Fluoride could be giving you diabetes

Over the past few years, I’ve periodically written about fluoride and the potential health risks that may accompany its consumption in our drinking water.

Originally in 2014, I wrote a comprehensive breakdown of the history of fluoride use in the United States.

In this article, I highlighted how, before 1945, fluoride was regarded as a universal pollutant.

It’s a byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industries. And this "fluoride waste" destroyed all crops and animals in its path … and caused irreversible damage on the environment and anyone exposed to it.

You know Alcoa (AA), the mega-producer of aluminum founded by legendary entrepreneur Andrew Mellon. What you may not know is that, when the company realized it wasn’t just the largest aluminum producer in the country — but also the largest producer of fluoride waste materialsthe narrative changed forever.

Mellon, being the renegade businessman he was, understood that instead of simply dumping this waste product …

He could replace the disposal expense with vast profits.

So, on Sept. 29, 1939, Alcoa sought out and "heavily funded" scientist Gerald J. Cox.

Cox began fluoridating rats in his lab and mysteriously concluding that "fluoride reduces cavities" … though he could not provide proof to back up his claim.

A very important note here …

At the time, Andrew Mellon held the position of the Secretary of the Treasury. And the Treasury holds direct jurisdiction over the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS).

Further, in 1944, Mellon appointed Oscar Ewing as head of the department.

Ewing was one of the top executives at Mellon’s Alcoa, where his salary was upward of $10 million in today’s dollars.

Mellon and Ewing set themselves up in a position to take over the policies of the Public Health Service.

Under Ewing’s watch, a national fluoridation campaign rapidly materialized — spearheaded by the USPHS.

Ewing didn’t take long to choose Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, as his PR man for the campaign.

Using classical Freudian principles, Bernays maintained that a well-oiled propaganda machine could make the public believe practically anything …

Even the exact opposite of what had been already proven by all existing scientific research.

Again, I urge you to read the full story here.

Still to this day, fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an "unapproved drug."

Documented health risks of fluoride consumption include:

 Fluoride can damage the brain, according to the National Research Council (NRC). Studies by the EPA show fluoridated water to cause dementia-like effects and lowering of the IQ.

 Fluoride damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility. (N.J. Chinoy and M.V. Narayana, 1994)

 Fluoride negatively affects thyroid function. In the Ukraine, P.P. Bachinskii found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.

 Fluoride causes symptoms of arthritis. Skeletal fluorosis (a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease) mimic the symptoms of arthritis.

 Fluoride damages bone. An early fluoridation trial (Newburgh-Kingston 1945-’55) revealed a twofold increase in bone defects among children in the fluoridated community. Hundreds of studies are shown with direct correlations between fluoride use and osteoporosis.

 It can age you faster. Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 part fluoride per million parts water (ppm) concentration could disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can’t repair damaged cells, we get old faster!

The world’s oldest and most-prestigious medical journal, The Lancet, recently classified fluoride as a neurotoxin. This puts fluoride in the same category as arsenic, lead and mercury.

A neurotoxin is a substance that inhibits the functions of neurons.

Basically, neurons are cells that transport different types of information throughout the brain and allow it to function properly.

One of the main concerns within the report: the effects neurotoxins have when passed down from a mother to an unborn child.

Researchers noted that brain disorders now affect 10%-15% of all births. And now, prevalence rates of Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder are increasing every year.

Brain disorders — including ADHD, dyslexia and other cognitive impairments — now affect millions of children worldwide. It’s being called a "pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity."

Today, I wanted to share with you another new finding that links fluoride consumption to adverse health effects.

A study published in the Journal of Water and Health examined links between water fluoridation and Type 2 diabetes, one of the fastest-growing health epidemics in America. Incidence rates have nearly quadrupled in the past 32 years, and show no signs of stopping.

According to this study, fluoridation with sodium fluoride could be a contributing factor to diabetes rates in the United States. This chemical is a known preservative of blood glucose.

