Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

























  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh:
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

No I understand it. Thats why I am a Democrat.

But fluoridation misinformation and deception  is so bad, especially on the pro side, that informed voting is rare..

In San Diego even though voters were well informed and  voted twice, in two separate elections, against it, San Diegans are all forced to accept water infused with industrial fluoride anyway.

Democracy has absolutely nothing to do with fluoridation of water in So CA, where officials actually wrongly believe  that it has some health benefit.

San Diego citizens voted and passed city ordinance section 67 that prohibits adding any fluoridation materials into our precious limited drinking water supply. And yet  city officials accepted fluoridation against the  voting public will anyway. Fluoridation  is a forced police action and is as anti-Democratic as anything could get. I most certainly do "get it".

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Being a Democrat is hardly an indication of democratic views when we consider recent history where Democrat leaders refused to accept an election result purely because their woman didn't win.

If you think a referendum in San Diego was not followed then do something about it. This is what we did in our city and we won - the council was forced to reverse its undemocratic decision to stop community water fluoridation and accept the overwhelming vote of the citizens.

Voters make their decisions according to values - not science. The science is far too complex for even representatives to understand, let alone voters. It comes down to where one lays one's confidence - with scientific and health experts or with alternative and "natural" health experts (who are often financed by big business anyway)

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

The term "Democrat leaders" is nonsensical. When the GOP began using the term Democrat Congress or Democrat party (as though there is only one democrat  in it) they revealed their disdain for the Democratic Party. I recall the term was invented  when  president Obama was elected. Most republicans never got over it and vowed to make him a one term president the day he was inaugurated. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Please spare us. I've pointed out several false claims made in the provided link, like the claim that there is no such thing as a natural water that is fluoride free. 

Dr. Connett does not do experimental research anymore  So what? He is a teacher and sees his job is to explain the vast research that is done that demonstrates the fallacy of a worthless, harmful, un-Democratic procedure forced on people against their will. I applaud his efforts and oppose those who ridicule him and misrepresent the truth about "mass fluoridation".

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, if you question a claim made in Connett & Perrott (2014), The Fluoride Debate ( then, by all means, make your critique - but please provide a reference or citation (page numbers and quote will do.

Remember there are two authors and the chapters alternate between authors. (Paul Connett made many false claims and I spent most of my time showing where he was incorrect or simply promoting misinformation).

I cannot respond to your assertion that I "claim that there is no such thing as a natural water that is fluoride free." I need to know exactly what you are objecting to in my writing.

To say that fluoride is ubiquitous is not at all contradicted by the fact that in many waterways the F concentration is below the detection method of the methodology used. That is simple chemistry.

But, please can you back your claims with some sort of citation and quote. For example - you say without citation "In the Pacific Northwest such as Klamath Lake there is no measurable fluoride in the water naturally (below 0.05 ppm). The same is true for many fresh drinking water sources." Yet 
Klamath Blue Green Algae, which is harvested and sold by alternative health advocates as a beneficial supplement, contains 872 ppm F. (

Yes, Paul, no longer does any research or teaching. But we are peers in the sense we have both done research and taught, although in different relative amounts.

The fact is that however he, or you, might "see his job" he makes many unsupported assertions about the science - even promoted many distortions of the science. I have covered many of these in b my articles and The Fluodie debate contains both his incorrect claims (in his chapters) and their refutation (in my chapters).

And here is a typical misrepresentation of the science coming from a FAN press release (which of course will have been written by, or eat least approved by, Paul):


Yet the fact is the cited paper did not research harm to kidney and liver - it simply presented the range of values for 9 kidney and liver parameters in a healthy population.

I quote the authors of the cited paper:

"this study did not aim to determine whether fluoride exposure is associated with clinical decrements in kidney function among U.S. adolescents. Rather, this study aimed to examine subclinical changes in kidney or liver parameters associated with fluoride exposure
among a generally healthy population. For example, the lowest GFR estimated in this study was 84 mL/min/1.73m2, and therefore none were below the<75 mL/min/1.73m2 value considered reflective of abnormal kidney function. Future prospective studies including participants with and without kidney disease are needed to assess clinical changes in kidney or liver function."

This is just a single example of the misinformation and distortion of science promoted by Paul Connett that needs to be corrected. In this case, I consider that "my job."


0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoridationists typically claim that fluoride ingestion  does not harm bone because drinking it for years produces no clinical symptoms. What they overlook, as with kidney, brain and other organ altetations that are subclinical, is that fluoride accumulates its effects during lifelong consumption since fluoride is a calcium chelator. This causes in bone the formation of abnormal bone with an altered crystal structure which is not biochemically reversible. The NRC report  summarized the effects by saying that clinical bone pain typically begins after F accumulates to about 3000 ppm in bone. But the data in the associated table demonstrate that bone pain occurs over a broad range, even in some cases at only 1700 ppm. Most people accumulate F to 2500 after about 20 years of ingesting fluoridated water.

The point is that fluoride is a contaminant that poisons bone, and the bone structure abnormality begins with the first sip of fluoridated water.

A low dose calcium chelator poison does not produce clinical symptoms at first, but the effects are nevertheless abnormalities. TSH and PTH and calcitonin levels in blood are all elevated in fluoridated water consumers where the hormones attempt to prevent clinical symptons, of thyroid deficiency and proper blood calcium levels, respectively. But the lack of clinical symptoms does not mean to go ahead and continue to let the abnormality progress.


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

What reference? I took the train to Klamath Falls and measured the lake water directly myself with a Lamotte fluoride ion specific electrode.


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

You obviously didn't bother checking out the F content of the Kamrath Blue-Green Algae.

Anyway, please provide citations/quotes, etc. when you claim something I have written - I always like to check I haven't been misrepresented.

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

People who willfully promote or protect the policy of the fuoridation of U.S. consumers I refer to as fluoridationists. They are other things as well of course, but the title indicates rhat they support fluoridation and oppose those who are against fluoridation.

And your own words indicate the title is fitting. You stated in writing here that your community made a wrong decision when they kicked out fluoridation and a correct decision when it was restarted.

You also oppose Connett who does the best he can to not state anything that cannot be backed up with evidence.. He goes so far as to not cite the detailed work of Yiamouyiannis and Sutton and Teotia and Teotia , the largest human studies that exist, one a 30 year comprehensive data set,  all indicating that ingesting fluoridated water does not reduce decay at all. Connett presents the NIDR data suggesting  that such water can affect about 1 cavity per lifetime.

 What causes caries is not brushing after eating sugar. F has nothing to do with the cavitation process.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

You don't get it, do you Richard? Some of my best friends "are against fluoridation." I do not oppose them for it and always welcome a healthy discussion.

I support the right of a community to make a decision on this issue whether it is for or against - because I support democracy.

The decision made by our local council was "wrong" because it violated democracy. It went against a previous referendum result and all local polling on the issue. It happened because the council was effectively captured on the issue by lying activists. The councilors themselves did no understand the science.

The fact that these activists are wrong in their claims about the science and their promotion of misinformation is, in the end, beside the point. The community makes the decision and I support that aspect of democracy even when I think they may be scientifically wrong or I do not agree with the people elected, etc.

I support the results of our government elections -even though in most cases the people elected are not the ones I voted for.

Simple democracy, Richard. You seem unable to understand that.

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

The link to a researchgate article called the fluoride debate has many distortions in it. First of all, this is not a peer reviewed publication and should not be considered scientific. Researchgate accepts any materials posted on it. There are good papers in it, and some have been separately peer reviewed by scientific journal editors where the author did not want to pay publication fees and instead posted it on the site. But much of the material can be misleading or incorrect because of lack of peer review.

This particular title itself was first owned by The Fluoride Debate written by Anita Shattuck also online for many decades that is a decent set of information. The title of the debate with Connett should therefore be changed.

One obvious problem with the researchgate article here is the claim that there is no such thing as naturally fluoride free water. Pure, pristine, natural fresh drinking water has no fluoride becaue fluoride has no human nutritive value of any kind and indeed fluoride is a contaminant of fresh drinking water (as defined and regulated by the U.S. EPA). In the Pacific Northwest such as Klamath Lake there is no measurable fluoride in the water naturally (below 0.05 ppm). The same is true for many fresh drinking water sources.

