36 votes

Paradigm Shift - Water Fluoridation

Please tune in live from 8pm-10pm CST to tonight's episode of Paradigm Shift. The shows are archived if you cannot listen live.

(blogtalk is still assigning the wrong date to the url, it is live 2/20/2013)


This entire two hour episode will be dedicated to the issue of water fluoridation.

Our guests tonight are Amy Bremmer who is working to get fluoride removed from the water in Columbia, Missouri, Dr. David Kennedy, DDS who produced the great documentary "Fluoridegate: An American Tragedy", and Dr. William Hirzy, Ph.D. former President of the EPA Union of Scientists and current Chemist In Residence in the College of Arts and Sciences Chemistry Department at the American University in Washington D.C.

Fluoridegate: An American Tragedy: http://youtu.be/LrWFnGpX9wY

Dr. William Hirzy & EPA Union on Fluoridation

Fluoride in Drinking Water:
A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards

Fluoride Action Network

Water fluoridation is a national adverse health issue and it must be ended.

Feel free to call in at (347) 850-1375.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Please see for yourself. Scientific evidence charted.

Charts related to the Devil in the Details Without the details. Obvious to some. Known to many. Perhaps others, blinded by the light.

Revealing charts. Light reading.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

that is pathetically

that is pathetically misleading. apparently the author of that website does not understand the concept of dosages. Iron is far more toxic than say water, but that does not mean that iron at all doses is bad for you. In fact it is necessary for most forms of life.

And fluoride is not necessary biochemically

Yet public water fluoridation advocates are relentless in their quest to chronically expose every person in a population to fluoride, through the water supply, in uncontrolled dosages.

i would argue that

i would argue that municipalities don't have any business supplying anyone with anything, whether is biochemically necessary or not. That is not the issue. The issue is that people are incorrectly demonizing the process of fluoridation on false, unscientific grounds, rather than demonizing the politics.

And to say that it is uncontrolled could not be further from the truth. municipalities are required to meet very strict criteria for all potentially harmful components in the water. I'll bet you get at least a yearly report showing exactly what levels of everything are in your water. it's probably well below the safe levels as determined by scientific research.

The comments in this mark

The comments in this mark sissons post on fluoride demonstrate my concern about this issue very well. You have people who understand the science correcting the anti-fluoridation people in an embarrassing way. They simultaneously take a jab at their "anti-government" stance. Instead of rightfully arguing the anti-government involvement aspect, the anti-fluoride people continue running in circles around a very flawed argument that lacks credibility. This is a disaster for people working toward free markets. They become associated with anti-reason, anti-science arguments. Not many people take that seriously.



First of all, there seems to be a complete lack of understanding when it comes to fluoridation. The process involves targeting a safe and beneficial level of fluoride in a water supply. In many cases that means reducing fluoride levels from water sources with naturally high levels of fluoride. Other times it is added because of its dental health benefits that are well established by science.

People point to the toxicity of fluoride as a reason that it should not be in drinking water. Remember that EVERYTHING is toxic at some dose. Even water is toxic when consumed in large amounts. The levels found in nearly all municipal water supplies, has not been shown to be dangerous to humans at all.

The latest research used by the anti-fluoride people (it was posted on here and lew rockwell posted it twice) was grossly misunderstood. It demonstrated a possible health risk associated with consumption of highly fluoridated water. Clearly people did not read the actual study. The test subjects were in an area where the water supply had high levels of fluoride (naturally occurring). The control group in the study was consuming water with fluoride levels found in the typical municipal water supplies in the United States. They experienced no detectable health risks.

Ironically, those who were exposed to high levels of Fluoride would have benefit from the fluoridation process we use here, because it would have been lowered to meet the scientifically determined safe levels.

I will say this again: I do not believe that water supplies should be maintained by any government authority. As with everything else, I believe water should be supplied voluntarily through the free market. BUT that does NOT meant that the processes used by the government are necessarily dangerous. Yes, it's important to be vigilant when were stuck using a service or product that maintains a coercive monopoly, such as the common municipal water supply. But, we must also be careful not to discredit ourselves by revealing our ignorance and fighting misguided battles. By all means, make the case against government's involvement in water distribution, but dig a little deeper before criticizing a particular element of the process.

I think you need to listen to the experts

The difference between forms of fluoride was discussed on my show. Dr. Hirzy's knowledge of chemistry and specifically the topic of fluoride is impeccable.

Naturally occurring calcium fluoride is not a health risk.

"Other times it is added

"Other times it is added because of its dental health benefits that are well established by science"

1) That's illegal and immoral, you can't force medication upon the populace.

2) There's no dental health benefits to ingesting fluoride.

3) We have this wonderful invention called toothpaste.

4) Those "benefits established by science" were government-funded studies held in government-owned laboratories.

5) The fluoride dumped in our water supply is not pharmaceutical grade, it's the direct toxic waste byproducts from the creation of aluminum and fertilizer.

"The level of fluoride the government allows the public is based on scientifically fraudulent information and altered reports. People can be harmed simply by drinking water."

- Robert Carton, former EPA Scientist

"Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe EPA should act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data, but on the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity, and other effects."

- William Marcus, EPA senior science adviser and toxicologist

"The harmful effects of water fluoridation are more real than is generally admitted, while the claimed dental benefit is negligible."
- John Colquhoun, Chief dental officer of New Zealand

"Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal"

"Fluoride & Intelligence: The 36 Studies"

"Reversal of fluoride induced cell injury"

"Fluorosis of the primary dentition"

Grand Rapids MI was First to add Fluoride To the water Supply

They were so proud of this part in "History" that there is actually a monument near the Grand River proclaiming that "we were first" Pat our town on the back.. Anybody?,any body?



yes, and they all have cancer

yes, and they all have cancer and neurological problems, right?


1.) I agree that government should not be involved, but an argument from effect that is based on poor science is a very bad tactic and is going to discredit you. Instead arguments from moral principals should be made. The argument should be framed that, even when something can be beneficial, government STILL shouldn't be involved in providing it by force.

2.) You are making a bold claim that flies in the face of many years of credible scientific research.

3.) at least you aren't one of those people who is even opposed to using flouridated toothpaste.

4.) Some were, some weren't. And AGAIN, that fact alone does not invalidate the results. This is a bad trap to get into.

5.) referring to fluoride as a toxic waste product is merely a red-herring. it is a by-product, as are so many things. that doesn't make it any different from naturally occurring fluoride. that's just fear mongering.

mark sisson has a pretty well reasoned post about fluoride: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/is-fluoride-safe/#axzz2LYia5Xgo

"that doesn't make it any

"that doesn't make it any different from naturally occurring fluoride"

Silicofluorides never occur naturally in nature, and they are 85 times more toxic than natural occurring calcium fluoride. Read: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50295a026

"You are making a bold claim that flies in the face of many years of credible scientific research"

Ingesting flouride has horrible effects on your body. Read: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=2204

"The claim that fluoridation is one of 'nature's experiments' is not valid because the salts put into the water supply, sodium fluoride or silicofluorides, are industrial products never found in natural water or in organisms. They are, furthermore, notoriously toxic, sufficiently so to be used as rat poison or insecticide. Calcium fluoride, on the other hand, which is the form commonly found in natural waters, is not toxic enough for such uses."
— Dr. C. G. Dobbs, (Ph.D., A.R.C.S.) Bangor, Wales, England

You are referring to the

You are referring to the differences between the various vehicles for fluoridation. They may differ in concentrations but the end result is the same because the water supply is adjusted to meet strict regulations of fluoride specifically -- not sodium fluoride or calcium fluoride.

linking to one book is not the same as defending a statement that "There's no dental health benefits to ingesting fluoride." Not the same at all. Again, there is very very little debate about that aspect. It's very well established, scientifically.

Why not? It may be one book

Why not? It may be one book but it references HUNDREDS of scientific studies. If you don't want to read it that's fine, but I'm just showing studies exist which contradict everything you are saying.

The point I'm trying to get across is there is plenty of "science" proving that the health benefits of fluoride ingestion are neglible, and are far outweighed by the harmful risks involved.

I've posted numerous quotes by scientists/researchers, and numerous scientific studies already. The only link you've provided so far is a blog from someone who didn't even go to medical school?

I don't think I need to post

I don't think I need to post links to the vast array of peer reviewed papers demonstrating the health benefits of fluoride. go to pubmed and search. you'll find hundreds. this is well established science.

I'm not sure why someone

I'm not sure why someone would vote down this comment. Does this person disagree with my claim? it's very easy to test. try it. go here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed

and search for "fluoridated drinking water tooth decay"

browse and learn, keeping in mind that not all research is well conducted. It takes some critical thinking which is unfortunately not taught in government schools. So it may be a bit of a challenge at first.

From pubmed: "The main

From pubmed:

"The main findings were as follows. (1) A significant positive correlation was found between fluoride concentration in drinking water and uterine cancer mortality in 20 municipalities (r = 0.626, p < 0.005). (2) Even after adjusting for the potential confounding variables, such as tap water diffusion rate, primary industry population ratio, income gap, stillbirth rate, divorce rate, this association was considerably significant. (3) Furthermore, the time trends in the uterine cancer mortality rate appear to be related to changes in water fluoridation practices."

"Exposure to high fluoride concentrations in drinking water is associated with decreased birth rates."

"The highest fluoride content in bone ash was observed in women with severe osteoporosis."

"Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water."

... I'm sure there's more but that's from just 5 minutes of scrolling. Please read through this article:


Between browsing pubmed, the article above, and the book I referenced, I could literally give you HUNDREDS of links to scientific studies confirming that water fluoridation is dangerous and unecessary.

The second study you listed

The second study you listed is a meta analysis and i cannot even locate the full text of the paper.

the third link has no mention of fluoride levels and only indicates a correlation. There is no mention of how they controlled for variables. I don't see full text for this one either.

And in the last link, the fluoride levels in the water is key. The fluoride levels in the high fluoride areas were well above the allowable limits set in the US. As were arsenic levels. And these were naturally occurring levels. The fluoridation process typically used in the US would have reduced those levels. Additionally, the author states that they did not control for confounding factors. That makes it difficult to draw conclusions from that study alone.

Have you actually read these

Have you actually read these studies beyond the title and abstract? The author of the first one you listed states that his findings are inconclusive and further research is needed. additionally, if the results are to be taken seriously, it seems strange that this correlation is not observed anywhere else.

If YOU'RE going to be taken

If YOU'RE going to be taken seriously, at least read the studies I've presented to you. There's literally hundreds. It's like you're almost in denial? I don't know what else to say, I guess I give up. Keep drinking that fluoride :)

I did. And I just pointed

I did. And I just pointed out to you that at least the first one you posted was deemed inconclusive by the author. There is a lot of good science and a lot of bad science, and a lot of unclear and inconclusive science. Over the years there has been a lot of research done on fluoridated drinking water. The scientific consensus overwhelmingly demonstrates that fluoridated water, in the levels commonly found in US drinking water presents no harm to humans, and does provide a dental health benefit.

There is really no debate about this anymore in the scientific community. The remaining fringe debate is a result of political ideology. The political aspect and the scientific aspect need to be separated. This a huge problem within politically ideological groups like libertarians, conservatives, and liberals. Libertarians should have the upper hand on this. Regardless of what science say, or what is good or bad for us, the government has no business prohibiting anything or forcing anything on us. It's that simple. Trying to bend scientific consensus way out of whack to gain some leverage in an argument is counterproductive.

Arguing that government is wrong to add fluoride to the water implies that you think it's ok they they are providing water at all, and inevitably processing it in many other ways. This undermines the libertarian stance altogether.

Thanks for listening

Thanks for listening everyone.

The show is available on demand now at:


I think we covered most of what I wanted to get out there.

I did not get to touch on kidney disease. If you know anyone on dialysis, make sure the place performing the procedure is not using tap water, it could be fatal due to fluoride poisoning.

This is now a hot topic in Australia

The decision to add fluoride was given back to local councils in the state of Queensland Australia and now the federal government are kicking themselves because many in the north are stopping this practice. I am happy to say that although my city is still adding fluoride to our waters, that it is a very hot topic here so now we have the support in our local community and our council members are taking notice to which some have already sided with stopping fluoridation. I can definately see in the near future that it will be stopped here.

I would suggest rather then sending letters to your local councils or whatever it is in America, that you try get your local newspapers to cover it as this is the only reason this issue is now been raised to our local government.

Hey America : it's time to END Fluoridation !

Maybe if we stop adding STUPID to our drinking water we can begin to tackle the future ?

Ya think ?


to me that Alex Jones has been telling us this story for YEARS,

Joined the Liberty Movement in Anchorage, Alaska, 1977. Ron Paul supporter since 1983.
In Liberty from the Pacific Northwest.


And I have known about it for years.

I scheduled tonight's discussion on water fluoridation because one of the foremost experts on the topic is going to be giving testimony tomorrow night to a board that will be recommending whether to continue or discontinue water fluoridation in Missouri's 4th largest city.

Amy Bremer who is spearheading the effort there is a good friend and Ron Paul supporter from the 2008 campaign and is a great liberty activist in her community.

I am also hoping that tonight's show will be used as a resource by others trying to address the issue in their communities.

Link to video of Amy Bremer's

Link to video of Amy Bremer's presentation to the Columbia, MO City Council on 11/19/12.

Thanks for this post

will be listening.


I'll be there.


Save the Young American Mind; Stop IQ loss; End Water Fluoridation now!!

"Great Men Do Not Seek Power, They Have Great Power Thrust Upon Them"