Related story: How Cinnamon Can Control Your Blood Sugar

The author of the paper is Kyle Fluegge. He serves as a health economist in the Division of Disease Control for the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and as co-director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Cleveland, Ohio.

In the study, Fluegge used mathematical models to analyze publicly available data on fluoride water levels and diabetes incidence and prevalence rates across 22 states.

Two sets of regression analyses suggested that supplemental water fluoridation was significantly associated with increases in diabetes between 2005 and 2010.

Type 2 diabetes is a life-altering disease. One that often leads to other health complications like …

 Heart and blood vessel disease

 Nerve damage

 Kidney damage

 Eye damage

 Hearing impairment

 Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.

There are just too many links between fluoride and adverse health effects for the government to ignore any longer.

Cities have launched campaigns for years to remove the chemical from their water supplies, to varying degrees of success.

Such initiatives are often controversial and emotionally charged because of the reputation fluoride still enjoys among mainstream dentistry practitioners and the money it puts in the pockets of mega-conglomerates and politicians.

We would love to know if you’re still using fluoride-containing toothpaste, and how your city treats the water supply. Leave us a comment with your feedback.

That’s all for today.

Happy and healthy investing,

Brad Hoppmann

P.S. Something else to ponder: The dental industry and our government have universally recommended daily flossing for optimal gum health. But recently, the government acknowledged that flossing had not been researched like it should have been.

Your thoughts on “Fluoride could be giving you diabetes”

  1. Brad,
    I’m so glad that you cover such important health issues, especially also those that are controversial. The science on fluoride is very clear – it’s a toxin, and does certainly not belong in our water supply. It’s like being forced to consume a drug – where is our medical freedom? By the way, did you know fluoride was used in the concentration camps during WW-II to subdue the prisoners and make them more docile? – I used fluoridated toothpaste as a child and young adult (before knowing any better), and had cavities all the time. When I started using fluoride-free toothpaste, and drinking only filtered water, my cavities stopped. There are not many filters that get rid of fluoride – regular carbon-based filters don’t do the job. The best one (only safe one) I found is reverse osmosis. Again, thanks for making your subscribers aware of these issues.

    1. Forced-fluoridation started in Grand Rapids, Michigan on January 25, 1945. The thing about fluoride being used in concentration camps during World War II is a myth. The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson is a good book on the history of forced-fluoridation.

    2. Dr. Alexander Schuster – Where is your evidence that ” fluoride was used in the concentration camps during WW-II to subdue the prisoners and make them more docile?” I have found absolutely no legitimate supporting evidence and quite a bit of evidence showing this is yet another fabricated conspiracy theory.

      1. Mr. Johnson, I believe you have just reached the nadir in the use of “conspiracy theory” terminology.

        Whether you are right or wrong, you have just shouted the term whenever you don’t want to argue a point. The term has now reached the lowest point possible, and hopefully will never be able to recover. But I do have to ask: What would qualify for you as “legitimate supporting evidence” to refute your claim? Has anyone conducted a scientific study meant to expose exactly what you are claiming they didn’t reveal?

        It’s possible that there is a direct correlation, but I can’t reach any such conclusion from the original article. I also can’t support any of your claims that anyone claiming this is spreading a conspiracy theory. I do see that you have written (in a different response) that the Fluegge study doesn’t prove what the article alleges it does prove, but all that does is show that it should not be the ultimate source to rely upon. But this silly name-calling doesn’t make any sense. if the hypothesis that the health claims against Fluoride have not been properly tested is true, then I blame the scientists for looking at the wrong thing to test against. Or the people paying for the research.

        The place I won’t go is to just say that the claims made in the article are some kind of conspiracy. The lack of irrefutable evidence does not make a claim false; it could just mean that the claim hasn’t been properly tested.

        1. Kevin Beck – The specific claim made by Alexander Schuster was that, “fluoride was used in the concentration camps during WW-II to subdue the prisoners and make them more docile?”

          This unsupported claim is frequently used as part of the strategy to try and discredit drinking water fluoridation and generate fear of the practice by linking it with all sorts of horrific consequences and situations – Nazi death camps, rat poison, lowered IQ, cancer, “big money”, etc., etc. All of these unsupported claims comprise the anti-F propaganda.

