NHMRC Public Consultations

Skip Navigation and go to Content
Visit NHMRC website

Draft NHMRC Information Paper: Effects of water fluoridation on dental and other health outcomes submission

Personal Details
First Name: 
Last Name: 
Specific Questions
Q1. A) Is the draft Information Paper presented in a manner that is easy to understand? : 
Q1. B) Please provide details regarding your response to Question 1A: 
Overall conclusion

It is apparent that the draft paper is not easy to understand because it does not explain why fluoride is in our water using real science.

Q2. A) Is it clear how NHMRC reviewed the health and dental effects of water fluoridation? : 
Q2. B) Please provide details regarding you response to Question 2A: 

Yes it is very clear that the NHMRC did a good job just focusing on the pseudo science of Fluoridation being beneficial.

Q4. Is there additional evidence on the dental effects of water fluoridation that should be considered?: 

Yes. This includes all the evidence that you left out including how Fluoride came to be in our water initially. It was a waste product, used as a mind control agent by Nazi and promoted as good for teeth by companies that needed to dispose of this waste product and were allies with the Nazi's.
The fact that Fluoride is not responsible for reducing tooth decay as is claimed.
The fact that other countries that don't use fluoride also have reduced tooth decay.
The fact that there has been systemic cover-up with fluoridation conflict of interest and falsified studies from the very beginning.
All this is proven in Q6 below

Q5. Is there additional evidence on any other health effects of water fluoridation that should be considered in the draft Information Paper?: 

Mind control

Q6. Is there any other supporting material relevant to making decisions on water fluoridation in the Australian context that should be considered in the draft Information Paper?: 

How does fluoride help our teeth?


*Ann Marie Helmenstine Ph.D. states that although fluoride ions in tooth paste are used to protect your teeth from cavities it's use in drinking water does not have benefits. It is also stated that this reduction in cavities is partly due to the brushing and our natural saliva that neutralises the acidic/sugary environment that bacteria that cause cavities thrive in.
* She also states that there is evidence to show that fluoride remineralizes the enamel layer by modifying the enamel layer which is normally made of calcium and phosphate which is a modified form of Hydroxyapatite into Fluorapatite.
-Fluoride does not restore natural enamel layer but instead alters it into something else.
*There is some evidence fluoride may inhibit the growth of bacteria on teeth or limit their capacity for producing acid.
-The fact that fluoride kills off or harms bacteria in a biological way, acting as a bacteriacide means it is a poison that affects us humans in similar ways.
-This killing of bacteria is created by DNA damage to the bacteria
-Fluoride displaces calcium in enamel. The fact that it shows a higher affinity for calcium than sodium which is in Fluoridated water means it will deplete calcium from our bones.

*Hydroxyapatite is turned into fluorapatite, which means that fluorapatite is not natural but Hydroxyapatite is. The very act of fluoride being beneficial is actually caused by change in natural body state.

Should fluoride be in our water?
There a 5 main reasons given for this action, they include:
-Fluoridation reduces dental decay
-The drinking water garantees that all people are affected by Fluoride at the correct levels
-Aesthetic Fluorosis can be kept to a miniumum if concerntrations are relatively low
-There is no conclusive evidence that fluoride is harmful to the body
-There is conclusive evidence that fluoride is safe for human consumption

Needless to say that the evidence for the above claims must first be thouroughly investigated and conclude that all above statements are true to justify the Fluoridation of our drinking water. Failure to do so would not justify the fluoridation of drinking water. This would include conclusive evidence that fluoride is safe and a lack of any evidence that fluoride is harmful.
Below the 5 main reasons will be further investigated

Fluoridation reduces dental decay
*The original studies in 1945 that is usually cited as evidence of flouridation's effectiveness in reducing tooth decay does not provide evidence of fluoride reducing decay. This study was the original and was justification to put fluoride in our water. The study involved 2 cities Grand Rapids Michigan which was fluoridated and Moschigan which was not fluoridated. Publicly the study was proclaimed to be a success showing dental decay reduced as a result of Fluoride. But the actual study results show that both cities had similar reduction in dental decay , this fact was ignored. Instead the falsified results were publicly claimed before the study was even completed.
-According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials “are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” Serious questions have also been raised about Trendley Dean’s (the father of fluoridation) famous 21-city study from 1942 (Ziegelbecker 1981).The early trials conducted between 1945 and 1955 in North America that helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960, 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970).

*Graphs prove that tooth decay was decreasing before fluoridadtion was introduced at a even higher rate than after Fluoridation.
*Investigating the mode of action of Fluoride in acheiving the claimed objective. Does fluoride just neutralise acid in saliva like chewing gum? Does it act as a bacteriacide, killing the bacteria that eat away at enamel? Does it act chemically in the body creating a regeneration of enamel on the surface of the teeth?
*Mainland European countries do not have fluoridation and it is outlawed except England with 60% and Ireland who was forced by England.
* studies show that fluoridation actually increases dental decay by weakening dental surafce layer of teeth
*Dr Yiaminyianis who is a chemist uncovered a hidden trial through FOI act proving that Fluoride does not reduce cavities. this trial included 39,000 school students and was done by the US public health service

*Reduce sugar intake
*Increase calcium intake

The drinking water garantees that all people are affected by Fluoride at the correct levels
*Is it necessary to put fluoride in our water if it is already in high concerntrations in our toothpaste and more targetive in such application than drinking water?
*People in hotter climates drink more water at higher rates than is taken into account
*People who excercise drink more water
*Baby formula that is already high in concerntrations of fluoride needs to be combined with drinking water. ( Which the ADA website warns that non fluorided water should be used) Also babies do not need fluoridation because they don't have teeth.
* In utero babies will be receiving high dosages
*The fact that people with kidney damage will be affected by Fluoride more severly makes this arguement invalid
-People with impaired kidney function are particularly vulnerable to bone damage. Because of their inability to effectively excrete fluoride, people with kidney disease( http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/kidney/ ) are prone to accumulating high levels of fluoride in their bone and blood. As a result of this high fluoride body burden, kidney patients have an elevated risk for developing skeletal fluorosis. In one of the few U.S. studies investigating the matter, crippling skeletal fluorosis was documented among patients with severe kidney disease drinking water with just 1.7 ppm fluoride (Johnson 1979). Since severe skeletal fluorosis in kidney patients has been detected in small case studies, it is likely that larger, systematic studies would detect skeletal fluorosis at even lower fluoride levels.

