Can Fluoridated Drinking Water Harm the Body?

By Dr. John Reizer

Editor at

Tap water, from your local municipality, contains sodium fluoride or the chemical, hexafluorosilicic acid. The rationale for placing a fluoridating agent in public drinking water, according to most public health officials, is to lower the number of dental caries within the general population.

For many years, people have been arguing with local and state governments about whether fluoride, in drinking water, can harm the human body. In one corner, there are fluoride advocates pointing to the benefits of fluoridating water supplies. They claim people enjoy fewer cavities because local water companies add fluoride to their product at treatment facilities. In the other corner, outspoken individuals claim fluoride is a toxic substance that causes irreparable harm to human beings.

At the center of this controversy is an important question that proponents of fluoride refuse to address. Why are people being medicated without first having a proper medical evaluation? There are plenty of angry citizens objecting to the outrageous policy of mass medicating the general population.

According to the National Toxicology Program, Fluoride can cause genetic damage and cancer in humans. There is also strong evidence that Fluoride can have damaging effects to the brain. (Chioca LR, et al. (2007). European Journal of Pharmacology Oct 25; [Epub]

David Dees Illustration

But you don’t have to be a medical researcher to know that fluoride is a serious poison. Just pick up a tube of common tooth paste and read the warning message printed on the back of the tube. It reads something like this: “WARNING: Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age. If you accidental­ly swallow more than used for brushing, seek profession­al help or contact a poison control center immediatel­y.”  Perhaps the majority of people, in the United States, have been exposed to fluoride for so long that they have permanent brain damage and are incapable of fighting local, state, and federal government on this most important health issue.

Please take the time to learn more about this poison and how it is directly affecting you and your loved ones every time you drink a glass of water, take a shower, and eat foods that have been cooked or washed in water.

About these ads

26 Responses to “Can Fluoridated Drinking Water Harm the Body?”

  1. Tooth Truth Says:

    Paracelcus said it well way back in the 16th century: “All substances are poison. There are none that are not. The difference between a remedy and a toxin is dosage”. Fluoride at 0.7 PPM is NOT toxic.
    Regarding “mass medication”: No court of last resort has ever ruled fluoridation “mass medication” nor described it a drug. A 2011 case in Port Angeles, WA demonstrates this”
    A lawsuit seeking to stop the use of fluoride in the drinking water in Port Angeles and Forks has been dismissed.

    Jefferson County Superior Court Judge Craddock Verser dismissed the case Friday on the grounds that fluoride cannot be considered a prescription drug when used in a public water supply.

    “Because the FDA does not regulate public drinking water or drinking water additives, it is impossible for plaintiffs to prove that the first requirement for being a [prescription drug] under Washington law is met,” he said.

    Today, 74% of Americans on public water systems enjoy the public health benefit of fluoridation. That is 204 million citizens of this great country.

    • Dr. John Reizer Says:

      Dear Tooth Truth,

      Thank you for commenting on I appreciate your perspective on the article I wrote concerning Fluoride.

      There are many people that have debated this controversial issue. As I wrote in the article, both camps have very strong opinions about why water fluoridation is a good or bad thing. I have, personally, read a lot of research on the topic and have had the unique advantage of studying many courses in the biological sciences. Unfortunately, most individuals have probably not taken the time to review the lengthy studies that have been published on this subject matter.

      If a person was to take an honest look at the large body of research that has been performed by independent scientists, not tied to government agencies, he or she would immediately see that Fluoride is a dangerous poison that can and does adversely affect the overall integrity of a person’s expression of health.

      Contrary to what the great Paracelsus stated in the 16th century, not every substance is a poison. When a human being consumes something, the body reacts to the contents being consumed in one of two ways. It either identifies the consumed product as something that is friendly to the biological system or it identifies the product as something that is a poison. When a person swallows small or large quantities of fluoride, his or her body always identifies the product as a poison!

      Fluoride is a poison no matter how you slice it. It also accumulates within the tissues of the nervous system over time. Because it does, the idea that small dosages are acceptable in the body is absurd! This crap is extremely toxic, and you really shouldn’t kid yourself into thinking otherwise. The ADA (American Dental Association) has been promoting this line of misinformation for the longest time.

