Medical Journal Designates Fluoride as Neurotoxin

by Dr. Edward Group DC, NP, DACBN, DCBCN, DABFM Published on , Last Updated on
toothpaste-on-toothbrush

Fluoridation, the process of adding fluoride to public water supplies in an effort to prevent cavities, has courted controversy since its introduction in the US during the 1940s. Now, the prestigious medical journal The Lancet has published a report that supports what opponents of fluoride have long been arguing. In essence, the journal article pointed to the fact that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.

Fluoride: A Dangerous Neurotoxin

The peer-reviewed report, which builds off a 2006 study that looked at five potential neurotoxins, now adds fluoride to the list of harmful environmental pollutants. [1] In fact, fluoride is listed alongside such well-known hazards as lead, mercury, and arsenic. Developmental neurotoxins at high enough levels can cause developmental disorders and are particularly hazardous to fetuses and young children whose brains are still developing. Dr. Philippe Grandjean and Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, the authors of the study, are advocating for a global prevention strategy to control what they call a “pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.” They also believe that there are still undiscovered industrial neurotoxins and state that chemicals that have not been tested for neurotoxicity should not automatically be presumed safe for brain development.

Other Concerns

In addition to the fluoride warnings published in the journal, a recent meta-analysis from Harvard found a correlation between fluoridated water and low IQ scores in children who grew up in the most fluoridated areas. Other studies have linked fluoridation to certain types of cancer. Again, these are mere correlations, but they are consistently strong and warrant further investigation. Mandatory fluoridation has been banned in many countries across the world, including most of Europe, where the addition of chemicals to the public water supply is generally viewed as unethical, especially when there is no significant health benefits. However, fluoride is still commonly added to the public water supplies of most of North America.

What Can You Do?

A high-quality water filter installed in your home can help eliminate, or at least reduce, the amount of fluoride you and your family are exposed to on a daily basis. Also, write a letter to your local government officials relaying your concerns over the fluoridation of the public water supply. Educate yourself first to see if your city’s water is fluoridated.

If you’re looking for more information about the dangers of fluoride, check out the documentary, Fluoride: Poison on Tap. It really explains the magnitude of the fluoride situation and I was even fortunate enough to be a part of it.

References:

  1. Dr. Philippe Grandjean, MD, Philip J. Landrigan, MD. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 3, Pages 330-338, March 2014. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3.

†Results may vary. Information and statements made are for education purposes and are not intended to replace the advice of your doctor. Global Healing Center does not dispense medical advice, prescribe, or diagnose illness. The views and nutritional advice expressed by Global Healing Center are not intended to be a substitute for conventional medical service. If you have a severe medical condition or health concern, see your physician.

  • Steve Slott

    I challenge Dr. Group to demonstrate his interest in truth and accuracy by approving my comments. If not approved, it will be clear that his interests lie elsewhere.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Still no approval of my comment, Dr. Group? Appears that the presentation of half-truths, and censorship, are your preferred methods of “informing” the public.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Amy G

    great article! another concern with fluoride is that it’s an endrocrine disruptor (source: The National Research Council). the most commonly prescribed medicine in the u.s. and canada is synthroid (a thyroid hormone replacement).

  • Steve Slott

    The 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water was charged to evaluate the adequacy of the EPA primary and secondary MCLs for fluoride, 4.0 ppm and 2.0 ppm respectively, to protect against adverse effects.  The final recommendation of this Committee was for the primary MCL to be lowered from 4.0 ppm.  The sole reasons cited by the Committee for this recommendation were the risk of severe dental fluorosis, bone fracture, and skeletal fluorosis, with chronic ingestion of water with a fluoride content of 4.0 ppm or greater.  Nothing else.  Had this Committee deemed there to be any other concerns of endocrine disruption, or anything else, with fluoride at this level, it would have been responsible for stating so and recommending accordingly.  It did not. 

    Additionally, the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm.  Water is fluoridated at 0.7 ppm. one third the level which the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made no recommendation to lower.

    In March of 2013, Dr. John Doull, Chair of the 2006 NRC Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water made the following statement:

    “I do not believe there is any valid, scientific reason for fearing adverse health conditions from the consumption of water fluoridated at the optimal level”

    —John Doull, MD, PhD, Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council 2006 Committee Report on Fluoride in Drinking Water

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    Dr. Group has presented the half-truth here. Noe let’s look at the whole truth.