*Some individuals are highly sensitive to low levels of fluoride as shown by case studies ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/hypersensitivity01/ ) and double blind studies. In one study, which lasted 13 years, Feltman and Kosel (1961) showed that about 1% of patients given 1 mg of fluoride each day developed negative reactions. Many individuals have reported suffering from symptoms such as fatigue, headaches, rashes and stomach and gastro intestinal tract problems, which disappear when they avoid fluoride in their water and diet. (Shea 1967; Waldbott 1978; Moolenburgh 1987) Frequently the symptoms reappear when they are unwittingly exposed to fluoride again (Spittle, 2008).
* In addition to people suffering from impaired kidney function other subsets of the population are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR 1993) these include: infants (http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/infant-exposure/ ), the elderly, and those with diabetes mellitus (http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/diabetes/ ). Also vulnerable are those who suffer from malnutrition (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/nutrition/ ) (e.g., calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin D and iodine deficiencies and protein-poor diets) and those who have diabetes insipidus(http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/diabetes-insipidus/). See: Greenberg 1974; Klein 1975; Massler & Schour 1952; Marier & Rose 1977; Lin 1991; Chen 1997; Seow 1994; Teotia 1998.

Why isn't Fluoride kept as a optional additive if you want or need more fluoride?
*If brushing your teeth reduces dental decay why isn't this promoted instead of fluoridation. If dental decay is a problem for those who do not brush their teeth, why isn't this seen as a isolative issue in which the targeting of these people only would make more sense.

Aesthetic Fluorosis can be kept to a miniumum if concerntrations are relatively low
*Fluorosis may seem only aesthetic but it is infact a sign of a underlying biochemical dysfunction. Thus in the same way fluorosis occurs there are unseen negative impacts especially where fluoride accumulates.
-There have been many suggestions as to the possible biochemical mechanisms (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis07/)underlying the development of dental fluorosis (Matsuo 1998; Den Besten 1999; Sharma 2008; Duan 2011; Tye 2011) and they are complicated for a lay reader. While promoters of fluoridation are content to dismiss dental fluorosis (in its milder forms) as merely a cosmetic effect, it is rash to assume that fluoride is not impacting other developing tissues when it is visibly damaging the teeth by some biochemical mechanism (Groth 1973; Colquhoun 1997)
-Especially taking into account the fact that the claimed benefit is acheived by toothpaste and the consumption of fluoride does not contribute to a increase in effectiveness but only the leading to negatve effects. So the only effect of Fluoridation in our drinking water over toothpaste is negative.
-Fluoride damages bone. An early fluoridation trial (Newburgh-Kingston 1945-55) found a significant two-fold increase in cortical bone defects among children in the fluoridated community (Schlesinger 1956). The cortical bone is the outside layer of the bone and is important to protect against fracture. While this result was not considered important at the time with respect to bone fractures, it did prompt questions about a possible link to osteosarcoma (Caffey, 1955; NAS, 1977). In 2001, Alarcon-Herrera and co-workers reported a linear correlation between the severity of dental fluorosis and the frequency of bone fractures in both children and adults in a high fluoride area in Mexico.

There is no conclusive evidence that fluoride is harmful to the body
*Fluoride exposure disrupts the synthesis of collagen and leads to the breakdown of collagen in bone, tendon, muscle, skin, cartilage, lungs, kidney and trachea.
*Fluoride stimulates granule formation and oxygen consumption in white blood cells, but inhibits these processes when the white blood cell is challenged by a foreign agent in the blood.
*Fluoride depletes the energy reserves and the ability of white blood cells to properly destroy foreign agents by the process of phagocytosis. As little as 0.2 ppm fluoride stimulates superoxide production in resting white blood cells, virtually abolishing phagocytosis. Even micro-molar amounts of fluoride, below 1 ppm, may seriously depress the ability of white blood cells to destroy pathogenic agents.
*Fluoride confuses the immune system and causes it to attack the body’s own tissues, and increases the tumor growth rate in cancer prone individuals.
*Fluoride inhibits antibody formation in the blood.
*Fluoride depresses thyroid activity.
*Fluorides have a disruptive effect on various tissues in the body
*Fluoride promotes development of bone cancer.
*Fluorides cause premature aging of the human body.
*Fluoride ingestion from mouth rinses and dentifrices in children is extremely hazardous to biological development, life span and general health.

The contents of a family size tube of fluoridated toothpaste is enough to kill a 25 pound child.
In 1991, the Akron (Ohio) Regional Poison Center reported that “death has been reported following ingestion of 16mg/kg of fluoride. Only 1/10 of an ounce of fluoride could kill a 100 pound adult. According to the Center, “fluoride toothpaste contains up to 1mg/gram of fluoride.” Even Proctor and Gamble, the makers of Crest, acknowledge that a family-sized tube “theoretically contains enough fluoride to kill a small child.”
Fluorides have been used to modify behavior and mood of human beings.
It is a little known fact that fluoride compounds were added to the drinking water of prisoners to keep them docile and inhibit questioning of authority, both in Nazi prison camps in World War II and in the Soviet gulags in Siberia.
Fluorides are medically categorized as protoplasmic poisons, which is why they are used to kill rodents.
The September 18, 1943 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, states, “fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons, changing the permeability of the cell membrane by inhibiting certain enzymes. The exact mechanisms of such actions are obscure.”
Fluoride consumption by human beings increases the general cancer death rate.
In 1975 Dr. John Yiamouyiannis published a preliminary survey which showed that people in fluoridated areas have a higher cancer death rate than those in non-fluoridated areas. The National Cancer Institute attempted to refute the studies. Later in 1975 Yiamouyiannis joined with Dr. Dean Burk, chief chemist of the National Cancer Institute (1939-1974) in performing other studies which were then included in the Congressional Record by Congressman Delaney, who was the original author of the Delaney Amendment, which prohibited the addition of cancer-causing substances to food used for human consumption.

