the case against fluoride

FLUORIDE IN WATER: "The Case Against Fluoride" is a thought-provoking book written by Paul Connett, James Beck, and H.S. Micklem, which challenges the prevailing notion that water fluoridation is a safe and effective public health measure. Connett, an environmental chemist and the lead author, presents a comprehensive analysis of the scientific evidence (much of which is decades old) and raises important questions about the ethics, effectiveness, and potential risks associated with water fluoridation.

Connett begins by providing a historical overview of water fluoridation and its widespread implementation since the 1940s. He then delves into the core arguments against fluoridation, focusing on three main aspects: the questionable benefits, the potential health risks, and the ethical concerns. The book questions the efficacy of water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay. Connett argues that the decline in dental cavities observed over the years can be attributed to other factors such as improved dental hygiene, access to dental care, and changes in diet. He highlights studies that suggest the benefits of fluoride primarily occur through topical application, such as toothpaste, rather than ingestion. Addressing health risks, Connett delves into the possible adverse effects associated with fluoride exposure. He highlights studies linking synthetic fluoride consumption to dental fluorosis (a condition that affects tooth enamel), skeletal fluorosis (affecting bones and joints), neurological effects, endocrine disruption, and increased risk of certain cancers. The book emphasizes the need for further research to better understand the long-term health implications of water fluoridation. Connett also raises ethical concerns regarding water fluoridation. He argues that the practice infringes on individual rights, as it involves the mass medication of the population without their informed consent. He emphasizes the importance of respecting personal choice and the need for alternative strategies to improve dental health that do not involve compulsory ingestion of fluoride.

fluoride bad for you?

FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER: "The Case Against Fluoride" presents a compelling argument against water fluoridation. The authors meticulously analyze scientific literature, providing a comprehensive overview of studies and evidence that challenges the prevailing belief in the safety and effectiveness of synthetic fluoride in drinking water. Connett's writing style presents complex information in a logical and coherent manner, allowing readers to follow the arguments and evaluate the evidence themselves. However, it is important to note that the book predominantly focuses on studies critical of water fluoridation, potentially presenting a biased perspective. 

While the book raises thought-provoking questions and concerns, it has also faced criticism from the American scientific community. Critics argue that it selectively presents evidence and overlooks the substantial body of research supporting the benefits of water fluoridation in preventing tooth decay. 

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) lauds water fluoridation as a significant accomplishment in public health, it is important to note that the majority of the western world, including most of western Europe, does not practice water fluoridation. Currently, around 97% of the western European population consumes non-fluoridated water. This includes countries such as Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of the United Kingdom and Spain. 


FLUORIDE BAD: According to information from Wikipedia, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, and Latvia are among the countries that do not fluoridate their water. Despite not implementing "one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century," tooth decay rates in Europe have shown a similar decline over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises significant concerns regarding the CDC's claim that the reduction in tooth decay in the United States since the 1950s is largely attributed to the introduction of water fluoridation. 

"The Case Against Fluoride" challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding water fluoridation by presenting a critical analysis of the practice. Paul Connett effectively questions the efficacy, potential health risks, and ethical implications associated with water fluoridation. Although the book has its American critics (mostly from lobbyist and special interest groups), it should be approached with a critical mindset helping you to question the conventional wisdom. 


SIDE EFFECTS OF FLUORIDE IN WATER: The National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the United States Government's Department of Health and Human Services, recently released a conclusive report on the neurotoxicity of fluoride which provides substantial support for the conclusions reached by these experts (Sept 2022). In their research, the NTP examined 55 studies comparing the IQ levels of children in higher fluoride exposure groups to those in lower fluoride exposure groups, revealing an average IQ reduction of 7 points. 

Additionally, the NTP conducted a comprehensive dose-response meta-analysis, which combined results from numerous studies conducted at various fluoride exposure levels. The analysis demonstrated that as water fluoride concentrations increased from 0.0 to 1.5 mg/L (equivalent to parts per million or ppm), the average IQ decrease amounted to approximately 6 points. Notably, the typical concentration of synthetic fluoride in artificially fluoridated water is 0.7 mg/L, falling within this range. As a result, the projected IQ decline at 0.7 mg/L is estimated to be around 3 points.

FLUORIDE FOR TEETH: The NTP's analysis of the dose-response curve reveals a clear correlation between fluoride exposure and the decline in IQ. Notably, the graph indicates that there is no discernible safe threshold, and the solid line representing the relationship between exposure and IQ loss exhibits its steepest slope within the low exposure range, which directly applies to artificially fluoridated water. The NTP itself states that "there was no obvious threshold," as depicted in [eFigure 17].

Is My Water fluoridated zip code

FLUORIDE TREATMENT FOR ADULTS: The non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) provides a valuable free resource in the form of their online tap water database, which can be utilized to determine the presence of fluoride in your water. By accessing the EWG's database on their website (, users can search for their specific location or water utility to obtain comprehensive information about the water quality in their area. The database includes data on various contaminants, including fluoride levels, allowing individuals to assess the fluoride content in their tap water. This resource empowers individuals to make informed decisions about their water consumption and take appropriate measures if they desire to monitor or reduce their fluoride exposure. When you find the list of contaminants on EWG's tap water database for your zip code or town, click on "Others Detected" to see if fluoride was detected in your water. (Tap Water Database)

where does the fluoride in our water come from

WHY IS FLUORIDE BAD FOR YOU? Fluoride is a naturally occurring element found on Earth, and it is released into the soil, water, and air from rocks. As a result, all water sources contain certain amounts of fluoride. Typically, the natural fluoride levels in water are insufficient to effectively prevent tooth decay. However, it is worth noting that certain groundwater and natural springs may naturally possess elevated levels of fluoride. The fluoride added to drinking water by local municipalities is significantly different from naturally occurring fluoride.

The primary chemicals utilized to create synthetic fluoride are commonly referred to as "silicofluorides," namely hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate. It is important to note that these silicofluorides are not pharmaceutical-grade fluoride products but rather unprocessed industrial by-products derived from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Due to the absence of purification processes, these silicofluorides may contain heightened levels of arsenic, surpassing those found in other water treatment chemicals. Furthermore, recent studies suggest that the inclusion of silicofluorides in water can pose a risk for increased lead exposure, particularly among individuals residing in older homes with aging pipe systems.