          Those making such claims must provide reliable, legitimate evidence – otherwise they are nothing more than fabricated opinions. I was requesting evidence of that specific Nazi claim, because Schuster simply tossed it out as fact to be accepted as true because he made the claim.

          You can choose to call this disinformation strategy something other than a conspiracy theory — it doesn’t really matter — the claims are false until legitimate evidence is provided to support them.

  2. as a scientist, I have always defended fluoride because of the immense benefit to dental integrity. Your research is provocative and I will continue your investigation because of the many elements of risk.


    1. Hi Tony –

      As a scientist, you are correct to follow the evidence and defend fluoride – the benefits to “dental integrity” are very important. This article – both the diabetes claims and the others listed – are not supported by the overwhelming majority of evidence.

      I addressed the specific problems with Fluegge’s diabetes study in another comment, but that paper actually concludes, “only fluorosilicic acid [used in 75% of water treatment plants] was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes”

      Keep up your research, but don’t depend on anti-F sites to provide impartial interpretations of the available evidence.

      1. Randy is correct. Sodium fluoride is largely driving the positive association between fluoridation and population level diabetes outcomes. Fluorosilicic acid appears to be protective from diabetes although potentially presents other risks apart from diabetes. Further research is needed.

        I am not anti fluoride or activist for one position or another. I am happy to hear how you would improve or change my study. You should contact me to debate the issues you have with it.

        1. Hi Kyle – I will endeavor to contact you, but my primary complaints are not with your paper. My concerns are threefold.

          The first issue I have is with the Case Western Reserve University news release. The title and subtitle made a general and completely misleading statement that “fluoride consumption was linked to diabetes”. In fact, only a subset of fluoride additives was positively associated with diabetes.

          Second, the news release apparently made a false statement that, “The additives linked to diabetes in the analyses included sodium fluoride and sodium fluorosilicate.” From my reading of your paper, sodium fluorosilicate was, if anything, slightly protective of diabetes.

          You might want to contact the university and have them revise the news release so it provides an accurate representation of your study.

          My main concern, however, is that the anti-fluoridation activists (as well as all other references I have observed) have seized on the flawed news article, have (as usual) completely failed to read your actual paper, and have attempted to use your study to justify their irrational fears of fluoridation.

          Since sodium fluoride is used in fewer than 10% of water treatment plants — and those are generally smaller facilities — most people (around 75%) drink water fluoridated with fluorosilicic acid. So, the news release headlines should have read, “Study shows that the majority of individuals who drink fluoridated water receive protection from diabetes”

  3. Hello Brad, thank you for the information about fluoride. I have been a health watcher for many years and wanted to bring this to your attention. As you mentioned, dentists like fluoride for their own reasons. The last several times I have been to my dentist for a cleaning, I have been promoted EVERY TIME, to use a pumped up toothpaste with mega fluoride content because they are saying for adults over 60years, need to build calcium to protect their teeth and this toothpaste will do that. Hummm…..fluoride causing mental deficiencews, eg. Alzheimer, dementia…..and does not build calcium for your teeth. Seems there is another agenda out there. What will they think of next?

    1. I suggest you sack your dentist and find one who does not support forced-fluoridation and does not promote fluoride use in general.

    2. Not to mention that the calcium in brings to teeth gets drawn out of bones, making them more prone to breakage. Lots of money in those artificial hips that only last a few years each!

  4. So are you saying that fluoride does not decrease the incidence of cavities? It supposedly does, by replacing the hydroxy group in the apatite in our teeth with fluoride, which makes the teeth harder and more resistent to decay. Or so we have been told. Is this all BS?
    In any event, we use fluoride free toothpaste and filter our drinking water with a reverse osmosis filter.

    1. Henry – To answer your question, “Is this all BS?” – No, your description of the action of fluoride ions on the teeth is accurate.