*Burke and Yiamiyianis proved a 10% increase in cancer death rates when given to cancer patients along with the creation of cancers.

-This is also supported by the fact their is a increase in cancer rates 10 -15 years after fluoridation introduction. this included liver cancer and bone cancer and fractures to bones.
- A U.S. government-funded animal study found a dose-dependent increase in bone cancer (osteosarcoma (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/cancer05/)) in fluoride-treated, male rats (NTP 1990). Following the results of this study, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) reviewed national cancer data in the U.S. and found a significantly higher rate of osteosarcoma (a bone cancer) in young men in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas (Hoover et al 1991a). While the NCI concluded (based on an analysis lacking statistical power) that fluoridation was not the cause (Hoover et al 1991b), no explanation was provided to explain the higher rates in the fluoridated areas. A smaller study from New Jersey (Cohn 1992) found osteosarcoma rates to be up to 6 times higher in young men living in fluoridated versus unfluoridated areas. Other epidemiological studies of varying size and quality have failed to find this relationship (a summary of these can be found in Bassin, 2001 and Connett & Neurath, 2005). There are three reasons why a fluoride-osteosarcoma connection is plausible: First, fluoride accumulates to a high level in bone. Second, fluoride stimulates bone growth. And, third, fluoride can interfere with the genetic apparatus of bone cells in several ways; it has been shown to be mutagenic, cause chromosome damage, and interfere with the enzymes involved with DNA repair in both cell and tissue studies (Tsutsui 1984; Caspary 1987; Kishi 1993; Mihashi 1996; Zhang 2009). In addition to cell and tissue studies, a correlation between fluoride exposure and chromosome damage in humans has also been reported (Sheth 1994; Wu 1995; Meng 1997; Joseph 2000).

*Yiaminyianis proved highest concerntrations in thyriod gland cusing hypothyriodism causing lethargy, aparthy, weakness and tiredness, in babies it produces low IQ and they don't recover from this.
*Dr Vorner from Europe proved at just 0.5ppm significant death of Neurons and deamage to blood vessels are produced
*The ADA website states that mothers should reconstitute powdered baby formula with fluoridated water.

*Bassin et al (2006) increased risk of osteosarcoma amongst young males but not females with water fuoridation. Increased rates in terms of cancer incidence in general and mortality.
-This study is cited on 2007 review. In a letter to the editor investigators state that people shouldn't read into Bassin's study too much. Why is this ?
-Proponents have failed to refute the Bassin-Osteosarcoma study. In 2001, Elise Bassin, a dentist, successfully defended her doctoral thesis at Harvard in which she found that young boys had a five-to-seven fold increased risk of getting osteosarcoma by the age of 20 if they drank fluoridated water during their mid-childhood growth spurt (age 6 to 8). The study was published in 2006 (Bassin 2006) but has been largely discounted by fluoridating countries because her thesis adviser Professor Chester Douglass ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/harvard/ ) (a promoter of fluoridation and a consultant for Colgate) promised a larger study that he claimed would discount her thesis (Douglass and Joshipura, 2006). Now, after 5 years of waiting the Douglass study has finally been published (Kim 2011) but in no way does this study discount Bassin’s findings. The study, which used far fewer controls than Bassin’s analysis, did not even attempt to assess the age-specific window of risk that Bassin identified. Indeed, by the authors’ own admission, the study had no capacity to assess the risk of osteosarcoma among children and adolescents (the precise population of concern). For a critique of the Douglass study, click here( http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/kim_fan/ ).

*Fluoride is proven to damage the brain, this is proven in numerous studies and acknowledged by the National research Council (2006)
- According to the National Research Council (2006), “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.” In a review( http://www.epa.gov/ncct/toxcast/files/summit/48P%20Mundy% 20TDAS.pdf) of the literature commissioned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), fluoride has been listed among about 100 chemicals for which there is “substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” 

*Dr Philis Mullenix a Neurotoxicologist found that Fluoride in pregnant rats created hyperactivity in offspring. And also created lethargic behaviour when given after birth resulting in triedness, weakness and not wanting to do anything along with being apathetic or lacking feelings, emotions and interest in things which others find moving or exciting.
-Animal experiments show that fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters mental behavior in a manner consistent with a neurotoxic agent (Mullenix 1995). In total, there have now been over 100 (http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/ ) animal experiments showing that fluoride can damage the brain( http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/brain/) and impact learning and behavior. According to fluoridation proponents, these animal studies can be ignored because high doses were used. However, it is important to note that rats generally require five times more fluoride to reach the same plasma levels in humans (Sawan 2010).
*Further, one animal experiment found effects at remarkably low doses (Varner 1998). In this study, rats fed for one year with 1 ppm fluoride in their water (the same level used in fluoridation programs), using either sodium fluoride or aluminum fluoride, had morphological changes to their kidneys and brains, an increased uptake of aluminum in the brain, and the formation of beta-amyloid deposits which are associated with Alzheimer’s disease. Other animal studies have found effects on the brain at water fluoride levels as low as 5 ppm (Liu 2010).

*Numerous studies show that Fluoride lowers brain function and IQ.
-There have now been 33 studies ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/ ) from China, Iran, India and Mexico that have reported an association between fluoride exposure and reduced IQ. One of these studies (Lin 1991) indicates that even just moderate levels of fluoride exposure (e.g., 0.9 ppm in the water) can exacerbate the neurological defects of iodine deficiency. Other studies have found IQ reductions at 1.9 ppm (Xiang 2003a,b); 0.3-3.0 ppm (Ding 2011); 1.8-3.9 ppm (Xu 1994); 2.0 ppm (Yao 1996, 1997); 2.1-3.2 ppm (An 1992); 2.38 ppm (Poureslami 2011); 2.45 ppm (Eswar 2011); 2.5 ppm (Seraj 2006); 2.85 ppm (Hong 2001); 2.97 ppm (Wang 2001, Yang 1994); 3.15 ppm (Lu 2000); 4.12 ppm (Zhao 1996). In the Ding study, each 1 ppm increase of fluoride in urine was associated with a loss of 0.59 IQ points. None of these studies indicate an adequate margin of safety to protect all children drinking artificially fluoridated water from this affect. According to the National Research Council (2006), “the consistency of the results [in fluoride/IQ studies] appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.” The NRC’s conclusion has recently been amplified by a team of Harvard scientists whose fluoride/IQ meta-review concludes that fluoride’s impact on the developing brain should be a “high research priority.” (Choi et al., 2012). Except for one small IQ study from New Zealand (Spittle 1998) no fluoridating country has yet investigated the matter.

*Other brain affects are also noted as caused by Fluoride
- Fluoride may cause non-IQ neurotoxic effects. Reduced IQ is not the only neurotoxic effect that may result from fluoride exposure. At least three human studies have reported an association between fluoride exposure and impaired (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain03/)visual-spatial organization (Calderon 2000; Li 2004; Rocha-Amador 2009); while four other studies have found an association between prenatal fluoride exposure and fetal brain damage (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/brain05/)(Han 1989; Du 1992; Dong 1993; Yu 1996).

*Fluoride accumulates in certain parts of the brain in much higher concerntrations than is indicated dosages for efficacy of reducing dental decay.
-Fluoride affects the pineal gland. Studies by Jennifer Luke (2001) show that fluoride accumulates in the human pineal gland (http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/pineal/) to very high levels. In her Ph.D. thesis, Luke has also shown in animal studies that fluoride reduces melatonin production and leads to an earlier onset of puberty (Luke 1997). Consistent with Luke’s findings, one of the earliest fluoridation trials in the U.S. (Schlesinger 1956) reported that on average young girls in the fluoridated community reached menstruation 5 months earlier than girls in the non-fluoridated community. Inexplicably, no fluoridating country has attempted to reproduce either Luke’s or Schlesinger’s findings or examine the issue any further.

*It is known as a cause of hypothyriodism.
-Fluoride affects thyroid function. According to the U.S. National Research Council (2006), “several lines of information indicate an effect of fluoride exposure on thyroid function( http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/thyroid/).”In the Ukraine, Bachinskii (1985) found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people, at 2.3 ppm fluoride in water. In the middle of the 20th century, fluoride was prescribed by a number of European doctors to reduce the activity of the thyroid gland for those suffering from hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) (Stecher 1960; Waldbott 1978). According to a clinical study by Galletti and Joyet (1958), the thyroid function of hyperthyroid patients was effectively reduced at just 2.3 to 4.5 mg/day of fluoride ion. To put this finding in perspective, the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS, 1991) has estimated that total fluoride exposure in fluoridated communities ranges from 1.6 to 6.6 mg/day. This is a remarkable fact, particularly considering the rampant and increasing problem of hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid) in the United States and other fluoridated countries. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease. In 2010, the second most prescribed drug of the year was Synthroid (sodium levothyroxine) which is a hormone replacement drug used to treat an underactive thyroid.

*Fluoridation is known to cause arthritis
-Fluoride causes arthritic symptoms. Some of the early symptoms of skeletal fluorosis (a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease that impacts millions of people in India, China, and Africa), mimic the symptoms of arthritis (http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/arthritis/)(Singh 1963; Franke 1975; Teotia 1976; Carnow 1981; Czerwinski 1988; DHHS 1991). According to a review on fluoridation published in Chemical & Engineering News, “Because some of the clinical symptoms mimic arthritis, the first two clinical phases of skeletal fluorosis could be easily misdiagnosed” (Hileman 1988). Few, if any, studies have been done to determine the extent of this misdiagnosis, and whether the high prevalence of arthritis in America (1 in 3 Americans have some form of arthritis – CDC, 2002) and other fluoridated countries is related to growing fluoride exposure, which is highly plausible. Even when individuals in the U.S. suffer advanced forms of skeletal fluorosis (from drinking large amounts of tea), it has taken years of misdiagnoses (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/skeletal_fluorosis01/) before doctors finally correctly diagnosed the condition as fluorosis.

*Fluoride increase hip fractures
- When high doses of fluoride (average 26 mg per day) were used in trials to treat patients with osteoporosis in an effort to harden their bones and reduce fracture rates, it actually led to a higher number of fractures, particularly hip fractures(http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/bone01/) (Inkovaara 1975; Gerster 1983; Dambacher 1986; O’Duffy 1986; Hedlund 1989; Bayley 1990; Gutteridge 1990. 2002; Orcel 1990; Riggs 1990 and Schnitzler 1990). Hip fracture is a very serious issue for the elderly, often leading to a loss of independence or a shortened life. There have been over a dozen studies published since 1990 that have investigated a possible relationship between hip fractures and long term consumption of artificially fluoridated water or water with high natural levels. The results have been mixed (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/bone12/ ) – some have found an association and others have not. Some have even claimed a protective effect. One very important study in China, which examined hip fractures in six Chinese villages, found what appears to be a dose-related increase in hip fracture as the concentration of fluoride rose from 1 ppm to 8 ppm (Li 2001) offering little comfort to those who drink a lot of fluoridated water. Moreover, in the only human epidemiological study to assess bone strength as a function of bone fluoride concentration, researchers from the University of Toronto found that (as with animal studies) the strength of bone declined with increasing fluoride content (Chachra 2010). Finally, a recent study (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/ifs/ ) from Iowa (Levy 2009), published data suggesting that low-level fluoride exposure may have a detrimental effect on cortical bone density ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/bone11/ ) in girls (an effect that has been repeatedly documented (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/bone03/ ) in clinical trials and which has been posited as an important mechanism ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/bone06/ ) by which fluoride may increase bone fracture rates).

*Fluoride increasees infertility
- Fluoride administered to animals at high doses wreaks havoc on the male reproductive system – it damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility( http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/health/fertility/ )in a number of different species (Kour 1980; Chinoy 1989; Chinoy 1991; Susheela 1991; Chinoy 1994; Kumar 1994; Narayana 1994a,b; Zhao 1995; Elbetieha 2000; Ghosh 2002; Zakrzewska 2002). In addition, an epidemiological study from the US found increased rates of infertility among couples living in areas with 3 ppm or more fluoride in the water (Freni 1994), two studies have found increased fertility among men living in high-fluoride areas of China and India (Liu 1988; Neelam 1987); four studies have found reduced level of circulating testosterone in males living in high fluoride areas (Hao 2010; Chen P 1997; Susheela 1996; Barot 1998), and a study of fluoride-exposed workers reported a “subclinical reproductive effect” (Ortiz-Perez 2003). While animal studies by FDA researchers have failed (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/fertility04/ ) to find evidence of reproductive toxicity in fluoride-exposed rats (Sprando 1996, 1997, 1998), the National Research Council (2006) has recommended that, “the relationship between fluoride and fertility requires additional study.”
*There is no margin of safety for several health effects. No one can deny that high natural levels of fluoride damage health. Millions of people in India and China have had their health compromised by fluoride. The real question is whether there is an adequate margin of safety between the doses shown to cause harm in published studies and the total dose people receive consuming uncontrolled amounts of fluoridated water and non-water sources of fluoride. This margin of safety has to take into account the wide range of individual sensitivity expected in a large population (a safety factor of 10 is usually applied to the lowest level causing harm). Another safety factor is also needed to take into account the wide range of doses to which people are exposed. There is clearly no margin of safety for dental fluorosis (CDC, 2010) and based on the following studies nowhere near an adequate margin of safety for lowered IQ (Xiang 2003a,b; Ding 2011; Choi 2012); lowered thyroid function (Galletti & Joyet 1958; Bachinskii 1985; Lin 1991); bone fractures in children (Alarcon-Herrera 2001) or hip fractures in the elderly (Kurttio 1999; Li 2001). All of these harmful effects are discussed in the NRC (2006) review.

There is conclusive evidence that fluoride is safe for human consumption
*Key health studies have not been done. In the January 2008 issue of Scientific American, Professor John Doull, the chairman of the important 2006 National Research Council ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/nrc/ )review, Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of EPA’s Standards, is quoted as saying:
"What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long really—and now we need to take a fresh look . . . In the scientific community people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the top 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on."
-The absence of studies is being used by promoters as meaning the absence of harm. This is an irresponsible position.
*Referencing the studies that the Government cites in a 2007 review of safety and efficacy of Fluoridation in drinking water and analysing the results of such studies conclude that these studies are in fact flaud.
*McDonagh et al (2000a) proves for efficacy of fluoride and no risk of cancer or mortality.
-look into above study and opposing views expressing its inaccuracies
-In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug (http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/fda/).”

** There is alot of research questions that are not answered by evidence, according to the 2007 NHMRC Review of Fluoridation. These questions should have been answered considering how long fluoride has been in our water and how it affects everyone. Not to mention that it should have been clear prior to putting in our water but this is clearly not the case. So the point that needs to made is why is Fluoride still in our water if it has not been proven to be safe?

To find the true reason behind Fluoridation you must look at the history

It is important to understand the underlieing forces that have driven Governments towards the Fluoridation of our drinking water. To do this we need to investigate objectively the reasoning of Fluoridation chronilogically from the very begining. It is important to be open minded and to note that things do not happen by accident. That is to say that trail of evidence leading to an alternative explanation as to why their is Fluoride in a drinking water must be accepted as the true reason. Especially when the current reason is flaud by so many falsified facts in the public arena and the fact that the core reasoning is fundamentally incorrect.

A timeline of fluoridation
*read the following timeline with the link below
-demonstrates coverups, systemic corruption of the debate of fluoridation. The links of fluoridation to the Nazi and the fact that it was a waste product by industries that needed to dispose of this poison. How it was known as a poison long before it was added to our drinking water.
-The first use of synthetic Fluoridation in drinking water was in WW2 Nazi germany and siberia in the guulags.

*The fact that the original studies are fraudulent and that studies undertaken by governments that show a increase in tooth decay because of fluoridation were hidden concludes that our own governments are not wanting us to know this fact and that ansuccessful trial is one that only shows fluoridation in a positive light.

*Rockefeller foundation which has a open goal for world control via depopulation and polluting of the environment from petrochemical agents. His support of the Nazi through his involvement in Eugenics and the Petrochemical industry. Who essentially continued and began the goals of Hitler. And through his creation of the WHO, UN and control of governments and universities has controlled everything. This includes what people think, what is publicly debated and what is considered true or false. In this same way Fluoride has become about dental decay not because there is prove of its safe and effectiveness but because it is a means of control and depopulation.

The Rockefeller foundation connection to the WHO and UN promoting fluoride for dental decay for a guise for Eugenics. Rockeller supports Nazi ideologies and was the creator of them and used his power and money to enforce them. He suported Alcoa and IG Farben whose president after 6 years of jail for wars against humanity, started to work in the UN which is a front for Rockeller. Rockefeller heavily influences drug companies who had roles in Nazi war crimes but despite this, we the public and the Governments are trusting a Nazi war criminal to tell us what is in our water. The result in chlorine and Fluoride both poisons used by the Nazis to control people by making them complacent.
“At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Eliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany.
“While there he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff.
“This was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.
“Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual’s power to resist domination by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain and will thus make him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. “Both the Germans and the Russians added sodium fluoride to the drinking water of prisoners of war to make them stupid and docile.”