    There was nothing new in the brief mention of fluoride in the March, 2014 Lancet article to which he refers. Fluoride has been on the EPA list of neurotoxins for years, along with 150 or so other substances. Also on that list are such commonly ingested substances as aspartame (sweetener), ethanol (beer and other alcoholic beverages), salicylate (aspirin), tetracycline (antibiotic), and caffeine. Fluoride at the optimal level at which water is fluoridated, is no more toxic than any of these other substances at their proper use levels.

    The Harvard study referenced was actually a review of 27 Chinese studies found in obscure Chinese scientific journals, of the effects of high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in the well water of various Chinese, Mongolian, and Iranian village. The concentration of fluoride in these studies was as high as 11.5 ppm. By the admission of the Harvard researchers, these studies had key information missing, used questionable methodologies, and had inadequate controls for confounding factors. These studies were so seriously flawed that the lead researchers, Anna Choi, and Phillippe Grandjean, were led to issue the following statement in September of 2012:

    “–These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”

    –Anna Choi, research scientist in the Department of Environmental Health at HSPH, lead author, and Philippe Grandjean, adjunct professor of environmental health at HSPH, senior author

    As it seems there have been no translations of these studies into English by any reliable, objective source, it is unclear as to whether they had even been peer-reviewed, a basic for credibility of any scientific study. These studies were flawed that nothing could be “concluded” from them.

    A complete refute of Grandjean may be found in the July issue of the Lancet.

    —–Neurodevelopmental toxicity: still more questions than answers
    The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages 647 – 648, July 2014
    Julianna Gelinas,, Myron Allukian

    In an article in “the Atlantic” on March 18, 2014, Dr. Philip Landrigan, co-author of the “Lancet” article with Grandjean, stated:

    “Fluoride is very much a two-edged sword,” Landrigan said. “There’s no question that, at low doses, it’s beneficial.” Flouride has been shown to prevent dental cavities and aid skeletal growth. At higher levels, though, it causes tooth and bone lesions. The epidemiologic studies cited by Grandjean and Landrigan, which came from China, imply that high fluoride exposure has negative effects on brain growth.

    “Are the exposure levels in China comparable to what we have in our drinking water and toothpaste?” I asked.

    “No, they’re probably higher,” Landrigan said. “In some places in China, there are naturally high levels of fluoride in the groundwater, which picks it up because it’s water-soluble.”

    “So your advice isn’t to take it out of our toothpaste?”

    “Not at all,” Landrigan said. “I think it’s very good to have in toothpaste.”

    ——-“The Toxins That Threaten Our Brains,” The Atlantic, March 18, 2014)
    J. Hamblin

    In regard to the unsubstantiated claim by Dr. Group that “Other studies have linked fluoridation to certain types of cancer.” No. The study on which antifluoridationists base cancer claims was simply a doctoral dissertation by Bassin, in which she used a preliminary subset of data to conclude a suggestion of association of fluoridation with osteosarcoma. The larger Harvard study from which she derived this subset found no association of fluoridation with osteosarcoma. Bassin’s findings have never been replicated, and were completely refuted by the lead researcher of that Harvard study, Chester Douglass.

    —–Douglass, C.W. and K. Joshipura, Caution needed in fluoride and osteosarcoma study. Cancer Causes Control, 2006(17): p.481-482

    The fact is that there is overwhelming consensus amongst respected science and healthcare, based on peer-reviewed science, that there is no association of water fluoridation with cancer.

    A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.

    ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982

    • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

    —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
    ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005,

    Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.

    ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999.  Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.

    The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.

    ——-McDonagh M S, et al., Systemic review of water fluoridation. BMJ, 2000. 321.

    A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).

    ——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.

    ——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.

    ——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.

    Steven D. Slott

  • DagobahRider

    So your position is that fluoride is as safe and beneficial as mother’s milk and we should all be happy to have it. On top of that, those of us who don’t want it are misguided fools who need to shut up and take our medicine. Got it.

  • Steve Slott

    Mother’s milk is irrelevant to water fluoridation.