      The overwhelming majority of legitimate scientific evidence continues to support the conclusion that community water fluoridation, like the other public water treatment processes (disinfection, pH adjustment, corrosion control and coagulation/flocculation) improve and protect the health of citizens.

      Fluoridation opponents can only support their opinions by digging through the entire body of scientific evidence to locate the relative few papers that have the conclusions they require. They also routinely edit and distort conclusions of legitimate scientific research (as demonstrated by Brad Hoppmann’s article) to make it appear the study supported their propaganda when it did not.

      Fluoridation opponents are unable to provide any reasonable explanations for why, if their alleged ‘evidence’ is legitimate and accurate, they have been completely unable to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective in over 70 years of trying. The majority of scientific and health experts have examined the entire body of evidence dealing with fluoridation and rejected the opinions of fluoridation opponents.

  5. In July of 2015. it was discovered that I got type 2 diabetes, By the end of the July month. I was given a prescription for the Metformin, I stated with the ADA diet and followed it completely for several weeks but was unable to get my blood sugar below 140, Without results to how for my hard work. I really panicked and called my doctor. His response?? Deal with it yourself, I started to feel that something wasn’t right and do my own research, Then I found Lisa’s great blog (google ” HOW I FREED MYSELF FROM THE DIABETES ” ) .. I read it from cover to cover and I started with the diet and by the next morning. my blood sugar was 100, Since then. I get a fasting reading between the mid 70s and 80s, My doctor was very surprised at the results that. the next week. he took me off the Metformin drug, I lost 30 pounds in my first month and lost more than 6 inches off my waist and I’m able to work out twice a day while still having lots of energy. The truth is that we can get off the drugs and help myself by trying natural methods…..

  6. The dental INDUSTRY will never deny fluoride is anything except the best solution to dental hygiene. To admit that fluoride is a problem would be an admission that they have been wrong and have been promoting a fraud. It will never happen.

  7. Brad Hoppmann – Since the title of your article is “Fluoride could be giving you diabetes” I thought I would address that specific issue, although there are similar distortions and misrepresentations of evidence regarding the other claims of alleged harm caused by drinking optimally fluoridated water.

    Did you actually read Fluegge’s paper, or did you just read the news releases that have been distributed by Case Western Reserve University and various anti-F groups and assume the title and claims were accurate?

    The problem with your claim, which you would have discovered had you read and understood the actual paper, is that Fluegge’s study actually concluded that, “Among the three fluoridation chemicals used in this data set (sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate), only fluorosilicic acid was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes.” and “Sodium fluoride produced significantly positive associations with incidence (β= 0.93, P< 0.001) and prevalence (β= 0.76, P< 0.001), whereas fluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate produced significantly negative associations respectively (fluorosilicic acid: β= –0.72, P< 0.001 and β= –0.54, P= 0.002; sodium fluorosilicate: β= – 0.55, P= 0.05 and β= –0.49, P= 0.02)."

    What that means is that ONLY sodium fluoride added to drinking water was linked to an increase in diabetes.

    According to Fluegge’s paper then, natural fluoride "is significantly protective" and "only fluorosilicic acid was significantly and robustly associated with decreases in incidence and prevalence of diabetes"

    So, the actual conclusions of Fluegge’s study are that the most commonly added fluoridation chemical, fluorosilicic acid (used in 75% of water treatment plants), actually protects against diabetes. Only 7% of treatment plants use sodium fluoride (the only additive linked to an increase in diabetes). NaF is generally only used in smaller treatment plants, so most individuals will drink water protected with fluorosilicic acid.

    Consequently, this paper, if it is to be believed, actually supports community water fluoridation as protecting against diabetes – not causing it.

    Those who support fluoridation, however, are not likely to use Fluegge’s paper to confirm their position for two reasons that never seem to bother fluoridation opponents (FOs).
    1) It is a single paper and would require several quality supporting studies before anyone would take the conclusions seriously.
    2) It appears to be a very poorly constructed and executed study with conclusions that don’t make a lot of sense, because fluoride ions from different sources are identical in their behavior and, regardless of source, fluoride ions in tap water are completely dissociated – there is none of the original source compounds remaining – natural or added.

    1. You lot are the ultimate hypocrites. The fact is you can’t cite a single good quality original research study which indicates that taking fluoridated water is anything but harmful and useless.

      1. Dan Germouse – Hypocrites?? Fluoridation supporters have the consensus of scientific and health experts to support their claims.

        See the specific references elsewhere, or you can review dozens here:

        Fluoridation opponents (FOs) have been unable to provide sufficient legitimate evidence to prove their opinions and change the scientific consensus. Specific claims employed by FOs of alleged harm caused by fluoridation have been clearly demonstrated to be fabricated or distortions of actual conclusions, as demonstrated by this claim that drinking fluoridated water causes diabetes.

    2. This a great article as it tells the truth about the history of this medical fraud known as fluoridation. It is just another example of the way governments are controlled by big corporations who will do anything to make a profit no matter who gets hurt. The medical fact is fluoridation causes the disease dental fluorosis which is a precursor for more serious conditions such as hyperthyroidism, skeletal fluorosis cardiovascular disease just to name a few,

    3. Only Forced Fluoridation Fanatics (FFFs) want whole populations to add extra amounts of a cumulative toxin to their water, food, beverages and bloodstreams, without consent, for a lifetime.
      People for Safe Water (PFSWs) just want safe water, food, beverages and bloodstreams.
      Any healthcare treatment that gets into my bloodstream should be my decision and mine alone.
      Randy can eat and drink all the fluoride he wants, but don’t tell me fluoride should be forced into my bloodstream because he wants it in his bloodstream.
      What great arrogance by FFFs.

      1. Coln Varian – Fluoridation is no more “healthcare treatment” than is drinking water disinfection. Both water treatment processes add poisonous substances to water to improve the health of the community. Disinfection also creates toxic disinfection byproducts that everyone ingests (or breaths) without their permission. FOs apparently have no concept that the benefits of both of these water treatment processes (and others requiring the addition of toxic chemicals) are far greater than any risks.

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

        All fluoridation opponents have the freedom to choose any of several methods to remove fluoride ions from their water – they do not have the right to insist that others join them in their fantasy world. No one is telling Colin that “fluoride should be forced into my bloodstream.”

        If I decided I didn’t like to be “force fed” toxic disinfection byproducts in my drinking water would I have the right to insist that water not be disinfected because there was some risk of cancer or other health problems? Of course not – with both water treatment methods, fluoridation and disinfection, chemicals are added to benefit the health of citizens, and the proven benefits are far greater than any risks.

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

  8. I have been avoiding fluoridated products for years; I think I first learned about it from Dr. Mercola. I took a few of the courses in water treatment offered by the local community college. I was shocked to hear that many of the students studying to work in water treatment plants believe that fluoridation is good and makes water better for you. I also took a nutrition course and was again shocked to learn that the government considers fluoride a necessary trace mineral. Fortunately the teachers of both course knew better but they did not emphasize the error (maybe to stay out of trouble).
    My conclusion: the government has successfully brainwashed the public, teaching people to want poisoned water!

  9. Despite the fact the Fluegge titled his report published in the Journal of Water and Health, “Community water fluoridation predicts increase in age-adjusted incidence and prevalence of diabetes in 22 states from 2005 and 2010,” fluoridationists are trying to spin it to claim it proved the opposite and intimidate that it is the only item of its type.

    Yet, there is science going back to at least the 1950s confirming that fluoride has an impact on glucose metabolism and calcium metabolism and that those with inadequate nutrition or health issues are more likely to suffer adverse health impacts from the consumption of fluoridated food or drink. Plus there is no question that fluoride, even in low doses, inhibits enzymes, disrupts endocrine function and worsens inflammatory conditions. As an added bonus, fluoride increase the absorption of lead into brain, body, and bone.

    For more scientific citations, most of which are from this century, see this 2016 letter to the American Thyroid Association signed by 3 doctors, a dentist, a scientist and lawyer: http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf

    1. KSpencer – Please let me know specifically where, “fluoridationists are trying to spin [Fluegge’s study] to claim it proved the opposite.” I will go to those comment sections and argue as vigorously against those claims as I do against fluoridation opponents attempting to use the inaccurate news summary of this study to try and prove that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes diabetes.

      Provide citations and specific quotes from legitimate scientific studies to prove your claims that drinking optimally fluoridated water causes any of the health problems you list.

      A letter to the ATA signed by 3 doctors, a dentist, a scientist and lawyer constitutes proof of nothing.

  10. Mr. Johnson is unfortunately dwelling on the secondary results of the study. These are important details, but the main association is the milligram measure of fluoride concentration. Even with the heterogeneity in the chemicals used (one which is relatively protective), this measure positively predicted diabetes outcomes at a statistically significant level of association. The benefits mr. Johnson prescribes to fluorosilicic acid are not enough to overcome this association. It is also not helpful to proclaim the benefits of fluorosilicic acid when calcium fluoride would likely be an equally effective alternative.

    Mr. Johnson is cherry picking the data presented. This is not helpful for those who will like a full assessment of the attributes, both positive and negative, of community water fluoridation.

    1. Hi Kyle –

      As I noted in my reply to your other comment, my arguments are not particularly with your paper – it is with the way it has been presented by the Case Western Reserve University news release and picked up and used by fluoridation opponents to demonize fluoridation.

      I understand your study has many layers, but when your study is used by anti-F activists to try and demonstrate harmful effects of fluoridation, it is important that boundaries and limitations of the study also be noted instead of the misleading statement Brad made in this article, “Two sets of regression analyses suggested that supplemental water fluoridation was significantly associated with increases in diabetes between 2005 and 2010.” That is irresponsible.

  11. Randy and Tony,

    Putting fluoride in the water supply is medicating without the public’s consent. The fluoride types being dumped in public water supplies are industrial waste and highly toxic. They are not natural forms of the element. No science is needed to prove that this practice is reckless and dangerous and needs to stop.

    This stuff is poison, but it is okay to put it in the water? Same thing with mercury. Highly toxic, but it is okay to embed it in teeth? Just shows how badly people are brainwashed.

    ADA only recommends topical applications. It does not support ingesting fluoride.

    If someone wants to get a treatment at a dentist or use toothpaste with fluoride, they can do that. No need to expose everyone to it. There’s enough evidence out there that it is not effective and does more harm than good.

    Putting fluoride in the water only benefits the aluminum and fertilizer industries by turning their toxic waste from a disposal expense to a profit center. If people want that in their water, they will sell them some.

  12. As another scientist (chemistry, Ph.D.) I don’t believe the connection between flouride and diabetes. I believe the diabetes epidemic has been brought on by the low-fat diet (which basically means a high-carbohydrate diet). Diabetes is all about processing carbohydrates. I can’t even find a place along the biochemical pathways where fluoride plays a part.

    1. You obviously haven’t looked very hard. You can find that information in the 2006 US National Research Council report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards, or via the Fluoride Action Network website.

      1. Dan Germouse – Your continual reference to the 2006 NRC report as an alleged document that proves there are any harmful health effects of drinking optimally fluoridated water is completely disingenuous for several reasons:

        First, the report was not about community water fluoridation. The report states, “It is important to make the distinction that EPA’s standards are guidelines for restricting the amount of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water; they are not recommendations about the practice of adding fluoride to public drinking-water systems.”

        Second, and most important, the ONLY reasons provided in the report for lowering the MCL were extremely specific. The report states, “Lowering the MCLG will prevent children from developing severe enamel fluorosis and will reduce the lifetime accumulation of fluoride into bone that the majority of the committee concluded is likely to put individuals at increased risk of bone fracture and possibly skeletal fluorosis, which are particular concerns for subpopulations that are prone to accumulating fluoride in their bone.”

        No other potential health effects were listed for those who drink water with levels of fluoride ions nearly six times higher than found in water that is optimally fluoridated.

        If there were other legitimate health concerns of water containing 4.0 ppm fluoride ions, the committee would have been obligated to report them – and most certainly would have, considering there were three dedicated fluoridation opponents on the committee.

        Consequently, you cannot make any claims about harmful effects of drinking optimally fluoridated water and use the 2006 NRC report to support them.

        1. Randy, everything you have written on this page and elsewhere just demonstrates that you are trying very hard to be extremely stupid. Nobody is accidentally that stupid.

          1. Dan Germouse – Let me ask you a question.

            What do you call those who continually demonstrate they have no understanding of science, who make claims that are completely contrary to the scientific consensus, who provide absolutely no specific citations to legitimate research that support those claims, and who distort and edit results of studies to create “conclusions” that are completely different than those presented by the authors?

  13. Brad, it is my understanding that FDA hasn’t approved fluoride, because they don’t have authority over it. The 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act gave regulatory oversight of public drinking water to the EPA. The FDA can only ensure that the quality standards for bottled water are compatible with EPA standards for tap water. Moreover, the EPA has not approved or disapproved the use of fluoride in water. Instead, they have left the decision to fluoridate water supplies to either the individual states or local municipalities. The only thing the EPA has mandated is the maximum level of fluoride in drinking water; it cannot exceed 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L).

    Here is a review of fluoride in drinking water by the prestigious National Academy of Sciences Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology:


    Most, if not all, of the concerns you have described appear to address fluoride levels greater than 4 mg/L. Furthermore, some of results were considered inconclusive and require more study. In addition, because some of the studies appeared to be not well designed, the results and conclusions may be suspect.

    Regardless, one of the conclusions of the review was the following:
    “In light of the collective evidence on various health end points and total exposure to fluoride, the committee concludes that EPA’s MCLG of 4 mg/L should be lowered.”

    1. That review by the National Research Council, which is part of the National Academy of Sciences, was published in 2006. 10 years later, the EPA has still not acted on the recommendation to lower the maximum contaminant level goal for fluoride in drinking water because it is corrupt. The FDA does have authority over fluoride tablets and drops, and has not approved them for human consumption.

  14. You do your reputation no favors, and are of little help to your readers drawing categoric and simplistic conclusions from highly complex and contentious research. You make it all too easy for people who can’t control their eating and would do anything to avoid walking a block to scapegoat easy targets.

  15. Brad, I read the comments with interest. Most seem to miss the point. When I go to the faucet to get a glass of water I want WATER, not chemicals. Those who want fluoride can get it in other products. It is unconscionable that the government forces chemical consumption on us when it does nothing to improve the quality or safety of our water.

    I don’t care WHAT the studies show. I don’t want Fluoride in my water. I am charged for it when they add it and I’m charged when I pay to take it out. It is wrong. Damn the studies. Damn this control freak government.

    1. Allen, should we also provide non-chlorinated “natural” water? Where do you draw the line and, more importantly, what rules do you use to determine where that line is drawn?

      1. Ozone or ultraviolet treatment may be a better option than chlorination. Regardless, there are some important differences between chlorination and fluoridation of water. Chlorine is used to treat water, not the human body, so you can filter out the chlorine and still have sterile water. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications dumped into public water supplies. Chlorine serves a purpose, which is to kill living organisms in the water, unlike fluoride in water, which is good for nothing. Chlorine does not accumulate in the human body, whereas approximately 50% of ingested fluoride is stored in calcium-rich tissues such as bones, teeth, and the pineal gland (in the brain), with serious health implications. For babies that figure is up to 90%, and babies have been identified as a group at higher risk of fluoride neurotoxicity. We know that the fluoride doses which people are being chronically exposed to are toxic because they commonly cause dental fluorosis, which is a toxic effect. Once the permanent teeth have erupted the risk of dental fluorosis has passed, but fluoride continues to accumulate in the body. Chlorine is also much easier to filter out than fluoride. Reverse osmosis filters cost about $300 or more (in Australia), and can’t be used as shower filters. Sterilisation of water may be a necessary evil, but forced-fluoridation is just evil.