Second, there most certainly is a huge difference between industrial fluoride sorces vs natural fluoride found in some fresh water supplies. Natural fluoride ions are always accompanied with substantial levels of calciumand magnesium ions that minimize assimilation of ingested fluoride that are dissolved in the water from multiples types  of ionic salts.  Industrial fluoridation though uses sodium fluoride or fluosilicic acid. This adds three ingredients that do not actually belong in fresh clean drinking water, namely sodium, orthosilicic acid, and as mentioned fluoride. Every 30 tons of fluosilicic acid added into a city water supply produces 10 tons of sodium ion, 10 tons of fliuoride ion, and 10 tons of orthosilicic acid, none of which beong in fresh clean drinking water.

I could go on with a critique of the link, but what is the point? Arguing with a fluoridationist who debates minute detailed definitions with Connett while swallowing the entire made-up story, that lifelong eating/drinking fluoride has no adverse health side effects and also lowered dental caries at the same, time is a waste of time. One could ingest fluoride all day long but it will not prevent or cure a singel dental cavity.  And one can only ingest miniscule amounts of fluoride in a calcium deficient water supply and will have compromised bone because there is no fluoride blood concentration low enough to block its accumulation into bone where it does not belong.

There is poor reserach on the antif luordie side, and massive amounts of pitiful reserach on the pro fluoride side. But the truth is that fluoride is useless, harmful, a complete waste of public funds, and is an immoral forced action on people who want to be free of it..

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, your comments about Researchgate are irrelevant. No one credible ever claims it represents peer-review publication. But it is a handy place to make one's publications and articles available. I, for example, have over 100 publications and articles on Researchgate, most of them peer-reviewed.

I don't know why Paul Connett does not put his articles on Researchgate (although he can not claim peer review for the vast majority of his articles, can he?

Of course, the credibility of an article and its contents never depends on peer review or not. I approach all articles critically and intelligently. There are plenty of peer-reviewed articles which a wrong - that is the nature of science.

This is why I get into this sort of review of articles used by activists. I think it serves a useful purpose and the fact that you are unable to show me wrong on any of my assertions shows that I must be serving a useful purpose.

0 Kudos

Richard, your comments on Researchgate and peer review raise some interesting issues which are worth discussion and I will post on them later.

But, first, a slightly related issue.

You have called me a "fluoridation promoter" - but that is certainly not the case and you cannot point to any evidence to support that claim.

In fact, I believe that the promotion of health policies like community water fluoridation are best left to the health and technical experts. It is dependent on community characteristics and these experts can make the best judgment call. I do not work as such an expert and have never appeared as an advocate on any body where these policies are advocated.

The second aspect of this is that the decisions of community water fluoridation in this country are, in the end, made democratically by the communities concerned. This is because of controversy around the subject. I support the right of the community to make those values-based decisions and have only participated in the discussion at that level because my own community was ignored when the local council removed community water fluoridation after its effective capture by activists. This wrong decision was eventually reversed after a second referendum where the community gave its overwhelming support for this health policy.

I am not an activist, normally. I do not advocate for specific policies (except democracy).

But my activity on this issue has been exactly the same as my activity on issues like religious distortion of science - eg., creationism and "intelligent design" or activist distortion of the science around climate change. I have vocally defended the science on these and similar issues, just as I have around issues related to fluoride. I have worked to expose and correct misinformation promoted by religious, political and "alternative health" activists.

In a sense, I am doing the job of peer review. This is particularly true with Paul Connett - I am his peer- similar age and qualification  (although I have far more research experience and publications). I have simply pulled him up for his promotion of misinformation and distortion of the science. This is quite independent of the promotion of any health policy.


Dental dogma destines teens for kidney and liver disease. 


The latest study out today identifies markers in American teens that suggest compromised kidney & liver function that could result in chronic disease later in life. These markers are due to fluoride intake growing up in optimally fluoridated American communities. 


Other recent studies have noted the biological damage due to oxidative stress caused by fluoride which has potential for causing all sorts of havoc in the body, including in kidneys, livers, brains and bones. 


Frankly, it doesn't matter if the fluoride caused the organ damage or if genetic predilitictions made these inviduals more vulnerable to fluoride poisoning, there are significant percentages of the population who are harmed by fluoridation policy - harm that begins in utero but manifests over a lifetime as chronic disease, disabilities, and even premature death


  • Fluoride exposure and kidney and liver function among adolescents in the United States: NHANES, 2013–2016. Ashley J. Malin, Corin Lesseur, Stefanie A. Busgang, Paul Curtin, Robert O. Wright, Alison P. Sanders. Environment International. August 8, 2019 [online ahead of print]. 



  • Waugh DT. Fluoride Exposure Induces Inhibition of Sodium-and Potassium-Activated Adenosine Triphosphatase (Na+, K+-ATPase) Enzyme Activity: Molecular Mechanisms and Implications for Public Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(8), 1427. 


Screen Shot 2019-08-08 at 10.55.24 AM.png


This is misleading. The Malin et al study does not identify "markers in American teens that suggest compromised kidney & liver function." In fact, individuals with liver or kidney disease were excluded from the study.

From the paper:

"this study did not aim to determine whether fluoride exposure
is associated with clinical decrements in kidney function among
U.S. adolescents. Rather, this study aimed to examine subclinical
changes in kidney or liver parameters associated with fluoride exposure
among a generally healthy population. For example, the lowest GFR
abnormal kidney function. Future prospective studies including participants
with and without kidney disease are needed to assess clinical
changes in kidney or liver function."


Fluoride endangers kidneys, threatens thyroids, inflames guts, damages teeth, affects immunity & rewires brains. 




A few other fluoride- kidney studies: 

"F exposure was related to the urinary excretion of early kidney injury biomarkers, supporting the hypothesis of the nephrotoxic role of F exposure."

- Jiménez-Córdova MI et al. Evaluation of kidney injury biomarkers in an adult Mexican population environmentally exposed to fluoride and low arsenic levels. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. May 2018. 


“Oxidative stress is a recognized mode of action of fluoride exposure that has been observed in vitro in several types of cells and also in vivo in soft tissues such as the liver, kidney, brain, lung, and testes in animals and in people living in areas of endemic fluorosis” 

-  Barbier O, et al. (2010). Molecular mechanisms of fluoride toxicity. Chem Biol Interact. 188(2):319-33


- A. Martín-Pardillos et al. in Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50


"suppression of Bcl-2 expression at both the mRNA and protein levels have been shown to implicate in apoptosis in the NaF-treated renal tubules”

Agalakova NI, Gusev GP. Molecular mechanisms of cytotoxicity and apoptosis induced by inorganic fluoride. ISRN Cell Biology. Volume 2012 (2012).


“NaF induces the apoptosis in renal tubules via activation of the Bax expression and Bcl-2 suppression”

Xu H, Jin XQ, Jing L, Li GS. Effect of sodium fluoride on the expression of bcl-2 family and osteopontin in rat renal tubular cells. Biol Trace Elem Res. 2006 Jan;109(1):55-60.


“It has been frequently observed that the children suffering from renal impairments also have some symptoms of dental and skeletal fluorosis… A total of 156 patients with childhood nephrotic syndrome were screened and it was observed that 32 of them had significantly high levels of fluoride in urine and serum… Increased levels of apoptosis were observed in high fluoride group compared to normal fluoride group. Various degrees of fluoride-associated damages to the architecture of tubular epithelia, such as cell swelling and lysis, cytoplasmic vacuolation, nuclear condensation, apoptosis, and necrosis, were observed.”

JA Quadri, S Sarwar, A Sinha, M Kalaivani, AK Dinda, A Bagga, TS Roy, TK Das, A Shariff. Fluoride-associated ultrastructural changes and apoptosis in human renal tubule: a pilot study. Human & Experimental Toxicology. 14 Feb 2018; Volume 37, issue 11, pages 1199-1206.



How weird - I quote from Malin et al's paper showing that your claims were wrong and I get a personal attack. That's called playing the man and not the ball. Why not deal with what Malin et al actually say?

As for " globe trotting troop of social media commenters who aggressively promote" something. That sounds like a description of Paul Connett who comes to New Zealand every southern summer to promote his misrepresentation of the science. Politicians are so used to his behavior they refuse to listen to him - and much of the reasonable media is the same.


How weird, those who specialize in vicioualy attacking fluoridation opponents regularly ignore the inconvenient science, like what I mentioned that provides biological plausability for Malin's study. Then KenP complains when after he's previoulsy identified himself as a retired New Zealander who used to work in agricultural chemistry that he is being attacked just for being identified - and then attacks Dr. Paul Connett, to boot, in an apples & oranges comparison.


That's called the Karpman Drama Triangle and involves a never ending Hero-Victim-Villian role playing. It's evoked by the Villian playing the Victim looking for a Hero. In this case, the fluoridationists like KenP trying to deceive the public with deflection and deception.


The Malin paper is high quality and just one of many that provides biological plausabilty for fluoride even in low concentrations such as in 'optimally' fluoridated water causing serious harm in consumers. Even the 2006 NRC commented on the alarming gaps in kidney science that indicated problems.



You cite the Malin et al., (2019) paper as evidence for your claim that "fluoride even in low concentrations such as in 'optimally' fluoridated water causing serious harm in consumers."

But the fact remains that this paper does not identify any harm at all. It simply reports the range of values for nine liver and kidney parameters in a healthy population. None of these values indicate abnormalities in live or kidney health - none at all. 

Apart from that, extremely weak relationships of one (out of nine) of these parameters with blood plasma F and water F were found. The relationships are so weak they have no predictive value and certainly cannot be used to extrapolate outside the ranges found. 

One could critique the statistical analyses and their validity (for example I find their claim that outlier influence was excluded very unconvincing for water F) but why bother.

As the authors say:

among a generally healthy population."

They further say:


There is no need to critique the quality of the statistical analyses to show you have misrepresented the paper - a simple consideration of these comments from the authors show that the paper in no way should be used to argue that "fluoride even in low concentrations such as in 'optimally' fluoridated water causing serious harm in consumers."

Bronze Conversationalist

Unbelievable. This fluoridation promoting person complains about being verbally reprimanded, and then himself announces that Paul Connett yearly performs a "misrepresentation of science". 

Between those who force the fluoridation of peoples' bones, vs those who disagree with this policy of altering peoples' bone structure and quality, I know exactly who is distorting science, and it is not Connett. Paul does the best he can with the available information, knowing that there has never been in all history an actual double blind, placebo controlled, human clinical trial to assess the side effects and dental caries effects of fluoride ingestion.

The facts we do have in well-controlled caged animal studies prove that fluoride ingestion does not decrease dental caries and in fact increases the incidence of abnormal dental enamel hypoplasia some refer to as the abnormal condition fluorosis. Indeed in the U.S. the incidence of this abnormality in teens is overwhelming and caused the CDC to recommend lowering the fluoride allowed in water supplies several years ago. But the infusion of any industrial fluoride into a water supply always increases the incidence of dental fluorosis in all cities treated.There are no exceptions.

The FDA has never approved any fluoride for swallowing and recently ruled that the material is a toxic substance that must be regulated by the EPA under theToxic Substances and Control Act. But the EPA does not want to be involved other than to prohibit water from containing more than 2-4 ppm and argues that the FDA needs to regulate the infusions because they are presumed to be an oral ingestible dental prophylactic.

The FDA has never approved any ingested substance for the purpose of dental caries control.

Lifelong ingestion of fluoride is known, in deceased people examined for it, to accumulate in bone to thousands of ppm where it causes formation of bone of poor quality at levels higher than in fluoridated toothpaste but where it does not belong and hss no functional purpose. Fluoride is not a nutrient. It is a toxic substance.

Do fluoridationists care about any of this? Of course not because they twist facts to their own desire and claim that lifelong eating/drinking fluoride is harmless and that caries rates would be higher if you didn't, not realizing that  flossing and brushing remove the bacteria that actually cause dental caries. Caries are not caused by lack of fluoride.

Fluoridation of people is a mental error, and no government agency accepts liability, not only for visible dental fluorosis but for any adverse effects of the ingested waste material. 

Protect bones in senior citizens because in elderly years bone fractures are most frequently lethal.  Controlled studies with dogs prove that fluoridated  bone takes far longer to heal than nonfluoridated bone. This is not a joke.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, you have allowed your emotions to drive you off at a tangent. My response to CarryAnne simply showed how she misrepresented the Malin et al., (2019) study. That study did not show any abnormal liver or kidney parameters in the study group - contrary to her claim.