In a letter abstracted from Fluoridation and Lawlessness (published by the Committee for Mental Health and National Security) to the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, on 2nd October 1954, a Charles Eliot Perkins, scientist and author of Washington, DC, and, one must assume, the same Charles Eliot Perkins of the “Dickenson Statement” to the Victorian Parliament, said this (and the words of the last two lines of the second paragraph cannot be overemphasised): “We are told by the fanatical ideologists who are advocating the fluoridation of the water supplies in this country that their purpose is to reduce the incidence of tooth decay in children, and it is the plausibility of this excuse, plus the gullibility of the public and the cupidity of public officials that is responsible for the present spread of artificial water fluoridation in this country.
“However – and I want to make this very definite and positive – the real reason behind water fluoridation not to benefit children’s teeth. If this were the real reason, there are many ways in which it could be done which are much easier, cheaper and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty …
“When the Nazis, under Hitler, decided to go into Poland … the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans and personnel and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communise the world …
“I say this in all earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years research into the chemistry, Bo-chemistry, physiology and pathology and pathology of fluorine: any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person, mentally or physically.”

*Alcoa which was a supporter of the Nazi's produced fluorides as a by product of aluminium production for the Nazi's.
*Evidence is in a book written by lilly K titled 'science of man project' and it is about the origins of molecular biology in US. It talks about how the likes of Ford, Carnegy and Rockefeller foundation were responsible for social engineering through the influence on Universities and science. The book talks about how the Rockefeller foundation was involved with Nazi scientists and was ultimately responsible for the Nazi rise by justifying Hitlers ideologies through the pseudo science of Eugenics. But this backing of Hitler ended in tragedy for them as Hitler gave Eugenics a bad image and so Rockefeller Foundation got rid of the term eugenics to isolate himself and his foundation and everything he strived for being linked with the Nazi's. Instead he replaced Eugenics with new phrases like Behaviourism, social engineering and science of man which were all just pseudonyms for Eugenics. The Rockeller Foundation could continue to do what they did before WW2 despite actually being aligned with Hitler. The foundation continues today redesigning man through the elitsist views of what man should be. This was acheived by the grooming of professors that had the same ideologies as him and funding them to prop up their research above any other.
-In this way of having exoberant money and power to influence government policies people like David Rockefeller could influence government policies to continue the aim of Hitler of world domination and control. Fluoridation is just one way of acheiving this.
*The reason that government agencies tend to side with administering poisons to the public such as fluoridation of drinking water is not due to their safety. It is instead due to Governments residing with the ideologies of Rockefeller who would rather many be dead, infertile and ill. This is evident by the fact that Governments always ignore the studies that prove these chemicals are poisonous and only have negative effects. And they always find illogical reasons to administor these poisons to us under the guise of health, when there is no evidence to justify it. This has been going on for a long time and began at the time of Eugenics movement and has evolved into other pseudonyms that all have the same cause to create mass extermination and world domination.

* Low-income families penalized by fluoridation. Those most likely to suffer from poor nutrition, and thus more likely to be more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxic effects, are the poor, who unfortunately, are the very people being targeted (http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/ej/ )by new fluoridation programs. While at heightened risk, poor families are least able to afford avoiding fluoride once it is added to the water supply. No financial support is being offered to these families to help them get alternative water supplies or to help pay the costs of treating unsightly cases of dental fluorosis.

*Black and Hispanic children are more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity. According to the CDC’s national survey of dental fluorosis, black and Mexican-American children have significantly higher rates (http://www.fluoridealert.org/studies/dental_fluorosis02/ ) of dental fluorosis than white children (Beltran-Aguilar 2005, Table 23). The recognition that minority children appear to be more vulnerable to toxic effects of fluoride, combined with the fact that low-income families are less able to avoid drinking fluoridated water, has prompted prominent leaders in the environmental-justice movement to oppose mandatory fluoridation in Georgia. In a statement issued in May 2011, Andrew Young, a colleague of Martin Luther King, Jr., and former Mayor of Atlanta and former US Ambassador to the United Nations, stated ( http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/ej/statements/ ):
“I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist…My father was a dentist. I formerly was a strong believer in the benefits of water fluoridation for preventing cavities. But many things that we began to do 50 or more years ago we now no longer do, because we have learned further information that changes our practices and policies. So it is with fluoridation.”

*Minorities are not being warned about their vulnerabilities to fluoride. The CDC is not warning black and Mexican-American children that they have higher rates of dental fluorosis than Caucasian children (see #38). This extra vulnerability (http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/ej-considerations/)may extend to other toxic effects of fluoride. Black Americans have higher rates of lactose intolerance, kidney problems and diabetes, all of which may exacerbate fluoride’s toxicity.
-What reason would Governments or researchers require to analyse the effects of Fluoridation in a racial way? What is being done about the results? The answer is nothing. The fact that this known and nothing is done about it and the fact that the people behind Fluoridation initially actually wanted this outcome really reveals alot.
*Tooth decay reflects low-income not low-fluoride intake. Since dental decay is most concentrated in poor communities, we should be spending our efforts trying to increase the access to dental care for low-income families. The highest rates of tooth decay today can be found in low-income areas that have been fluoridated for many years. The real “Oral Health Crisis” that exists today in the United States, is not a lack of fluoride but poverty and lack of dental insurance. The Surgeon General has estimated that 80% of dentists in the US do not treat children on Medicaid.
*the link between the Nazi/ Rockefeller ideologies are evident by the corruption surrounding the evidence of Fluoridation. And the fact that Fluoridation is a pseudoscience just like Eugenics/ Nazi ideologies and his goal of social engineering a superior human race based on his ideals and discrediting all jewish scientists work due to their race not lack of merit.
-Endorsements do not represent scientific evidence. Many of those promoting fluoridation rely heavily on a list of endorsements. However, the U.S. PHS first endorsed fluoridation in 1950, before one single trial had been completed and before any significant health studies had been published (see chapters 9 and 10 in The Case Against Fluoride for the significance of this PHS endorsement for the future promotion of fluoridation). Many other endorsements swiftly followed with little evidence of any scientific rational for doing so. The continued use of these endorsements has more to do with political science than medical science.

- Review panels hand-picked to deliver a pro-fluoridation result. Every so often, particularly when their fluoridation program is under threat, governments of fluoridating countries hand-pick panels to deliver reports that provide the necessary re-endorsement of the practice. In their recent book Fluoride Wars (2009), which is otherwise slanted toward fluoridation, Alan Freeze and Jay Lehr concede this point when they write:
"There is one anti-fluoridationist charge that does have some truth to it. Anti-fluoride forces have always claimed that the many government-sponsored review panels set up over the years to assess the costs and benefits of fluoridation were stacked in favor of fluoridation. A review of the membership of the various panels confirms this charge. The expert committees that put together reports by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1941, 1944 and 1954; the National Academy of Sciences in 1951, 1971, 1977 and 1993; the World Health Organization in 1958 and 1970; and the U.S. Public Health Service in 1991 are rife with the names of well-known medical and dental researchers who actively campaigned on behalf of fluoridation or whose research was held in high regard in the pro-fluoridation movement. Membership was interlocking and incestuous."
The most recent examples of these self-fulfilling prophecies have come from the Irish Fluoridation Forum (2002); the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 2007) and Health Canada (2008, 2010). The latter used a panel of six experts to review the health literature. Four of the six were pro-fluoridation dentists and the other two had no demonstrated expertise on fluoride. A notable exception to this trend was the appointment by the U.S. National Research Council of the first balanced panel of experts ever selected to look at fluoride’s toxicity in the U.S. This panel of twelve reviewed the US EPA’s safe drinking water standards for fluoride. After three and half years the panel concluded in a 507- page report that the safe drinking water standard was not protective of health and a new maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) should be determined (NRC, 2006). If normal toxicological procedures and appropriate margins of safety were applied to their findings this report should spell an end to water fluoridation. Unfortunately in January of 2011 the US EPA Office of Water made it clear that they would not determine a value for the MCLG that would jeopardize the water fluoridation program (EPA press release, Jan 7, 2011. Once again politics was allowed to trump science.
*The above links of corruption today is evident even in the current review under way. As the 'Chair' of the "Fluoride Reference Group Members " has ties with the world health organisation which openly campaigns for fluoride which makes the review subjective.
Emeritus Professor Judith Whitworth AC FTSE (Chair)
Emeritus Professor, John Curtin School of Medical Research, the Australian National University.
Relevant experience:
⦁ Emeritus Professor Judith Whitworth is a former Director and Howard Florey Professor of Medical Research at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University.
⦁ She has previously been Chief Medical Officer of the Commonwealth and Chair of the World Health Organization’s Global Advisory Committee on Health Research.
⦁ Her research interests include hypertension, systems physiology, public policy, preventive medicine, public health and health services.
Disclosed interests:
-Chairs an advisory committee for the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry
-Member of the Board of Therapeutic Innovation Australia.

Emeritus Professor A. John Spencer
Professor of Social and Preventive Dentistry, School of Dentistry, The University of Adelaide

Dislosed interests:
-Expert Witness on water fluoridation in the Land and Environment Court of NSW cases of Rous Water and Euorobodalla Shire Council. Member and received consulting fees from the Nutritional Reference Values Fluoride Expert Working Group 2013-2014 for revision of the Nutrient Reference Values for Australia and New Zealand Including Recommended Dietary Intakes.

*When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a sixty-year delay. Unfortunately, because government officials and dental leaders have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science, not political expediency. They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle. Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries(http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/europe-statements/)have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.

The true reason for Fluoridation
A study on the physiological and behavioral effects of Sodium Fluoride is published on October 12, 1994. The study is done by Mullenix, Denbensten, Schunior and Kernan, from the Toxicology Department, Forsyth Research Institute in Boston, the Department of Radiation Oncology, Harvard Medical School, the Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Eastman Dental Center, and the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at Iowa State University. According to the study, published in Neurotoxicology and Teratology, Vol 17, No. 2, pp. 169-177, 1995, while fluorides have a great number of effects on the body, the effect on the brain and central nervous system structures were examined, and it was found that fluorides affect the hippocampus, which is the central processor which integrates inputs from the environment, memory, and motivational stimuli to produce behavioral decisions and modify memory. Note: Now it can be seen why the Nazis and Soviets used fluorides in the prison camp water supplies to reduce the will to resist and make the prisoners docile and not tend to question authority.


Examples of governments knowing that they are poisoning people
Governments acknowledge today that they are putting poison in our water and thus the act that they care about our health is wrong.

Governments in Europe are strongly against fluoridation because it is a poison. It is not the job of the water supply to 'medicate'.

The lies that our own Government are telling us today
*According to the NHMRC public consultation website, "the aim of reducing tooth decay".
"adjusts the natural fluoride concentration of water to that recommended for improving oral health"
-this is not true as the added fluoride is not chemically the same as the natural fluoride. This is misleading and falsifying the science of this investigation of whether Fluoridiation is safe or not.

*Drinking fluoridated water during childhood translates into better oral health in adulthood. Australians born
after 1970 (the ‘fluoride generation’) have, on average, half the level of tooth decay of their parents’ generation.
-This implies that fluoridation is to be the cause of this reduction but other statistics prove this is not possible due to the fact that tooth decay was reducing before fluoridation and is decreasing at the same rate in countries that have not had fluoridation.
*whereas the claim that governments goals of limiting fluorosis to 10% has not been met with rates 4 times higher.
*Fluoride is a necessary requirement for prevention of tooth decay. The Codex Ailementarius lists fluoride as a essential nutrient. When the Austrian Goverment which began the Codex Ailementarius is strongly against Fluoridation of its water. Hitler was from Austria and the Nazi's used Fluoride to control the prisoners.
*"The committee was selected to ensure appropriate expertise in the key areas of science and review methodology, in order to undertake an evidence based assessment."
-This is definetely not the case as history tells us and current misleading statements like those stated above on the NHMRC website proves that fluoridation review is simply corrupted from the begginning due to the conflict of interest.
*Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that is safe for human consumption.
- The use of Fluoride in our drinking water is of the kind of HF, NaF, SIF6 this is not the same as CaF found in natural water sources. It also is allowed to have levels of arsenic among other toxins that are not safe at any level and elude to the fact that the Fluoride in our water is a waste product that is not being regulated with the interest of health in mind.
-The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade. Instead, they largely come from the wet scrubbing systems of the phosphate fertilizer industry (http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/phosphate01/ ). These chemicals (90% of which are sodium fluorosilicate and fluorosilicic acid), are classified hazardous wastes contaminated with various impurities. Recent testing by the National Sanitation Foundation suggest that the levels of arsenic in these silicon fluorides are relatively high (up to 1.6 ppb after dilution into public water) and of potential concern (NSF 2000 and Wang 2000). Arsenic is a known human carcinogen for which there is no safe level. This one contaminant alone could be increasing cancer rates – and unnecessarily so.

-Humans do not need Fluoride but the CaF is much safer than the other waste products
-The silicon fluorides have not been tested comprehensively. The chemical usually tested in animal studies is pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride, not industrial grade fluorosilicic acid. Proponents claim that once the silicon fluorides have been diluted at the public water works they are completely dissociated to free fluoride ions and hydrated silica and thus there is no need to examine the toxicology of these compounds. However, while a study from the University of Michigan (Finney et al., 2006) showed complete dissociation at neutral pH, in acidic conditions (pH 3) there was a stable complex containing five fluoride ions. Thus the possibility arises that such a complex may be regenerated in the stomach where the pH lies between 1 and 2.
-Fluoridation in our drinking water is not safe because it is a poison that only has negative effects and it accumulates in the human brain to levels that are not safe.
*The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical( http://www.fluoridealert.org/issues/caries/topical_systemic/ ), not systemic. There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth.

*Fluoridation is necessary for reducing dental decay.
-This is not true as it is not a lack of Fluoridation that is the cause of dental decay.
*Governments care about dental health
-If this was true the cause of dental decay would be regulated.
*Fluoridation of our water increases the uptake of other poisons
-The silicon fluorides may increase lead uptake into children’s blood. Studies by Masters and Coplan (1999, 2000, 2007), and to a lesser extent Macek (2006), show an association between the use of fluorosilicic acid (and its sodium salt) to fluoridate water and an increased uptake of lead into children’s blood (http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoridation_flint_lead/). Because of lead’s acknowledged ability to damage the developing brain, this is a very serious finding. Nevertheless, it is being largely ignored by fluoridating countries. This association received some strong biochemical support from an animal study by Sawan et al. (2010) who found that exposure of rats to a combination of fluorosilicic acid and lead in their drinking water increased the uptake of lead into blood some threefold over exposure to lead alone.
- In tightly controlled laboratory experiments, Maas et al (2007) have shown that fluoridating agents in combination with chlorinating agents such as chloroamine increase the leaching of lead( http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoridation_flint_lead/ )from brass fittings used in plumbing. While proponents may argue about the neurotoxic effects of low levels of fluoride there is no argument that lead at very low levels lowers IQ in children.

*Many scientists oppose fluoridation. Proponents of fluoridation have maintained for many years— despite the fact that the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists—that the only people opposed to fluoridation are not bona fide scientists. Today, as more and more scientists, doctors, dentists and other professionals, read the primary literature for themselves, rather than relying on self-serving statements from the ADA and the CDC, they are realizing that they and the general public have not been diligently informed by their professional bodies on this subject. As of January 2012, over 4,000 professionals have signed a statement (http://www.fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/ )calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide. This statement and a list of signatories can be found on the website of the Fluoride Action Network. A glimpse of the caliber of those opposing fluoridation can be gleaned by watching the 28-minute video “Professional Perspectives on Water fluoridation(http://www.fluoridealert.org/fan-tv/prof-perspectives/)”which can be viewed online at the same FAN site.

* Proponents usually refuse to defend fluoridation in open debate. While pro-fluoridation officials continue to promote fluoridation with undiminished fervor, they usually refuse( http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/utah-debate/ )to defend the practice in open public debate – even when challenged to do so by organizations such as the Association for Science in the Public Interest, the American College of Toxicology, or the U.S. EPA (Bryson 2004). According to Dr. Michael Easley, a prominent lobbyist for fluoridation in the US, “Debates give the illusion that a scientific controversy exists when no credible people support the fluorophobics’ view” (Easley, 1999). In light of proponents’ refusal to debate this issue, Dr. Edward Groth, a Senior Scientist at Consumers Union, observed that, “the political profluoridation stance has evolved into a dogmatic, authoritarian, essentially antiscientific posture, one that discourages open debate of scientific issues” (Martin 1991).

*Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation. Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation(http://www.fluoridealert.org/articles/martin-1991/)(Martin 1991). Dr. Phyllis Mullenix(http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/mullenix-interview/)was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain (Mullenix 1995); and Dr. William Marcus (http://www.fluoridealert.org/content/marcus-interview/)was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Many dentists and even doctors tell opponents in private that they are opposed to this practice but dare not speak out in public because of peer pressure and the fear of recriminations. Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific and ethical grounds.

*Fluoride is not a natural nutrient that the body requires. It is instead a poison which only has the effect of creating illnesses. These illnesses are not limited to Fluorosis or bone cancer but the fact that Fluoride is a poison it disrupts the fundamnetal chemical processes that the human body relies on for normal function. To claim that ignoring this fact inorder to create a 'benefit' in reducing tooth deacay is illogical, unscientific and fundamentally unecessary.
*The claim that fluoride is in our water is due to reducing dental decay is simply not true because if you look at the cause of dental decay it is not a lack of fluoride. It is instead the excess of sugar which creates a acidic environement for bacteria to grow in it is this bacteria that eats away at the enamel that is claimed to be protected by fluoride. So if the Government's aim was to reduce dental decay the place to start would be excessive sugar in food. But this has not happened thus the claim of being serious about reducing dental decay is simply not true. So the question arises, what is the purpose of Fluoride in our water?

What I would like in reply
*An answer to all my questions, and how you have came to the conclusion that Fluoridation is safe and effective in reducing dental decay in the past. It would not be satisfactory to reply that the answers to my questions exist in so and so review. This is because I have already disputed this evidence above with contrary evidence.
* For the justification for Fluoridation to be explained by explaining the above issues before Fluoridation is claimed to be safe and effective in the public arena.
* The removal of Fluoridation from our water if this can not be achieved to my standards.

Page reviewed: 4 July, 2017