        1. Dan Germouse – The risks, benefits and costs of all water treatment methods should be examined and implemented as conditions require.

          You seem not to understand the goals of public health programs.

          Claims that fluoridation is medication is an illusion fabricated to provide yet another imaginary reason to oppose fluoridation

          Disinfection of public water, as well as other water treatment processes, most certainly change “the physical health of water drinkers.”

          1) If water were not disinfected those who drank it would be at higher risk of poor physical health if the water contained pathogens.
          2) If the pH of water was not adjusted those with sodium hydroxide (used in drain cleaners) or other toxic chemicl (at high exposure levels), those who drank it would be at higher risk of poor physical health if the water were excessively acidic and thus corrosive – think Flint, Michigan.
          3) If flocculation and coagulation chemicals were not used those who drank the treated water would be at higher risk of poor physical health because of unremoved contaminants.
          4) If water were not fluoridated to optimal levels those who drank it would be at higher risk of poor dental health – and other related health problems.

          Public health programs are designed to improve physical health – how they work is irrelevant.

          Fluoride ions are not absorbed by the skin, and thus do not been to be removed from shower/bath water even if you have an irrational fear of drinking fluoridated water.

  16. I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.

    It is unlikely to just be a coincidence that the US, Australia, and Ireland, which have had high rates of forced-fluoridation for decades, also have high rates of joint problems, and poor health outcomes in general.

    1. Dan Germouse – You make completely unsubstantiated claims that imply a correlation between fluoridation and, “high rates of joint problems, and poor health outcomes in general.” You provide no evidence of that fabricated opinion because there is none.

      Cite legitimate scientific studies and provide specific quotes to support each claim – then there will be actual evidence – instead of wild flights of imagination – that can be discussed.

  17. I have tried to avoid fluoride toothpaste off and on over the last 20 to 25 years yet still ended up with a low thyroid problem. We have our own well so do not drink fluoridated water. About 4 months ago I started making my own toothpaste with 2 tablespoons coconut oil, 1 tablespoon baking soda, dash of sea salt, and 1/2 teaspoon cinnamon. Because of our schedule and dental insurance timing it had been 10 months since my last dental cleaning. My hygienist hardly had to remove tarter buildup and said my gums looked very healthy. Normally she has to work much harder even when I have my teeth cleaned every 6 months. When I have time, I also swish the coconut oil solution in my mouth for several minutes so it also serves as a good mouthwash. It is nice to have a reasonable solution to all the chemicals in commercial toothpaste and mouth wash. Hopefully it can help reverse the hypothyroidism.

  18. Our institutions today have fallen to the level of crack whores in their efforts to amass wealth or hold power. Participating in medical care has now been called the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. Alcoa could well be following in the footsteps of people pushing Statins, cholesterol lowering drugs, chemotherapy and so on. In our culture, if flourides are a damaging scam it is simply consistent with many other mefical and business atrocities.

  19. So sick of the standard response by those supporting fluoridation, that all of the “legitimate” science supports the safety of fluoridation. This is a blatant lie. It is also a pathetic intimidation tactic that seeks to make people feel scared of appearing stupid or ignorant. I guess the only “legitimate” scientists are the ones that support fluoridation. I suppose that all of the scientists around the world whose research has shown the extremely detrimental effects of fluoride are the stupid scientists. The companies who sell this poison to water treatment facilities are running scared, because dozens of countries around the world are banning water fluoridation, including almost all of the Western European countries. The US is lagging far behind because so many of our scientists are as bought-and-paid-for as our politicians. Thank you Mr. Hoppmann for using your platform to educate and inform. We must all do what we can to expose the truth. Since I do not have a platform like a widely circulated newsletter, I let my money do the talking by donating to groups like the Fluoride Action Network.

Comments are closed.

Brad Hoppmann originally grew up in Florida, but has lived in Baltimore, Charlotte and New York as well throughout his career. Always an athlete, he played varsity football and water polo at the University of Florida and received All-SEC/SCC honors.