The War Against the Fluoridation of Water and Dental Substances

What is common among many developments in society is that when you look at their genesis, you realise what their intended creation of use was, or even the actual impact of their utility. We’ve said this in like of the WHO, in particular, how the appointment of Brock Chisolm – who advocated for the – as its first Director General is revealing of the fact that it was never intended to be an organisation promoting public health. We also said this about geo or climate engineering: that at its inception it was created as a weapon of war, hence its early uses included the war in Vietnam. The same can certainly be said about the artificial use of fluoride, especially in how it is inserted into water.
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE FLUORIDATION OF WATER AND DENTAL SUBSTANCES
And now onto our main discussion, and we ought to begin with some historical context. In essence, community, or artificial, water fluoridation—which is the addition of a fluoride compound (usually hexafluoro-silicic acid) to public drinking water supplies—is a controversial public health intervention; the benefits and harms of which have been debated since its introduction in the USA in the 1950. Discovered by Henri Mossan in 1886, fluorine (F) is a corrosive pale yellow gas. It is highly reactive, participating in reactions with virtually all organic and inorganic substances. Consequently, fluorine is usually found in soil, air, food, and water as fluorides.
And here’s where it gets interesting: fluorine remained a laboratory curiosity until 1940, when nuclear energy requirements stimulated commercial production. In industrial settings, fluorine and its compounds are used in producing uranium, plastics, ceramics, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. In addition, fluoro chloro-hydrocarbons are used in refrigeration and aerosol propellant applications. Then, the impact of fluorine on human teeth was recognised in 1909 in Colorado, United States, when two dental surgeons, being Frederick McKay and Grant Black, launched an investigation into the causes of mottled enamel (also known as the “Colorado brown stain”) in their practice area. Further studies by McKay, Kempf, and Churchill on water samples in areas in Idaho and Arkansas in 1931 confirmed the link between mottled enamel and high water fluoride levels.
But, in the same period, from 1931, Dr Trendley Dean, who was the Head of the Dental Hygiene Unit at the National Institute of Health, began investigating the epidemiology of fluorosis. After a decade’s study, Dean and his team found that water containing fluoride at a concentration of 1.0 part per million (ppm) appeared to offer some caries protection while minimising the extent of dental fluorosis. However, early studies on the impact of fluoridation on dental caries undertaken by Dean and his colleagues in a Chicago neighbourhood and 12 other cities in four states were qualified.
Furthermore, additional multisite studies commenced in 1945 to determine impacts of fluoridated water on dental caries prevention and health also appeared to demonstrate a positive effect of water fluoridation—with claims of a reduction of dental caries by up to 60% among almost 30,000 schoolchildren in Grand Rapids, MI, USA. However, these findings have been criticised for major methodological flaws, including data cherry-picking and selection bias. Notwithstanding this and before the final results of these studies were known, the US Public Health Service adopted the 1 ppm dose and supported the widespread introduction of community water fluoridation schemes in 1950. And all of this is to say that: not only were the adverse effects of fluoride already evident to many, but pseudoscience, encapsulated in bad studies that were riddled with flawed methodologies, became the basis for the wide-spread use of fluoride. In addition, it’s not even pharmaceutical grade fluoride that has been used for the longest time!
THE LINK BETWEEN FLUORIDATION AND THE DEPOPULATION AGENDA
Now, in the last few decades, however, an abundance of medical research has emerged that shows much more profound potential dangers, leading to an ongoing legal battle to end this practice. Fluoride is essentially toxic to the human body. While human kidneys are able to filter out 50-60% of the fluoride a person consumes, the rest is stored in the body and has been observed to build up over time in certain areas. One organ that is particularly susceptible to fluoride build-up is the pineal gland — the part of our brain responsible for regulating sleep AND reproductive hormones.
And I should state at this point that it stopped being coincidental years ago that a number of the harmful interventions from the medical industry tend to have severe ramifications for the reproductive health of people: from fluoride, to the tetanus shot, to the COVID jab as well – especially when you recall our discussion on journalist Naomi Wolf’s book titled ‘Pfizer Papers, Looking at Pfizer’s crimes against humanity’! Therefore, there is no doubt that the malthusian inspired depopulation agenda is also a driving influence behind fluoridation! In fact, this is further evidenced by the fact that they knew about the links between surges in cancer and fluoride years ago, BUT persisted in using fluoride.