      I believe there are zero benefits to be gained by human beings from water fluoridation programs. And yes, it is mass medication of society regardless of a judge’s opinion. The reason the public health agencies are placing fluoride into the water is supposedly to prevent dental caries. The public health police continue to make the ridiculous claim that the product (drug) is a preventive pharmaceutical agent against tooth decay. There has never been any proof whatsoever that this is the case. When you place a chemical in the public water supply for the sole reason of preventing tooth decay, the product should definitely be considered a drug.

      In this case, the judge ruled incorrectly and the decision should be appealed and overruled by a higher court. His opinion was obviously based on biased information originating from research journals that have been heavily influenced by powerful health care unions. These are the same health care unions that are funded by petrochemical companies. They have a vested interest in keeping people’s immune systems weak. They sell more drugs this way. To mass medicate a group of citizens without giving them proper health evaluations, by licensed physicians, is medical negligence at the highest level.

      Your belief that 74% of society is gaining some type of health benefit from being forced to consume poisoned water is disturbing to say the least. In my opinion, this is one of many reasons that so many people are suffering from autoimmune disorders and related cancers in this great country!

      In recent years, numerous municipalities within Europe and the United States have made very good decisions to stop adding fluoride to public water supplies due to new research that continues to demonstrate the physiological dangers that are inherently present for all human beings that consume this poison.

      Dr. John Reizer

      Editor at

      • Tooth Truth Says:

        Fluoridation is a 20th century adaptation of a naturally occurring process. There are many water systems in the U.S. that have naturally occuring fluoride concentrations. And the citizens lucky enough to live in these communities had better teeth. That’s how Dr. Frederick McKay discovered that fluoride in the water was the reason. By the way, is this water “medicated”?
        I am a dentist and was trained in a fluoridated city, and I was somewhat ambivilent about fluoridation, because, guess what, poor people without access to care and lack of education, had greater amounts of cavities. It wasn’t until I moved to a non-fluoridated community that I realized that the sugar-acid challenge threshold or that level when enamel starts breaking down was much lower in a non-fluoridated community.
        While I have raised two daughters to be virtually cavity free in a non-fluoridated community, they enjoyed the benefit of education, prevention, and access to care. Oral hygiene was non-negociable and they took fluoride supplements from birth until they were 13 years old. They are 29 and 25 now, college educated, and happy and productive members of society.
        I could give you many references but here’s one I share often:

        Your reply to me was filled with a conspiracy theory tone (public health police, health care unions funded by petrochemical companies). Quite frankly, John, what a crock!! You obviously don’t trust the CDC either.
        I know that I will not change your opinion, but I am very sure that you are a relative “lone wolf” in your opinions on fluoridation as a poison at any concentration. And virtually every judge in the U.S. that had ruled on fluoridation share similar views that differ from your incorrect conclusions.
        Harvard, Brown, Yale, Columbia, Georgetown, Duke, U. of Chicago, Northwestern, USC, UCLA, UC Berkeley, and Stanford: all are located in long-standing fluoridated communities.

      • Dr. John Reizer Says:

        Hi Doc,

        I could tell right away that I was communicating with a dentist. First, I want to make it perfectly clear that I believe many of the procedures that dentists perform for patients are very important and a benefit to human health. Having written that, let me also write that the use of fluoride and amalgam fillings are definitely not two of the bright spots for your profession.

        Since the topic of our discussion centers on the poison commonly known as fluoride, I will limit my comments to this subject. It is absolutely amazing how many health care professionals are clueless when it comes to fluoride. The first thing that traditional dentists like to do is to begin quoting statements from the CDC and other public health agencies. These agencies cannot and should not be trusted because they are the source of tremendous misinformation. In case you haven’t figured it out yet, this website is not dedicated to glorifying mainstream news sources that cannot be trusted. Such sources cannot be trusted because they have been bought off and are compromised. This is also true in the case of the CDC, FDA, WHO, NIH, and a number of other organizations that you probably have placed a great deal of faith in.

        You call me a conspiracy theorist because I disagree with your premise that fluoride is good for human teeth. I couldn’t care less that you disagree with me. The views that I have are shared by thousands of health care professionals throughout the world. Many of these individuals are dentists and have been practicing for many years. This is not a conspiracy theory, just a conspiracy!

        You want sources, I can rattle off many of them:

        Are all these people conspiracy theorists too? What about this large organization of dentists?

        I can assure you, doc, that my opinion about this subject matter is not a “lone wolf” perspective. Nor is it an incorrect conclusion!

        Dr. John Reizer
        Editor at

      • Tooth Truth Says:

        And you’re a chiropractor and don’t believe in immunizations. I’m glad you live thousands of miles from me an my family.

        There is a Grand Canyon divide between our opinions. And thousands of dentists. Sorry, John, another “crock”.

        Your references reveal the truth about your opinions:

        Fluoridealert??? “Let’s go to the most polluted countries in the world and find studies that have nothing to do with fluoridation, but scare people anyway, Mercola, the snake-oil salesman ??, Osmunson??, Please………….., and the IAOMT?? David Kennedy and Jeff Green. This list of references reminds me of a comment Benjamin Disraeli made to his fellow colleagues in Parliment: “There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics”.

        My last post, John.

      • Dr. John Reizer Says:

        Tooth Truth, you’re so brainwashed that you’re unable to be objective! You will defend your core beliefs about this subject and continue to parrot the same lies over and over again. What does it matter that I am a chiropractor? Do you think the fact that I am a chiropractor changes the toxicity of fluoride? You are funny and predictable. You want to play the chiropractor is a quack card.

        Do you think the poison label on the tube of tooth paste is there for the heck of it? Wake up man! You are supposed to be a health professional. Do some research and stop being so gullible.

        I have spent time in dental seminars and talked with many of your colleagues that disagree, very much, with your conventional dogma!

        You may have consumed more fluoride than you think! You were probably over immunized, too! Let me guess, you fell for that bag of lies also?

        Seriously, you need to stop living in a state of denial. Trying to paint me and the thousands of other health care professionals as “conspiracy nuts” is getting old. How about trying to be objective for a change? Maybe you could take the high road and question some of the propaganda you were taught at dental school? Sometimes the truth hurts. Sometimes the truth causes financial problems. But in this case the truth can help save your patients and that’s what I care about. Maybe you should, too!

        Dr. John Reizer
        Editor at

  2. Dr. Reizer

    Those “references” you listed in your discussion with ToothTruth are not legitimate science. At the very least, real (and referenceable) medical science has sufficient quality to be included in the National Library of Medicine’s database.

    Mercola is really beyond the pale . .he has repeatedly been in trouble with the FDA for making unfounded claims for the various nostroms he sells.

    For a news analysis of Mercola see:

    A huge study in Louisiana showed that community water fluoridation (CWF) prevented 2/3rds of the operations for terrible cavities in little kids. CWF saved 50% of the dental bills for the children.

    see: Water Fluoridation and Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay — Louisiana, 1995-1996. MMMW, 9/03/1999 48(34);753-757

    The Texas legislature commissioned a study of the dental bills saved with fluoridation with similar findings and a recent New York Medicaid study also confirmed the remarkable effect.

    An economic analysis from Colorado found that of all the options available to treat this condition, community water fluoridation was the most cost effective returning 150% in dental bill savings for the money invested in CWF.


    Prev Chronic Dis. 2012 Mar;9:E66. A simulation model for designing effective interventions in early childhood caries. Hirsch GB, et al

    If this were the only benefit from CWF, and it is not, ethical persons should aggressively adovcate for fluoridation.

    • Dr. John Reizer Says:

      Hi Billy Budd,

      Thanks for participating!

      I respect your opinion about the validity of the sources I cited. I disagree that they are not legitimate sources. Any person that disagrees with conventional medical views are ridiculed, attacked, and ostracized from their profession by their peers and colleagues. This is unfortunate, but the truth.

      There are powerful health care unions out there guarding concepts/practices such as fluoridation, immunization, and some others that are considered protected sciences. These ideas are not to be questioned or attacked by anyone at anytime. If they are attacked, the individuals are categorized as quacks.

      Billy, let me tell you the difference between good science and junk science. Good science is funded by petrochemical companies and junk science is not! Independent studies are performed all the time and get swept under the carpet, so to speak. They very rarely see the light of day. When they do see the light of day they are conveniently retracted and the doctor’s credibility attacked.

      We can debate this topic all day and you and the good dentist can cite government study after government study and it doesn’t mean a thing. Those sources cannot be trusted! The agencies and sources you are citing all have ties to pharmaceutical companies.

      You can refer to me as a conspiracy theorist or “lone nutter” but it really doesn’t change the fact that millions of people are getting ill from these practices.

      Even if you take away the sources I cited and label them as unreliable, there are thousands of dentists in the United States calling for the removal of fluoride from tap water. They are also calling for a ban on mercury fillings. I’m not making this stuff up! When you have thousands of dentists calling for actions such as these, there has to be something of substance behind their claims.

      I’ve been a chiropractor for 26 years. If I discovered tomorrow that what I was doing was a detriment to my patients, I’d retire immediately. The practice of chiropractic, from a neuroscience perspective, is so damn logical it’s amazing that it hasn’t been embraced by every health care institution on the planet. I can tell you for certain that it scares the living daylights out of the medical profession. The reason it is attacked and made to look like a less than scientific practice is because it is a threat to the traditional health care paradigm. Because of this fact it is made to look like quackery. It is not! This is not a conspiracy theory…it’s the truth. If the powers that be can do this to an entire profession, it’s easy for them to create sources that will lie about fluoridation and immunization practices.

      Once again, thanks for participating. Because I disagree with you doesn’t mean I don’t respect your opinion!

      Dr. John Reizer
      Editor at

  3. Tooth Truth,

    I think the chiropractor makes more sense than you. It says the tooth paste is a poison. I have never realized this before. I just looked at two tooth pastes in my house and they both of them have poison warnings. What the hell?


    • Dr. John Reizer Says:

      Hi Julio,

      What you have discovered regarding the tubes of toothpaste is accurate. Any toothpaste product that contains a fluoridating agent is extremely toxic. By law, the manufacturers of these products have to place a warning label on the package, or in this case the tube.

      It’s amazing how dense some people really are. It seems the more educated people are, the more gullible they become. No matter how many sources I provide for the dentist and others like him, the individuals will attack the information and say that the sources are not valid. No matter how many published studies are offered to this man he will attack the works and say they are not valid. This is how the game is played. If the conventional and popular opinion is attacked by anyone, the traditional health care practitioners and supporters will gang up and attack the damaging source.

      As anyone following this forum can easily read, the dentist went from initially writing a contrary opinion about my article, to attacking my sources, and finally he just through me into a category that he believed would help his point of view in the public’s eye…he labeled me as a deranged and crazy chiropractor that doesn’t know what he is talking about. :) By trying to attack the credibility of the source, any published studies that are in opposition to his traditional viewpoint, and then finally my own professional credibility, the dentist has done what he and other traditionalists have been doing for years. They dismiss the truth as quackery and promote real quackery as the truth.

      Julio…the truth is in your hands. Read the warning label and you have your answer. If you want to know if fluoride is a poison you don’t have to have a Harvard education. The answer has been conveniently printed on every package of fluoridated toothpaste product in existence. Yes, my friend it is a poison and it can harm your health when you use the product several times a day on a yearly basis!

      Dr. John Reizer
      Editor at

    • Julio

      The “call poison control” label is on all over the counter medicines including foot powder ( “if swallowed get medical help or contact a poison control center right away.” – Antifungal Spray).

      When inappropriate brushing was found to be the largest reason for increasing fluorosis in the 90’s dentists lobbied to place the instructions for children.

      See: Risk of Fluorosis in a Fluoridated Population. David G. Pendrys, The Journal of the American Dental Association 12/01/95 (126)1617-1624

      The two parts of the label are unrelated. Imagining a present danger in a cup of fluoridated water is classic misleading propaganda.

      • Dr. John Reizer Says:


        Fluoride is a toxin and a dangerous chemical for human beings to consume regardless of the dilution. In reality, recent studies have demonstrated that fluorides are responsible for tooth decay and not a benefit to human teeth. An article that I just linked on this website titled, ” Fluoride: Worse than We Thought” contains great information about this topic. The article states, “Fluorides are cumulative toxins. The fact that fluorides accumulate in the body is the reason that US law requires the Surgeon General to set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride content in public water supplies as determined by the EPA. This requirement is specifically aimed at avoiding a condition known as Crippling Skeletal Fluorosis (CSF), a disease thought to progress through three stages. The MCL, designed to prevent only the third and crippling stage of this disease, is set at 4ppm or 4mg per liter. It is assumed that people will retain half of this amount (2mg), and therefore 4mg per liter is deemed “safe.” Yet a daily dose of 2-8mg is known to cause the third crippling stage of CSF.10,11

        I encourage my readers to take the time to read this article as it covers many of the issues currently being debated within this forum.

        Dr. John Reizer
        Editor at

  4. jwillie6 Says:

    Thank you Dr. Reizer for a well stated article.

    Is it a drug? You can buy it at the drugstore only if you have a doctor’s prescription; however, no doctor has ever prescribed this to an adult because it is a deadly poison and has absolutely no use and cures nothing in the body. Over 200 to 300 communities have decided to reject fluoridation in the last 10 to 15 years. Only 5% of the world uses it.

    50% of all fluoride you consume collects in the bones, the brain and the glands. So even if it were good for children’s teeth, exactly why would adults want to take this poisonous drug in every glass of water every day for the rest of their lives?

    • Dr. John Reizer Says:

      Hi Jwillie6

      Thank you for participating on I absolutely agree with your opinion.

      Dr. John Reizer
      Editor at

  5. jwillie6 Says:

    Dr. Reizer: Tnank you for the informative site. I would like to add one other opinon to the debate.

    Fluoridation is a Waste of Tax Money

    Even if fluoride was helpful to teeth, distributing any drug in drinking water is the most expensive and wasteful method.

    As a Civil Engineer, I know that people drink only 1/2% (one-half percent) of the water they use. The remaining
    99 ½ % of the water with toxic fluoride chemical is dumped directly into the environment (pollution) through the sewer system in toilets, showers, washing machines, dish washers, etc.

    For example, for every $1000 of fluoride chemical added to water, $995 would be directly wasted down the drain in toilets, showers, dishwashers, etc., $5 would be consumed in water by the people, and less than $0.50 (fifty cents) would be consumed by children, the target group for this outdated practice.

    So, for each $1000 the city spends each year in order to distribute fluoride, only $0.50 of this chemical is consumed by the children. It is a wasteful scandal.

    This waste would be comparable to buying one gallon of milk, using six-and-one-half drops of it, and pouring the rest of the gallon in the sink.

    A company CEO would be arrested immediately if they dumped their toxic waste fluoride (Hexafluorosilicic acid, which is waste material flushed directly from industrial smokestacks) into a river because it is illegal. The only way they can do it legally is to run it through the community drinking water system first. It is an absolutely insane condition.

    Fluoridation surely is in contention as the most wasteful and most polluting government program. A different method of distributing a drug such as giving away fluoride tablets free to anyone who wants them or adding it to salt would be far cheaper and certainly more ethical, because then we would have the freedom to choose.

    • Dr. John Reizer Says:


      You make a very valid point. If we throw out the initial argument about fluoride being a toxic chemical, which it certainly is, the issues of wasting taxpayers’ hard earned money and offering society the freedom to choose what chemicals/drugs it wishes to be exposed to on a daily basis has to be seriously examined.

      There are currently various local and state governments making broad decisions affecting the health and well being of individual citizens. Government has no right to force individual citizens to swallow or receive by injection any drug/chemical intended to prevent cavities or other disease processes. Chemicals that are artificially added to the public water supplies, for the purpose of preventing dental caries, should be defined as drugs. The publicly stated intent of placing the chemical in the water, in the first place, is to prevent a disease process. Individuals should be given all the facts concerning any dangerous chemicals/drugs and the freedom to choose what they want placed in their bodies.

      Thank you for adding intelligent content to the forum.

      Dr. John Reizer
      Editor at

  6. According to Billy’s logic, it would be okay to reduce the concentration of foot powder to a small enough amount so that it would not be toxic to people. That too, I guess should be added to the water supplies? Then when we take a shower the water could protect us from athlete’s foot and in the case of men — jock itch.

    What about hemorrhoids, Billy? They’re a pain in the arse, too. Should we put that type of medicine in the public water systems also?

    When will the insanity of government and medical intrusion in our lives finally stop?


    • Dr. John Reizer Says:


      You make an excellent point. Where and when does the insanity stop? Why stop the campaign to medicate the public at dental caries? What about athlete’s foot — fungi? What about tranquilizers for anxiety disorders? What about vaccines that some people can’t afford or are purposely avoiding? Does government have the right to mass medicate the world?

      It would be just as absurd to place these medicines in our water systems as it is to place fluoride in the water to prevent dental problems.

      Thanks for contributing, Mary. I appreciate your comments.

      Dr. John Reizer

      Editor at

  7. Dear Doc Reizer,

    With no disrespect intended towards Billy Budd, jwille, or you, I have to fall back on my high school chemistry to figure out some of the information you all have talked about with toothpaste.

    Now, I agree that it’s concerning that the toothpaste tube contains the labeling to call poison control or get medical help if more than used for brushing is swallowed. Having children of my own, this really woke me up. But I dug a bit deeper into the subject to understand the warning. You know, Inquiring Minds Want to Know.

    When my child was about 40 pounds, I calculated the fluoride in a tube of toothpaste relative to the lethal dose for a child of her weight. At 40 pounds, or roughly 20kg, she would have to ingest about 480mg at one time to meet her demise.

    Using calculations based on the % of fluoride in toothpastes based on the different fluorides available (SnF, MFP, NaF), the common denominator was that all toothpaste contains around 33.3mg of fluoride per ounce.

    Looking at what was available on the shelves and in my bathroom, which is where my kids love to brush, my tube of toothpaste contains 6.4 ounces. Doing the math above, I calculated my tube to contain around 213mg of fluoride. So, for my munchkin to die from eating toothpaste, she’d have to eat 2 full tubes of my toothpaste at one time to get enough fluoride to approach her lethal dose.

    Now, that’s a far cry from saying that the warning on the back of the toothpaste tube proves that fluoride is a toxic because of its warning label. Reading on the back of the tube a little further reveals the word Supervise. I’d have to say that I would be the toxic one to allow my child to eat 1, let alone 2 full tubes of toothpaste without supervising them.

    Let’s be fair in our analysis. Most anything we come into contact with can be good or bad for us. The amount we get is the determining factor. As a chiropractor you use x-rays daily to diagnose problems with your patients. But on the other hand, we come into radiation contact daily from our kids playing outside in the sun. So what do we do about both? We weigh the risks and the benefits. We don’t take x-rays in your office in a casual way, and we don’t let our kids play in the sun without making sure they’re monitored. So why wouldn’t we do the same with their toothpaste? Fluoride gives them cavity protection. Let’s use it wisely, just as we do radiation sources.

    • Dr. John Reizer Says:

      Hi Sam,

      Thanks for participating on I appreciate the commentary very much. You bring up some very interesting points regarding the posts that have been published here concerning the article I wrote a few days ago.

      I agree with you that there are many products that we, as human beings, regularly come into contact with and use in our everyday lives that require proper supervision. X-rays that are commonly taken in a doctor’s office or hospital setting provide valuable information for practitioners while exposing patients to radiation. This radiation is also accumulative in nature and the body has to deal with the radiation. But keep in mind that the taking of x-rays is both supervised and administered with the patient’s consent. The procedure is not done repeatedly and the exposure amounts are minimal, probably a lot less than if you spent a few hours in the sun on the beach. In addition, there is valuable information gleaned from the x-ray diagnostic procedure by a medical doctor, dentist, or chiropractor. Those practitioners can use that information to solve a health care challenge for a particular person.

      In the case of fluoride, there are no benefits to be be gleaned by humans when they consume this poison. You and I have been fed a very deceitful package of information over the years that sells the false perception that sodium fluoride, artificially placed into public water supplies, helps prevent tooth decay. This is absolutely not true! In fact, fluoride can actually destroy the integrity of teeth and bones and regularly does so when people come into contact with the chemical.

      There are many other health problems that are attached to this poison. There has been extensive research compiled demonstrating the toxic effect of fluoride on human physiology. The research, however is not always easily accessible by laypersons. For example, there is research that shows fluoride has detrimental effects on the cardiovascular system. It attacks the integrity of human arteries and could be a major reason why so many people in America deal with hypertension. Gee, I wonder if pharmaceutical companies would profit if a lot of people needed to be placed on medications to control blood pressure?

      Keep in mind, Sam, that there is a vast difference between naturally occurring fluorides found in some natural springs and hexafluorosilicic acid, which is an industrial waste material and inserted into our water supplies.

      The other important thing to remember is that the mass medicating of a population base is wrong. These fluoridation programs are being executed without our consent and there is absolutely no supervision of patients on an individual basis. Every human being has different tolerance levels to chemicals/drugs/poisons. Also keep in mind that fluoride uptake by the body is an ongoing process and the poison accumulates over time and destroys your physiology indefinitely.

      Sam, every person has to weigh the risks when exposing themselves to toxins. You said it yourself in your post. If you want to buy a toothpaste that contains added fluoride, you should have the right to purchase that product. You make the decision to add fluoride to your body and not the government. But if you perform some research, on your own, and decide to use a toothpaste product that does not contain fluoride, you can also buy that product, as many people commonly do. When the government adds fluoride to your tap water, without asking your opinion about this, we have a completely different can of worms on the table.

      Sam, knowledge is power and that’s why there is so much misinformation being published by research companies that are directly controlled by petrochemical companies. The mainstream research outlets are more polluted than the tap water you drink. This breach of integrity concerning research includes the Ivy league schools that so many conspiracy haters like to point to in defense of their mainstream ideas.

      Do your own research, Sam, and make the best decision you can for your family and loved ones.

      Dr. John Reizer
      Editor at

  8. Hey Dr. Reizer,

    I’m still not clear on the initial post where you said that fluoride is a serious poison as one could see by picking up a tube of toothpaste and looking at the warning label.

    This doesn’t make sense to me. The label says that if you swallow more than is used to brush your teeth with, seek medial help or call poison control. Unless I’m missing something here, that amount of fluoride swallowed would in no way be toxic to a child. In my example I showed how irresponsible a parent/caregiver would have to be to let a child eat enough toothpaste to reach a lethal dose. As with vitamins that my child takes which bears the same label, the intake amount is the critical factor. If the child was unattended and took an unknown amount of vitamins or tubes of toothpaste, then this indeed could be a serious issue. But to use that label as an indication of fluoride being a poison is on par to me to saying that vitamins should be looked at the same way. I know that it is common for cereals and milk to be fortified with vitamins. And we purchase these products without a concern.

    I am reading a lot about fluoride from trusted sources in science. I have always found the CDC and the WHO to be in agreement with recommendations for the health of children and adults. So are the AMA and the American Academy of Pediatrics. But what concerns me in what I read here from those that post here is that they aren’t looking at the scientific authorities are saying. This reminds me of the conspiracy theorists we had in school in one class I took. It was supposed to make us think critically by questioning everything. They taught us that the moon landing was faked; the 911 attack on the Pentagon was a missle from the US, and not a plane flying into it; and many others. Now, I got the point of the class. Don’t be one of the blind mice. However, we must use our brains to realize that everything cannot be looked at as a conspiracy. To do so undermines the health and welfare of our country and the world. At some point we all have to agree that we need to put our faith somewhere.

    As I read more, I may revisit your site. i have the points you’ve made written down to study. But at this point, I’d have to say that I’m becoming more and more convinced that fluoride in water is safe and helpful. I also know that from dissociation chemistry, that when a compound dissociates, it releases its components. Fluoride is the ion of Fluorine. There are no different forms of fluoride. Except of course when it is labeled radioactively so that it can be traced. But that’s not what the compounds used to fluoridate water are. They’re the fluoride ion. And that comes from basic chemistry.

    One last thought. I read the abstract from the link on fluoride and cardiovascular disease that you had above. I also was able to get my hands on a library copy of the full article.

    In reading that article and abstract, did you misunderstand that the purpose of the radioisotope of fluoride, 18F, was used as a marker to see where the sugar that it was bound to was used by the body? The plaques in the arteries that were most likely to cause serious vascular accidents were the ones that had the greatest uptake of this sugar. The fluoride (18F) was there to allow this to be seen on the PET scan. The study was designed to show active plaques based on their sugar use in metabolism. The radioactive fluoride was just a marker that had a very short half life and was not the basis of the study.

    I could see how it would be easy for you to draw this conclusion though by reading the abstract only. The last part of the abstract used the word fluoride once instead of 18F in making a point. If you have access to the full article, I think you’d be quite surprised to find out that the conclusion you drew was not the conclusion of the study. Clarifying this for your readers would help alleviate fears that your interpretation may have caused.

    Thanks Doc.

    • Dr. John Reizer Says:

      Hi Sam,

      I think we will have to agree to disagree. I am not comfortable with the sources you trust and I guess you feel the same about the sources I have provided in my article and followup posts. If you want to trust the AMA, CDC, WHO, NIH and other agencies, that is your choice. But even if you trust those sources and believe fluoride is beneficial to the integrity of human teeth, the idea that people should be medicated without their consent is wrong!

      By the way, this was the conclusion of the study and it stated the following:

      Pubmed Data : Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Jan ;33(1):14-20. PMID: 21946616
      Article Published Date : Jan 01, 2012
      Study Type : Human Study

      “CONCLUSION: sodium [¹⁸F]fluoride PET/CT might be useful in the evaluation of the atherosclerotic process in major arteries, including coronary arteries. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.”

      Sam, even some prominent dentists are backing up what I am writing about.

      In the end, I guess you have to ask yourself if you’re comfortable letting your child consume this stuff. I am not and I guess you are. Hopefully all our children will grow up and live healthy lives!

      Thanks for participating on the forum, Sam.

      Dr. John Reizer
      Editor at

      • Hey Doc,

        In the end, we all have to make the decisions on what is best for us and what we can live with. That’s the Blessing that the good Lord gave us in the form of a brain and reasoning powers. And I agree with you that it’s ok to disagree.

        I do want you to look into the study above more fully. Since my last post I consulted an interventional radiologist who discussed in detail the full study and the methodology of using 18F. The study uses the radioisotope piggybacked onto a sugar substrate to mark which of the vessels have plaques that are actively metabolizing the sugar. WIthout some form of marker, this would not be possible to track. Since 18F has an extremely short half-life, this makes it an ideal marker that the full body PET Scan can pick up.

        I would stronly suggest that you consult a researcher in this area so that the study and its findings can be explained to you and your misunderstanding of the implication of fluoride as a bad guy can be put to rest.



  9. I wouldn’t let my kids near this poison. I’ve read through the different threads here and all I see are a few dentists trying to engage in damage control.

    The warning label on toothpaste packages is all any sane parent should need to read. As for the poisoning of the water supplies, it’s absolutely upsetting that people are arguing in favor of this policy.

    I also have to comment about Sam’s strange position about conspiracies. Don’t be so damn gullible, SAM. Conspiracies happen all the time. You can’t just dismiss them because they seem inconvenient and because you feel they might undermine the health and welfare of our country. What kind of logic is that?

    Look, if you want to shove poison down your kid’s throat, be my guest. But don’t tell me that I’m crazy or wrong for asking the government not to place this garbage in my tap water.


  10. Anonymous Says:

    Hi Dr. Reizer,

    I’m still a big fan and always enjoyed your lectures back in the day as a young student. Here’s some supporting documentation on the Fluoride – Cardiovascular connection.

    Richard D. Sauerheber, Ph.D.
    (B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry, University of California, San Diego)
    Palomar Community College
    1140 W. Mission Rd., San Marcos, CA 9206
    E-mail: Phone: 760-402-1173

    March 4, 2012

    Keep up the great work and your terrific articles! I love your website and especially the Mars stuff.

    – A Former Student

    • Dr. John Reizer Says:

      Hi Anonymous,

      I thank you very much for the supporting documentation. I think that we are beginning to make some real progress in getting this campaign halted. It’s always interesting to see the types of responses one gets when broaching this subject. The fluoride defenders come out of the woodwork and make it seem like there is no one complaining about anything except for a few fringe conspiracy theorists (laugh, laugh).

      I walked into a dental seminar, a few years back, and listened to hundreds of dentists discussing the serious dangers associated with fluoride and amalgam fillings. It was quite an educational experience to say the least.

      Thanks again!

      Dr. John Reizer
      Editor at

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 64 other followers

%d bloggers like this: