Exclusive: Dr. Paul Connett interview on shocking new fluoride study

Exclusive: Dr. Paul Connett interview on shocking new fluoride study

by Jon Rappoport

November 19, 2017

Explosive: new mainstream study concludes fluorides are lowering children’s IQ.

The study referred to in this interview was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, in September 2017. It is titled: “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age.” It is often referred to as the Bashash study, after its first listed author.

The study concluded: “…higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 y.”

In short, pregnant women exposed to fluorides give birth to children who later show up with lower IQ.

I interviewed Paul Connett, PhD.

From his CV: “Paul Connett is Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY. For the past 30 years, Paul has put his scientific knowledge to work by helping (without fee) communities around the world understand the science of controversial issues like…fluoridation. In addition to explaining the dangers of these practices he offers details of the alternatives…[Dr. Connett is the author of] The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2011, co-authored with James Beck & H. Spedding Micklem).”

“Paul has researched the literature on fluoride’s toxicity and the fluoridation debate for 17 years. He helped to found the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).”

I found the following items from Dr. Connett’s bio fascinating:

“In June 2001, Paul (together with Dr. William Hirzy) was invited to debate proponents of fluoridation at the annual conference of the Association for Science in the Public Interest (ASIPI) in Richmond, Virginia. The proponents refused to participate in this debate.”

“In November 2001, Paul (together with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix) were invited by the American College of Toxicology to debate proponents, but they [the proponents of fluoridation] again refused. On both the above occasions Dr. Connett gave a presentation of the arguments against fluoridation in lieu of the debate.”

“In March 2003, Paul was invited by the US EPA to present the opponent’s position in a one-on-one debate on fluoridation to be held at their annual Science Forum in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2003. Despite a six week effort by the organizers of this event, no scientist or official holding a pro-fluoridation position was willing to participate in this debate. In lieu of this debate, Paul provided a power-point presentation to a packed audience, which included 8 congressional aides, representatives from major environmental organizations, EPA officials and the media. The title of Paul’s talk—‘Fluoridation: The Undefendable Practice.’”


Here is my interview with Dr. Connett:

Q: There is a new study on the effect of fluorides on IQ. Several questions: Do you believe the study is well done? Does it deserve our attention? What conclusions does it draw?

A: This is a very important study. You can see my reaction to it in the videotaped interview at this link on the day it was published: Fluoride Exposure in Utero Linked to Lower IQ in Kids, New Study Says.

Taken at face value it should have been a good study. It was financed largely by the NIEHS [National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences] (part of NIH [US National Institutes of Health], which of course is pro-fluoridation). It was conducted largely by specialists in the field who have done similar studies on other neurotoxicants. None of them to my knowledge had taken a public position against water fluoridation (indeed one was known to be pro-fluoridation) so the notion of bias here was small…

Q: What is the reaction of public health agencies to the new study?

A: Pro-fluoridation agencies have done what they always do – attack any study that finds harm. They are all more interested in protecting the archaic practice of water fluoridation than to protect the health of our children. Extraordinary that any civil servant should think that children’s teeth are more important than their brains! The people at the top are desperately trying to protect a policy they have waxed lyrical about for 70 years. The people in the middle are taught to promote “policy” not question it and the people at the bottom simply believe what they were taught at dental or medical school and reinforced by their professional bodies. Others I think are very concerned that if they lose fluoridation it will affect the public’s trust in other public health practices – a clear example would be vaccination, a multi-billion dollar interest supported by the CDC (a big champion of fluoridation).

Q: How have major media reacted to the new study?

A: Apart from CNN and CTV in Canada and Newsweek there has been little coverage by the mainstream media. It was not covered by the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or any other major newspaper. That again is extraordinary for a study of this significance. Sadly, this is also typical of these outlets when it comes to the detailed science on this issue. They simply don’t want to know.

Q: I’ve been covering the fluoride situation [fluoridating water supplies] in New Zealand (note to reader: article archive here). Last I heard, there was a move to take decision-making away from local governments and put it in the hands of federal health councils, who would determine whether to fluoridate water supplies. Can you give me an update?

A: Yes this is a dreadful development. Thus, in addition to the health issues we now have democracy threatened in NZ. Yesterday [11/16/17], the new government re-introduced the bill [handing over fluoridating decisions to federal authorities] for a second reading. One can only hope that the coalition partners will not be bullied into going along with this. A NZ first member is strongly against this bill. I would hope that the Green Party will not be railroaded on this either. But they have been very weak so far.

Q: I’ve been told that many years ago, you were in favor of water fluoridation. What was the turning point? What made you change your mind?

A: To be more accurate I didn’t want to get involved. I was so busy teaching chemistry and working on waste [disposal issues] (which has taken me to 49 states and 65 other countries) that I didn’t have time for a third issue. And I certainly didn’t want a third issue in which if I got involved would get me labelled as “loony tunes.” Over the years I was approached by three different people to get involved (once in Spokane, WA; another from Ohio and a third from Ontario). I resisted them all. Then someone I couldn’t resist twisted my arm…– my wife – in 1996. When I read the literature she had amassed I was both shocked with what I learned and embarrassed that I had not got involved before. I have spent the last 21 years trying to make amends.

—end of interview—

Here are further comments on the new Bashash fluoride study, from the group Dr. Connett helped start, the Fluoride Action Network:

“The loss of IQ [reported in the Bashash study] is very large. The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm F [fluoride] water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.”

“The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States. The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation.”

“This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures. This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study. This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants.”

“The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists. But the implications of this study are enormous. A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag. It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.”

As I’ve been writing and saying for many years, one of the major forms of fake news is not mentioning the real news at all. Omitting it. Or downplaying it. This is the case here, with the new fluoride study.

Mothers giving birth to children with lower IQs? Not a concern. Not a problem. This is the stance of major media, who shout about “other people’s fake news.”


The Matrix Revealed

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

77 comments on “Exclusive: Dr. Paul Connett interview on shocking new fluoride study

  1. Theodore says:

    “Others I think are very concerned that if they lose fluoridation it will affect the public’s trust in other public health practices – a clear example would be vaccination, a multi-billion dollar interest supported by the CDC (a big champion of fluoridation).”

    Too big to fail.

  2. Not So Free says:

    QUOTE::Mothers giving birth to children with lower IQs? Not a concern. Not a problem. This is the stance of major media, who shout about “other people’s fake news.” :::QUOTE

    The PTB like the idea of less intelligent people. They are easier to rule.

  3. Larry says:

    May I recommend James Mccanney’s gravity feed counter-top water filter? It removes everything, including fluoride, chlorine, glyphosates, etc …and even arsenic using an affordable, carefully designed/crafted filter (mfg. in the USA!) while leaving those essential minerals intact. Check it out at http://www.jmccsci.com By the way I am not an affiliate of this company.

  4. Mary says:

    My little brother who was born in 1955 had pyloric stenosis. Due to the fact that he vomited so much before the surgery several months after his birth he was prescribed flouride pills and took them for many years. I was only 4 years older than he but remember well. In 2003 at the age of 48 he died of colon cancer. I believe there is a link here.

  5. Elaine.Benis.II says:

    Leaving flouride in the water or adding it a the supply of water not already fluoridated does much to help the “Elitists or the Powers that Should Not Be or the Psychopathic Rulers of the World or What/Who-ever the fuck THEY are. As Not so Free said, the less intelligent are easier to control. The “Poor” which includes the now-extinct “Middle Class”, are not financially able to purchase non-fluoridated bottled water, thus a majority of the population has no choice but to get their “8 glasses a day” from the poisoned “dum-dum” tap which means a majority of the population will be further dummied down and easier to control. Regardless of the studies proving the bad outweighs the good, that it may cause cancer, that it makes us stupid, that there is no hard evidence it being in our water supply does one single solitary thing for our teeth, the fact they are leaving it in there and “THAT IS FINAL” is absolute PROOF that something far more nefarious is being “forced” upon the Citizens for what undoubtedly is another form of population control rendered by these psychopaths through our water supply. No one among US has made the connection yet because EVERYBODY drinks, bathes in, swims in, cooks with, and cleans with water. What better vessel could they use for mass destruction, disease, and death? Not removing it hasn’t shit to do with us “losing trust” in other health practices such as vaccinations as anyone who still trusts vaccines are in our best interest does not care one way or another about flouride, and since when did THEY give a flying shit about whether we have lost trust in anything THEY do to harm us? All they have ever had to do in that regard is force us by law to do it, then make us hand over what money we have left to pay for our “required by law” service. We are nothing if we aren’t compliant, obedient, law-abiding, and forthcoming with the money they haven’t already stolen from us or otherwise robbed us of. The more i think about how we got here, the less able i am to understand it.

  6. Jon

    Call me an old stick in the mud, Jon, but I still question any of these supposed surveys. I used to work with Sydney Water in a professional capacity. My mother worked in quality control for London’s Thames Water.

    I have found NO satisfactory explanation as to how “fluoride” can be added to extraordinarily large quantities of water in order to be evenly distributed to homes. Sincerely, it is not possible.

    Of course water can pick up all sorts of things (such as pollution). Did your fluoride experts test for other forms of contamination, because I believe fluoride is a “cover story”?

    Best
    OT

    • Robert Klinck says:

      Evenly distributed to homes? Surely the important issue is proper distribution to individuals. That fluoridation of public water supplies results in vastly different dosages depending on personal habits proves what an absolute scam the policy is.

      • I gave you A “like” because you are thinking right in the wrong way. The people at Sydney Water told me [off the record] they dump drums on chemicals in strategic reservoirs to “unknown effect”. None of those interviewed had actually “witnessed” a) the chemicals being dumped b) the testing/manufacturing/fair distribution of said chemicals. Let’s say drums were delivered for dumping; did they contain “fluoride” or water?

        • Steven Slott says:

          Ozzie

          If anyone is dumping drums of unknown substances into a public water supply this needs to be reported to the proper authorities immediately. Such rogue actions are of no relevance to the safety or effectiveness of water fluoridation.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          American Fluoridation Society

          • I don’t dispute that with you, Steven. However, make sweeping statements about “contents” based on zero analysis is equally “rogue”. Unlike you, I am not a bureaucrat. I see the potential of “life enhancing” substances added to water. Given the obvious conspiracy against medical cannabis oil by “authorities”, I could be persuaded to accept positive cavalier actions that defy the authorities “account” of what’s in the “public interest” providing it benefited ALL those exposed.

            Thank you for your reply. It is an important one.

            • Steven Slott says:

              Ozzie

              1. The US EPA has strict mandates on the contents of public water supplies, including precise amounts of contaminants which cannot be exceeded in water at the tap. Public water systems are bound by law to provide proper testing of the contents of their water, and to make regular reports to the EPA and the general public. This hardly constitutes “zero analysis”.

              2. You have no more basis to proclaim that I am a “bureaucrat” than do I have to proclaim you to be so. The posting of accurate facts and evidence does not constitute one being a “bureaucrat”.

              3. Your anti-government ideology is so noted. It is irrelevant to water fluoridation.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS
              Communications Officer
              American Fluoridation Society

            • Mr Slott, I never proclaimed you are a bureaucrat. I now proclaim you are dickhead with a big mouth. My fundamental response to everything you have to say is “bugger off” from now on. Final comment!!!!

            • Steven Slott says:

              Ozzie

              1. Yes, you did proclaim me to be a “bureacrat”.

              “Unlike you, I am not a bureaucrat.”

              2. Infantile name-calling is typical of antifluoridationists. You did not disappoint.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS
              Communications Officer
              American Fluoridation Society

      • Steven Slott says:

        Robert

        1. When the maximum dose of a substance which can be ingested falls below the threshold of adverse effects, then dose is not an issue in regard to adverse effects. This is true for chlorine, fluoride, ammonia, and the myriad other substances routinely added to public water supplies. Before the threshold of adverse effects of fluoride can be reached by ingesting optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with all other normal sources of fluoride exposure, water toxicity would be the concern, not fluoride.

        2. Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations. I will gladly cite as many such studies as anyone would reasonably care to read.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Communications Officer
        American Fluoridation Society

        • greg says:

          1. RUBBISH. Everyone is different. An amount of a substance that has no discernible effect on one person can be hugely harmful to another person. Fluoride and chlorine in water make depression worse for many people. I’ve never been silly enough to drink mains water, but inhaling chlorine from hot mains water gives me depression, which becomes quite bad over time from repeated exposure.
          2. That should be ‘Countless cherry picked peer-reviewed poorly done scientific studies’.

    • Michael Burns says:

      Halogens again, and again…they always go back to the same poisons to cull us; Fluorine, Chlorine, Bromine, Iodine, Astatine. Let ban Halogens, they are all poisons really, except Iodine which must be used carefully and it has to be the right isotope.

      And now it seems they have invented a new one, Tennessine; it is the second heaviest element on the periodic scale. Surprising quite stable, and with further research, they, will find a way to make it completely stable, and then weaponize it.

      https://www.britannica.com/science/halogen-elementhttps://www.britannica.com/science/element-117

      There is extremely small amounts of these Halogens in the human body naturally. Now they are in everything that is made, or eaten or drank.

      And all these, POISONS, are used in soft drinks and water, household cleaning products, clothing, plastics and household needs, crop chemicals, foods and preservatives, pharmaceuticals like antidepressants and new lines of synthetic opiates. The synergy of these compounds, with petroleum distillates, and polumers is in everything, of its broad scope of poisoning is unimaginable due to compounding effects.

      Fluorine, the basis of Fluoride Ozzie, it is a poisonous gas. Take fluorine and fuse it to a chain of carbon molecules and you have teflon (PTFE frying pans and pots) to fry your bangers and mashers on. The most stable substance on the planet, and an extreme neurotoxin that easily crosses the blood-brain barrier.

      Chlorine; also in water is a poisonous gas. In swimming pools and bottles of bleach. In foods to disinfect it… Polychlorinated substances are vinyls and plastics, Dioxins like agent orange, pesticides. Extremely dangerous substances.

      Bromine a fuming red-brown liquid, that at room temperature readily becomes a gas.  A fire-retardant used in baby clothing. Dangerous to the ozone. Brominated, or in bromides, used to make polymers and plastics. Ever wonder why that plastic egg flipper is heat-resistant. It’s brominated. Bromine is added to gasoline, bromine is in pesticides to fumigate houses. Bromine is in sedatives and anticonvulsants. Ever heard of Bromo-Selzer. 

      I could go on for weeks OZ…but I won’t. It is said that the Nazi put so much fluoride in the water going to the ghettos, that it made it easy to round-up the dissidents. It is said they were almost drooling.

      Fluorine is the poison in water Ozzie, no doubt about it. Its a paperclip solution.

      • You make a hall-o’-[a]-gen-uine point, MB, as always….or….mostly always 😉

        I don’t dispute your arguments. But, and I share your passion against the NAZIonists, isn’t there enough poison in atmosphere to “do the job”? 😉

        Perhaps Hitler (alleged author of Mein Kampf) was sketching fantasy in the way JR so eloquently illustrates? [if you are gonna tell a lie, tell a big one and tell it over and over so everyone will have to believe it]

      • Steven Slott says:

        Michael

        The “fluoride is poison” argument has no merit in regard to optimally fluoridated water. There is no substance known to man which is not poison, including plain water.

        There is no more valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is poison, than there is that plain water at its proper use level is poison.

        In discussing toxicity of substances one must stick to concentration levels that are relevant to their usage.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Communications Officer
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Ben says:

          Years ago I came across a book entitled “The Great Debate” in my local library. This book, written, as I recall, by two medical doctors and a psychologist or psychiatrist, looked in detail into fluoridation, why it got started and how (think payoffs, big ones), some case studies of fluoridation as a cause of physical and mental problems in some or all individuals depending on the particular effect.
          The authors concluded based on their research that the whole thing was a great con job on the American people to recue the aluminum and fertilizer industries (they had to dump their spent fluoride somewhere). The salient point from the book I always remember first is this: In the testing to validate the benefit of added fluoride for bone development, the control group of rabbits were given distilled water while the treated group got fluoridated water or whatever that contained fluoride. Naturally, the distilled water group did not develop their bones properly. Fluoride is of course a micronutrient found in all water from streams or lakes or wells. Never was it shown that added fluoride was necessary for proper bone development.

  7. josiepeterson22 says:

    The stuff gives adults brain fog. Stop using the f in toothpaste for a time and the normal clarity of your thinking resumes.

  8. barnaby says:

    Quoted from Pharmacognosy Magazine,Jan-Mar 2014 issue,reprinted on PubMed & NIH sites: “Fluoride (F) is probably the first inorganic ion which drew attention of the scientific world for its toxic effects and now the F toxicity through drinking water is well-recognized as a global problem. Health effect reports on F exposure also include various cancers, adverse reproductive activities, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases. Major cause of F induced neurological diseases is excitotoxicity causing degeneration of neuron cell bodies in selective brain areas.”
    Fluoride is involuntary drugging of the population. Both FDA & CDC state that Fluoride is for topical use ONLY, & not for ingestion. The local water districts up to the state level defer to the FDA regards the mandate for fluoride use. Fluoride is not USP grade which is required for all drugs. It is a agricultural/industrial toxic waste product which contains contaminants. Interesting that flluoride is a base chem compound in most antidepressants. I’ve been banging the fluoride drum for many yrs.In 2010, the National Institute of Justice in the United States published recommended rights of human subjects some of which are: Voluntary, informed consent, respect for persons treated as autonomous agents, & the right to end participation in research at any time. Prior to the 2010 NIJ report, there existed medical ethics, & the Nuremberg Code. David Hawkins, M.D., PhD, stated the following: “Freud said, the individual conscience is dissolved in the unconsciousness of the herd & mass action. Few minds can escape the appeal of the authority of mass agreement & few can resist the media propaganda.”

    • JB says:

      Authority and propaganda only have sway because of credulity and intellectual laziness. Citing the fraud Freud is self-defeating and discrediting. Such statements by Freud are indicative of pre-WWI views on humanity as cattle. Hawkins did not help himself with such reference. Canetti understood the herd mentality better and was far less cynical of human behavior.

    • Steven Slott says:

      Barnaby

      1. The only ones who may regard fluoride at the optimal level in drinking water to be a “global problem” are uninformed antifluoridationists who base their opinions on false claims and misinformation.

      2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated causes “various cancers, adverse reproductive activities, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases. Major cause of F induced neurological diseases is excitotoxicity causing degeneration of neuron cell bodies in selective brain areas.”….or any other adverse effects.

      3. There are no drugs ingested as a result of fluoridation. There are only fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water. Without a drug there can be no “involuntary drugging of the population”.

      4. Neither the FDA, nor the CDC state that “Fluoride is for topical use ONLY, & not for ingestion”. As the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water, there would be miles of empty retail store shelves if this agency did not approve fluoride for ingestion. The CDC has said that the benefit of fluoride is predominantly topical, not entirely topical. It has never stated that fluoride should not be ingested.

      5. The FDA has no jurisdiction over the contents of public water supplies. This jurisdiction falls entirely under the EPA. Therefore, local water districts do not “defer to the FDA”. They comply with EPA mandated regulations.

      6. USP grade fluoridation additives are not only far more expensive than the HFA currently utilized for fluoridation in most public systems, they are also potentially more dangerous for use in the large volumes necessary for fluoridation.

      The fluoride ions released by USP grade fluoride additives and by HFA are identical. A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion, regardless the compound from which it is released. Thus, the only difference between USP grade and HFA is the amount of contaminants potentially added to water systems. While the level of contaminants in USP grade is entirely acceptable for the single shot use in toothpastes and mouthrinses, for which these products are produced, when multiplied by the volume necessary for fluoridation of an entire water supply, these USP products could potentially introduce much higher levels of arsenic, radionuclides, and regulated heavy metals than an NSF/ANSI Standard 60-certified product, such as HFA.

      Additionally, while the purity of HFA is monitored, regulated, and reported on as required by EPA mandated quality certification requirements under Standard 60 of NSF International, only the manufacturer is responsible for quality assurance and reporting of the quality of USP grade additives.

      7. There is no “toxic waste” involved in water fluoridation.

      8. Hydrogen is the base substance for a nuclear bomb of mass destruction. Hydrogen composes 2/3 of plain water. Should we cease drinking water?

      9. Given the amount of false claims and misinformation you’ve provided here, prior to performing any further drum beating you might want to begin properly educating yourself on this issue from reliable, respected sources of accurate information.

      10. Local officials are not required to have the personal “informed consent” of anyone prior to approving the concentration level of existing minerals in public drinking water supplies.

      Informed consent applies to treatment rendered. Any who believe the drinking of a glass of water to be a treatment of some sort requiring their informed consent, are certainly free to inform themselves then give or not give consent to themselves prior to raising that glass of water their lips.

      11. Electing to consume optimally fluoridated water does not constitute being involved in “research”.

      12. Neither the Nuremberg Code, medical ethics, nor Freud, have any relevance to water fluoridation.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

      • safety level says:

        Mr Slott, you are trying to use trick, which Philip Morris used with success for half a century.

        You say:

        “2. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated causes “various cancers, adverse reproductive activities, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases.”

        While statement is correct (I assume), it does not allow to conclude “safety”. That is logical BS. You never prove risk. You can only prove safety. What is not proven safe, constitutes a risk. 1% proven safe = 99% risk. We can only argue benchmarks of safety level.

        And that, before we get into manipulating/bribing scientists and MSM, what Philip Morris did.

        Also:

        “10. Local officials are not required to have the personal “informed consent” of anyone prior to approving the concentration level of existing minerals in public drinking water supplies.

        Informed consent applies to treatment rendered.”

        Lets test this statement with scenario where local official decides to add at his capricious level arsenic to water to test efficacy of treatment of syphilys (arsenic was “scientifically proven” Cure before penicilin discovered). Why would that be ethical?

        • Steven Slott says:

          safety level

          1. I do not use any tricks. I state facts and fully verifiable evidence. They soeak for themselves.

          2. Water fluoridation is a public health initiative which has provided a very valuable disease preventive benefit to hundreds of millions of people over the past 72 years. In the absence of valid evidence that this initiative may be unsafe, it is invalid to demand proof that it is safe. It is not the responsibility of anyone to disprove the constant litany of unsubstantiated claims made by antifluoridationists. As there is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water causes “various cancers, adverse reproductive activities, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases.” it is the responsibility of no one to disprove such wild speculation.

          3. Phillip Morris, “manipulating/bribing scientists and MSM” have no relevance to water fluoridation.

          4. I’ve not stated that “to add at his capricious level arsenic to water to test efficacy of treatment of syphilys” would be ethical. That’s your scenario, not mine.

          What have I stated is that there is no requirement, or need, for local officials to have the personal informed consent of anyone prior to approving the concentration level of existing minerals in drinking water supplies under their jurisdiction. If the law is violated by some local official adding a “capricious level of arsenic” or any other substance to a public water supply, this is a criminal offense. It has nothing to do with informed consent.

          There is no violation of law in the decision to fluoridate a public water system.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          American Fluoridation Society

          • safety level says:

            Mr Slott, you may be a good dentist (I hope), but again, you prove you are lousy in your logic.

            You say:

            ” In the absence of valid evidence that this initiative may be unsafe, it is invalid to demand proof that it is safe. It is not the responsibility of anyone to disprove the constant litany of unsubstantiated claims made by antifluoridationists.”

            Burden of proof lies on the prosecution. You propose theory it is safe, you prove it. Otherwise, I can prove you that blue cheese grows on moon. Adding Brooklyn Bridge as a bonus. Is that diffucult to understand? I think your employers should update talking points. The public at large don’t buy old PR tricks anymore.

            You say:

            “Water fluoridation is a public health initiative which has provided a very valuable disease preventive benefit to hundreds of millions of people over the past 72 years. ”

            Do your employers really think the public is that supid?

            Let see what CDC has to say about you wonder chemical:

            https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1233.html

            “CHEMICAL DANGERS:
            The substance decomposes on heating producing toxic fumes including hydrogen fluoride . The solution in water is a strong acid, it reacts violently with bases and is corrosive. Reacts with water or steam to produce toxic and corrosive fumes . Attacks glass and stoneware. Attacks many metals forming flammable/explosive gas (hydrogen – see ICSC 0001). This substance (anhydrous form) dissociates almost instantly into silicon tetrafluoride and corrosive and toxic hydrogen fluoride. ”

            Enough?

            Here is more:

            “ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
            This substance may be hazardous in the environment; special attention should be given to aquatic organisms. ”

            Wait, there is more:

            “EFFECTS OF LONG-TERM OR REPEATED EXPOSURE:
            The substance may have effects on the bones and teeth , resulting in fluorosis. ”

            Remember, this is health version for handling ONLY (OSHA part). Like the toxins in The Seattle Times article which I provided, it is toxic when enters the silo, and unregulated once it leaves silo on other end.

            • Steven Slott says:

              Safety level

              1. I am not prosecuting anything. I am stating facts and evidence.

              Antifluoridationists are requesting the sudden cessation of a public health initiative that has provided a very valuable disease preventive benefit to hundreds of millions of individuals of all ages for the past 72 years, with no proven adverse effects.. As such, it is encumbent upon them to provide valid evidence to support their request. Unsubstantiated claims and groundless speculation do not qualify as such.

              It is not the responsibility of anyone to disprove unsubstantiated claims and speculation.

              2. Blue cheese on the moon, the Brooklyn Bridge, and “old PR tricks” have no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

              3. I don’t have employers.

              4. The ones who apparently believe the public to be “stupid” are antifluoridationists who assume their false claims and misinformation will be accepted by that public. That the US is 74.5% fluoridated disproves that assumption.

              5. The quotes you provide are irrelevant.

              a. Fluorosilic acid does not exist in fluoridated water at the tap. It is therefore not ingested. The properties of a substance which is not ingested or otherwise contact consumers, are irrelevant.

              b. The effects of exposure to fluoride at high levels are no more relevant to fluoride at the optimal level of 0.7 ppm, than are the effects of exposure to improper levels of any substance, whatsoever, to those substances at proper use levels.

              If you have any information which is relevant to optimally fluoridated water, feel free to present it any time.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS
              Communications Officer
              American Fluoridation Society

  9. barnaby says:

    Per NCBI,NIH,PubMed research study,to protect against fluoride neurodegeneration of the brain, add curcumin to the diet. (Curcumin is the active turmeric chem compound sold in bulk). The dosage is: 15mgs per pound of body weight. Example: 150lb person requires 2.25 gms(2250mgs) curcumin plus a bit of coconut, or olive, or butter,etc., fat, as curcumin is fat soluble which assists absorption in the body. I would also suggest adding iodine containing foods, e.g., seaweeds,etc., to the diet as this displaces fluoride from the thyroid.

    • Michael Burns says:

      Good stuff…yes.

      The thyroid confuses Flourine for Iodine, as Iodine is prevalent is sea foods mainly. And with the sea food scare…like D3, most people are Iodine deficient.

      They add Iodine to table salt, well it’s iodized, but table salt as compared to sea salt is a chemical composition that impedes Iodines uptake. It is generally urinated out. Table salt is sodium chloride, a halogen based poison made from halite, with an additive to prevent clumping.
      Table salt is halide rock salt that is mined and tastes salty. You put it on your driveway to de-ice. But it is not meant to be in your mouth. It will form stones in kidneys.

      Sea salt is a residue, it is many minerals and trace rare earths, clays, with sodium chloride being the least. Saltiness, is just one of the flavours. Sea salt adds minerals to your diet, table salt is devoid of mineral.

      • honestliberty says:

        Costco has Himalayan pink salt 5 pounds for 4 bucks. I love the stuff. I put it in my baths with eucalyptus and lavender essential oil.
        Tastes great too!

    • Steven Slott says:

      Barnaby

      There is no medically sound reason to “add curcumin to the diet” in regard to ingestion of optimally fluoridated water. There is no valid, scientific evidence of any adverse effects of fluoride at this level.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

      • Michael Burns says:

        Sure there is, look how stupid you’ve become Steve.
        The benefits of curcumin are wondrous and many…but i won’t waste your time.

        • Steven Slott says:

          Michael

          Provide valid documentation of any credible medical recommendation to add curcumin to the diet because of ingestion of optimally fluoridated water. Your inevitable inability to do so will be clear demonstration as to whom has become “stupid” here.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          American Fluoridation Society

        • barnaby says:

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21901432

          The point of this experiment is to prove the detox effects of curcumin. Whether the dosage is high or “optimal” is irrelevant. The point is detox effects proven.

          • Steven Slott says:

            Barnaby

            There is nothing to “detox” in regard to optimally fluoridated water. Therefore, there is no valid medical reason to add curcumin to anyone’s diet because of ingestion of optimally fluoridated water.

            Steven D. Slott, DDS
            Communications Director
            American Fluoridation Society

            • greg says:

              Slott – People like you are responsible for making so many people (more) ill. There are studies showing harm from fluoride, but even if there weren’t, there is much evidence in the real world. So many people have their thyroid function or depression worsen because of fluoridated water. Do you not care about the harm caused to these people? Even if fluoride did help teeth (which ingesting it does not) do you place the importance of the condition of a persons teeth above their overall health?

            • Steven Slott says:

              Greg

              Those such as you who use false statements, unsubstantiated claims, and misinformation in seeking to deny entire populations the disease preventive benefit of a very valuable public health initiative, are the true menace to the health of the public.

              Dental decay is a very serious bacterial infection in close proximity to the brain with a direct pathway to the rest of the body via the bloodstream. In contrast to your unsubstantiated claims, there is valid, documented evidence of the lifetimes of extreme pain, debilitation, development of serious medical conditions, life-threatening infection, and death, directly resultant from untreated dental dental decay which can be, and is, prevented by water fluoridation.

              Because you claim there are “studies showing harm from fluoride”, “evidence in the real world”, and that that there are “many people have their thyroid function or depression worsen because of fluoridated water“ does mean that there exists any of those things…..any more than my claiming there are little green men from Mars among us would mean that there actually are.

              Until you can provide valid, documented evidence of any harm, whatsoever, from optimally fluoridated water, your unsubstantiated claims are meaningless and contributory to poorer overall health for everyone. Do you not care that your irresponsible actions are putting the overall health of people at risk?

              Steven D. Slott, DDS

  10. Reblogged this on amnesiaclinic and commented:
    So the mainstream media ignore the study and the findings. If you live in a fluoridated area here is the fuel for you to change it.

  11. JB says:

    Drilling into the links is revealing. Presumably, the urinary fluoride content of archived samples were what was evaluated, and discharge content not only fluctuates daily, but is not indicative of intake. Still, what goes in must come out, if not incorporated into cellular composition.

    The real focus on this should be how the body actually treats fluoride during fetal development. A difficult task, and to date I have yet to encounter a rational and reasonable argument for ingesting fluoride. The argument that fluoride strengthens teeth would have to account for genetic factors, dietary factors, hygienic habits, race, location, etc. Statistical sampling in my mind is insufficient cause for the practice. In my case, fluoridation has only contributed to the disintegration of my teeth that dentists began 60 yrs ago.

    • Steven Slott says:

      JB

      1. The variables you note would “have to account for” are standard confounders for which are controlled in the peer-reviewed scientific studies which clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water in the prevention of significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations.

      2. Optimally fluoridated water has not contributed to the “disintegration” of your teeth. You would have had to have been chronically exposed to abnormally high levels of fluoride during your tooth developing years of 0-8 for fluoride to have been a cause of any such “disintegration”. This level of fluoride exposure is not relevant to optimally fluoridated water.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

  12. Steven Slott says:

    Well, if one wishes to accord credence to the opinions of a retired chemistry teacher who founded a New York antifluoridationist faction notorious for disseminating false and misleading information about fluoridation, over those of the past 6 US Surgeons General, the US CDC, the US EPA, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and over 100 more of the most highly respected healthcare and healthcare-related organizations in the world……then so be it.

    However, in regard to Dr. Connett’s claims about the Bashash study, the limitations of this study were stated by the authors, themselves. Whether Dr. Connett has either not read the study, or is purposely omitting these limitations, the noting of them in proper assessments of the study by those qualified to do so does not constitute an “attack” on it. It constitutes an honest representation of the study in proper perspective.

    The inapplicability of this study to optimally fluoridated water in the US at this time is no more clearly demonstrated than in the following quote. In a September, 2017 email to Dr. Johnny Johnson, Jr,  Dr. Angeles Mier Martinez, one of the lead researchers in the recent Bashash, et al. Mexican study, relayed:

    1. “As an individual, I am happy to go on the record to say that I continue to support water fluoridation”

    2. “If I were pregnant today I would consume fluoridated water, and that if I lived in Mexico I would limit my salt intake.”

    3.  “I am involved in this research because I am committed to contribute to the science to ensure fluoridation is safe for all.”
     
    E. Angeles Martinez Mier, DDS, MSD, PhD
    Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health
    Indiana University School of Dentistry
    […]

    What Dr. Connett and his organization deem to be “likely”, are “implications”, or is “fake news”, in regard to the Bashash study is irrelevant. What is relevant are the findings as stated within the study itself. The limitations clearly noted were:

    A. A lack of data on urinary fluoride content of pregnant women living in fluoridated areas of the United States. Fluoridation opponents seek to do what the authors, themselves, did not do….compare urinary fluoride content of one population with non-existent data of another.

    “Finally, our ability to extrapolate our results to how exposures may impact on the general population is limited given the lack of data on fluoride pharmacokinetics during pregnancy. There are no reference values for urinary fluoride in pregnant women in the United States” 1

    B. Insufficient information to rule out significant confounders.

    “Nevertheless, it is not possible to entirely rule out residual confounding or in the population as a whole (that might have been detected had we had full data on larger sample sizes) or bias (should the subpopulations that had the data for analysis have a different fluoride–cognition relationship than those participants who were excluded from the analyses).”

    C. There was no significant effect noted by fluoride exposure on children after birth.

    “Finally, in models that focused on the cross-sectional relationship between children’s exposure to fluoride (reflected by their specific gravity–adjusted urinary fluoride levels) and IQ score and that contained the main covariates of interest, there was not a clear, statistically significant association between contemporaneous children’s urinary fluoride (CUFsg) and IQ either unadjusted or adjusting for MUFcr.” 1

    D. Evidence suggested that IQ effects were noted only with prenatal urinary content above 0.8 mg/L.

    “The associations with GCI appeared to be linear across the range of prenatal exposures, but there was some evidence that associations with IQ may have been limited to exposures above 0.8 mg/L.” 1

    E. Results would need to be replicated by independent researchers.

    “Our findings must be confirmed in other study populations, and additional research is needed to determine how the urine fluoride concentrations measured in our study population are related to fluoride exposures resulting from both intentional supplementation and environmental contamination.”

    F. “Other limitations include the lack of information about iodine in salt, which could modify associations between fluoride and cognition; the lack of data on fluoride content in water given that determination of fluoride content is not reported as part of the water quality monitoring programs in Mexico; and the lack of information on other environmental neurotoxicants such as arsenic.” 1

    G. Bashash, et al., utilized the “spot” collection method of urine collection, rater than the more
    accurate 24 hour method.

    As noted by Deena Thomas, second author of Bashash, et al:

    “The spot urine samples we measured cannot account for diurnal variations in urinary fluoride. Previous studies report fluctuations in concentration by time-of-day which means that the fluoride levels in our samples could be influenced by the time-of-collection or by diet.”

    Additionally, in her doctoral thesis, Deena Thomas, using the exact data as did Bashash, reported on the effects of prenatal fluoride on children aged 1, 2, and 3. She found no significant effect on these children. Bashash, chose to omit these findings, and instead began their IQ assessment in children 4 years of age.

    From Thomas’ dissertation:

    “Conclusions: This analysis suggests that maternal intake of fluoride during pregnancy does not have a strong impact on offspring cognitive development in the first three years of life.”

    As can be clearly noted, while the Bashash study cannot be dismissed, it is not, at this point, applicable to optimally fluoridated water in the United States. Additionally, as the authors themselves have stated…….this is but one study. It must be kept in perspective with several other quality studies which have found there to be no association of optimally fluoridated water with neurodevelopment or IQ:

    a. In a 2015 study published in the American Journal of Public Health, Broadbent, et al. found:

    “These findings do not support the assertion that fluoride in the context of CWF programs is neurotoxic”

    b. In a 2017 study published in the Canadian Journal of Public Health, Barberio, McLaren, et al. found:

    “When Cycles 2 and 3 were examined separately, reported learning disability diagnosis was not significantly associated with any measure of fluoride exposure in unadjusted or adjusted models.”

    c. In her doctoral thesis, utilizing the same data as did Bashash, Dr. Deena Thomas, also a researcher on the Bashash study, reported:

    “Overall, this investigation found no evidence of a detectable adverse outcome on offspring neurobehavioral development associated with maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy.”

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    [http://americanfluoridationsociety.org/]

    • Theodore says:

      But Dr Slott, it looks toxic for humans and animals to ingest…

      ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid

      H2SiF6 + 2 H2O → 6 HF + “SiO2”

      (H3O)2SiF6 + 2 NaOH → Na2SiF6 + 4 H2O

      SiF2−6 + 2 H2O → 6 F− + SiO2 + 4 H+

      ref: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng1233.html

      FLUOROSILICIC ACID

      ~~~

      Didn’t the Soviets (international socialists) use some type of fluoride compounds in their water supplies in their gulags to make their prisoners docile?

      Didn’t the Nazis (national socialists) use some type of fluoride compounds in their water supplies in their concentration camps to make their prisoners docile?

      Whatever happened to those tomato farmers in NJ when “F compounds” leaked into the atmosphere during Uranium enrichment for the A-bomb under the Manhattan project?

      Was “Fluoride as a pesticide” always just a “snake oil” solution?

      “A fat smiling Chinese rationed out the pyrethrum powder–it was hard to get during the war–and cautioned us to use fluoride whenever possible.”

      “Well the city exterminating people are a cheap outfit Mrs Murphy. What they left was fluoride. The roaches build up a tolerance and become addicted. They can be dangerous if the fluoride is suddenly withdrawn . . . Ah just here it is . . .”

      ref: https://qahiri.wordpress.com/2011/01/07/exterminator-the-linguistic-aesthetics-of-william-s-burroughs-ii/

      • Steven Slott says:

        Theodore

        Fluorosilic acid (FSA) is not ingested. Once added to drinking water, due to the pH of that water, FSA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions, identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety for each. After this point, FSA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested. The toxicity of a substance which is not ingested….is moot.

        In regard to your questions:

        1. No

        2. No

        3. Yes, hazardous chemical spills and leaks do occur, with countless substances, at countless different concentrations. This is of no relevance to optimally fluoridated water. If you can provide valid evidence of any adverse effects of fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated then please feel free to do so.

        4. Pesticides and snake oil have no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Communications Officer
        American Fluoridation Society

        • Michael Burns says:

          to Steve the dentist:

          Water is poison, and you call yourself a dentist, what do your patients gargle with after you drill em, or grind em steve… do you realize the human body is mainly water…maybe you don’t…

          Do you deny the fact, that fluorine is a highly toxic gas and poisonous to the human body?

          Do you deny the fact that fluorine is not naturally occurring in the human body, and when it is in the body, it speaks to contamination? And that the only halogen that is occurring is Iodine, and that is in small amounts. Fluorine needs to be attached to a salt to enter the human body.

          Fluoride in a body is significant of contamination with a poison.

          Do you deny the fact, that the common thyroid being deficient of Iodine in North America, excepts fluoride as a substitute of Iodine, and that, that is known by the PTB.

          Explain dental fluorosis, would you please, and the damage it causes to teeth, and especially the bones?

          Deny the fact that fluoride is not shed from the human body but accumulates.

          Fluoride Fact: fluoride damages teeth and bones doctor!

          What do fluoride, the Manhattan project, the nuclear bomb and getting rid of toxic waste all have in common? The answer is closer than you realise. Its right on the end of your tongue…wanna hint?

          “Elemental fluorine is highly toxic to living organisms. Its effects in humans start at concentrations lower than hydrogen cyanide’s 50 ppm and are similar to those of chlorine: significant irritation of the eyes and respiratory system as well as liver and kidney damage occur above 25 ppm, which is the immediately dangerous to life and health value for fluorine. Eyes and noses are seriously damaged at 100 ppm, and inhalation of 1,000 ppm fluorine will cause death in minutes, compared to 270 ppm for hydrogen cyanide.”

          Now that, was a basic run down from Wiki, the truth of the matter goes a lot deeper than that; the cumulative effect of Fluoride ( fluorine attached to a salt, salt is calcium and fluorine attaches to calcium as in bones) is preponderant on the amount of factory food and drink one purchases and consumes in a day. Hell the amount of fluoride in a tube of toothpaste is enough to do damage. Toothpaste should be considered toxic waste. Especially when it is administered to children.

          Now I know I am not getting through to you, being the paid shill and puppet that you are, I will never change your mind. You will refuse education, and continue on the path that pays you richly. Your part of a group think, you have an agenda; it is illogical to think of you as an individual who critically think for himself.  But I doubt that would matter. You work for an agenda. Your aim is to misinform the public.

          One in six americans are on an antidepressant, and antidepressants have flouride at their base.

          The “fluoride is Poison” argument is the only merited response to fluoridated water. This catch phrase of yours “Optimal level” can not be acquired as there are far too many variances and variables of levels of flouride intake within the public as a whole. One size does not fit all here. 

          Exactitude. Pre-existing amounts of fluoride in the water…do you know what it is? Poorly trained people in towns, villages and cities, working for the water depts, applying your optimal level. Do you know this is exact? Because i know different.

          I live in a place where the water is the highest chlorination in Saskatchewan. There are also roughly 1750 ppm of dissolved solids.  Do you know what happens when chlorine and fluoride combine?

          Add to that fact fluoride in store-bought waters, sodas and energy drinks. In processed foods fluoride levels are extremely high. Strangely baby formula and baby waters contain such large amounts. Did you know this steve?  So how can you control fluoride to make sure it is in the safe or ‘OPTIMAL LEVEL’. 

          Fluoride Fact: Fluoride inhibits various enzyme systems, erythrocyte glycolysis and binds Ca++, causing anticoagulation and other toxic effects.

          There is certainly a bio-accumulation of fluoride. As fluoride binds to bones;(calcium++).

          Btw… “Hydrogen is the base substance for a nuclear bomb of mass destruction. […]?”

          … not really. Hydrogen is one type of nuclear bomb. It is far more sophisticated than you say, I would stick to being a run of the mill dentist and misinformist steven. 

          Steven you keep claiming in all the articles I read on you, and also here in your comments, that HFA never reaches the tap; then why put it in the water in the first place. Remembering that ions rarely are free, their nature is to attach themselves…binding with, “What would you say?”…calcium?  

          Why would fluorine not simply evaporate away, as it nature is to be a gas?  Fluorine being the most electronegative element, is very highly reactive steven. All elements form compounds from fluorine, that is why it is attaches so easily to a calcium salt.

          Steven can you refute any of this, is it not you who are misinforming the public?

          http://www.crescentcitytimes.com/beware-of-newly-formed-the-american-fluoridation-society/

          http://www.rutlandherald.com/articles/study-deals-blow-to-fluoridation/

          Fluorine Fact: A very pale yellow-green, dangerously reactive gas. It is the most reactive of all the elements and quickly attacks all metals. Steel wool bursts into flames when exposed to fluorine.it

          Fluoride Fact: Inorganic salts of hydrofluoric acid, HF, in which the fluorine atom is in the -1 oxidation state. (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 4th ed) Sodium and stannous salts are commonly used in dentifrices.

          Hydrofluoric acid is used for etching the glass of light bulbs and in similar applications. It is used in weilding steve.

           Even other dentists agree fluoride should be considered a drug steve…have you read this?

          https://durhamagainstfluoride.com/dentists-against-fluoride/

           In the end steve it appears that fluoride is a drug, that is put in everything from water to soft drinks, your processed foods; baby food, toothpaste. Beer; antidepressants and other pharnaceuticals; vaccines, and hell we don’t want to go there steve.

           And why? To make the public more docile; to make them sick; to control IQ. fluoride is mind control steve. It was used in gulag; it was used in Germany.

          • Steven Slott says:

            to be continued

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

          • Steven Slott says:

            Wow, Michael, you’ve presented an impressive amount of irrelevance, and misinformation, here. Let’s see if I can straighten you out a bit.

            First, let’s learn the difference between fluorine and fluoride. Fluorine is a naturally occurring element classified in the halogen section of the periodic table. Fluoride is the anion of fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. Fluoride ions are what exist in water naturally, and what are added to water during fluoridation, not fluorine. All fluoride ions are identical.

            Now, in regard to your points and questions:

            1. Yes, water is poison. Water toxicity can be, and has been, fatal. Concentration and amount are the difference between toxicity and safety of every substance known to man. If you are going to claim fluoride to be a poison without consideration of proper use level, then you must also accept the fact that water and every other substance are poison, as well. This is not unique to fluoride. If you want to be accepted the fact that there is a safe level of water that we can ingest without harm, then you must also accept the fact that there is a safe level of fluoride we can ingest without harm. There is no more valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is any less safe to ingest than is water at its proper use level.

            —Fatal water intoxication
            D J Farrell and L Bower
            J Clin Pathol. 2003 Oct; 56(10): 803–804.
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/#__ffn_sectitle

            2. Fluorine is an element which exists primarily as a gas. If ingested at a certain level it can be poisonous, as is the case for every substance known to man, including plain water.

            3. If by “naturally occurring in the human body” you mean any substance that is not present in the body at birth, then yes, fluorine is not naturally occurring in the human body, as is the case for countless substances routinely ingested. If you want to term every substance we ingest that is not “naturally occurring in the human body” as “speaking to contamination” fine with me. However, again, fluorine is not used in water fluoridation.

            Fluoride, on the other hand, is quite often present in the human body at birth.

            4. Fluoride enters the body as a free ion. It does not require being “attached to a salt” to do so.

            5. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine, a halogen. Iodine is an element, also a halogen. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect on the thyroid of anyone from fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated in conjunction with all other normal sources of fluoride intake. If you disagree then produce such evidence, properly cited.

            6. Dental fluorosis is an effect of the teeth which occurs as a result of fluoride ingestion during the teeth developing years of 0-8. This fluorosis occurs in several distinct levels, corresponding to the amount of fluoride exposure during the ages of 0-8 years: very mild, mild, moderate, and severe. Of those levels, the only one considered to be an adverse effect is severe. The characteristics range from barely detectable faint white streaks on teeth in the mild to very mild forms to staining and pitting of teeth in the severe level. Severe dental fluorosis is rare in the US and, as clearly noted by the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, does not occur in communities with a water fluoride level less than 2.0 ppm. Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm, one third this level.

            —Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards
            Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water, National Research Council 2006
            pp 114

            The only level of dental fluorosis which may be associated with optimally fluoridated water is mild to very mild, a barely detectable effect which causes no adverse effect on cosmetics, form, function, or health of teeth. As peer-reviewed science has demonstrated mildly fluorosed teeth to be more decay resistant, many consider this effect to not even be undesirable, much less adverse.

            —The Association Between Enamel Fluorosis and Dental Caries in U.S. Schoolchildren
            Hiroko Iida and Jayanth V. Kumar
            J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140;855-862

            Dental fluorosis has no effect on the bones.

            Other than in the severe level, there is no damage to teeth from dental fluorosis, which as stated previously, does not occur resultant of water fluoridation.

            7. When fluoride is ingested, approximately 50% is excreted in short order via the kidneys. The other 50% is stored in the hard tissues of the body, i.e. teeth and bones. This accumulation in hard tissues is not a linear constant, however. It varies in accordance with its equilibrium with blood plasma levels of fluoride. As plasma levels decrease, fluoride is released from the hard tissues back into the plasma where it is excreted via the kidneys. This continues until equilibrium is once again met. Blood plasma fluoride levels are determined by fluoride intake and that released by hard tissues.

            There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any adverse effect from bioaccumulation of fluoride resultant of ingesting optimally fluoridated water in conjunction with all other normal sources of fluoride exposure.

            8. There is no valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated “damages teeth and bones”. As clearly demonstrated by peer-reviewed science, fluoride at this level increases the resistance of teeth to decay, and causes no adverse effect on the bones or any other bodily system.

            “it nevertheless appears that the contributors to bone health are too many and varied, and any possible effect of municipal fluoride ingestion is too small, for municipal water fluoridation to be a significant determinant of bone health within the general public.”

            —Effects of Water Fluoridation on the Human Skeleton
            D. Chachra, H. Limeback, T.L. Willett, and M.D. Grynpas
            Journal of dental research 89(11):1219-23 · October 2010

            9. “the Manhattan Project, the nuclear bomb, and getting rid of toxic waste” have no relevance to optimally fluoridated water.

            10. Elemental fluorine is not utilized in water fluoridation. Its anion, fluoride, is the substance which exists in water naturally and what is added during fluoridation.

            11. Comparison of toxicity thresholds between different substances is of no relevance. As long as the proper use levels are maintained for each substance ingested, it makes no difference how one compares with another. Based on comparative toxicity thresholds, caffeine is more toxic than arsenic.

            12. Effects of exposure to high levels of fluorine are irrelevant to optimally fluoridated water.

            to be continued

            Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • Theodore says:

      all this for poor people who are too ‘ignorant’ to brush their teeth with fluoride toothpaste (or too poor to purchase flouride toothpaste)? Can’t Colgate step up to the plate and donate some fluoride toothpaste to the homeless shelters?

      are the “F compounds” used to make water “fluoridated” a drug or a nutrient?

      if the former, then i do not think it is legal to “blanket” medicate the population. Such action implies no informed consent. Wasn’t that one of the main outcomes of Nuremberg?

      • Steven Slott says:

        Theodore

        1. Water fluoridation prevents significant amounts of dental decay in entire populations composed of citizens of all ages, all educational levels, and all socio-economic levels.

        2. Fluoridation compounds are neither drugs nor nutrients. They are simply compounds containing fluoride. Fluoride is the anion of the element fluorine. An anion is a negatively charged atom. These atoms of fluorine have been present in water since the beginning of time. To suddenly proclaim them to be medication is obviously ludicrous.

        3. Water fluoridation is the simple adjustment of existing fluoride in public water supplies up to the concentration at which maximum benefit will be obtained with no adverse effects. There is no medication involved. Without medication, it is impossible to “ ‘blanket’ medicate” anyone.

        4. Local officials are not required to have the personal informed consent of anyone prior to approving the level of existing minerals in public drinking water supplies under their jurisdiction. Consent for them to do their jobs is conveyed upon their election/appointment to office.

        Informed consent applies to treatment rendered. Anyone who believes that drinking a glass of water constitutes a treatment of some sort, requiring informed consent, is entirely free to inform himself, then give or not give consent to himself prior to lifting the glass of water to his lips.

        5. The “main outcomes of Nuremberg” have no relevance to water fluoridation.

        Steven D. Slott, DDS
        Communications Officer
        American Fluiridation Society

  13. Neo-Paradigm says:

    Fluoridation chemicals are the unpurified toxic waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry collected in pollution control scrubbers. YUCK!!! It’s a convenient way for the industry to profit from an industrial waste product that would be enormously expensive to dispose of otherwise. Fluoride is itself a neurotoxin but this corrosive sludge also contains tramp chemicals such as lead, arsenic, radionuclides and heavy metals. Water fluoridation is a scam that violates the Safe Drinking Water Act and The Clean Water Act.

    Thank you for reporting on this Jon and thank you Paul Connett.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/

    • Steven Slott says:

      Neo

      No.

      1. The substance most widely utilized to fluoridate water systems is hydrofluorosilic acid (HFA). HFA is a co-product of the process which extracts the other co-product, phosphoric acid, from naturally occurring phosphorite rock. Phosphoric acid is used in soft drinks we consume and in fertilizers which become incorporated into foods that we eat. The HFA co-product is diluted to a 23% aqueous solution which is utilized to fluoridate water systems. To irrationally fear one co-product of this process is to irrationally fear the other.

      Once introduced into drinking water, due to the pH of that water (~7), the HFA is immediately and completely hydrolyzed (dissociated). The products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions identical to those which have always existed in water, and trace contaminants in barely detectable amounts that are so far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety that it is not even a certainly that those detected aren’t that already exist in water naturally. After this point, HFA no longer exists in that water. It does not reach the tap. It is not ingested.

      There are no detectable levels of radioactive isotopes and solvents in fluoridated water at the tap. The amount of heavy metals, which includes arsenic and lead, are in barely detectable amounts far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety.

      A complete list of the contents of fluoridated water at the tap including precise amounts of any detected contaminants and the EPA maximum allowable level for each may be found in the “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Chemicals” on the website of NSF International.

      2. The Mullinex article to which you provide a link is in regard to the contents of raw, undiluted HFA and NaF. These substances are gone before the water leaves the treatment plant. They do not reach the tap and are not ingested. They are of no concern, whatsoever. Contaminants in water at the tap which has been fluoridated with these substances at their proper use levels are not even detectable. It takes 10 times the manufacturer’s recommended single use amount of them in order to detect any contaminants. Even in water with this excessive amount of fluoridation substances, contaminants are only detected in less than 50% of random samples. The level of these contaminants is far below US EPA mandated maximum allowable levels of safety.

      See:

      “Fact Sheet on Fluoridation Substances” on the website of NSF International.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

    • safety level says:

      “street salt” DPW uses is industrial waste rebranded. As countless other wonders of modern rebranding:

      http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19970703&slug=2547772

  14. Désirée L. Röver, medical research journalist says:

    The short version in my universe is that anything coming from any government and/or from any mainstream media (all controlled by members of the same inbred psychopathic tribe representing 0.2% of the world population) is a lie.
    Is it coincidence that stuff like prozac all is based on fluoride?
    Of course it is not a coincidence, not if you want to live a dream of controlling every country in the world.
    Lower IQ mona easier control.
    It is really SO simple!

    • Steven Slott says:

      Desiree

      The atom bomb is based on the substance which composes two thirds of plain water. Are you afraid you will explode when you drink a glass of water?

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

      • safety level says:

        Mr Slott, we are not dealing with A bomb here. We are dealing with history of scientific failures at public health expense, deceit, fraud and, yes, inbred tribe in position to do previously proven harm. Questioning seems reasonable then.

        • Steven Slott says:

          Safety level

          Yes, we aren’t dealing with the A bomb here. That’s exactly the point.

          Neither are we dealing with Prozac, or “scientific failures at public health expense, deceit, fraud and, yes, inbred tribe in position to do previously proven harm”.

          We are dealing with facts and evidence in regard to water fluoridation.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          AMerican Fluoridation Society

  15. Theodore says:

    Coincidentally, Alex Jones today… (heavily paraphrasing)…

    “The Powers That Be have moved on from the chemicals they put in the water supply to make you docile. They know most people are now filtering their tap water. The next phase is electro-magnetics — such as 5G — to make you docile.” — Alex Jones, November 20, 2017

    • Steven Slott says:

      Theodore

      Alex Jones? Seriously??

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      Anerican Fluoridation Society

      • Liz Harris says:

        Even if fluorine compounds were not deadly, and were actually salutary, shouldn’t citizens have the right to choose whether or not to ingest them?

        Until you answer that question, I will continue to skip over whatever you write without reading it.

        • Steven Slott says:

          Liz

          1. There is no substance known to man which is not deadly, including plain water.

          2. Sure, citizens should have the right to ingest what they choose. Water fluoridation does not affect that right. Citizens are free to ingest fluoridated water or not. Entirely their choice.

          If you knew your tap water had just been contaminated with a large load of horse manure would you drink it anyway, simply because it flowed from your faucette? Or would you exercise your freedom of choice not to drink it?

          3. It is of no concern to me if you read my comments or not. Whether you are interested in learning accurate information about fluoridation is up to you.

          Steven D. Slott, DDS
          Communications Officer
          American Fluoridation Society

          • safety level says:

            Mr Slott, your “arguments” remind me of book ‘Toxic sludge is good for you”:

            https://www.scribd.com/document/262282388/Toxic-Sludge-is-Good-for-You

            • Steven Slott says:

              Safety level

              1. I don’t make “arguments”. I state facts and evidence.

              2. There is no “toxic sludge” involved in water fluoridation.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS
              Commumications Officer
              American Fluoridation Society

          • Michael Burns says:

            Too many individuals here Steve, your use to docile and flouridated groups, drooling listening to your propaganda.

            If everyone of these comments in this post was a punch in your face.
            It’s would be a KO steve you paid troll.

            And stop with the water being deadly; its only deadly when I stick your head under it and hold you there till the bubbles stop.

            • Steven Slott says:

              Michael

              1. Yes, uninformed antifluoridationists consider facts, evidence, and peer-reviewed science to be “propaganda”. That’s one reason you all remain so uninformed on the issue.

              2. Yes, there are numerous antifluoridationists posting mounds of misinformation on this site. That’s exactly why I am posting corrections to it.

              3. It seems that you are as uninformed about water as you are about fluoride. For your own safety you should probably better educate yourself on substances you routinely ingest.

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/

              4. Your personal threats against me are typical of antifluoridationists, and clear indication of the caliber of individual with which one deals when according credence to antifluoridationists.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS
              Communications Officer
              American Fluoridation Society

            • mattrr says:

              steven

              4. no one here made “personal threats” against you. you’re claim of such is a clear indication
              of the caliber of person you are. the argument was sound (re your amazing comment of
              water’s deadly qualities), the threat nonexistant.

          • greg says:

            It is the responsibility of government to provide clean drinkable water to urban areas. If they make the mains water unusable by adding toxins then they should have to provide an alternative uncontaminated water source or financially compensate people so that they can purchase drinkable water or install water filtration.

            • Steven Slott says:

              Greg

              Fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated is odorless, colorless, tasteless, and causes no adverse effects. Fluoridation simply adjusts the level of existing fluoride in water up to the level where maximum benefit will be obtained when ingesting that water. There is nothing about this process that renders water unclean or undrinkable.

              Most water, fluoridated or not, already has fluoride in it. Any who have a phobia of this fluoride are certainly free to purchase filtration systems to remove it from their own tap water, or to find fluoride-free water somewhere. However any cost in satisfying that phobia is their responsibility, not that of government or society.

              Steven D. Slott, DDS
              Communications Officer
              American Fluoridation Society

  16. Thx1138 says:

    (Compiled from Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston A. Price, DDS)

    Of primitive groups which have shown a high immunity to dental caries and freedom from degenerative processes with the diets of modernized groups who have forsaken their native diets for the foods of commerce consisting largely of white flour products, sugar, polished rice, jams, canned goods and vegetable fats resulting in loss of this immunity to dental caries and in loss of freedom from degenerative processes.

    the most striking and profound statement in Dr. Price’s book is: “It is very important that in the consideration of the dental caries problem it shall be kept in mind continually, that it is only one of a large group of symptoms of modern physical degeneration and when teeth are decaying other things are going wrong in the body. Fluorine treatment, like dental extractions, cannot be a panacea for dental caries.”

    The condition then of the teeth serves as an indicator of the general health and serves as a criterium with which to judge the fitness of parents, the learning and wisdom of the healing professions, the value of our health education programs in our schools and how well departments of health are fulfilling their true function.

    According to Michael J. Walsh, ScD, FRIC, president of the American Nutrition Society, “This prevalence of tooth decay is practically universal throughout the United States.”

    He then refers to the authoritative publication “Survey of the Literature of Dental Caries,” prepared for the Food and Nutrition Board, Nation Research Council, under the supervision of their committee on dental health (Publication No. 22), National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Washington, DC 1952 which discusses the factors in the diets of people or groups showing an unduly low caries frequency: “In nearly all instances two factors appear: liberal use of so-called natural foods, and restricted use of refined carbohydrates, especially of sugar and sugar products. The first factor, operating chiefly during the developmental and maturation period of the teeth, will most likely produce teeth with a structure having high resistance to decay. . .”

    “The second factor shows up in all except a few studies. Decreased caries prevalence has been connected with restriction in intake of sugar and sweets in almost all cases.

    ”Anyone of average intelligence studying Dr. Price’s book, and the tables compiled from his book, realizes that the causes of dental caries are many, not a single cause nor a shortage of a single element (which may or may not be a necessary component of the human body.) In every case, wherever Dr. Price traveled he found those suffering from a high incidence of dental caries (while living in close proximity to their brethren with a low incidence of dental caries) sharing a common water supply with similar fluorine content, were endeavouring to live on a diet terribly deficient in many minerals and vitamins.

    The dentist posting here has obviously swallowed the Kool-Aid Of his Rockefeller indoctrination.

    To greatly reduce fluoride from water use a bone Char filter. Other fluoride reduction filters leave aluminum ions in the water. Chloramine can be completely eliminated from water by the use of very small amounts of ascorbic acid otherwise called vitamin C. One teaspoon per hundred gallons of water will completely eliminate chloramine from your drinking water. Just A Pinch in a gallon of water will do the job. Try it yourself and see.

    Members of the medical profession including dentists are very quickly losing this position they have been holding as “very highly respected” . Get used to it doctor, your profession is no longer highly respected.

    • Steven Slott says:

      Thx1138

      If relying upon facts, evidence, and the peer-reviewed science means that I have “swallowed the Kool-Aid Of his Rockefeller indoctrination.” then so be it. You should consider doing the same.

      Dental decay is caused by acids secreted by bacteria commonly found in the oral flora. Sugar and other carbohydrates feed the bacteria, thus enabling the acid secretion. That this occurs does not mean we should abandon any viable means to increase resistance of the teeth to this acid, and thus prevent decay, any more than it means we should abandon efforts which have been ongoing for the past century to educate the public about the cause of dental decay. Until you, or anyone else can figure out a way to ensure that the public fully complies with dietary and other recommendations necessary to prevent dental decay, we will need all of the help we can get in preventing and dealing with this overwhelming problem.

      Countless peer-reviewed scientific studies clearly demonstrate the effectiveness of water fluoridation in the prevention of significant amounts dental decay in entire populations. I will be glad to cite as many as you would reasonably care to read.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

  17. Michael Burns says:

    @ Steven Slott
     

    “There is no substance known to man which is not poison, including plain water.” -Steven D. Slott, DDS, Communications Officer, American Fluoridation Society

    Well, water is a poison if it has fluoride in it, but we will talk about your National Institute of health article.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1770067/

    Your claim is that WATER IS A POISON, Steven. Citing the Journal of Clinical Pathology: “Fatal water intoxication” article by D J Farrell and L Bower.

    The above case of a sixty-four year old women, suffering from ‘mitral valve disease’ which was a known medical condition, prior to her demise; she died mysteriously.

    Again, we talk about facts, Steven. They are important in logical argument; otherwise all is flawed rhetoric; and so your claim of water being a poison is fallacious, using invalid argument and faulty reasoning. It seems you are jumping to conclusion Steve, without taking in the whole article; it is a chronic condition with you steven…you lack the ability to think clearly. You have an agenda, and look for conditions to support it. You use your position in life, like a blunt instrument. Your appeal is; argumentum ad verecundiam, claimed authoritative, to support your fallacy. By what? The possibility that you might be a dentist. You seem to stamp that information at the bottom of all your comments, are you insecure Steven. Or are you trying to validate your argumentum ad verecundiam.

    A poison buddy,  is a substance that causes greater disturbances within an organism, usually a chemical reaction. Now, a poison is distinguished from a venom, e.g. snake bite,  or a toxin, e.g. fluoride.

    Quoting the facts of the death of that sixty-four year old woman from the above linked article:

    “The cause of death was given as hyponatraemia (low sodium in the blood)”

     “A sample of vitreous humour showed a sodium concentration of 92 mmol/litre.”

    “Symptoms [ of hyponatraemia} can become apparent when the serum sodium falls below 120 mmol/litre.”

    “There were bilateral pleural effusions of 200 ml on each side and the cut surfaces of the lungs (568 g and 441 g) exuded frothy pink fluid.”

    “The development of acute dilutional hyponatraemia causes neurological symptoms because of the movement of water into the brain cells, in response to the fall in extracellular osmolality.”

    ” [There was an] electrolyte balance, resulting in a rapid decrease in serum sodium concentration and eventual death.”

    “Postmortem toxicology was negative.”

    “The heart (461 g) showed evidence of mitral valve disease [MVD] and left ventricular hypertrophy.”

    “A normal sodium level is between 135 and 145 milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L) of sodium. Hyponatr[a]emia occurs when the sodium in your blood falls below 135 mEq/L.” – Mayo Clinic Staff

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hyponatremia/basics/definition/con-20031445

    Without looking at the woman, overall heart weight seems suspicious Steven,  I suspect the woman was possibly overweight; but more than likely her long-term MVD caused an increase in heart size as is common. But that is irrelevant to post-mortem conclusions.

    From the facts we can deduce that possibly through some psychotic condition, a possible mental illness; hallucinations, delusion and disorientation. Psychogenic polydipsia has been quoted as one possible psychosis, bearing to the water-seeking, and excessive drinking. The deceased, drank so much water that her vomiting and increased water intake; somewhere between thirty and forty glasses, caused her rapid drop in blood sodium levels to fatal level of 92 mmol/litre; 42 to 52 mmol/litre blow normal blood sodium levels.

    Her brain and vital organs became saturated with water Steven, the woman suffered convulsions, coma and final death. It was found post-mortem that she had an acute adrenal insufficiency, caused by insufficient levels of cortisol. 

    Cortisol’s is involved in sodium transport. Cortisol also promotes and assists sodium absorption, furthering the woman’s loss of sodium. Sodium levels dropped very fast in short amount of time.

    Post mortem stomach fluid was 800 ml. Bilateral pleural effusions of 200 ml on each side added to her condition; pink frothy, bubbly fluid, water on the lungs.  Abnormal lung weights of 568 g and 441 g significant of large saturated amounts of water. She drown in this fluid Steve, and drowning does not make water a poison. 

    In conclusion Steve, drinking too much water was the catalyst to her huge blood sodium loss. lack of Cortisol aided that… Water on the lungs added to her coma and loss of oxygen. Death was inevitable. 

    But I am afraid it does not qualify as a poison in the strictest sense of the definition steve.

    Therefor Steven in this case, we have proof that water is not a poison.

    https://www.healthline.com/health/mitral-valve-disease#overview1

    https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mitral-valve-disease/symptoms-causes/syc-20355107

    “In the end, one must argue against one own beliefs, exhaustively until some semblance of a truth is found.”

    • Steven Slott says:

      Michael

      Your “diagnosis” of the cause of death of the 64 year old woman is obviously meaningless and irrelevant. Poisons cause sickness and death due to their effect on various systems of the human body.

      “In biology, poisons are substances that cause disturbances in organisms, usually by chemical reaction or other activity on the molecular scale, when an organism absorbs a sufficient quantity.

      —https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poison

      Warfarin at high levels is a poison. Why? Because it thins the blood excessively resulting in an inability of it to clot. By your “logic”, warfarin does not cause death. Inadequate blood flow to vital organs causes the death.

      Arsenic at certain levels causes sickness and death due to its effect on various systems of the body, frequently causing cancer in those systems. By your “logic” arsenic does not cause death. Cancer and/or malfunction of the kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal system, or neurological system, cause the death.

      Cyanide is a poison. Why? Because causes a disruption in the ability of tissue cells to use oxygen. By your “logic”, cyanide does not cause death. It is caused by ocygen deficiency.

      Just as warfarin, arsenic, and cyanide cause the effects leading to death, water caused a breakdown of the electrolyte systems of this woman, which resulted in her death.

      “The cause of death was given as hyponatraemia as a result of acute water intoxication.”

      —Fatal water intoxication
      D J Farrell and L Bower
      J Clin Pathol. 2003 Oct; 56(10): 803–804.

      Yes, water is poison, just as is every other substance known to man. If you want to argue that fluoride is poison, without taking into consideration amount, then you must accept the fact that water is poison as well. If you want to argue that there is a safe level of water which can be consumed without adverse effects, then you must accept that there is a safe level of fluoride which can be consumed without adverse effects.

      Steven D. Slott, DDS
      Communications Officer
      American Fluoridation Society

  18. Michael Burns says:

    Yeah, Warfarin is rat poison, you can buy it in any hardware…where did you say you lived Steven?

  19. Steven Slott says:

    Michael

    Yes, warfarin is the active ingredient in many current rat poisons. It interferes with the blood clotting mechanism of rats ultimately resulting in their death. Warfarin, under the brand name “Coumadin” is also prescribed to tens of millions of people with cardiovascular disease. Why do you suppose rat poison is prescribed to treat human disease and prolong life? Think maybe concentration level has something to do with that?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS
    Communications Officer
    American Fluoridation Society

    • Theodore says:

      Hi Dr Slott,

      starting at 3m03s in the video below…

      The water at the Whitehouse is filtered. (Not mentioned is if, along with the other contaminants, the water filters also remove the F (I would say that physics says ‘yes’, the ‘F’ would be thrown out with the other toxins, too), nor if the F is then added back in, post- water filtering. But, I would assumed that the F would not be added back in since containers of highly toxic F-compounds sitting in the basement would be deemed a security risk.)

      If the F is removed (by the filters) and is not added back in, would the workaround of using fluoridated toothpaste be sufficient? I’m concerned for the health of young Barron’s teeth. With a child in his situation, is the workaround more potent fluoride trays at the dentist?

      What is the workaround for children, such as Barron, who do not have access to fluoridated water?

      Would it be safe to ingest a pea-sized amount of fluoridated toothpaste once per day and flush it down with a glass of non-fluoridated water?

  20. RoibeardH says:

    Reblogged this on Awaken Lifeform and commented:
    What a ruling cabal need, is an obedient dumbed down society with disabled pineal gland. The idea to have that all with one toxic waste from chemical process is easy to understand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.