ADVERSE IMPACTS OF FLUORIDE INGESTION ON HUMAN HEALTH
And the pineal gland is not even the only part of the brain that suffers: over 30 independent studies have linked fluoride to a reduction in childhood IQ: A 2018 study published in Occupational & Environmental Medicine found that, for every increase of 1 milligram per liter of fluoride in a pregnant women’s urine, their offspring averaged 2.4 points lower IQ scores at age 1-3 years old. This follows a 2017 study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) showing in utero fluoride levels associated with lower IQ in 6-12 year-olds.
In addition, the classification of fluoride as a pollutant rather than as a nutrient or medicine is a useful starting point for analysing the adverse effect of fluoride. No fluoride deficiency disease has ever been documented for humans. Indeed, the basis for setting an “adequate intake” of fluoride rests on the alleged ability of ingested fluoride to prevent tooth decay. However, since it is now known that the effect of fluoride is topical, the notion of an “adequate daily intake” is flawed. In fact, one of the key concerns about water fluoridation is the inability to control an individual’s dose of ingested fluoride which brings into question the concept of the “optimal dose.” Since the 1980s numerous studies have identified that adults and children are exceeding these agreed limits, contributing to a rapid rise in dental fluorosis—which is the first sign of fluoride toxicity.
This to say that the inability to control individual dose renders the notion of an “optimum concentration” obsolete. In the USA, a study in Iowa found that 90% of 3-month-olds consumed over their recommended upper limits, with some babies ingesting over 6 mg of fluoride daily, above what the Environmental Protection Agency and the WHO say is safe to avoid crippling skeletal fluorosis. another study in the UK of fluoride levels found in tea concluded that “… fluoride concentrations can exceed the recommended DRI of 4 mg/day…, in certain tea commodities, under the minimal brewing time of 2 min…”. This study used non-fluoridated water but supports earlier findings by a researchers known as Koblar (and company) who report that the adequate intake of fluoride from a 70 kg adult consuming five cups of tea daily ranges from 25 to 210% depending upon tea brand and whether the water is fluoridated. But, here is Retired National Toxicology Program (NTP) Director, Linda Birnbaum, discusses why she believes water fluoridation is outdated due to emerging evidence of the risk of developmental neurotoxicity and a demonstrable lack of efficacy.
THERE IS NO SOLID EVIDENCE THAT FLUORIDE WAS EVER GOOD FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION
Animal studies have shown other neurological effects, including impaired memory, reduced ability to learn, and even mild forms of brain damage. With potential health risks like that, you would think that the evidence of fluoride’s benefits must be pretty solid. …Well, you might want to think again.
There is no solid proof that drinking fluoride actually improves dental health! In a 1989 study, data collected by the National Institute of Dental Research found that children who live in areas where the water supplies are fluoridated have tooth decay rates nearly identical to those who live in non-fluoridated areas. While tooth decay has declined in the US since fluoridation was introduced, countries which do not add fluoride to their water have seen the same rate of decline in tooth decay. This data implies that factors other than fluoridated water are contributing to the overall improvement of dental health worldwide. In fact, there has never been a controlled, randomized trial to demonstrate the effectiveness or safety of fluoridation, despite over 60 years of consumption in public water supplies. A 2009 study, funded by the NIH, was surprisingly the first to look at individual exposure to fluoride (as opposed to simply living in a fluoridated community). They found no correlation whatsoever between fluoride ingestion and tooth decay.
THE OPPOSITION TO FLUORIDE HAS LONG BEEN REDUCED TO MERE CONSPIRACY
But, how the discontinuation of fluoridation has been suppressed for the longest time is that it would often quickly be dismissed as conspiracy, and so anyone who would discuss it or question it would be associated with a lack of critical thought.
WHAT THIS MEANS FOR THE NEW TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, #MAHA AND RFK JR
THE take away from the dismissal of the presence of fluoride in water is therefore to be aware of the swift condemnation of anyone who asks questions regarding it. Experts will espouse that fluoride is well-tested, they will claim that it definitely or significantly decreases caries, and that it has no association with any harm—ALL without reference to the evidence! Furthermore, the argument is lost when an individual who puts forward questions about healthcare exposures is referred to as a denialist.
For instance, RFK, Jr rightly asks questions about an intervention based on evidence going back to the 1930s. In the meantime, there have been growing concerns about harm and little contemporary evidence evaluating the effectiveness of water fluoridation in preventing caries. So, stopping fluoride in the context of epidemiological evaluations isn’t far off the mark – in anything, it is a categorical imperative, and thank God that the new Trump administration through the MAHA project with RFK Jr are making it a priority to remove fluoride in the water.
Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso