting the minds of every American.

    If you took the time to read all of this, thank you for doing so. A lot of people in this thread are just blatantly attacking one another; most of these comments are extremely biased and unproductive. I hope people can come to have a real discussion on the evidence and its implications, as well on possible action we can take, given what we know.

    • cecily

      I have already read about several states beginning to lower there flouride concentrations. I am glad. My firstborn has had flourosis from an early age due to too much flouride. It is terrible on the teeth.

      • 1875

        Community water medication provides the equivalent of 3-4 fluoride tablets
        per day (0.5mg per tablet) for a person drinking 2 liters of fluoridated
        water per day. That’s over a thousand tablets every year (over 10 bottles of
        pharmacy medication). A bottle contains a 100 fluoride tablets. Instructions
        say: Do Not Use in children under 3 years old. Do Not Use during pregnancy. Age
        3-5 years, 1/2 tablet per day. Age 6 – 8yrs, 1 tablet per day. 9yrs and over, 2
        tablets per day. So everybody is getting an overdose of a highly toxic
        pharmacologically active drug that was used to lower overactive thyroid
        disorders in the past. Doses as low as 0.9mg per day were able to reduce the
        basal metabolic rate of some hyperthyroid patients and alleviate their
        condition. The Institute of Medicine has determined that bottle fed babies even
        exceed the upper limit of fluoride intake. (250 times more than breast fed).
        That means bottle fed babies receive a toxic dose of a confirmed neurotoxin and
        endocrine disruptor.

        • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

          If your claims that fluoridation was dangerous to the health of children, why would the American Academy of Pediatrics (with over 62,000 members) – an organization committed to protecting and improving the health of children – make this statement, “Water fluoridation continues to be one of the most important tools in our toolbox to prevent tooth decay in children and adults. Hundreds of studies have affirmed community water fluoridation as a safe, equitable, and cost-effective way to protect the oral health of the population.”??

          Logically, why would the membership not question this statement (or initiate a mutiny) if they had any concerns?

          Your claims are completely false and unsubstantiated.

          • 1875

            Non sequitur. Kids were poisoned for decades under the noses of the “experts”. You are fundamentally dishonest.

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            if that is the case where are all the case histories of all these children??
            You are making the claim ??, what have you got to back it up

          • 1875

            Wrong. You make the claim as the proponent. Still waiting for the safety clinical trial that you promised. List it here __________________________Thanks

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            after 70 odd years of research you have nothing to say fluoride is a danger to human health at .7PPM

    • andyk304

      Poison is in the dose.

      • sharkonwhisky

        It is, but past research with fluoride accumulation in human pineal gland tissue clearly shows, from the levels found there, that it is a cumulative toxin. So this changes the rules when it comes to the perspective that the poison is in the dose. The implications of the fluoride accumulation however remain unknown.

      • 1875

        Yes fluoridated water gives a toxic dose for some people.

        http://www.waterloowatch.com/ffw%20brochure%202%20references.html

        • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

          Your claim, “Yes fluoridated water gives a toxic dose for some people.” is ridiculous. Provide evidence that drinking optimally fluoridated water has provided a toxic dose to someone – anyone. In order to receive a toxic dose of fluoride ions, someone would need to drink many gallons of water a day.

          • 1875

            Read the studies.

          • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

            He’s basically quoting the CDC’s assessment of the topic.

        • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

          waterloowatch is not a quality research source

          • 1875

            You are being disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. The full references are cited.

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            I,m not the one hiding behind a alias. what have you got to hide Bet your in the woo industry Making thousands out of “mummy kiss it better” rubbish

          • 1875

            Straw man !!

    • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

      commonly
      ingested substances as aspartame (artificial sweetener), ethanol (
      beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), caffeine,
      nicotine, and tetracycline. Do you worry about brain damage when you
      take an aspirin? Open a packet of sweetener? Drink a beer? Have a
      cup of coffee? If not, why? Think maybe it’s because you understand
      that at the concentrations at which we normally ingest these
      substances they are not toxic? The same is true for fluoride.
      Fluoride at the optimal level is not toxic, neuro or otherwise.

  • Jenny Felts

    This site is basically Fox News for hippies. Skewing data and outright making things up. Also, here’s an archived discussion on Reddit on this ‘breaking’ story.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/2705ij/the_lancet_has_officially_classified_fluoride_as/

  • andyk304

    This “prestigious” journal also published the debunked Wakefield paper that famously failed at linking the MMR vaccine to autism.

  • Joshua Johnson

    Have you ever been to a water treatment plant and read the giant containers labeled fluoride? It has a skull and cross-bones on it. Diluted or not. If you spend a life-time drinking this garbage it will affect your health.

    • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

      You know what else will kill you? The water. You drink enough of that stuff and you will die.

      • 1875

        Comparing fluoride to water is the sign of a lowered IQ

        • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

          Well the argument is offered that in high concentrations it’s a poison. That’s true for a lot of harmless things. Salt is particularly deadly for example.

          • 1875

            Fluoride is very toxic at low doses unlike salt.

            http://www.waterloowatch.com/ffw%20brochure%202%20references.html

          • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

            1875 – You are completely disingenuous. One of the references most cited by fluoridation opponents in their attempts to demonize fluoridation is the 2006 NRC Fluoridation Review.

            The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.

            The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm. The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater. Nothing else.

            Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly. It did not.

            Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

            Get your facts straight! But then fluoridation opponents have no respect for facts – only those pieces of information that can be extracted and woven into the support of their self-inflicted paranoia.

          • 1875

            Fluoride is very toxic at low doses unlike salt.

            http://www.waterloowatch.com/f

          • Cncerndcitzen

            Not all salts. Table salt, yes.

          • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

            No, all salts should kill you at some point, for the same reason table salt would. A goodly number of them would kill you much sooner.

          • marilee meyer

            one of the differences is salt is needed by the body to function. It doesn’t need Fluoride- which is the ONLY foreign substance put in water to CHANGE your BODY!

          • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

            Yes, it makes your teeth stronger which reduces dental carriers. We know this because it occurs to some degree in water naturally and we found that some areas have many fewer carriers and figured out why. While I suppose your criticism is actually true. Most of the other water additives like bleach and water softeners and anti-corrosive agents are intended for other purpose than helping people directly.

            It is properly classified as one of the largest health successes of the 20th century for a pretty obvious reason.

          • marilee meyer

            are you talking about dental CARIES? (not carriers) hmmm… did you know one of the people who helped coin that phrase “biggest health successes of the 20th C” was a director of the school of nutrition at Harvard, yet he was a tireless lobbyist for the sugar industry who promoted cookies and soda as approved snacks, etc. Who wouldn’t want a magic pill to protect teeth if you are consuming teeth-rotting sugar. He called health food proponents crazy zealots and charlatans. We know that perspective has now changed with knowledge of diet and affects of sugar. Yet that phrase lives on. I suggest you do some more study before quoting these old chestnuts. Fluoride is a toxic chemical. “Bleach and water softeners” are not imposed on an entire population without consent.

          • Steve Vogel

            calcium fluoride builds stronger teeth and is natural.

          • Greg Williams

            If this were true, then aboriginal tribes that have no access to dental management at all should have the worst teeth. Instead, we find that BEFORE they are touched by western diet, their teeth are strong and white. Contrary to your belief, when teeth are over fluoridated, it causes a condition called fluorosis which is a weakening of the tooth enamel and bone. The most mild form is a permanent yellow coloration of tooth and bone, and the most extreme form is mottled and severely damaged tooth and bone, like they were etched by an acid.

            The “science” behind fluoride and enamel is weak. Furthermore, it does not differentiate between naturally occurring fluoride (calcium fluoride) and the fluorides that

            are actually added to our water and dental products: sodium fluoride and (typically) hydrofluorosilic acid.

            So yet again, we see “science” from decades ago that people religiously defend, but we do not see much critical reasoning applied to it.

            For example, critical reasoning applied to the logic of a compound that must be topically applied to teeth for it to have beneficial effect (then spit out and rinsed), or official warning labels not to swallow too much toothpaste else call poison control, but then – if added to water that we bathe in and consume, it somehow still works to improve teeth. Each 8 oz glass of water has about the same amount of fluoride as a pea sized dab of toothpaste.

            Clearly this does not logically hold true, as the amount in water is too small to apply topically to teeth, unless you could fill your mouth with 8 ozes and swish that around, and the greater reality – consuming it does not magically redirect it to tooth enamel. Thus, many people spend their entire lives consuming what is factually a toxic substance in relatively small doses.

            It is a sad state of affairs today, that most people cannot even map out a basic logic tree to understand why fluoride should never have been added to water in the first place. Instead, you dedicate your time to reinforcing a tragically flawed concept.

            If you want healthy teeth, then you can brush with fluoride – the only way to topically effect the tooth enamel. If you want unhealthy bodies, by all means – continue consuming a product with dubious merit, but proven detriment.

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            fluoride is not a foreign substance at all. It is already in the water , and has been since time began all that is done is adjust the level to optimise tooth repair

            In the last 70 years the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby has been
            trying to find any fault they can with fluoride. They have all these
            sympathetic supporters and publish all there personal opinions as if
            they are quality research.

            Now the question has to be asked “Why do the scientific
            community disregard all their rubbish” Answer, because it is and
            never will be, reliable, unbiased quality research. there has never
            been any proven illnesses or diseases caused by fluoride at .7PPM
            If
            it was, the major dental and medical institutions would have jumped
            on it, Instead they try and disown any part of it

          • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

            No, all salts should kill you at some point, for the same reason table salt would. A goodly number of them would kill you much sooner.

        • Fake Mustache

          Try caffeine. Or sugar. Or fiber. Consume too much and you WILL die. Small amounts of fluoride have proven to be good for bones and teeth. To the point that native peoples without municipal water tend to have dramatically better teeth and bones if their water source happens to be “contaminated” with fluoride from the ground or riverbed.

          • 1875

            Caffeine sugar and fiber aren’t added to the public water supply.

          • Fake Mustache

            Doesn’t matter. And they ARE added to our food. Added sugar kills millions every year. It’s the leading cause of the obesity epidemic. American foods, on average, have 50-100% more sugar than their international counterparts thanks to subsidies to the corn industry making high fructose corn syrup cheap and plentiful. Add some to bread, dressing, pasta sauce, whatever, and people like it more, and it lowers productions costs, but its caloric value shoots up.

            Fluoride, on the other hand, has been a strong positive for society. To my knowledge no evidence has ever been produced that even remotely indicates that small quantities of fluoride in drinking water could be harmful, but volumes of research attest to its positive health effects.

            I say let the conspiracy theorists that think the government is deliberately poisoning its own population, the population it relies on to work, go to war, reproduce, etc, buy some fluoride filters or drink bottled water. No reason to harm 300+ million people because a few anti-science nuts believe unsourced claims on the internet more than the entire body of peer reviewed science on the issue.

          • 1875
          • 1875

            And some more.

            S Peckham, D Lowery, S Spencer. Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated
            with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP
            practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. J Epidemiol Community
            Health. 24 February 2015. doi:10.1136/jech-2014-204971. http://jech.bmj.com/con…/early/2015/02/09/jech-2014-204971

            Navneet Singh, et al. A comparative study of fluoride
            ingestion levels, serum thyroid hormone & TSH level derangements, dental
            fluorosis status. Springerplus. 2014; 3: 7. 2014 Jan 3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/…/40064_2013_Article_766.pdf

            I. Gutowskaa, et al. Fluoride as a factor initiating and
            potentiating inflammation in THP1 differentiated monocytes/macrophages.
            Toxicology in Vitro. Volume 29, Issue 7, October 2015, Pages 1661–1668. http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0887233315001605

            Louveau A, et al. Structural and functional features of
            central nervous system lymphatic vessels. Nature. 2015 Jul 16;523(7560):337-41.
            Epub 2015 Jun 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26030524

            A Malin and C Till. Exposure to fluoridated water and
            attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence. Environmental Health 2015,
            14:17 doi:10.1186/s12940-015-0003-1. http://www.ehjournal.net/content/pdf/s12940-015-0003-1.pdf

            Zhang S, et al. Modifying Effect of COMT Gene Polymorphism and
            a Predictive Role for Proteomics Analysis in Children’s Intelligence in Endemic
            Fluorosis Area in Tianjin, China. Toxicol Sci. 2015 Apr;144(2):238-45. doi:
            10.1093/toxsci/kfu311. Epub 2015 Jan 1. PMID: 25556215. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25556215

            Anna L. Choi, Ying Zhang, Guifan Sun, David C. Bellinger, d,
            Kanglin Wang, Xiao Jing Yang, Jin Shu Li, Quanmei Zheng, Yuanli Fug, Philippe
            Grandjean, Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions
            in Chinese children: A pilot study. Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Volume 47,
            January–February 2015, Pages 96–101. http://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0892036214001809

            Khan SA, Singh RK, Navit S, Chadha D, Johri N, Navit P, Sharma
            A, Bahuguna R. Relationship Between Dental Fluorosis and Intelligence Quotient
            of School Going Children In and Around Lucknow District: A Cross-Sectional
            Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 Nov;9(11):ZC10-5. doi:
            10.7860/JCDR/2015/15518.6726. Epub 2015 Nov 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26673535

            Grandjean P, Landigran P. Neurobehavioural effects of
            developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology , Volume 13 , Issue 3 , 330 – 338.
            March 2014. http://www.thelancet.com/…/PIIS1474-4422(13…/abstract

            F. Liu et al.. Fluoride exposure during development affects
            both cognition and emotion in mice. Physiol Behav. 2014 Jan 30;124:1-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24184405

            Maas RP, Patch SC, Christian AM, Coplan MJ. Effects of
            fluoridation and disinfection agent combinations on lead leaching from
            leaded-brass part. Neurotoxicology. 2007 Sep;28(5):1023-31. Epub 2007 Jun 30. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17697714

            Masters RD, Coplan MJ, Hone BT, Dykes JE. Association of
            silicofluoride treated water with elevated blood lead. Neurotoxicology. 2000
            Dec;21(6):1091-100: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11233755

            Martín-Pardillos A, Sosa C, Millán Á, Sorribas V. Effect of
            water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in
            uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50. doi: 10.1016/j.tox.2014.01.012.
            Epub 2014 Feb 18. PMID: 24561004 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004

            Main, Douglas. Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities,
            Scientific Review Shows. Newsweek (Tech and Science). 29 June 2015. http://www.newsweek.com/fluoridation-may-not-prevent

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            it amazing what rubbish research comes to light Peckham is a former chairperson of the activist group Hampshire Against Fluoridation. He is an active political campaigner on the issue of fluoridation Hardly independant research and to make matters worse the only paper that would publish his rubbish is the Scientific World Journal They will publish anything for $1000 fee
            So that is the first of the so called quality research from our unnamed commentator.
            It make you wonder about the quality of the rest

          • 1875

            Did you get that from your paymasters?

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            Speaking of paymasters

            That is normal when there are no valid
            arguments. And if you follow the money it leads to the Health Liberty
            Who,s members include the Fluoride Action Network and Mercola And
            Natural Health Coalition
            These people support anti vaccine
            ,Chemtrails and other strange woo. They sell this unregulated
            or tested products to gullible members of the public and make
            millions of dollars, And when the government tried to regulate the
            industry , they spent millions greasing palms to stop it Wonder
            why??We cant have that . The public might find out we sell rubbish
            So there is no recourse if the products dont work. At a time in
            their lives when they need quality tested medication

            These
            are the type of people who are the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby, who
            say fluoride is a poison, Shame they dont look at their own products

          • 1875

            Yeah, the thalidomide/fluoride/mercury/asbestos/lead lobby would say that.

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            Speaking of paymasters

            That is normal when there are no valid
            arguments. And if you follow the money it leads to the Health Liberty
            Who,s members include the Fluoride Action Network and Mercola And
            Natural Health Coalition
            These people support anti vaccine
            ,Chemtrails and other strange woo. They sell this unregulated
            or tested products to gullible members of the public and make
            millions of dollars, And when the government tried to regulate the
            industry , they spent millions greasing palms to stop it Wonder
            why??We cant have that . The public might find out we sell rubbish
            So there is no recourse if the products dont work. At a time in
            their lives when they need quality tested medication

            These
            are the type of people who are the anti fluoride/vaccine lobby, who
            say fluoride is a poison, Shame they dont look at their own products

          • Fake Mustache

            Come back when you’ve got enough studies to overturn the preceding decades of studies showing benefit from small supplementations of fluoride. Right now, almost the entire medical community considers it beneficial. There is next to zero dissent.

          • 1875

            The placebo controlled trials I cited show that some people get ill from fluoridated water.

          • Owen

            so why not this as a solution for everyone .. the pro and anti fluoridated water folk … plus the pro and anti vaccination folk … no addition to public supplies … spend the same money on offering supplements / vaccinations to those who want them … and those that dont can go without.

            … and in the case of vaccintions, herd immunity shouldn’t be an issue b/c if you are vaccinated you’ll be OK.

          • 1875

            I agree.

          • Fake Mustache

            Doesn’t matter. And they ARE added to our food. Added sugar kills millions every year. It’s the leading cause of the obesity epidemic. American foods, on average, have 50-100% more sugar than their international counterparts thanks to subsidies to the corn industry making high fructose corn syrup cheap and plentiful. Add some to bread, dressing, pasta sauce, whatever, and people like it more, and it lowers productions costs, but its caloric value shoots up.

            Fluoride, on the other hand, has been a strong positive for society. To my knowledge no evidence has ever been produced that even remotely indicates that small quantities of fluoride in drinking water could be harmful, but volumes of research attest to its positive health effects.

            I say let the conspiracy theorists that think the government is deliberately poisoning its own population, the population it relies on to work, go to war, reproduce, etc, buy some fluoride filters or drink bottled water. No reason to harm 300+ million people because a few anti-science nuts believe unsourced claims on the internet more than the entire body of peer reviewed science on the issue.

    • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

      and what is different about that than most products transported in a concentrated form Nothing just plain scaremongering

  • Andres Zoran Ivanovic

    In Sibirian camps, jails, USSR with KGB also used fluoride. We still are not finished 2nd world war.

    • sharkonwhisky

      They didn’t Andres, there is zero evidence that any of these people did that, please do some research.

  • Craig Davis

    Wow, so now fluoride is in the same neurotoxin classification as manganese. But manganese is an important metal for human health, being absolutely necessary for development, metabolism, and the antioxidant system. (Wikipedia). Oh I’m so confused now!

    • Diane Prima

      ” Fluoridation started in 1945 with sodium fluoride (from the aluminum and uranium industry), but the supply was soon insufficient. Fluorosilicic acid, (from the phosphate fertilizer industry) was substituted in the 1950s, being cheaper and more abundant. When diluted, fluorosilicic acid breaks down primarily into fluoride ion, hydrogen fluoride, and silicic acid. Silicic acid has an extremely low dissociation constant, meaning that the amount of soda ash (sodium carbonate) alkalinizer added to neutralize the fluoride ion is insufficient to neutralize the silicic acid. Silicic acid is long lasting and very good at dissolving lead.

      MANY FLUORIDES. Some 92% of fluoridation is done with fluorosilicic acid or its salt, sodium silicofluoride, together referred to as silicofluoride (SiF). Around 8% is done with sodium fluoride (NaF). SiF and NaF are much more poisonous and soluble than naturally occurring calcium fluoride (CaF), which is relatively insoluble and not even classed as a poison. Fluoridationists say fluoride is naturally occurring and that they are merely “adjusting” naturally occurring fluoride levels. Instead they are adding highly soluble fluorides which do not contain calcium, which would buffer fluoride. NaF and SiF are industrial grade. SiF contains and breaks down into hydrogen fluoride—which is highly poisonous and penetrates stomach, placental, and brain barriers–plus silicic acid, which dissolves lead. “

      • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

        You have provided no references to support your claims. Fluoride ions behave the same in protecting or repairing enamel whether they come from “natural” sources or from sodium silicofluoride, hydrofluorosilic acid, or other fluoridation chemical.

        When chemicals are added to treat water, no matter what they are, the pH should be closely monitored. Fluoride chemicals completely dissociated into fluoride ions and other components of the source chemicals.

        The level of the various ions is important, and the concentration of hydrogen and fluoride ions in drinking water do not contribute to any increased acidity – particularly after any necessary buffering or adjustments to pH during the treatment process.

        • Diane Prima
          • Steve Vogel

            I can confirm what you stated. Fluoridation started in 1945? It was a long time before that. A rich person made money selling it to Hitler and he used it on his troops.

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            3. “Attorney Deal”. James Deal has a website devoted entirely to
            attempts to stir up frivolous class-action lawsuits against
            fluoridation, from which he would presumably would profit.

            Remember, if the arguments against
            fluoride were so good , you would think they would stand up to public
            scrutiny on their own merit, without legal help. Or threats of. If
            they have to take legal action to pass them, it is obvious they are
            not.

            Maybe that is why they need a lawyer in charge, To bully
            and threaten towns, because the fairy tales dont stack up.

            And
            also if the arguments against fluoride were so good, The illnesses
            and associated medical problems that fluoride is supposed to cause,
            at .7PPM, would have well and truly been investigated in the 70 years
            of its use, And what do we find as real evidence that will sway the
            authorities. Nothing

            And if the arguments against
            fluoride were so good , Why do they ban anyone from their social
            media pages who questions there ideology?Could be they cant answer
            the hard questions, because there fairy tales dont stack up

          • Diane Prima

            That’s just your opinion. Nothing needs to be proven with me and I trust my sources. For those who still know how to think because their brain isn’t damaged from the fluoride. The following is still another one of many links from reputable sources. https://www.facebook.com/EXPOSEMONSANTO/photos/a.278841195503245.78817.278837732170258/915949948459030/?type=3&theater

          • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

            Burk’s “study”
            which you claim had “shown that fluoridation caused about 10,000
            cancer deaths” amounted to a comparison of cancer rates between two
            US cities, one fluoridated, one not. There were no controls for any
            other of the countless factors involved in the incidence of cancer.
            In regard to Burk’s bizarre claim:

            Numerous subsequent scientific studies
            from the US, Ireland, Taiwan, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand,
            including a review of over 50 published studies contradicted Burk’s
            conclusion and found no evidence to support such an outrageous claim.
            The CDC has since been quoted saying,

            ‘at this time,
            the weight of the scientific evidence, as assessed by independent
            committees of experts, comprehensive systematic reviews, and review
            of the findings of individual studies does not support an association
            between water fluoridated at levels optimal for oral health and the
            risk for cancer, including osteosarcoma.’

        • Diane Prima
  • Steve Vogel

    Sodium fluoride was sold to Hitler by a rich person from the US. What did it do to the people of Germany

    • Christine Price

      I.m quite sure Hitler used the Sodium Fluoride as experiments on the. News, he is the one that came up with lots of drugs that people use today, I think.Methadone may be one, correct me if I,m wrong!

      • Christine Price

        *** Jews

        • Steve Vogel

          All drugs are deadly. The drug industry was started from a very rich person that wanted to make more money

          • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

            No. You don’t measure things on the grounds that if you took enough of it, it would kill you. You compare the lives we would save with no drugs to the lives we would save with drugs and we find that Big Pharma is a modern miracle saving millions of lives.

          • Steve Vogel

            Modern med started with war crimes Japan and Hitler used against our troops during WW 2. It is impossible to tell if drugs are safe, Micro Physics. Everything at this level is invisible and the Tec won’t be available for another 250 years to see at this level. There are 250 known chemical metabolites in the umbilical cord that feeds babies. How many possible combinations can you make. Now realize there are approx. 1.5 trillion chemicals. The world is calling this the perfect crime.

          • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

            Steve Vogel – So, what is your solution if you or your family becomes ill? Obviously you don’t trust the medical community.

          • Steve Vogel

            Health means free from illness. There has been a cure for cancer for over 40 years. A cure for AIDS and so on. I plan to use my brain.

          • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

            You give half of a group of people with an illness the drug and the other half sugar pills and you check if the people getting the drug lived more in a statistically reasonable sample size. — There’s a reason we live to be twice as old.

          • Steve Vogel

            LOL, read again. What is making us sick in the first place?

          • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

            No. You don’t measure things on the grounds that if you took enough of it, it would kill you. You compare the lives we would save with no drugs to the lives we would save with drugs and we find that Big Pharma is a modern miracle saving millions of lives.

        • http://www.gloucestertimes.com/letters/x1927809091/Letter-Time-to-remove-fluoride-from-our-local-water chris price

          In 2009, two scientists published a
          book called The Fluoride Wars: How a Modest Public Health Measure
          Became America’s Longest Running Political Melodrama. The
          hydrologists dedicate more than 30 pages to conspiracy theories and
          their origins. We contacted one of them.
          “The World War II
          death camp statement is an absurd lie,” said Jay Lehr, who has
          authored or co-authored more than 30 books, most of them
          self-described “boring science books for scientists.”

          In
          summary, our Holocaust historian knew of no such project. Two book
          authors who researched the topic found no credible evidence of such a
          connection. A leading anti-fluoridation activist repudiates the
          story. The most commonly cited Web source for the story was a
          16-year-old extract in a fringe Australian publication. “

    • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize
      • Steve Vogel

        Never believe one author one opinion gives a one dimensional view. You have not questioned enough

        • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

          Um, a series of experts finds the ad hoc claim that Hitler gave the Jews treated water rediculous for the reason that they barely got water at all. And there’s other things to use that chemical for that they obviously would have done instead.

          • Steve Vogel

            Hitler did not give the Jews Fluoride he gave it to his troops!

        • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize

          Um, a series of experts finds the ad hoc claim that Hitler gave the Jews treated water rediculous for the reason that they barely got water at all. And there’s other things to use that chemical for that they obviously would have done instead.

  • http://godsnotwheregodsnot.blogspot.com/ Tatarize
  • Carlie R

    Fluoride should not be put in drinking water just because people can’t get their kids to clean their teeth properly. Fluoride is in toothpaste. If children were able to clean their teeth instead of the government just putting it in our drinking water

    • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

      “We should ask not are we entitled to impose fluoridation on unwilling people, but are the unwilling people entitled to impose the risks, damage & costs of the failure to fluoridate on the community at large? When we compare the freedoms at stake, the most crucial is surely the one which involves liberation from pain and disease.” – Dr. John Harris of the Department of Ethics and Social Policy at the University of Manchester, UK

      These are just a few of the studies you can read here that support fluoridation as a safe and effective public health policy:
      http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationreferences.htm
      http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/
      http://fluorideinfo.org/index.html
      http://www.bfsweb.org/

  • Eric Scoles

    You guys do know that pure water is toxic, right?

  • Kenton Forshee

    Manganese? Why?

    “Apart from these, there are other health benefits of manganese including the formation of connective tissues, absorption of calcium, proper functioning of the thyroid gland and sex hormones, regulation of blood sugar level, and metabolism of fats and carbohydrates.”

  • Tim Cox

    I guess you folks really do want to be alarmist, the paper they quote on Fluoride is from China and it is only about high levels found naturally occurring in the water not added by man to the water stop fear mongering about flouride:

    http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104912/

  • Neil Sims

    There is no such thing as a substance that is simply *toxic.* Dose, in relation to the type of physiology the chemical comes into contact with, always decides whether something will be toxic. For instance, one of the other potential neurotoxins identified in the article is manganese, which is needed for certain human physiological functions at one level of intake, but becomes toxic at another. Or, to make the notion more clear, *everything* is toxic at high enough doses. The water itself becomes toxic and even deadly at high enough doses, as anyone who has seen water intoxication knows. Fluoride is not toxic at the levels in drinking water.

  • Kathy Borst

    Incoherent sentence: Such initiatives usually begin through the are often controversial and emotionally charged because of the reputation fluoride still enjoys among mainstream dentistry practitioners.

  • Rod Prather

    Silly People. You can’t get away from Fluoride. Fluoride is not only added to city water supplies but it is found naturally in ground water sources. In tiny quantities it is harmless. QUIT IT !!!!

  • Hank

    If you actually read the information, it clearly states *high* levels of naturally occurring fluoride. It’s not added. Maybe stick to the facts and the decades long history of safe, effective use of fluoride.

  • joe

    Funny how people defend common practices. rejecting science,fluoride in water is about making money

  • http://www.cyber-nook.com Randy Johnson

    Anyone who has not already bought into the biased, misinformed, fear-laced propaganda of the fluoridation opponents (FOs) can easily do their own research and discover how the legitimate scientific evidence and processes have been hijacked by FOs.

    Don’t let this group of anti-science activists hijack your beliefs. Evaluate their claims for yourself ––outside the edited confines of the anti-F websites.

    Fluoridation is no more mass medication than is drinking water disinfection. Both processes add poisonous substances to water to improve the health of the community. Disinfection also creates toxic disinfection byproducts that everyone ingests (or breaths) without their permission. FOs apparently have no concept that the benefits of both of these water treatment processes are far greater than any risks.

    What is ethical? According to FOs it’s ok to prevent fluoridation (because they have scared themselves to death) at the expense of everyone else in the community.

    Consider that over 100 national and international health organizations support fluoridation as safe and effective, and their thousands of representatives have not mutinied.
    http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/FluoridationSupport.htm
    Ask FOs how many health organizations support their agenda?

    Some references to assist in untangling the FOs’ web of deceit.
    http://www.pubmed.gov – this is the primary set of references with the results of thousands of studies on fluoride and fluoridation – most support fluoridation, some do not, most are good studies, there are some poor/biased studies, and many show harmful effects of fluoride ions at exposure levels far higher than found in fluoridated water – but then any substance is harmful at high enough exposure levels.

    The references below explain why the scientific consensus of experts in the various fields continues to support fluoridation as safe and effective.
    http://www.cyber-nook.com/water/fluoridationreferences.htm
    http://ilikemyteeth.org/fluoridation/
    http://fluorideinfo.org/index.html
    http://www.bfsweb.org/

  • AlGator98

    Told ya!
    “Ice cream, Mandrake! Children’s ice cream!”

  • Billy Budd

    Fluoride can be both beneficial for teeth and bones when consumed as 0.7 ppm in drinking water and a developmental neurotoxin at high exposures. Both this author and average citizens need to understand that there is overwhelming professional consensus from prestigious professionals and scientists the fluoridation prevents cavities, is safe and very affordable. Credible science does not support what is said here.

    This surely will be crystal clear from reading the some 150 prestigious organizations identified by the Quebec National Institute of Public Health as recognizing fluoridation’s importance to preventing cavities.

    AFL CIO
    Acad for Sports Dentistry
    Acad of Dentistry InterNatl
    Acad of General Dentistry
    Alzheimer’s Assn
    Am Acad of Family Physicians
    Am Acad of Nurse Practitioners
    Am Acad of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology
    Am Acad of Orthopaedic Surgeons
    Am Acad of Pediatrics
    Am Acad of Pediatrie Dentistry
    Am Acad of Periodontology
    Am Acad of Physician Assistants
    Am Assn for Community Dental Programs
    Am Assn for Dental Research
    Am Assn for Health Education
    Am Assn for the Advancement of Science
    Am Assn of Endodontists
    Am Assn of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons
    Am Assn of Orthodontists
    Am Assn of Public Health Dentistry
    Am Assn of Women Dentists
    Am Cancer Society
    Am College of Dentists
    Am College of Physicians-Am Society of Internal Medicine
    Am College of Preventive Medicine
    Am College of Prosthodontists
    Am Council on Science & Health
    Am Dental Assistants Assn
    Am Dental Assn
    Am Dental Education Assn
    Am Dental Hygienists’ Assn
    Am Dietetic Assn
    Am Hospital Assn
    Am Institute of Nutrition
    Am Legislative Exchange Council
    Am Medical Assn
    Am Nurses Assn
    Am Osteopathic Assn
    Am Pharmaceutical Assn
    Am Pharmacists Assn
    Am Public Health Assn
    Am School Health Assn
    Am Society for Clinical Nutrition
    Am Society for Nutritional Sciences
    Am Student Dental Assn
    Am Veterinary Medical Assn
    Am Water Works Assn
    America’s Health Insurance Plans
    Assn for Academic Health Centers
    Assn of Am Medical Colleges
    Assn of Clinicians for the Underserved
    Assn of Maternal & Child Health Programs
    Assn of State & Territorial Dental Directors
    Assn of State & Territorial Health Officials
    Australia New South Wales Dept of Health
    Australian Dental Assn ADA
    Australian Health Ministers’ Conference
    Australian Natl Health & Medical Research Council
    British Dental Assn
    British Fluoridation Society
    British Medical Assn
    Canadian Assn of Dental Public Health
    Canadian Dental Assn
    Canadian Dental Hygienist Assn
    Canadian Medical Assn
    Canadian Nurses Assn
    Canadian Pediatric Society
    Canadian Public Health Assn
    Center for Science in the Public Interest
    Centers for Disease Control & Prevention CDC
    Child Welfare League of America
    Children’s Dental Health Project
    Coalition Of Physicians for Social Justice
    Consumer Federation of America
    Consumer Federation of America
    Council of State & Territorial Epidemiologists
    Delta Dental Plans Assn
    Dental Assn for disabled people
    European Organization for Caries Research
    Federation of Am Hospitals
    Food & Drug Administration FDA
    Food & Nutrition Board
    Fédération Dentaire InterNatle FDI
    Great Britain Ministry of Health
    Health Canada
    Health Insurance Assn of America
    Health Resources & Services Administration HRSA
    Hispanic Dental Assn
    Indian Dental Assn U.S.A.
    Indian Health Service
    Institut Natl de santé du Québec
    Institute of Medicine
    InterNatl Assn for Dental Research
    InterNatl Assn for Orthodontics
    InterNatl College of Dentists
    March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
    Mayo Clinic
    McGill University Faculty of Dentistry
    Montreal Children’ Hospital Child Development Program
    Montreal Children’s Hospital Council of Community Pediatricians
    Montreal Public Health dept
    Montreal Research Centre on Social Inequalities in Health
    Montreal, Laval, Laurentides et Lanaudiere
    Natl Acad of Science
    Natl Assn County & City Health Officials
    Natl Assn of Community Health Centers
    Natl Assn of Dental Assistants
    Natl Assn of Local Boards of Health
    Natl Assn of Social Workers
    Natl Cancer Institute
    Natl Council Against Health Fraud
    Natl Dental Assistants Assn
    Natl Dental Assn
    Natl Dental Hygienists’ Assn
    Natl Down Syndrome Congress
    Natl Down Syndrome Society
    Natl Eating Disorders Assn
    Natl Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
    Natl Head Start Assn
    Natl Health Council
    Natl Health Law Program
    Natl Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
    Natl Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research
    New Zealand Ministry of Health
    Nutrition Directors
    Oral Health America
    Pan Am Health Organization
    Public Health Assn of Australia
    Quebec Assn of public health dentists
    Quebec Federation of family physicians
    Quebec Order of dentists
    Quebec college of physicians
    Quebec dental Acad
    Quebec dept of environment
    Quebec dept of health & social services
    Quebec order of dental hygienists
    Quebec order of pharmacists
    Québec Assn of Pediatricians
    Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
    Royal College of Physicians London
    Society for Public Health Education
    Society of Am Indian Dentists
    Special Care Dentistry
    St-Justine Hospital dept of pediatics
    St-Justine Hospital university center
    The Children’s Health Fund
    The Dental Health Foundation of California
    U.S. Public Health Service
    U.S. Surgeon General
    U.S. dept of Defense
    U.S. dept of Veterans Affairs
    University of Montreal dept of social & preventive medicine
    Water Fluoridation: An Analysis of the Health Benefits & Risks
    World Federation of Orthodontists
    World Health Organization

  • AP57

    The Top 10 Toxins in America – Their published side effects and the movie links I use to educate my family, friends and clients.

    01. Fluoride in Tap Water, Bottled Water, Mouthwash, Teas, Toothpaste, Teflon = ADD, Asthma, Alzheimer’s, Brain Damage, Tooth Decay, Arthritis, Lower IQ, Depression, Migraines, Bronchitis, Emphysema, Hypoglycemia, Bone Fractures, Anxiety, Nerve Damage, Reduced Sex Drive, Lower Sperm and Fertility, Thyroid Disease, IBS, Heart Disease, Joint Pain, Muscle Weakness, Bone Cancer.

    Our Daily Dose – http://www.ourdailydosefilm.com/watch-the-film/

    Fluoridegate: An American Tragedy – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpw5fGt4UvI

  • andronicusbass

    I cant download the pdf, can someone read chinese to signup if possible?
    http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-ZDFB200004010.htm

    Objective To study the effects of high fluoride concentration in
    drinking water on the cerebral functions of mice.Methods The abilities
    of learning and memory of high-fluoride exposed and control groups of
    mice were measured by behavior-toxicological test (Shuttle box Test) and
    the cholinesterase (ChE) activity in brain tissue homogeate of the mice
    was determined.Results The abilities of learning and memory of
    high-fluoride exposed groups were significantly lower than that of the
    control group,while the brain ChE activities of high-fluoride exposed
    groups were significantly higher.Conclusions High fluoride
    concentration in drinking water could decrease the cerebral functions of
    mice.Fluoride is a neurotoxicant.

  • 7845

    everyone has a lot to say. I don’t see why the “Lancet” would include flouride in its list of neurotoxins? There must be some danger.