As for distorting science - Paul Connett is well known for this. Have a read of my scientific exchange with Paul where I exposed so many of the arguments he used as factually misleading. See Connett & Perrott (2014). The Fluoride Debate.

Paul has, because of his frequent visits here, accumulated a fair amount of suspicion and outright humour regarding his claims and no one credible listens to him now in New Zealand. His attempt last year to hold a meeting in the NZ Parliament Buildings was a complete failure - he was actually shunned by almost every MP.


American reports have documented cataracts as a side effect of fluoridated medications. The fluorosis belts in Africa and Asia have high incidences of blindness, half of which is due to cataracts. Eye diseases are influenced by many factors, but ..... 


Fluoride exposure and fluoridation are implicated as contributing factors in several degenerative eye diseases which primarily affect senior citizens per March 2019 peer-reviewed article published in the International Journal of Environmental Research in Public Health. Metabolic reactions, genetic vulnerability & disturbances, and immunonological responses at play in a perfect storm that is typical of poisonous reactions in biological systems.   


The Contribution of Fluoride to the Pathogenesis of Eye Diseases: Molecular Mechanisms and Implicati...


See comment from the senior citizen care-giver of an elderly woman finding ways to stabilize eyesight that include avoidance of fluoride


Aliss on Eye DiseaseAliss on Eye Disease

Trusted Contributor

All the agencies that are supposed to “protect us” are truly there to protect the industry from lawsuits from us, the People! We, the People, have been conned. We are just consumers and filters of their poisons, but we pay dearly for our own demise!

Once these guard dogs have emasculated the agencies, then they set the corporate agenda into policy. This is why we have sugar industry setting dental health policy and Big Pharma imposing health policy in the US. Worse yet, these agencies rubber stamp the corporate agenda and the masses misguidedly trust them. So the people look for these agencies to protect them, when in reality they are enforcing the corporate agenda.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee!








Dosage.  How much is needed and how much is too much?


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH


Bill, come off it. 

This issue has already been dealt with in my comments comparing F with other nutrients, I, Se, etc. "Dosage" is a completely inappropriate term for these nutrients.

Bronze Conversationalist

It is hard to believe that people exist in the United States in the 21st Century who actually hold on to the idea that fluoride is a nutrient. And yet right here in front of our eyes we see just that.

F is not a listed component of the blood because it has no human function or purpose and is a contaminant in man.

The EPA does not recognize fluoride as a nutrient but lists it as a contaminant of drinking water and had to set an MCL for it.

The FDA ruled in 1975 that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods. And fluoride compounds have never been FDA approved for ingestion in the U.S.  And ruled that fluoride is a toxic substance that in water needs to be regulated under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

Fluoridationists actually believe that fluoride is a nutrient like vitamin C is. Wow. All nutrients exert necessary physiologic actions and exert effects at levels that reach saturation and are fully reversible upon dilution of the nutrient. Fluoride has none of these properties and in fact exerts adverse effects on bone that are not saturable and not biochemically fully reversible

The FDA knows full well that vitamin C is a nutrient and that fluoride is not. No disease entity exists that is caused by fluoride deficiency. Caries are not caused by fluoride deficiency but are caused by bacterial metabolism of sugars to produce acids that attack enamel. Normal enamel can only develop in the absence of blood fluoride and normal enamel does not contain fluoride. It is a clear crystalline hard matrix of calcium phosphate forms called enamel hydroxyapatite, far too hard to incorporate fluoride. Bone  hydroxyapatite does accumulate fluoride to massive amounts during chronic consumption of low concentrations of fluoride mainly in drinking water.

The CDC now recognizes that toothpaste fluoride causes dental fluorosis enamel hypoplasia but has yet to understand that most of the fluoride in the bloodstream in a fluoridated city comes from the treated drinking water, not toothpaste. Some day they might get it but as of now endorse fluoride ingestion as though it were a nutrient although they do not label it as such.  



Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Trusted Contributor

If the US actually had ‘health’ care, instead of Rockefeller Big Pharma (for profit) sick care, maybe the life expectancy would a bit better. See:


Isn’t it curious that the sugar industry has dictated US health policy for decades. See


Industry-sponsored nutrition research, like that of research sponsored by the tobacco, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries, almost invariably produces results that confirm the benefits or lack of harm of the sponsor’s products, even when independently sponsored research comes to opposite conclusions.


Sugar industry




“Fluoride has no known essential function in human growth and development and no signs of fluoride deficiency have been identified.” - European Food Safety Authority on DRV  (2013)


There is nothing ideological about dosage for medication. Neither is there anything ideological about medical instructions to avoid fluoridated water and foods prepared with fluoridated water for those with thyroid, kidney, and other chronic disease - populations who include senior citizens. Both are very pragmatic. 


What is ideological is for the pro-fluoride cartel to publish comments like:

  •  "...serious health consequences of lead exposure emerge only after years. By contrast, dental caries causes immediate and tangible problems for children’s teeth…" - Sanders & Slade, 2017

  • Suggestions that doctors need to explain to parents how to use water in food preparation because, "Some infant foods/drinks, when reconstituted with fluoridated water, may result in a F intake in infants above the suggested optimum range (0.05-0.07 mg F/kg body weight) and therefore may put infants at risk of developing dental fluorosis." - Zohoori et al. 2012 


I'm a pragmatist who prefers data and ethics to bickering. To that end, consider: 


Dosage QuizDosage Quiz



“The amount of effort, propaganda, and money the fluoridation-lobby is willing to utilize to cover-up their experiment-gone-wrong is unprecedented.  Their credibility and authority are tied too closely to fluoridation, and there is no letting go for them, regardless of emerging science, of facts, of reality, of anything.  They’re committed to protecting their policy and themselves, not you or your family.” - Stuart Cooper, FAN Campaign Director (2017) 


  1. KenP - The links work. My habit of entering a space after entering the url sometimes confuses this tool. I fixed. You would have had no problem finding them with the citation, but it served your purpose to impugn my character rather than deal with content. 

  2. How can you possibly construe what I wrote as giving up on ethics?! It is absolutely unethical to put a poison in water that causes harm. Evidence, ethics, evolving medical opinion, environmental issues and economics are all against fluoridation policy. The 5 Es. I wrote: "Community fluoridation is a scientifically and ethically corrupt policy."

  3. Rational analysis of data is the basis of risk assessment which provides an ethical basis for banning fluoridation. If there were no ill effect other than very mild mottling on a minority of children's teeth with a trade-off of significant reduction in cavities as promised, that's a rational argument that could be construed as justifying fluoridation. But that has been proved a Big Lie. 

  4. Bashash's 2017 study was the first of three ELEMENT reports with the same findings funded by the NIH and conducted by reknowned scientists at world-class American & Canadian universities. Those findings validate the findings of dozens of other human studies and hundreds of laboratory studies. Even low dose prenatal exposure manifests as learning disabilities on a dose response trend line when those doses are consistent with doses consumed in optimally fluoridated communities.

    Taken into consideration with the Canadian study of fluoride doses in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities that find a pretty exact match with the doses in the Bashash study (Till et al. 2018) and in American babies study that found 37% of them exceeded the upper doses assumed safe (Harriehausen et al 2018), it is painfully clear that fluoridation is public harm policy. 

    But, I'm not interested in playing a game designed by an agricultural chemist from New Zealand when there are statments like the following on Bashash 2017: 


Expert in Neurotoxicants: “Adverse effects from fluoride additives to drinking water have not been fully considered in the past, and the new study from Mexico, along with substantial evidence from other countries, now shows that fluoride toxicity to brain development must be taken seriously.” -  Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Chair of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark and Adjunct Professor of Environmental Health at Harvard School of Public Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)


NTP Director: ”There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before.” - Linda Birnbaum, director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)


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


Lead Investigator: “We tested for all the things we could think of that could act on neurodevelopment. But we haven’t found anything else that was a potential confounder... This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.” - Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto on Bashash et al. 2017 






As usual, Carry Anne, you provide excellent research and amazing quations from a consensus of some of the top scientists on fluoride and toxicity.


Well done.  


Ethics and science are convincing that many are ingesting too much fluoride causing harm.  A reduction in fluoride exposure is essential.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH