Newsweek And Other Controlled Media Sources Finally Admit Water Fluoridation Does Not Prevent Cavities

Newsweek And Other Controlled Media Sources Finally Admit Water Fluoridation Does Not Prevent Cavities

A new and highly-needed scientific review has found that there’s no real evidence linking water fluoridation with cavity prevention, further proving that the IQ-damaging substance known as sodium fluoride truly does not have a place in our water supply. 

BY ANTHONY GUCCIARDI    It was back in 2012 that I shared with you the results from a major Harvard study that revealed the dark relationship between IQ levels and sodium fluoride consumption. Specifically, the Harvard researchers detailed the fact that children who lived in areas with high sodium fluoride content had ‘significantly lower’ IQ than those in areas with less added fluoride content. What’s more, this research was published in a federal government medical journal known as Environmental Health Perspectives.

The researchers from Harvard specifically stated:

“The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas.”

Remember, this was back in 2012. So why has almost nothing changed? A particularly valid question when we note that in 2011, the government actually called for ‘lower fluoride levels’ amid a growing body of research that it was negatively affecting the health of Americans.

Fast forward to April of 2015, and finally the federal government decides to lower fluoride levels for the first time in 50 years. A monumental event in the history of water fluoridation and public health.

Now, in June of 2015, another landmark study has hit: sodium fluoride in the water supply isn’t even preventing cavities! Now is the time to make this a well-known study, instead of a footnote buried within the latest news feed. After all, it’s huge news that this information is finally being displayed by the mainstream media after years of anti-fluoride activists enduring the label ‘conspiracy theorist.’

Let’s look at the piece by Newsweek entitled “Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows,” which states:

If you’re like two-thirds of Americans, fluoride is added to your tap water for the purpose of reducing cavities. But the scientific rationale for putting it there may be outdated, and no longer as clear-cut as was once thought.

Water fluoridation, which first began in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, and expanded nationwide over the years, has always been controversial. Those opposed to the process have argued—and a growing number of studies have suggested—that the chemical may present a number of health risks, for example interfering with the endocrine system and increasing the risk of impaired brain function; two studies in the last few months, for example, have linked fluoridation to ADHD and underactive thyroid. Others argue against water fluoridation on ethical grounds, saying the process forces people to consume a substance they may not know is there—or that they’d rather avoid.

Despite concerns about safety and ethics, many are content to continue fluoridation because of its purported benefit: that it reduces tooth decay. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Oral Health, the main government body responsible for the process, says it’s “safe and effective.”

You might think, then, that fluoridated water’s efficacy as a cavity preventer would be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But new research suggests that assumption is dramatically misguided; while using fluoridated toothpaste has been proven to be good for oral health, consuming fluoridated water may have no positive impact.

The Cochrane Collaboration, a group of doctors and researchers known for their comprehensive reviews—which are widely regarded as the gold standard of scientific rigor in assessing effectiveness of public health policies—recently set out to find out if fluoridation reduces cavities. They reviewed every study done on fluoridation that they could find, and then winnowed down the collection to only the most comprehensive, well-designed and reliable papers. Then they analyzed these studies’ results, and published their conclusion in a review earlier this month.

The review identified only three studies since 1975—of sufficient quality to be included—that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom.

Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst who played a role in the study, breaks it down:

“I had assumed because of everything I’d heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.”

Read More: 

Today water fluoridation is rare, only a handful of countries still use it because of safety concerns.  Here is a list of just some of the countries that used it then have outlawed it due to safety concerns:

  • Federal Republic of Germany (1952–1971)
  • Sweden (1952–1971)
  • Netherlands (1953–1976)
  • Czechoslovakia (1955–1990)
  • German Democratic Republic (1959–1990)
  • Soviet Union (1960–1990)
  • Finland (1959–1993

Here is the primary propaganda tool that was used to intimidate people into being afraid to speak up against it, the Dr. Strangelove movie.

It is a form of the straw-man deception technique.


Now instead of a fictional movie, what does a Chemistry Professor have to say about it today?

If you are wondering what the fatal does is for sodium fluoride, its 5 grams, a small fraction of an ounce.  It is one of the most poisonous common materials there is for humans.  It is used as rat poison and insect poison.


A Nashville TV 4 put together this informative documentary on Fluoridation:

  1. The Harvard study you mentioned looked at the effect of fluoride, not sodium fluoride. The toxicity of sodium fluoride comes predominantly from the fluoride, not the sodium.
    I have asked many forced-fluoridation fanatics to tell me how much accumulated fluoride in the body they think is safe. So far not a single one of them has been able to answer the question.

    • Thanks Dan for your info. This is just one example of a pattern. That pattern is that people are bullied and intimidated into conforming to some idea or policy by our “media” and government schools, without any regard to facts or truth or reason. If Water Fluoridation were outlawed this year, which it might be, those same forces of ignorant intolerance and bullying will move on to coercing people with new myths, many of which are already in play. As a society we need to confront and defeat this evil. As the professor said, those scientists that willingly corrupted the data to deceive the public on this need to have their degrees taken away. That will make others think twice about lying in the future to corrupt science.

      • I agree, though from what I’ve seen the problem with the studies which are used to sell forced-fluoridation is more the low quality of the studies and the misinterpretation of the data, not actual corruption of the data. Some of the “scientists” (predominantly dentists, who are not actually scientists) in question should be in jail.

  2. After the Harvard Study on fluoride was published by the NYT, I was having my teeth cleaned. The technician offered fluoride treatment, which I refused, citing damage to the brain and lowering of I.Q. The technician let out a horse laugh that must have been heard in the lobby, then said, “I never heard that one before.”

    The fluoride poisoning of our country has been successful. Even our health professionals are complete morons.

    • I just got my Berkey Flouride/arsenic filters today. They do put Fluoride into our water and arsenic is natural here too. A little disappointing to see they only last 1,000 gallons. Much better idea would be for gov to stop putting the pollutant in.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.