    The safety of fluoride, as with every substance known to man, including plain water, depends on the concentration level. At the minuscule optimal level of 0.7-1.2 ppm at which water is fluoridated, yes, it is safe. Fluoride has existed in water since the beginning of time. We ingest it in water, fluoridated or not. Fluoridation simply raises the existing fluoride up to the optimal level at which maximum dental decay benefit will be obtained, with no adverse effects. In the 69 year history of fluoridation, there have been no proven adverse effects of fluoride at this level. We ingest fluoride anyway, we might as well get the maximum benefit while so doing.

    That you deem yourself to be a “misguided fool” is unfortunate, but there is no medicine involved in fluoridation.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • wombleranger

    Might this be why cancer rates have skyrocketed since the early 20th century, if so how about looking for a connection to alzheimers .

  • wombleranger

    Are you one of the 3 out of 4 dentists who push fluoridation? You can say whatever you like but hard science has and will continue to prove you wrong.

  • Rogoraeck

    Some few years back, there was a TV program in Australia about what is good for you.
    Well we had a known show bimbo advocating strongly, that you shouldn’t buy not fluoridate bottle water because FLUORIDE is good & beneficial to you & your children.
    Bet you that 50% of the population believed this bimbo !

  • Steve Slott

    Rogaraeck

    ……..and the other 50% bought into activist hogwash. How does it feel to be less intelligent than a “bimbo”?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    If you are implying that cancer is associated with fluoridated water, then you should probably listen to the “bimbo”. She obviously has a much better understanding of fluoridation than you.

    There is overwhelming consensus that there is no valid evidence linking water fluoridation to ANY cancer.

    A review of worldwide studies by The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded there was no evidence of an increase in cancer rates associated with fluoride in drinking water.

    ——International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARC Mondographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks of Chemicals to Humans, Volume 27. 1982

    • The San Francisco Department of Public HealthOccupational Health and Environmental Health Section states that within a search of relevant peer reviewed medical literature to September 2005, a total of seven (7) epidemiological studies were discovered, none of which showed a relationship between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma

    —— (Moss et al. 1995, Gelberg et al. 1995, Freni and Gaylor 1992, Grandjean et al. 1992, McGuire et al. 1991, Mahoney et al. 1991, Hrudey et al. 1990).
    ——San Francisco Department of Public Health, Current Scientific Evidence: Water Fluoridation is not associated with osteosarcoma. 2005,

    Three small case control studies of osteosarcoma (McGuire et al 1995, Gelberg et al 1995, Moss et al 1995) have been reviewed by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council in 1999. None of these studies found any evidence of fluoride increasing the risk of osteosarcoma.

    ——-Ahokas, J., et al., Review of water fluoridation and fluoride intake from discretionary fluoride supplements: review for NHMRC. 1999.  Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology and Monash University: Melbourne.

    The York Review (2000), a systematic review of 214 studies of varying quality, found no clear association between fluoridation of water and osteosarcoma.

    ——-McDonagh M S, et al., Systemic review of water fluoridation. BMJ, 2000. 321.

    A study by Hoover et al found no relationship between osteosarcoma and fluoridation. This study is important because of the large numbers involved (125,000 incident cancers, and 2.3 million cancer deaths).

    ——Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    In 2002 the British Medical Research Council agreed that overall, evidence does not suggest that artificially fluoridated water increase the risk of cancer.

    ——-Medical Research Council Working Group, Water fluoridation and health. 2002, Medical Research Council: United Kingdom.

    A review of fluoride by the Scientific Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies published by the European Food Safety Authority in 2005, found no increased risk of cancer from drinking fluoridated water.

    ——European Food Safety Authority, Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Dietetic products, Nutrition and Allergies on a request from the Commission related to the Tolerable Upper Intake Level of Fluoride. The EFSA Journal, 2005. 192: p. 1-65.

    Steven D. Slott

  • Steve Slott

    Please present this “hard science” you claim proves me wrong. Make sure that your “hard science” is valid, peer-reviewed, and properly cited to it’s original sources.

    Failure to produce such “hard science” will be taken as your admission that you obviously have none.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Bas

    Autism. timeline connected to this health improvement ingredient. Reading parents story it come of a sudden. Vaccination one of the suspect. It maby something else.

  • Steve Slott

    If you are claiming that water fluoridation is somehow “connected” to autism, you have absolutely no valid basis for such a ridiculous statement. If you disagree then provide valid, peer-reviewed, scientific evidence to support your claim, properly cited from its original source.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • dan

    Why, Why???? Because the Nazi’s after WW2 came over to continue their cancer, sterilization and death program. Let’s tell it like it is……

  • DagobahRider

    Dr. Steve, it was provided, you just don’t want to accept it. A lot of us aren’t interested in being told to forcibly take our medicine and that’s what happening. When my drinking water is fluoridated without my consent, something bigger than “public health” is the cause. Maybe “public control” is happening, maybe it’s not, but the fact is that this stuff isn’t good in small or big doses.

  • Steve Slott

    If “it was provided” then you shouldn’t have had any problem citing it here to support your unsubstantiated claim that “hard science” proves me wrong. Since you are obviously unable to provide any such “hard science” this will be taken as your admission that you have none, as is typical with uninformed antifluoridationists.

    There is no “medicine” involved in water fluoridation, simply a mineral that has existed in water forever, and no one is telling you to take anything, in regard to this initiative. If you believe that simply because water flows from your faucet that you are somehow “forced” to drink it, this is a problem with your cognitive abilities, not with water fluoridation.

    The officials who oversee the public water system from which you draw your water, do not need your “consent” to authorize additives to that water, as long as they are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

    Please provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence to support your unsubstantiated claim that “the fact is that this stuff isn’t good in small or big doses”. Your failure to provide such evidence will be taken, once again, as your admission that you have none.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • DagobahRider

    Why should I do your homework for you? Fluoride is harmful, a fact recognized by many authorities, including the Lancet. You’re not looking for evidence, you just want to slam your ham shaped fist on the table and force us all believe that fluoride is manna from heaven. Well I’m sorry Steve but I won’t be jumping on that bandwagon today.

  • Steve Slott

    It’s of no concern to me what “bandwagon” onto which you or any other uninformed anbtifluoridationist jump. Your objections are not grounded in science, they are grounded in personal ideology. Therefore, it makes no difference how much valid science is presented, as long as that science disagrees with your ideology, as it always will, you will reject it. Thus, I don’t waste time trying to change the minds of antifluoridationists. it can’t be done. I simply correct the mounds of mnisinformation they constantly regurgitate all over the internet.

    The Lancet article to which you refer was completely refuted in a subsequent issue of the Lancet. There was nothing in the first article that even remotely proves me to wrong, anyway…..a fact of which you would be aware had you even bothered to read the article.

    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422(14)70119-X/fulltext

    Your inability, yet once again, to provide any valid science, whatsoever, which supports your irresponsible claims, is taken as your admission that you have none.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    It’s of no concern to me what “bandwagon” onto which you or any other uninformed antifluoridationists jump. Your objections are not grounded in science, they are grounded in personal ideology. Therefore, it makes no difference how much valid science is presented, as long as that science disagrees with your ideology, as it always will, you will reject it. Thus, I don’t waste time trying to change the minds of antifluoridationists. It can’t be done. I simply correct the mounds of mnisinformation they constantly regurgitate all over the internet.

    There was nothing in the Lancet article, for which you provide no proper citation, that even remotely proves me to wrong…..a fact of which you would be aware had you even bothered to read the article. This article was completely refuted in a subsequent issue of the Lancet:

    —-Neurodevelopmental toxicity: still more questions than answers
    Julianna Gelinas,, Myron Allukian
    The Lancet Neurology, Volume 13, Issue 7, Pages 647 – 648, July 2014

    Your inability, yet once again, to provide any valid science, whatsoever, which supports your irresponsible claims, is taken as your admission that you have none.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • no one

    And your argument is?
    You’ve listed points but have not stated your position or arrived at a conclusion.

  • Steve Slott

    I don’t have an “argument”. I simply correct, with facts and evidence, the mounds of misinformation posted by antifluoridationists.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Rogoraeck

    Activist hogwash?? You are very moderate person. You actually didn’t referred to those 50% as people afflicted with ODD (Opposition Defiance Disorder)
    Or would you say that they are contaminated with stupidity virus??
    Drink Fluoridated Water to your health ! l’chaim !

  • Steve Slott

    Take your pick. Anyone who buys into the unsubstantiated hogwash spewed by antifluoridationists, could be afflicted with ODD, or contaminated with stupidity virus. Hard to tell, but either gives the same result.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Rogoraeck

    Thank you for confirmation.
    Have a nice day! & don’t stop drinking Fluoridated Water

  • Bas

    Not claiming anything. Reading yes. By doing that, other story’s, of parents talking about autism, are connecting to this one. The affected area, the brain, as topic.

  • Steve Slott

    Anecdotes with no valid evedence to support them, are exactly as you state…..stories. If you have any valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that optimally fluoridated water is in any manner a cause of autism, then present it, properly cited from its original source.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    You are citing Mercola?? Now that is truly comical! You might want to research your sources a little better.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Carol Meyer

    HImalayan salt is 25% flouride. Celtic salt is much better in this regard.Dr. Group can you find out how to eliminate Coumadin and replace it with omega 3?

  • Carol Meyer

    Don’t use synthetic thyroid use Thryoid Gold . Synthetic has no thyroid 3 active hormone which t4 is converted into. They are only giving you T4.

  • Jim

    Then keep drinking the kool-aid..

  • jon

    Steve.. Are you okay? You seem to be angry. I see a plethora of your copy pasted arguments here. You continue to rant about how fluoride is not detrimental to human health. Pardon me if i skipped all the articles you posted about the myriad of health benefits of fluoride. I think you are one of the doctors who give facts from half assed scientifc “studies”. You are the anti-antifuoridationist giving mounds of misinformation to people and simply telling them they will be okay. Why not post articles about how to benefit from fluoride instead of the it won’t hurt you mumbo jumbo. Perhaps get a life and stop trolling fluoride.

  • Steve Slott

    Yes, Jon, antifluoridationists have aleays “skipped” the peer-reviewed science presented to them, while believing the meaningless anecdotes, personal opinions, and rhetoric they put forth, is somehow “evidence” to support their position. This is precisely why they are so uninformed on this issue. I always enjoy exposing that fact….so, thank you.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Steve Slott

    “Kool-aid”? No, I don’t particularly like kool-aid. Not sure what is the relevance of kool-aid to the public health initiative of water fluoridation, but I’ve found the antifluoridationist mindset to be so bizarre that I don’t even attempt to make any sense out of such incoherent comments anymore.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • jon

    Sir, how much of this stuff do you consume a day? Are you reaping the “benefits”? I say no. I say the “benefits” are reaping you.

  • Sslott

    My water is fluoridated at 0.7 mg/liter (mg/liter=ppm). Thus, for every liter of water I consume, I ingest 0.7 mg of fluoride. The CDC has estimated that of the total daily intake of fluoride from all sources, 75% comes from water and beverages. I consume an average of 3-4 liters of water and beverages per day. Thus, my total fluoride intake from water and beverages is 2.1-2.8 mg. Given that this comprises 75% of my total fluoride intake from all sources, my total fluoride intake per day is 2.8 mg – 3.7 mg.

    Given that the Institute of Medicine has established the daily upper limit of fluoride intake from all sources to be 10 mg before adverse effects may occur…….I have no concerns with my daily fluoride intake.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • jon

    What about your shower(can you prove it doesn’t absorb into your skin)? toothpaste? Also, does everyone have the same fluoride tolerance? Children drink it too, they are much smaller, obviously. You are being obtuse and looking at this with a flat earth perspective. You are saying every person reacts the same to fluoride. How do you know you piss out every spec of fluoride that goes in. It can occupy areas of the body as it competes with iodine in your system. Couldn’t it possibly build up in your system well over 10mg or whatever your magic number was? The CDC is a FEDERAL AGENCY who does not have the interest of the general population at heart. You my friend are either a troll sent from the CDC or a very very lost and lonely person who relies heavily on government to save them from all of your miseries.

  • jon

    You*

  • Amy G

    i looked at some autism statistics myself and found the only country in europe with an americanized autism rate is ireland, which happens to be the only fluoridated country in europe.

  • jon

    ???

  • jon

    You were wrong and crawled into the fetal position. It was nice debating.

  • Deboramajama

    I think it’s more like Big Business likes to keep selling even after the wars. For example bleach used to be used as a part of a gas to kill. Another example, Agent Orange was used to deforest in Vietnam and now is modified as a weed killer to the public. And we buy it. Bc the sheeple don’t know any better.

  • Lily

    For some people it will not make a difference if you prove something or not. They are just hard headed. It’s just like that professor in the movie Gods Not dead. They don’t want to believe in what’s real and whatgood and what’s bad for you. Fluoride is just bad for you. Just admit it and stop acting brainy.

  • Steve Slott

    Well, maybe if antifluoridationists actually did prove something we could see whether it makes a difference or not. Proof requires valid evidence, however, and they simply are never able to produce any. They, like you, seem to think that valid evidence consists of nothing more than a claim that “fluoride is just bad for you”.

    Produce valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that fluoride at the level which exists in fluoridated water, is indeed “bad for you” and you may have something to discuss. Until you do, you have no argument.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Brian Woodson

    Steve Slott is a below average, hack, dentist from Burtlington North Carolina. Slott is a pseudo scientist who comes strapped with biased pro fluoridation propaganda. Slott’s life long mission is to troll the internet for fluoridation discussions to inject his nonsensical poppycock. Just ignore him and anything he has to say in regards to science and health.

  • Brian Woodson

    Steve Slott is having a difficult time accepting that he is wrong. There is plenty of peer reviewed scientific literature available, regarding the negative effects of water fluoridation. Slott uses his archaic rhetoric (cutting and pasting antiquated studies) in attempt to convince the most feeblest of minds fluoride is good for you. Nice try Steve, nobody is listening.

  • Steve Slott

    Hmmm, did you think nobody would notice that you haven’t provided one single shred of evidence of these phantom “plenty of peer-reviewed scientific literature” you claim exists?

    Always comical how antifluoridationists believe their claim that there are “plenty of studies” constitutes proof of their ridiculous claims.

    So, once again, please provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific studies which support your claims.

    I won’t hold my breath waiting…..

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Brian Woodson

    Yeah Slottt, actually I did expected you to notice because you are the only person still reading/commenting on this thread. LOSER! Nobody obviously cares about your opinions on the health benefits of fluoride.

  • Steve Slott

    Hmm, actually, it seems that you are the only one still “reading/commenting” on this thread, not I. I simply reply when notified that “LOSERS” such as you have commented on a post of mine.

    You still have as yet to provide any of these phantom “studies” you claim exist.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Brian Woodson

    How many disqus accounts do you have Slott?

  • JustSayin.

    Question. The amount of fluoride in our toothpaste is at levels more than sufficient enough to protect our teeth and bones, so why then do we need it in our water as well? Answer. We don’t. And you don’t need peer review articles and/or study analysis to know that.

  • Lil

    Well, I do agree with the people who have concerns about Fluoride in our water supply. For those of you who don’t. I feel you lack…….COMMON SENCE. If it was safe just ask yourself……Why does the back of my toothpaste state, Call the Poison Control Center if accidently swallowed? Why does the back of trucks doors that transport toothpaste completely corrode and need replaced in 1 years time ( my friend’s husband who works with the FDA told me this in private). And also, if fluoride actually prevented cavities, Why are so many children still going to dentist with cavities? In this life, we have to take everything we learn with a grain of salt and use our Common Sense to come to the Real Truth on ant subject for that matter. I realized a long time ago that everything I was taught in Nursing School wasn’t all accurate. For an example, I was always taught that salt was bad for your blood pressure. What I found out recently was that statement is true, but only with all White Salt that has been refined. However, unrefined salt ( celtic and himmilaya) are good for you. In 2 months time of doing a particular salt loading protocol by a functional medicine doctor, I now only take 1/2 of my blood pressure pill with great results. And to think that western medicine had me on BP pills since 2007 and I’m sure would of been for the rest of my life if I didn’t question something that bothered me when I used my Common Sense.

  • Ash Geeza

    Hard science ! I bet your a hypocrit bible Basher Who Picks And Choose When To Use Science As an explanatory tool. Flouride is bad for you that’s it. My cousin When Younger Around 4 or 5 use to eat toothpaste thinking it taste good, everytime he’d brush his teeth he eat toothpaste aswell. you should see him now, 20 years on, no information can even go inside his head he’s so dull his vision on life is so blurred. He has been sheep led! He can’t think for himself just like most people, never interested in learning just only referring to what someone’s told him or that he’s seen on telly. So I would say it does have effect on brain development Not hard evidence but an adult wouldn’t just consume toothpaste where as a kid would. Hense the reason why it says children to be occupied by an adult.There’s videos online of what fluoride does to cattle. Guess what it kills. Hitler used in camp to alter mood of the people to Control.
    Final words Dr. Steve do you ever question things yourself ? Or do you only educate yourself out of a book. You seem to be in plagiarism someone who copies and spreads word. You don’t think for yourself you let someone else do it for you. As a doctor or scientist? I think you should have an open mind to have such a title.

  • Ash Geeza

    Also he suffered two broken legs one at 6 years and then at 9 and later arthritis in the Knees By 18, so weakening of bones could be a factor

  • Steve Slott

    Well, if fluoride does negatively affect brain development, then you must have been on a constant diet of it since birth.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

  • Tina DeForge

    I use Westhroid Pure…it is a Natural thyroid hormone and is gluten free.

  • Carson

    ^^The fluoride troll has arrived.^^

  • anor

    The fact of the matter is, the fluoride ion of any ionic compound is dissociated, the F ion is free to interact electrically with any and all cells it comes in contact with until the ion might eventually become absorbed by bones, The F ion has the highest electronegtivity of any single ion, the electric field that is emitted about the ion is so strong it interferes with the replication process of cells, causing mutations leading to cancers and degenerative diseases. I should let you know the active ingredient in Prozac ( aka Fluoxetine) is Fluoride, a neurotoxin.
    any drug which has a fluoride is poison to the body period, no natural hormone contains the fluoride ion or compound. Fluoride exposure like radiation is deadly especially over a lifetime.
    Drink the Koolaid made with fluoridated water if you want,
    but don’t make me drink it .

  • Jim

    I have read that colloidal silver will get rid of cavities, is this true?

  • Colloidal silver might be a tool against some of the organisms that can make your mouth more acidic and rough on your teeth but it wouldn’t be correct to say that colloidal silver will fix an existing cavity.

  • Banner Health

    Shocking insight, there are a lot of concerns with fluoride, but like most potent consistencies it’s best handled in moderation.

  • Danny Lee

    The type of fluoride found in tap water is sodium fluoride which can be toxic in large amounts. The type of fluoride that we know of that is beneficial to dental health is calcium fluoride, which is in our toothpastes, etc.

  • Anime TeeShirts

    It is insanity and that is a shame. It is found in the Pineal Gland and it should not be there. People are dying of cancer and the PG produces one of the most powerful anti-oxidants on the planet… Melatonin. When we are healthy we produce it… when we are not, we begin to die. It is a neuro-toxin and when people drink water they do NOT keep track of how much water they drink before they reach a max limit of FL intake… give me a break. It absolutely shows how it dumbs us down and makes us perfect candidates for pharma and the gov.

  • CiCi

    Steve is looking at this information as a dentist, someone who SELLS fluoride treatments to patients of all ages, and the reimbursements for said treatments are ridiculously lucrative. They don’t care how poisonous it is. The problem with fluoride that he isn’t even addressing is the way it affects the amount of iodine in the body, that which helps to kill off cancer cells, and so many other things, NATURALLY! Once the cardiologists realized more people were dying when they said, “no salt!” and changed their diets back, not just to using “salt” but to AT THE VERY LEAST using IODIZED SALT, SEA SALT, etc…. That will keep us healthy! Bromine/bromide as well as fluoride are poisons to the body, break done iodine as well as so many other things, and all dentists should in good conscience STOP GIVING FLUROIDE TREATMENTS TO MAKE A QUICK AND EASY BUCK! I know this because I am a dental hygienist, graduated in 1981 from a hygiene school with a bachelor’s degree, not a community college! WAKE UP, STEVE. DO THE RIGHT THING.

  • CiCi

    Steve, if you are unaware that the Lancet is a peer reviewed and highly credible publication, then you aren’t even a dentist. I am a hygienist as I said above, and you are selling poison to your patients to make a buck and charge to insurance. PERIOD.

  • CiCi

    Steve, your “small” studies have no merit, looking to make a case for you and other dentists to keep raping the public with billing them for fluoride treatments you know will do them NO GOOD! This is ridiculous. Just stop talking, as you sound uneducated. Hygienists like myself know better.


Top Selling Supplements

Colon Cleanser Oxy-Powder® is the top quality colon cleanser. Promotes optimal colon health and regular bowel activity. Learn More

Liver Cleanse Kit This complete liver cleansing kit is a comprehensive approach to cleansing your liver. Learn More



Get to know Dr. Group

  Our Company

SHOPPING

MY ACCOUNT

QUICK HELP