Fluoride is a Poison
A Special Interview with
Dr. Bill Osmunson by Dr. Mercola
DO: Bill Osmunson, DDS DM:
Joseph Mercola, DO http://mercola.fileburst.com/PDF/ExpertInterviewTranscripts/InterviewBillOsmunson.pdf
INTRODUCTION
DM: Welcome everyone to another
Actually,
before I put him on the call, I want to explain that I recently read a book by
Malcolm Gladwall called ‘Outliers’. It’s a really excellent book and if
you get a chance to read it, you’ll know why. But if you haven’t, it’s a quick
read.
The
reason I like it is it describes different characteristics of successful people
and some of the reasons why they reach that. One of the most important points
of the book for me was that the observations and the study show that when
someone invests about 10,000 hours of time in any subject, activity, sport or
hobby, he tends to become worldclass – that is certainly the case for Bill.
He’s put in well than excess of 10,000 hours in this area.
So,
it’s just really wonderful that we can access people who put in so much
dedicated time and effort and then, in a short amount of time, really capture a
significant portion of their wisdom. And we don’t have to put in 10,000 hours.
Thank
you so much for joining us, Bill. If you could perhaps describe to our
listening audience what your history and training is and what you are currently
doing now, it would be great.
PROFESSION AND BACKGROUND
DO: Well there’s nothing more
enjoyable than a person talking about himself. So I’d like to do that.
I am a
dentist. I’m a general dentist. I have chosen to be a general dentist because I
want to cover as many different areas for the patient as possible. This is
because sometimes we, dentists, get so specialized that we don’t see the big
picture for our patient. And so I want to be a general dentist covering all areas
and looking at the big picture for the patient.
Before
I became a dentist, I got my Masters in Public Health and two majors in Health
Education and Nutrition. Those were very important to me because I was planning
on going to
So, I
got my Masters in Public Health and realized that I needed a doctorate in
something. So I chose dentistry because I could be more independent. After I
became a dentist, I had to pay off all these school loans. So I went into
General Dentistry and have been in General Dentistry.
The
longer I have been in General Dentistry, the more I realized that we in the
And one
of the problems that we have is we export our flaws to
Fluoride
is one of those areas.
HOW ONE DENTIST DISCOVERED THE TRUTH ABOUT FLUORIDE
For
about 25 years, I promoted water fluoridation. I was absolutely certain in my
mind that when I saw patients coming into my office, I could tell the
difference in their mouths.
I could
look into their mouths and tell whether they had fluoride or whether they were
swallowing fluoride.
In
fact, I had a game with my employees, wherein I would actually tell them,
“Don’t tell me where this new patient lives. I will tell you where they live.”
The patient would sit down in the chair, I’d get to know him more briefly and
I’d look in his mouth and I’d say, “This patient lives in
Meanwhile,
the community out there in the outlying hills doesn’t have fluoridation and
this patient has not had enough fluoride. I can see it in their teeth. So, I
was convinced from my training. I was convinced from the science that I had
read. I was convinced in daily practice that this was something that was
beneficial and helped their teeth.
So
then, how did I change? Well, I have these tree-hugging holistic patients who
come in and don’t always believe everything that they’re told. They kept on
quietly telling me, “Bill, you got to look once again at fluoride.” I said,
“That’s good. It’s good. I have proof, it’s good.” And they would say, “Look
again.” So, I have two dentist sons-in-law. One is in
Well, I
was standing around with nothing to do for a little bit. A patient wasn’t
scheduled for a little bit and I thought about some severe problems in
dentistry. One of them is in mercury. We know that’s not safe. I mean, it’s not
safe in the trashcan. It’s not safe in the sewer. There’s no way it can be safe
in the person’s mouth.
My
instructors in dental school 30 years ago had told me, “We got to get out of
this thing of using mercury as a treatment material.” The manufacturer even
says, “Don’t swallow and don’t breathe.” Well, it means you’d have to be a
cadaver in order to have it in your mouth.
So, we
know dentistry is all screwed up on that mercury and more and more dentists are
not using mercury. And then of course there was the ‘how does the mouth open
and close problem’ and I know we have problems with that and controversies
there. That could be another topic we could talk about: the TMJ
(Temporomandibular Joint and Muscle Disorder) problems.
So I
thought, “Where else in dentistry do we have problems?” I knew where it was. I
didn’t want to look at it.
There
is too much controversy over fluoride and ingesting fluoride.
So, as
a nutritionist, the first thing I did was I went on over to my toothpaste tube,
which happens to be a toothpaste that has fluoride in it. There are different
kinds from very big-named companies. I picked up the tube, I know I had given
out thousands to my patients and I said, “Okay, let’s look at this thing. Read
the label.” Number one on anything: read the label.
WHAT DOES THE FDA SAY ABOUT FLUORIDE IN TOOTHPASTE?
So I read the label and it says, “Drug facts.” Yes, the FDA (Food and Drug
Administration) requires this factual evidence on the drug because we know it’s
a drug.
It’s
not a nutrient. It’s not a vitamin. It’s a drug. And it’s intended to reduce
dental decay.
So, the
next thing says, ‘Warnings.’ The FDA allows variable wording on this, so not
every tube of toothpaste will have the same thing. But it says, “Warning. Keep
out of reach of children under six years of age.” Fair enough. That’s, maybe
they get too much or swallow the whole tube or something like that. So we don’t
want that.
“If
more than used for brushing is accidentally swallowed.” Well hang on a second,
if more than used for brushing - how much is used for brushing? It says a
little bit later, “Use a pea sized amount.” Now, I’ve never seen an advertisement
anywhere of toothpaste where there’s a pea sized amount on the toothbrush. They
always look like Dairy Queen ice cream cones, huge mountains of toothpaste that
are looking delicious or mouth-freshening or whatever you want to call them.
But the FDA says, “Use a pea-sized amount.” And I learned later, as I was doing
more research on this, that the pea size is a baby pea, not a full regular
adult pea size but a baby pea size.
It also
says, “Do not swallow.” Wow, do not swallow a pea size amount! The FDA’s got
some concerns here. And it says get medical help or contact the poison control
center right away.
In
other words, the FDA is concerned about a pea-sized amount of toothpaste being
swallowed. A little bit later on the warning it says, “Supervise children’s
brushing until good habits are established.” What they mean there is that most
people, when they’re young – especially babies, and children – they will have a
reflex. If something is in their mouth and you ask them to spit, they will
actually swallow then spit.
Here’s
my daughter, at 11 years of age. I was standing over her watching her brush her
teeth. She rolled her eyes and said, “Dad, I’ve done this before, you know.” I
said, “I’m just watching you. I want to watch what you do.” She just groaned
and kept brushing her teeth. Then as she leaned over the sink, I said, “Now be
sure to spit before you swallow,” and she swallowed and spit. I could see her
throat go. Then I said, “No, let’s practice that again. I want you to spit
before you swallow. I want you to spit and rinse your mouth out very
carefully.” We had to practice it a couple of times because she said, “I did
not swallow first,” and I said, “But I saw your throat go.” Children need to be
supervised so that they do not swallow their toothpaste before they rinse. And
that was my child and I’ve seen it in many other children.
So, how
much fluoride is in the pea size amount that the FDA is concerned about? Well,
the first thing I did is I took my toothpaste and I just dabbed it out on a piece
of paper. I came up with about 75 little pea sized amounts and I calculated it
out – the amount of fluoride that was in that tube of toothpaste – and I
thought, “Oh my goodness, that’s a half a milligram.” Well, later in my
research and looking up of what the FDA has talked about, I found out that it’s
actually a quarter milligram of fluoride that the FDA was saying on their pea
size. So my pea size amount was twice as big as what it should have been.
A
quarter milligram of fluoride is the same amount of fluoride that’s found in
every single glass of fluoridated water.
Now,
here we’ve got the water district, which is requiring us to swallow this drug.
The FDA calls it a drug. It’s requiring us to swallow a quarter milligram in
every glass of water, the same amount that the FDA is saying, “don’t swallow,
and if you do, contact the poison control center right away.” Obviously,
scientists are having problems with fluoride. We don’t have our story straight.
We
aren’t consistent in the message that we are presenting to the public. That was
probably my first concern.
DM: I have a question here, just
for consistency. Is that level of fluoride consistent between most all the
municipal water supplies or is there a varying level that the different cities
and municipalities allow or require in the fluoridation? DO: In the
Sometimes
in the colder areas where people drink less water, they’ll have it at 1.2 but
usually they try 1.0 part per million. And in the South where people drink a
little bit more water in the heat, then they’ll have it at a little bit lower
but still I find that they still try to do about one part per million.
DM: And that translates out to a
quarter milligram per 8 ounces? DO: Well, specifically, it translates
out to 1 milligram in every liter of water. A liter is very close to a quart
and there are four glasses in a quart.
DM: Okay. Alright, that makes
sense.
DO: Yeah, so we got a quarter
milligram of fluoride. So, the next step that I did was I saw a very
interesting article by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) scientists.
They
were speaking through their union. Now, a lot of water districts will say, “We
follow the EPA recommendations.” The EPA scientists are the ones that give us
the authorization. They tell us what is safe or not in water.
So the
EPA scientists spoke up through their union, apparently because some of them
have been fired for speaking up through the EPA, or at least one was, and they
say in summary, “We hold that fluoridation is an unreasonable risk. That is,
the toxicity of fluoride is so great and the purported benefits associated with
it are so small, if any at all.” And I remember looking at that going, “No, I
know there are a lot of benefits with fluoride and swallowing fluoride and
fluoridation. How do they mean, there is so small, if there are is any at all?”
“The
benefits associated with it are so small, if there are any at all… The
requiring of every man, woman, and child in
Now my
study so far on fluoridation, I only find one flaw in their statement over the
last five years of me struggling with this whole thing of fluoridation. The
only mistake that they have in this – the toxicity – is definitely very strong.
The only mistake is the word ‘borders’. I do no longer feel that it borders on
criminal behavior on the part of government. I am convinced that it is a
criminal act of government, it just has not been proven in court yet, but it
will someday.
You
cannot give this type of material to people, that is so toxic.
TOXICITY AND SAFETY ISSUES SURROUNDING FLUORIDE
So
let’s talk about the toxicity. There are several areas in this. One is the
benefits.
Another
is “how much are we getting?” And the other is the safety, or the toxicity.
And I
don’t know what order - do you have any special order which you would like to
go through on this, Joe? DM: Whatever order makes the most sense for you
in your experience.
DO: Okay. In my experience, the
first thing that hit me was this whole area of risk because the EPA, the CDC
(Centers for Disease Control), especially the CDC, says it’s safe. The dentists
say it’s safe. Nothing has been proven that causes risk.
Well,
the Centers for Disease Control does say that it is one of the 10 greatest
public achievements of the 20th century. However, the CDC does not authorize tests to investigate
any drugs. It does not look at the safety of things. So the CDC is very clear
on its website. It is very clear when you communicate with them. It does not
test the safety of any product. It claims their safety but it does not test any
safety.
The
EPA, it says, “We are not allowed to put anything in water for the treatment of
humans.” So as far as fluoridation is concerned, it doesn’t do anything with
fluoridation, adding fluoride with it. If the fluoride gets too high, more than
4 parts per million, the EPA scientists find that it’s very toxic. So, one of
the ways we find out what is toxic is to look at State laws.
I’ve
looked at several State laws - let’s take
A
child, a small child, could find it lethal at 15 milligrams.
One of
the problems, of course, is we do not test lethal doses of anything on humans.
We
don’t line up a hundred volunteers and say, “We’re going to give this to you
and find out which one of you dies first.” That’s just not done.
So
these are estimates based on accidents where people have had excess dosage of
it or on animals. So, 15 is considered lethal for a child.
FLUORIDE: AN UNAPPROVED DRUG, DEFINED BY LAW AS POISON
So I
went to the Board of Pharmacy - I have been working with them for 14 months -
and said, “Your job is to determine whether 15 is less than 3889 milligrams.
Now that should be a simple math question for you.” But they are still working
on it. After 14 months, they still have not figured out whether 15 is less than
3889 milligrams.
If so,
they would have to define fluoride as a poison. It is exempt as a poison if it
is used as a legend drug. That means a prescription drug.
So if
you go to the pharmacy to buy fluoride to swallow it, and you can walk in, talk
to the pharmacy and say, “I want to swallow some fluoride. Where can I find
it?” Well, you can’t find it on the shelf. It can only be gotten as a
prescription drug.
Yet we
force people to have that prescription drug without their consent in water.
So, we
have this fluoride in the pharmacy and you ask the pharmacist, “Is it FDA
approved?” And they will say, “Yes.” At least all of them that I have talked to
said, “Oh, yes.” I say, “Can you look it up to make sure that it is approved?”
And they look it up and they go, “Oh my goodness. It’s not approved, is it?” So
we have a drug that is dispensed at the pharmacy by prescription, which is an
unapproved drug defined by law as a poison.
In
So we
know that it’s very toxic. It can cause death. It can cause neurologic damage.
Safety
is a concern because when we start looking at other issues such as what happens
at low doses, it is a real kick in the pants.
NEW RESEARCH LINKS FLUORIDE TO MENTAL RETARDATION
The new
research that just came out, it was a meta-study of 16 other studies and they
are about 23 studies on humans of the brain and fluoride. The brain and
fluoride--, of course our brains are very important. Now dentists don’t look at
the brain because we diagnose teeth, we diagnose the gums, we diagnose inside
of the mouth. So we don’t pay any attention to the brain because that’s not our
field… These studies found that in areas of dental fluorosis -- the brown spots
or the white spots and mottling of the teeth, whenever a person has ingested
too much fluoride during their teeth’s development -- that those areas have a
five-fold increase in mental retardation.
Sometimes
they will say there is an 8 to 10 IQ point drop across the spectrum.
In
other words, we don’t test IQ. We don’t know what my IQ is. We don’t know what
your IQ is. Or what it would be if it did not have toxic levels. But we do know
that mental retardation, basically an IQ of 70 or less, is defined as mentally
retarded and we have more mentally retarded in areas with higher fluoride levels.
Now,
these levels of fluoride in the water are naturally occurring in these studies;
more on volcanic regions and the levels are higher than what we get here in the
DM: Can I interject a question
here because I’m personally curious. In your experience, is there a difference
between naturally occurring fluoride in the areas that were endemic to the
communities that you mentioned versus artificial or prescription fluoridation
that is used in municipal water supplies? DO: Absolutely, there is a
difference. What we find is in these volcanic areas and areas where there is
naturally occurring fluoride; there is a lot more calcium, a lot harder water.
So, the fluoride and calcium love each other from a chemical standpoint. They
are highly attracted to each other.
So when
you have a high calcium level in your water, the calcium and the fluoride
attach to each other and the body excretes that without as much being absorbed.
The body can get more calcium for its bones and its teeth and so it’s not as
detrimental in a naturally occurring fluoride area.
Although
I do recommend that if you have a high fluoride content in your water, that
like the EPA says, get it on down. It should be down to - well, a lot of the
scientists are saying down to about 0.4 parts per million would be a target
that we should have for our goal.
So,
with IQ, if you get a - what I did is I went to the Department of Education and
I looked at the percentage of children in the schools who are mentally
retarded, getting special education.
We find
that if we rank the States in the
On a
graph, this is very similar on a linear relationship with the amount of
fluoride that is found in mentally retarded areas. In other words in the
studies, the mentally retarded were at about 4 parts per million, 5 parts per
million – you’re getting a five-fold increase in mental retardation. At 1 part
per million, we’re seeing a doubling of mental retardation. So it’s very
graphically very similar.
THE EPA – ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL
Another
safety factor that was a problem for me was in the area of osteosarcoma, a new
study by Bassin. This was a really difficult one for me because the study is of
tremendous quality and it’s an interesting story, at least interesting for me,
when I first read it and heard about it.
The
National Research Council did an evaluation of the Environmental Protection
Agency’s maximum contaminant level that we’ve talked about before. About every
six years to ten years, they have the National Academy of Science, the highest
scientific body in the nation, do an evaluation of these contaminant levels of
the different products and they get the best scientists around. This committee
happened to be historic according to the Chairman. It was historic in the fact
that they permitted someone in the committee who was opposed to fluoride in the
water. He was anti-fluoride.
What
that tells me -- if this was the historic committee -- that means that the
committees before this have all been cherry-picked for the scientists to make
sure that the scientists are online with approving fluoride.
They
get them all together and it’s like getting all the Chevy dealers together and
saying, “Do we like Chevy?” and, “Is our Chevy good?” Yes, everybody agrees, a
hundred percent unanimous agreement that Chevy are great. That’s because we got
all these Chevy dealers together. It’s not an objective evaluation.
So in
the past, they’ve had all the promoters of fluoride get together and no shock
at all, they all agree that fluoride was safe. Well, this committee got
together and the members said, “No, unanimously, fluoride is not safe at 4
parts per million. It’s not protective.” The EPA needs to lower their
standards, maximum contaminant level standard.
That,
the EPA has not done in three years. They have not lowered it to a safety
factor.
Some of
the scientists who are on that committee said that it needs to be lowered to
0.4 parts per million, which is considerably less than what is added to water
at 1 part per million.
DM: When did that committee meet? DO:
2006. That was when the report came out. Actually, it started in 2003. It took
them about three years to get the report out because there was so much science
and controversy as they started looking at things better.
FLUORIDATED WATER INCREASES OSTEOSARCOMA RATES
So
then, what happened is they contacted a Harvard professor who was doing some
study - one of the largest studies on fluoridation, osteosarcoma and risks -
and he had not published his work for about six, seven years. He is federally
funded. They wrote him a letter and said, “Are you finding in your preliminary
evaluation if there is an increase in osteosarcoma?” He wrote back and said,
“No, there’s no indication that there is any increase in osteosarcoma. It’s
safe. It’s fine.” Well, under the door, a manuscript was given to them by one
of his students who had just gotten their PhD in epidemiology. In this thesis,
she had done tremendous shoe leather work in going to the homes of these people
that she was evaluating through his data and found that there was a five to
sevenfold increase in osteosarcoma in boys who are on fluoridated water during
certain growth spurts.
In
other words, when the body is growing faster, the bones are developing more,
the fluoride would be incorporated into these bones and they would end up with
more osteosarcoma.
Osteosarcoma
is very rare but highly lethal bone cancer that children tend to get; more in
children than adults. Girls don’t get it quite as much.
We feel
possibly because of some protection from the estrogen. But the boys have an
increase in death rate in the fluoridated water.
There
was another study previous to that. It found the same thing and then right
after that first study, of course animal studies have shown it, another study
came out but this was funded by Colgate. It found that there were no problems
with osteosarcoma. But because it was funded by Colgate, I’m a little bit
suspicious of it. Anyway, we have more than one study that shows that there is
an increase in death.
THYROID PROBLEMS AND GOITER ENDEMIC IN FLUORIDATED AREAS
So why
am I spending so much time on fluoridation? I mean, I’m spending thousands and
thousands of hours. I’m going to Boards of Pharmacies. I’m going to
legislators. I’m going to all these different areas not making a penny off of
it.
The
reason I’m going is because I know that my profession right now - their
negligence in not studying the science, the clear science, that we are ending
up with people dying, that their brains on drugs don’t like it - refuses to
look at the science. The science is clear from many different areas.
Now,
let’s look at what the National Academy of Science report for the EPA said
about the thyroid. The thyroid is a real concern.
We have
studies on the thyroid and fluoride from the 1850s. What they first did with
fluoride was they would give fluoride to dogs and it would create goiters. Now,
I grew up in
That is
the body’s reaction to trying to cope with what the fluoride is doing in part,
there may be other things, but we always find goiters in high fluoride areas.
The
body is trying to compensate for what the fluoride is doing in reducing the
thyroid level that the body is making. We recommend that iodine be given to the
patient.
Iodized
salt is how we do it here. And in these remote villages where they don’t have
iodized salt and so they end up with getting thyroid goiters.
Now,
does the iodine correct the fluoride decrease in thyroid production? No, but it
just makes it in a way that we don’t get big fat necks with thyroids. What
happens then also is when we have fluoride, we get a low level of thyroid that
is produced by the body. When we have a low thyroid level, of course we end up
with greater diabetes, we end up with more fatigue, we end up with more
weariness, and we end up with all kinds of problems with the endocrine system.
The
fluoride is an endocrine reactor.
So that
gives me all kinds of problems because we’re getting more thyroid reduction and
thyroxin is the drug that we often use for treating a low thyroid output.
That’s the fifth most commonly prescribed drug in the
JUST HOW MUCH FLUORIDE ARE YOU EXPOSED TO?
But
let’s look at the amount of exposure that we’re getting. That means, how much
are we swallowing.
Back in
the 50’s when fluoridation started, there was no fluoridated toothpaste, there
were almost no fluoridated medical products, and there were no fluoride dental
products. Fluoride was not used at all in treatments or in use in pesticides or
used in post-harvest fumigants.
All of
these areas now are new areas of fluoride exposure since they started out
saying, “well at 0.6 to 1 parts per million of fluoride in the water, there
seems to be less decay.”
Fluoridated Pesticides
So,
we’re getting a huge amount of fluoride in pesticides, like cryolite is about
50% fluoride. They have at least 7 parts per million of cryolite that is
permitted on food products like lettuce and all kinds of other foods.
You
know, when we go into the store and we pick up our lettuce and we pick up our
potatoes and we pick up our different foods, we don’t want to see mold on it.
We want that lettuce to be standing up, so perky like it’s been on Viagra for
the last six weeks.
We want
it to all look excellent.
Now,
much of our food is not harvested all year round. You can’t get your wheat but
a couple of times out of the year, our onions, many of our products. My wife
and I now manufacture veggie patties, Shay Gourmet veggie patties. So we’re
constantly buying products. We buy stuff by the ton of produce and we want it
fresh. We want it looking good. We don’t want it moldy. We throw it away if
it’s moldy. We cut it off if it's got blemishes that don’t look right. So we
want to have good foods. So the farmers’ profit – we throw it away, we don’t
buy it. They can’t sell it, it’s a problem.
You go
to the grocery stores. If the food doesn’t last well in the grocery store shelf
of the fresh produce, it goes out in the trash in the back. They want
everything looking just gorgeous.
So
we’ve got to have these pesticides or maybe we don’t, but anyway, society
demands that we put stuff to get the product to market.
Then
after it gets to market, it’s in storage first. After its harvested, it’s in
storage.
There
was a
So they
will put a tent over it or they will spray this bromine in there to try to kill
the mold. Well, that’s causing greenhouse gases. So they came with the
agreement that they would quit doing that and they would use sulfuryl fluoride.
Now the
sulfuryl fluoride, of course, has a residue on the foods and we’re talking
about a quarter of a milligram that the FDA is concerned about. We’re talking
about 1 part per million in water and post-harvest fumigant can have as high as
900 parts per million, which is very similar to toothpaste and fluoride in
things such as your dehydrated egg; 20, 30, 50, 200 times parts per million in
things such as your beans, potatoes, wheat, rice, nuts, spices, and all these
different types of things can have huge amounts of fluoride residue on them.
Of
course, when you talk to Dow Agro Chemical about it, they will say, “Well, not
all of it has this product on it, just some of it.” Well, part of the problem
is that the dried egg and some of these things that have the most of it go to
our rest homes and our schools.
Those
types of things get heavily fumigated products which are the most severe for
our children.
So we
have a huge increase of fluoride in our post-harvest fumigants on our foods. We
have a huge increase on our pesticides.
Mechanical Deboning of Meats
Another
one in our foods that has been a big increase is the mechanical deboning of
meat.
In
other words, if you get a fresh off the farm meat, it’s different than if you
go in and you buy at a hamburger place.
One of
the reasons, when you’d drive down the road and see carcasses of cars,
junkyards, and all these cars but you don’t see carcasses of animals, is
because all those bones are ground up and they use mechanical deboning of the
meat. The bones are high in fluoride especially cow bones, chicken bones, and
so we end up with a tremendous amount of fluoride in our mechanical deboning of
our foods now.
DM: What do they do with the bones
once they grind them up? I mean, are they putting it back in the meat? DO:
Yes. It’s powdered and it raises the calcium level of course of the food.
A lot
of it is animal feed that they use, but it’s also for our pet foods. Sometimes
they’ll send it back to the animals for them to eat later.
But
when they’re mechanically deboning the meat, the meat itself has a much higher
level. So, a prime cut is going to be better than a mechanically deboned
hamburger where it has been taken off the bone with the machinery because that
machinery will take some of the bone with it.
So,
exposure is way too high and as a nutritionist, that became a concern because
even the World Health Organization (WHO) says, “We need to do an evaluation of
how much fluoride we’re getting before we start fluoridating in more areas.
This is
huge. This is a serious problem when nowhere in the United States can you find
research on how much we’re being exposed to from all sources.
Let’s
say while we’re we getting 1 part per million in water, it’s safe. That’s true,
possibly, but that was historical information. So the EPA says, “Well, it’s
safe in pesticides.” Well, possibly, but what about all the other fluoride
that’s coming from all the other sources? There is no government agency that is
overseeing all sources of fluoride.
They
don’t have one doctor that says, “Okay, how much fluoride are you getting from
all these different sources? How much water are you drinking?” So we’re getting
a huge amount from many areas. And that was, as a nutritionist, a real concern
for me.
THE BENEFITS OF FLUORIDE
So I
don’t know how much time we have but we just must spend some time on benefits.
You know,
every time I looked at this information, I would say, “Well, yeah, but fluoride
is so beneficial.” Maybe it’s okay. It’s not really a problem because it’s
beneficial. We’re reducing tooth decay.
Okay,
it’s not worth losing some lives from osteosarcoma. Teeth or brains? Dentists
may say that the teeth are more important than the brains but we got to weigh
that a little bit. Do I drop 8 IQ points or 10 IQ points or even 2 IQ points in
order not to have a cavity? Well, we can start debating that. That’s a judgment
point, that is somewhat argued.
Dentists
might say the teeth are more important and I don’t think so. We all agree that
the brain is so critical.
Now,
what I did on looking at benefits, I looked at a graph that was put out by
Chris Neurath. You can find this stuff - some web sources that would be good to
look at, for those who want to look at it more is www.fluoridealert.org. That’s an excellent web page.
Another
good web page is www.slweb.org. It stands for Second Look. A
lot of scientists who are saying, “Man, we got to look at this again.” They
start putting the science together, putting the research together and find all
kinds of references in there that are excellent references on each of the
different areas of risk and benefit.
Well,
what Chris and another group of scientists did was to publish similar data in
the British Medical Journal. British Medical Journal and Chris on the journal’s
fluoride discussion, that one would be www.fluorideresearch.org. That’s a peer-reviewed journal specifically on the
chemical fluoride. Good and bad articles in there but most of them are risks.
Fluoride’s Impact on Dental Decay Rates
This
graph took 19 different developed countries in the world and it graphed decay
rate over 39 years. The graph is absolutely stunning because all the developed
countries of the world over the last 30 years have reduced decay in similar
amounts.
We’ve
gone from about four cavities for a 12-year-old down to about one cavity for a
12- year-old. That means we only need about one-quarter as many dentists as we
used to have. I mean we just don’t have as much decay anymore.
And
those countries, most of them have not fluoridated.
Now, in
the
The Socioeconomics of Dental Decay
So what
I did is I took a graph again of these States, the percentage of the States,
ranking them on fluoridation levels. I put in there the decay rates but I
separated them out for socioeconomics. I put in the poor and I put in the
wealthy.
The wealthy
have a report. About 82% of the wealthy report very good to excellent teeth.
That’s just in every single State across the nation. It maybe 81, 83 but it’s
just dead on all the way across every State, regardless of fluoridation. They
all report the same level of good teeth.
Of
those below poverty level, we’re looking at about 55% reporting very good to
excellent teeth. Now, there is more variation in the poor; some states having
more, some states having less. But the graph line is linear all the way across
at about 55%, 56% of the poor having very good to excellent teeth.
When I
saw that graph, it just hit me like a bolt of lightning. That’s what I was
looking at when I had been doing dentistry and telling my staff that I could
see the difference in the patient’s mouth and tell you where they lived! I was
looking at socioeconomics. I was comparing the poor out in the country with the
wealthier in the city, well they might not have been that wealthy but at least
they had jobs. So, I could tell that their teeth were looking better but it was
more a fact of socioeconomics than fluoride.
I said,
“Well, okay. Those are the States, compare the States. Let’s look at within the
State.” For instance, I’m working in
Both
states have similar socioeconomics with
So I
looked at comparing
Of the
six studies that I looked at regarding the decay rates, tooth loss, and all the
rest of these, we found that actually,
Now, I
was told that there is one study that is not consistent with that. So at the
best case or worse case scenario, there is no difference between the two States
with all the fluoridation they are doing, there are no benefits.
When we
look at the counties within
So we
can compare countries of the world. We can compare States in the
So how
is it the American Oral Health Conference here in
The
science was very poor but the emotions were very high because the Public Health
Association wants to promote fluoridation. They are pushing it. They are like
the car salesmen. They don’t look at the science. They just look at the
numbers. Are they getting more people to fluoridate? And that’s all they are
interested in.
So I
stood up and I said, “You know, I offered to come here and be here but you
refused to allow me to be here and speak up on the debate, so fine. You setup a
paper tiger and shoot it down. Next time, get a real scientist who’s opposed to
it to bring out the science in opposition. Don’t just set up paper tigers.”
Where’s the Proof That Fluoridation Reduces Dental Expenses?
Then I
turned over to the Delta Dental Insurance executive who was there talking about
how to debate. He was representing the California Delta Dental and they’re
putting in tremendous amounts of money to actually pay for the equipment that
goes into fluoridating different communities.
I said,
“Jeff, would you do me a favor and give me one scientific study, not of
estimates based on assumptions? But I want you to give me an actual study
showing the measured decrease in dental expenses.” That means the amount of
money that people are paying to have their dental decay, fillings and all there
is. Show me one study that shows the measured benefit of fluoridation.
This is
very important.
For
instance, we have two communities, and let’s say they have polio. We go into
one community and we give everybody in that community vaccinations. We require
everybody to have it. We force everybody in that community to have vaccinations
for polio.
After
50 years, if we went back and they have all been getting polio vaccinations and
the other community did not, we should be able to go back in those communities
and say, “Okay, we are spending less money in this town with the vaccinations
for polio.
We’re
spending less money on polio treatment for the disease.” So, having actual
reduction in expenses after 50 years I think is a very valid point of interest.
The CDC
thinks it’s valid too and they have published studies on their website. But if
you look at the actual research, the research is showing estimates of
assumptions.
Well,
if we assume that there’s a benefit from decay and we estimate based on that
assumed benefit, then we can come up with some numbers that are wonderful but
aren’t realistic.
Almost
every community in the
There
is not one single study showing a reduction in dental expenses.
So they
were silent. This dental insurance executive whom their company is putting out
millions of dollars to fluoridate communities because they think there is going
to be reduction in dental expenses is clueless about the fact that there is no
reduction in dental expenses. It’s just crazy.
Anyway,
there is one study by Malpom comparing the fluoridation in
What
they found at the end – they were looking at Kaiser Permanente patients and
they compared the dental expenses throughout all ages – was very interesting
because they did find a benefit. By massaging the data carefully, they did end
up with a benefit.
Out of
$200 a year in dental expenses, they ended up with 67 cents per year estimated
dental expense savings.
Well,
they said 67 cents was the amount of money that was saved that would pay for
the repairs of the fluoridation equipment. So, 67 cents covers the fluoridation
equipment repairs but it does not cover the expenses for the fluoridation
chemicals. It doesn’t cover for the marketing to try to get the equipment
fluoridation started in the community. It doesn’t pay for any of the other
expenses. It doesn’t pay for any of the medical expenses, the savings for
medical damage that is happening.
So,
this is 67 cents. But if you look closer at the study, and you look at the
children between
THE REASONS WHY FLUORIDATION EXISTS
DM: Okay. It’s tragic.
The
obvious question that I’m sure anyone listening to this is if the science
really powerfully documents, that there really isn’t a benefit. Certainly, for
lower dental expenses or dental health and all these toxic concerns that are
progressively increasing, the obvious question is why is there such a strong
opposition to accepting and acknowledging or recognizing and applying the
scientific findings? What’s the force that is contributing to this mandatory
imposition of the fluoride in the water supplies? DO: That is one of the
most powerful questions. And, when I answered that question, I look in the
mirror because for 25 years I promoted water fluoridation. I contributed to
this problem.
And, so
therefore, I have to be very gentle because every criticism I make for the
scientists who are promoting fluoridation is directed right at me for the first
25 years.
Number
1: I simply failed to look at the science in opposition to fluoride.
Number
2: Most of the committees that look at fluoridation are setup of dentists.
The
California Board of Dentistry when asked, “Is it within the purview of
dentistry to diagnose the medical safety of fluoride?” was told, “No, dentists
cannot diagnose medical things.” I don’t diagnose thyroid disease. I don’t
diagnose osteosarcoma. I don’t diagnose IQ. As a dentist, I don’t diagnose
those things.
So
therefore, these committees are setup and they don’t look at anything outside
the dental arena.
When
dentists are saying it’s safe, they’re purely looking at the teeth, okay, and
it’s still not even safe for the teeth. But dentists don’t look at any of these other diseases. They are
very narrowly focused.
For
instance, right now, I’m on the American Dietetics Association review of
fluoride.
The
goal of the Dietetics Association is obviously to get their dietitians to be
able to get insurance payments for recommending fluoride treatments. So there
is monetary benefit there that they see but more important than that, they want
to reduce dental decay and they’ve always had a policy that fluoride is
wonderful and beneficial, etcetera.
So, I
highly commend the American Dietetics Association for saying, “We’re going to
do an evidence-based analysis of the evidence on fluoride, ingesting fluoride.”
So I’m currently on that committee. We’re working on it. I expect that within a
year, we’re going to have a report out on it.
But
when we’re looking at it, they set up guidelines. For instance, one of the
guidelines is we will only look at human studies.
Well,
obviously you don’t do any toxic research on humans. So all the animal studies
are thrown out. I said to them, “We have no clue at what the toxic level is of
the substance that we’re putting in and that we’re recommending.” Well, those
are the parameters that we’re going with because dietitians give it to humans
who are only going to be looking at human studies. We are going to only look at
the last 10 years of studies. We’re only going to look at many different steps
in here if the research has to have about 10 different areas that they’re going
to have specifically.
Most of
those areas, I think, are very good and very valid. So when a person is looking
at the research, they need to not make a blanket statement that says, “Oh its
safe.” No, what we looked at was a specific narrow focus and found that it was
safe or that it was a problem. That’s one of the problems that we have and I
don’t want to get into it too much.
There
is money involved but not a lot of money.
The
phosphate fertilizer companies manufacture fertilizer, of course, and as a
waste product or a by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing, they were
pumping out all these fluoride all over the countryside and it was causing
genetic problems for the animals in the area.
It was
denuding the countryside and making it all barren. So they started spraying
water into their smoke stacks as a scrubber. This wet slurry would come on down
predominantly fluoride and that’s what is pumped into trucks and hauled to your
water district. The solution to that pollution is dilution in your water.
So,
it’s not a pharmaceutical grade product. It’s just simply a toxic waste
product.
It does
have arsenic, lead, cadmium, radium, radio nucleotides and those types of
things but those are small levels. Not very high levels of which end up in the
water. But it is some of those and the lead.
So, is
it money that’s involved? There are some phosphate fertilizer companies that
probably save $7,000 to $8,000 of money per ton because they could not dispose
of the stuff in the rivers, in the lakes or in the oceans and those types of
things because it’s a toxic material.
However,
they can put it on the water system, of which some 90 percent goes back into
the waters of the lakes and the streams but because they’re disposing it to the
water district, the water districts do that. They do save some money.
There
is some money there. I think the primary reason is two-fold really: the
altruistic view by the dentists that they are doing something that’s actually
reducing their dental expenses; and if they speak up against it, they are
speaking up trying to get more money for their own pocket. It’s an altruistic
view that’s why we even look at the research? It’s just a dead end; it’s a
controversial issue. Don’t even talk about it; don’t even get involved with it.
So that’s one aspect.
There
was another aspect of it and it slipped my mind now. That’s part of the primary
concern.
SCIENCE TRUMPS CONSPIRACY THEORIES
DM: Well, it’s interesting because
many people take a conspiracy view and that there was more of an economic
incentive for these fertilizer companies to dispose of that.
But
from your view, that is not as much of an issue as is the essentially effective
brainwashing and manipulation of the health care profession, specifically the
dental profession, that is absolutely convinced this isn’t an issue and that
it’s a waste of their limited time and resources to investigate any further.
So,
that begs the question as to what caused that powerful influence and manipulation
of the data and the facts? I’m sure you’ve looked at that and my guess is that
there has got to be a cause of this if someone at a very high level very
carefully calculated and orchestrated the process to get this in place.
What’s
your evaluation and what does your research show? DO: Okay, that brings
up what slipped my mind. I don’t like to talk about conspiracies because there
is enough good, solid, strong science and once I start talking about
conspiracies, everybody starts to talk about the conspiracy rather than the
quality science.
So, one
other aspect that I want to talk about on this is my Masters in Public Health.
As a Masters in Public Health, the last course that I took, I remember two
weeks before graduation, I was absolutely stunned and shocked at what my
professors told me because I was arguing with them a little bit.
I was
frustrated at the public health program and he was talking about how public
health officials are to promote policy. It is not their position to review the
science. The science is reviewed by the toxicologist, by the epidemiologist,
and all these given people. The doctors take care of that.
As
public health officials, you promote the information.
It is
sort of like a car dealership where you have the engineers designing the piston
and then there is the car dealer/salesman who is selling the car and is not
going to know all about the metallurgy of that piston. He just sells cars.
In this
program, I raised my hand and I said, “Sir, if my boss told me to recommend smoking,”
this is back in the 70’s when we knew smoking was a problem, “if they recommend
and tell me that I’m to promote smoking in public health program, should I
promote tobacco smoking?” There was a long pause by the professor and he said,
“Yes, that’s your job. You do what you’re told to do even though you personally
think that it’s wrong, you must promote what you’re told to promote.” It’s at
that point that I thought: do I get out of the class? Do I not get my degree or
what do I do? Obviously, I didn’t want to be in public health because I can’t
promote something that I know is a dishonest fact.
So,
when we see public health people promoting fluoridation, just remember, it’s
their job to promote. It’s not their job to look at the science.
When
you try to find out who are the people that are actually looking at the
science, well, unfortunately, there is no one.
The
State governments, they rely on others. Everybody is relying on everybody else.
For
instance, the CDC – it doesn’t do the safety. The EPA – it isn’t allowed add
anything to water for the treatment of humans. The FDA – it has turned over the
whole program to the EPA because the EPA handles the water. The FDA has never
authorized it and every application that went to it was denied or was told to
withdraw the application.
So we
don’t have anybody at the helm here that’s looking at it.
Dentists
– we have thousands and thousands of products that we have to keep track of and
keep up with. We think that fluoride is a non-issue – it reduces the business
that we get so why should we even look at the science of it.
So I
don’t think about the conspiracy, although the conspiracy is really fascinating
to look at because the earliest studies in the
So some
of the science was tied up in the military and has only recently been released.
The
history of fluoride is very fascinating. It was used by Stalin and Hitler.
When I
was in
She
said, “Well, you know, in
You
know, the Supreme Court of the
So they
required these people to get their antibiotic and some of them did not want to
be medicated by the government and so they fought it. Well, it ended up in the
Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court said that even during times of war, the
government does not have the right to medicate people with a drug that is
approved but is not approved for the purpose that it’s being given.
Now,
fluoridation is a drug, defined as a drug by the FDA and by every law that I’ve
seen in the
So,
even the Supreme Court says that we should not be doing this type of thing.
It is
absolutely mind-blowing – that we are mass medicating everybody when most of
the world is not; that the public health departments are promoting what they
don’t even look at in the science; and that we’re getting too much from other
sources, which are not safe and the evidence is very strong.
The
The
last thing here that is most important: most of the research that is done is
done to try to promote and sell a product. We want to sell a pill. We want to
sell a drug. We want to sell something and so we do research on it.
There
is no research to show that something is a problem to not buy a product. There
is no research that says, “Oh, don’t buy that pill. Don’t buy that drug because
it’s a problem.” We don’t do that kind of research.
In
fact, most of the research which shows that it has no effect or that it is
harmful, we kind of don’t publish that research because we don’t want it to be
known that it causes a problem.
So, the
safety of fluoride has not been studied in the
And
there is no safety on it.
THE COMMON SENSE SAFETY LEVEL OF FLUORIDE
But there
is one study that has been going now for at least thousands and thousands of
years. It’s the best study that I know of. It’s proof of the level fluoride
that we should be ingesting at least for infants and probably throughout the
rest of our life. It is mother’s milk.
Mother’s
milk is how we survived. No one disputes mother’s milk. Now they may say, “Well
we need to have a little bit of vitamin D” and there is a little bit of
discussion, and you’ve had some wonderful reports on the vitamin D issue but mother’s
milk is pretty complete. And most people don’t argue with mother’s milk.
Mother’s
milk has 0.004 parts per million of fluoride in it when the mother is on
nonfluoridated water and almost the same when they are on fluoridated water.
The
mother’s body protects that infant as best as possible from that fluoride. The
infant does not get fluoride and that really, in utero birth, the first, maybe
six, seven years is the only time when swallowing fluoride might be beneficial
according to the National
In
fact, the Center for Disease Control (CDC), the American Dental Association
(ADA) and the
With
respect to the vitamin D, I just wanted to mention that my views on that have
actually changed.
Relatively
recently, I wasn’t aware that vitamin D was actually in breast milk and most of
all the research and study showed that it was seriously deficient and that if
you’re breastfeeding, you had to supplement. Well, it was deficient because
almost every woman was deficient of vitamin D. So it’s not surprising that it’s
going to be in the breast milk but if a woman has therapeutic and optimal
levels of vitamin D, it’s probably in appropriate levels in the breast milk.
But the
central question that I think many of us have - is there ever any therapeutic
indication for fluoride? I think you’ve really alluded to it in utero that
there may be some benefit to the child in utero to receive this, but after that
there is not. Otherwise, is it considered a metabolic poison? DO: Well,
actually you misunderstood or I said it wrong then. Because in utero, the child
may get some fluoride and it might be beneficial theoretically because that’s
when the teeth start to develop, but what we found is that actually there is an
increase in Down Syndrome cases with those that are on fluoridated water.
So, I
don’t think that the mother should have fluoride while she’s carrying the baby.
She should not have fluoride before she’s pregnant. She should not have
fluoride while she’s nursing and certainly the level of fluoride in mother’s
milk is an indication of what children should be getting – I think that’s one
of our big risks when their bodies are small and when the blood-brain barrier
has not been developed fully, that the brain has more of a problem when it’s
getting these toxins.
So, no
fluoride period. In fact I quit using fluoride in my toothpaste about two years
ago.
DM: Well, I miscommunicated
because that wasn’t what I was intending to say. The confusion I think from my
perspective and I think from many others is that, fluoride does exist in the
environment, as you mentioned earlier, and that it’s endemic in some areas.
So, one
could logically deduce from that that it may be required for some of our
systems for optimal health and actually is a micronutrient that maybe
beneficial for health.
I
wasn’t meaning to imply that it should be added back into the mothers, but is
there some level of where it should be? And if it’s below a certain level,
there is going to be some physiological damage or lack for optimization.
WHY THERE IS NO NEED FOR FLUORIDE
DO: As far as we know, there is no
bodily function where fluoride is needed.
In
other words, the absence of fluoride does not cause any disease. It does not
cause dental decay. The absence of fluoride doesn’t cause any disease.
It
would be extremely difficult to have an absence of fluoride because like you
said, it’s a very common element and it’s found in foods, it’s found in some of
the great foods that we eat but in lower amounts, unless of course, there are
post-harvest fumigants in the pesticides.
In
DM: That’s a very good point and I
just want to emphasize it because it’s such a crucial issue because there is a
lot of confusion on this.
So, as
far as your review of the literature and understanding is, there is just never
an indication to use fluoride therapeutically at all.
That
was even before it was introduced in massive doses in the 1950’s. There was
enough endemically to more be than sufficient to provide any suspected need
that we may have.
But in
light of the fact that since the 50’s, we are being exposed to these
fertilizers and the deboning processes, in addition to the fluoridated water
and toothpaste, we’re all really at toxic levels because from your view,
fluoride is a poison and it should be avoided period.
It
should not be ingested or used in any way, shape, or form. Is that an accurate
summary? DO: Absolutely, it’s very similar in toxicity to arsenic and
lead. We haven’t found any need for those. We haven’t found any need for
fluoride either.
DM: That’s good.
DO: In fact, they’ve had some
studies where they have drawn blood in children who are in fluoridated areas
and drawn blood in children in non-fluoridated areas. They’ve found that the
blood lead levels in the fluoridated areas are higher in children and lead is
just not good for us.
So,
there are different discussions of why there would be more lead in the blood of
children in fluoridated areas.
One of
these is that the fluoride of course is a very strong acid. That acid is
leaching lead from our pipes and from our faucets and even the new plumbing has
lead in it in the faucets. It’s just everywhere.
That
lead is absorbed in the body more by children who are on fluoridated water.
So, one
of the issues we haven’t covered is if a person wants to reduce their exposure
to fluoride, what do they do?
WAYS TO ELIMINATE FLUORIDE EXPOSURE
DM: Or let’s not even say they
reduce, I think more accurately, eliminate would be the goal? www.
DO: Yes, absolutely. So, if we’re
going to get rid of that fluoride, where do we find the most fluoride? In a
fluoridated area, about 50% of the fluoride is in your fluoridated water, if
you’re drinking fluoridated water. So, I am very much into not living in an
area where it’s fluoridated.
I have
my family - my grandchild was born there in the fluoridated area. So what did I
do? I helped my dentist son-in-law and one of them said that he wanted to get a
refund from dental school because he just couldn’t believe the science was so
different than what he had been taught in school.
But
what I helped him do is put in a reverse osmosis water filter. That’s not the
best answer to the world. It reduces fluoride significantly because home
filters do not take out fluoride. They’ll take out the chlorine but fluoride is
not taken out with regular home filters. It has to be a reverse osmosis.
DM: Well, that’s not quite true.
There are some modifications that you can use. In fact, we sell one in our site
that does remove the fluoride.
DO: I didn’t know that.
DM: There is definitely one and I
forgot the specific chemical that does it but it’s all in there. That is an
issue, you’re right. Almost all of the commercial water supplies that are on
non-reverse osmosis do not but there are specific filter. And it’s a separate
canister that does that.
DO: Right. So when they have a
separate canister, they are not doing reverse osmosis but it does take out the
calcium doesn’t it? DM: I think it’s an ion exchange of some sort.
DO: And that’s my problem with
these heavy-duty, very good filters.
DM: Well, the reverse-osmosis
definitely takes it out but my understanding is that the water is not really
designed to be your source of minerals. I mean, you’re supposed to get them in
your food and not from the water. Maybe you have a different understanding.
DO: I feel like naked water is
probably better because we have so many pollutants in our water. But I think
natural spring water, provided it doesn’t have a lot of pollutants in it, is
what I'm leaning to a little bit. Well, that’s my first preference.
If you
lined up water in front of me and one of them said, ‘spring water’, I’d
probably take that water before I would go with any other water at this point.
DM: I would agree but you can
remedy that solution from a properly filtered water by adding the mineral right
back in as soon as you filter and you could use something as simple as like
Himalayan salt or even some pretty sophisticated mineral supplements that you
can put in as a liquid and you don’t need much.
DO: Very tiny amounts, you’re
right. But it isn’t a perfect answer to go with this reverse osmosis and I want
to look into the filters that you have because I think that might be superior.
I’ve heard a couple of other people talk about them. And I just haven’t spent
time looking at that.
DM: Well, the other issue is not
just fluoride and chlorine is not as much of an issue, it’s relatively benign,
but the disinfection products which potentially are even more toxic than the
fluoride and then the drugs. There are literally thousands of drugs in the
water, they are in ever-increasing quantities. So you’re getting small of doses
of all these drugs in addition to the disinfection byproducts. So, you have to
have something to remove those types of elements from most all municipal water
supplies.
DO: Right, I agree with you. That
brings up the problem. If I go and purchase many of the foods that are
manufactured – the soups, the drinks, all these types of things, especially
foods that have been reconstituted with water – we need to find out what’s in
that filtered water, if they filter it.
There
are big plants that do filter their water carefully, but frequently, it’s not
filtered because they just use the water straight and we’re getting that water
in those sources.
When we
go out to restaurants and eat, we get a glass of water. All that is a source of
real concern to me because we are getting that fluoride and those other toxins.
Bringing
up the idea of the other toxins, in Washington State, for instance, regarding
the definition of poison, it lists three different substances - arsenic
strychnine, and cyanide - and it says that it includes any other substance
designated by the Board of Pharmacy to be lethal or whatever.
All the
States have similar language. Washington State Department of Pharmacy has not
designated one single substance in 27 years as poison. Now, if it would
designate these substances as poisons, then at least we could go in and say,
“Okay, this is a poison. Let’s see how we can reduce it.” Meanwhile, Washington
Toxics is running around, raising money and going to the legislators to try to
pass more laws. We have a law that was passed back in the 80’s that is a very
good, strong law, but nobody is doing anything about it. And that’s part of our
problem – there can be great laws but unless somebody does something about it,
it’s meaningless.
DM: I couldn’t agree more. That’s
definitely going to be an important consideration.
DO: Any other questions on
fluoride --
DM: I definitely do, I have a
number of them that I have been compiling. You had mentioned earlier that there
are these additional sources of fluoride exposure, in addition to the water and
the toothpaste, and that there are no studies that you are aware of that they
actually compiled and really gave an estimate at least, formally or academically,
as to what those exposures are.
But I’m
wondering from your review and understanding if you have a gut estimate as what
those might be? Secondarily, sort of in line with the answer to this question,
is you had mentioned sort of a hierarchy of how to minimize or eliminate your
fluoride exposure and you mentioned water as 50%. But I’m wondering if you
could mention the others in a descending order as the exposures that most
people are going to be encountering?
Avoid
Fluoride Toothpaste
DO: Toothpaste, people can get a
tremendous amount of fluoride from toothpaste and swallowing it.
Like I
mentioned with my daughter, I told her to spit but she swallowed because she
wasn’t thinking about it. I personally don’t use fluoridated toothpaste
anymore.
There
was a conference by the National Academy of Science that got together, with the
leading scientists and they said, “How do we prevent dental decay?” In that,
they came up with two methods which have some benefit. They called the evidence
‘fair.’ In all the other methods of preventing tooth decay, the science is
incomplete.
We
really don’t know how to prevent dental decay. We talk about brushing and
flossing but the science has not shown that it’s all that effective. Sure, it
makes your breath smell better but it doesn’t show that it is that effective.
I am
convinced, although now after fluoridation, I’m gentler on my being convinced
but I’m sure that it reduces periodontal disease and that it reduces dental
decay. But diet is probably even more important than even cleaning our teeth
especially with children when it comes to decay.
However,
they don’t even find the science on diet is all that strong. There were two
instances where it was fair and that one is on fluoride varnish, which can give
you a huge dose of fluoride and can cause serious problems in the stomach
because of the varnish. The two instances were for cancer patients who are
getting radiation treatment or those who are having rampant decay. Well, if
you’re having rampant decay, rather than putting fluoride varnish on the tooth,
you need to clean up your diet and start cleaning and that will be as effective
or more effective.
So,
when it comes to toothpaste, do not swallow the fluoridated toothpaste. And if
you’re not having a lot of problems with decay, rampant decay, and if you’re
not having cancer treatments, then I’d recommend no fluoridated toothpaste.
DM: I’m surprised that there is a
suggestion that you made and I think that there is an indication for fluoride
toothpaste. And that’s where I was trying to get at, at my earlier question
because it’s sounds like that there is really no evidence that it works. So I’m
not sure why one would ever use fluoride toothpaste.
DO: Our statements are to use
fluoride toothpaste like suntan lotion. It’s on the surface of the tooth. No
swallowing of it. But the research about it is very minor and the reason I say
that is for two reasons. I don’t want to sound dogmatic. Number 2, there really
isn’t any good indication for it but I’m not ruling it out.
In
other words, if a patient came to me and I saw that they had rampant decay in
their mouth because of a bad diet or cancer treatment, well they can’t stop the
cancer treatment. We really need to get that cancer under control. That can be
life-threatening.
So, my
point is that there might be an instance at some point, where I would recommend
some fluoride varnish or some fluoride topical but in the last five years, that
patient has not shown up yet. That’s how often it happens. I just have not seen
it yet.
DM: So let’s get the tearing: 50%
of the fluoride exposure for the average person is in the water and then how
many percent -- DO: About a quarter of a third for the average person is
going to be in their toothpaste.
DM: Okay, so if you can clean up
your water supply either if you’re on a well – it’s not an issue because that’s
typically not fluoridated of course – or if you have a reverse osmosis or one
of the filtration systems that we have in our system to use, which has a
special housing to remove all the fluoride.
DO: How much does that system cost
you? DM: It’s pretty inexpensive. I think it’s under $200 and sometimes
we have sales on them. But it’s really reasonable.
For the
most part, because there is clearly a risk for kids, as you pointed out with
your daughter’s example that you’re going to swallow this stuff, so just don’t
even use it unless you have some really unusual situation where you are having
a cancer treatment or you have really bad dental decay.
So,
avoid the fluoride in your toothpaste completely. Then, you’re going to get rid
of about 60% to 75%.
DO: Well, for some people, [cross
talking] 90% of the fluoride right there. But for the average person, it’s
going to be about 75% to 80% of the fluoride that you’re going to get rid of
right there.
Avoid
Fluoridated Medications Then the third thing that is reasonable – medications. My wife
almost died from a very serious infection. We gave her some penicillin and it
just was not working. We gave her a fluoride antibiotic and it just zapped
those bugs and she lived. Now, did it give her a surge? DM: Probably,
you’re referring to a fluoroquinolone, which would be like Cipro. It would be
the classic example on that. So they are very potent and very toxic and
actually we’re in the process right now of running a special report on these
drugs because they have really harmed and damaged large numbers of people.
DO: Yes and yet perhaps some harm
to save a life but it needs to be used very judiciously.
My
mother just had heart surgery. She is 87 years of age. She got a new valve.
Everything
else was fine but a new valve. By the way, that was really tough on her. The
toughest part was the anesthesia. I told the anesthesiologist to try to avoid
the fluoride anesthesia but he just couldn’t. He needed to give that to her and
so he gave it to her and the anesthesia is giving her a big problem.
But
those things are life threatening. We say, “Okay, fine. We have to have it.”
But our bodies can handle a certain amount of fluoride. We just want to reserve
those toxic doses for life and death situations.
So the
next way of - first of all, water. Second would be dental products. The third
one that you can reduce it the most would be in your organic foods.
Eat
Organic Foods
Your
organic foods are going to have fewer fluoride pesticides, fewer post-harvest
fumigants and they are going to be much better.
For
instance, beef can legally have 40 parts per million of sulfuryl fluoride on it
and that’s legal. We can have 125 parts per million. Herbs and spices can be 70
parts per million because you’re not going to eat much herbs and spices but
your vegetables like legumes, they can have up to 70 parts per million on these
types of products.
So, if
you can go to your farmer’s market – I remember going last year, there is this
little old lady who had some gorgeous lettuce and I went there and I said to
her, “Do you use cryolite on your lettuce?” She looked at me like I’d lost my mind
and she said, “Son, I use ladybugs.” And I go, “Okay, that’s what I want to
buy. I want natural things.” So that kind of thing is much better than this
farmer who says, “Well, you know, it kind of gums up my equipment so I don’t
use it very often. I use something else that doesn’t gum up my equipment as
much.” So your organic foods, your fresh in season products, are going to be
better. Buying your watermelon in November is just not going to be as good.
There are shipping costs on it. Well, November, December, January, middle of
the winter is just not - use your apples at that time of year because they’re
going to be more harvested recently rather than your summer products.
FLUORIDE’S MECHANISM OF ACTION DM: Okay. Another question I have
on fluoride itself was, since it’s a metabolic poison, it’s something that we
need to avoid, if at all possible completely, what is your summary of the
mechanism of action? How is fluoride toxic to humans? What is the primary way? DO:
Well, it’s an enzymatic reactor.
About
50% of the fluoride is absorbed by the bones and the teeth. As a person
swallows some fluoride, about half goes into the bones and the teeth and about
half of it is excreted in the kidneys.
This is
why if a person has some kidney problems, he is not going to get rid of it as
easily in the kidneys because he’s going to be retaining more of the fluoride
in his body.
But if
you look at the chemical periodic table, it’s that top right-most highly active
halogen up there that is right above the chlorine and the iodine that is very
reactive. It just attaches to your calcium and of course the nerve works with
calcium. You need calcium to run your nerves. When you have fluoride running
around your body, your nerves aren’t going to react as well because of the
calcium.
It’s an
enzymatic reactor. That’s a basic answer. And you can talk to your
endocrinologist more about the enzymes and actually to Joe too. As a physician,
you know more about those enzymes than I.
ON THE THEORIES OF DR.WESTON PRICE
DM: Okay. So it poisons the
important metabolic enzymes. That’s an important point.
And I’m
also curious, we’ve just recently ran a - you might have even seen it - an
article on what I felt was one of the most significant nutritional researchers
in the 20th century
and he happened to be a dentist. You probably know who he is and I’m wondering,
you remind me of him in some ways. I don’t think Dr. Price had a Masters in
Public Health but he certainly did some incredible investigations and explored
the use of diet, foods and nutrition and its influence on health. I’m wondering
if you might have some comments on Dr. Price, in light that you’re a dentist? DO:
Before I talk about the good things, I want to talk about the bad things.
In our
community, we tend to want things in a very tight nutshell and we want to have
good and bad. There is no one human being that has been 100% bad on every
single thing or 100% perfectly good at every single thing.
What
happens is if a person says something that’s wrong, scientists will tend to
throw out everything that they’ve ever said and use that as an excuse. So,
science is a learning, growing process especially if we write something down
today, we may not necessarily agree with it tomorrow because we may have
learned more.
So,
everybody needs to give the scientists the space to grow and to improve.
Because if we lock a scientist into saying, “they used to say that fluoride was
good. Now you say that it is bad. That means that you’re all crazy.” No, that
means, I’m growing and I’m learning.
Weston
Price was head of dental research of the
Well,
what’s fascinating is that some of those issues that he was proven wrong
actually has now been reproven that he was correct.
So it
wasn’t necessarily that he was wrong, but that at a certain period in our
scientific history, he may have been wrong to our best information and now
we’re finding out that maybe he wasn’t right. However, just because he was
wrong, maybe in one or two issues, does not mean that he was wrong in
everything.
Weston
Price did a tremendous amount of work, which I highly support. By going to
Third World countries and to the native people in the United States, Australia,
Africa, and many different places, he looked at their mouths to find out what
the health of their mouth was and the development of their mouth.
When
people look at that, they say, “Well that has to do with cavities.” Weston
Price really focused in cavities because that’s what people understood the
most. They think that when they started getting our Western diet, that their
mouths did not develop as well, that they had more crowded teeth, that they did
not have the wide arches, that they did not have the good airway, and that they
tended to have more of a Caucasian, North American, Northern European defective
development of the lower third of their face.
My
concern with that is that this is huge because this ties into temporal
mandibular disorders. This ties into airway disorders. This ties into the
allergies of the tonsils and tonsillectomies that have been there, the asthmas,
the allergies, all these types of things.
However,
I grew up in Africa and I’ve been back to
On the
other side of the river, civilization has not gotten to them. They don’t have
the problems.
So what
about Western civilization is causing this problem? You go to their little
stores and they have the most basic of commodities. It’s not like they have big
grocery stores. They have some very simple things of their corn meal that they
sell, those that they grow around there and they sell. Most of the produce is
gotten in their produce so they grow it themselves.
But the
stores of processed stuff, they’ll have shortening, they’ll have oil, they’ll
have some soda pop, they’ll have soap, and they’ll have the most basic
commodities that you could ever find. Maybe some flour. Frequently, not even
bread.
So the
things that pop to my mind is refined food of any kind. Could the shortening be
part of the problem? Could it be our soap? The soaps that we’re refining and
putting there. What is it about it? I want to get more detail that Weston Price
got and looked at.
He saw
the Western society and the refined product but I don’t know. That’s one area
I’m looking at.
DM: Why were you in
And
then, have you done any missionary work yourself when you’ve gone back to those
environments? DO: Yes, missionary work in the
What
we’re doing is we’re trying to export fluoride to these countries. We’re trying
to export more of our drugs to these countries. We exported our AIDS and now we
want to export some of our other products.
Now,
there are certain things that we do export in terms of hygiene but when they
get their water, they do well. Rather than giving them those things, for
instance, our pharmaceutical industry wants to give them our pharmaceutical
drugs to treat their AIDS problems, the HIV problems.
But
what we do is we send our drugs over there and those people walk for maybe
three, four, six, eight hours to the hospital to pick up their AIDS medication,
go back home and then it gives them an upset tummy. So what do they do? They
quit taking the AIDS medication because it upsets their tummy. Now, they are
going to start developing resistant strains.
Exporting
our method of treating these people is not necessarily the correct way. We can
use basic public health measures. But to export our drugs is just not working
at all.
DM: I couldn’t agree more. So like
most things in life, it’s just paying attention to the foundational basics
which is pretty straightforward and once you do that, the body is designed to
stay healthy. It’s not designed to be sick. If you give it what it needs and
help avoid toxins like fluoride and many of the other toxic exposures that
we’re exposed to, you’re going to be healthy. It’s just the natural tendency of
what our bodies are designed to grow towards.
CHEMICAL SENSITIVITIES TO FLUORIDE
DO: There are a couple of things
or at least one story I’d like to give here of a friend of mine who works with
me on the fluoridation and who tries to stop fluoridation in her community. She
has an autistic boy, about 22 years old. He weighs about 240 lbs. He is tall.
He is big. He is strong. He has been autistic since he was around six months.
She
said, “I noticed a change right after he got his vaccination. I know they tell
me that it may not have been the vaccinations” but she said, “I’m a meticulous
person. On my daughter, who is older, I kept a detailed log everyday of how she
felt, what she was doing. On my son, I did the same thing. I went back and I
looked at my log book to confirm what I had been thinking” and she said, “It
was there. He had his vaccinations and then he started having these autistic
syndromes. I know that many of the medications that are given to autistic
children for their pain and their reactions to the pain also caused problems.”
So she said, “I try to avoid giving him any drugs. Throughout school,
throughout everything that he’s done, I have been there in his classrooms. I
have been with him.
He is
highly chemically sensitive. So he’s my little hummingbird.” And she said, “So
am I. But when I find the problem for him, I noticed that if I can get rid of
it for me, I’m better off also. It’s just that he’s more sensitive. He reacts more
to these chemicals than I do. I found many different things, even the magic
markers in the classroom and the grease board markers had too much volatile
stuff in it. When they do construction in the building at the far end, I told
them that he couldn’t handle that. They said that the air is not coming to him.
And they finally did some checking on the duct thing and there was a duct that
brought air from that end of the building.” And so she said, “I’ve cautiously
fought this with his clothes, with his food, with everything. We were having
problems. In the middle of the night, he would be up pacing the floor screaming
and yelling with pain. During the day, he could not function because of pain.
It was a nightmare working with him, trying to find out what it was and the
reactions that he had. Finally, I heard about fluoride” and she thought, “Well,
let me try that.” So she got non-fluoridated reverse osmosis water from one of
the stores. She started feeding it to him and what a great improvement.
She
said, “He could handle so much more. He was just not having the problem. I
tried with some water that had chlorine in it and that was not a problem. But
the fluoride for him was a reaction that was too much.” And so, she said, “I
was doing that but occasionally he would still have problems. It seemed like if
I gave him a bath in the morning, he would have a bad day. So we switched his
baths to the evening and he would have a bad night.” And she said, “He got a
job that he kind of went to help out and so we would give him the baths at
night because we wanted him to be able to go to work in the morning. Another
friend who had moved three times to get away from the communities that are
fluoridating said, “Well I can’t stand having a shower in this fluoridated water.”
Then Audrey said, “I wonder if my son is having a problem with taking a bath.”
So she then took her bottled water and heated it on the stove, took it in and
put in the bathtub, like what we used to do in
DM: In
DO: Well, you know that it’s
powerful for this little hummingbird of a guy who just has so many chemical
sensitivities that he can’t handle that fluoride.
There
was another lady in
They’re
not powerful scientific studies of many people. Those have just never been
done. And that concerns me. That we’re mass medicating people when the studies
have not been done, when there is no one at the helm controlling these things.
There is no doctor controlling this drug that is being given to people to make
sure that those who are fragile are not being harmed.
CONCLUSION
DM: Well, it doesn’t have to be a
doctor but someone with some common sense and a health care professional who
understands reality. That’s for certain.
I think
our time is coming to an end so I just, unless there is another point you’d
like to make. I’d like to really thank you for all the wonderful information in
respect that you’ve given us on this fluoride.
It’s
hard to imagine anyone, even those with a small amount of common sense, who
wouldn’t take a more aggressive stand at avoiding fluoride in any way, shape,
or form that they could after listening to these insights.
DO: Actually, in my opinion, it
will not be too long before fluoridation will be considered one of public
health’s greatest blunders of the 20th century.
It is
absolutely unbelievable.
Fluoride
Increases Tooth Fractures
One
other tiny little thing from the dental standpoint because we have more
fractures of bones in fluoridated areas. I thought, well, what about teeth? So
I looked up the research on fractured teeth and there really aren’t any. We
haven’t done any study on it that much. But there are three studies that were
done on complete cusp fractures on going and visiting the dentist.
Now the
dentist will say, “How many visits did you have over the last year that were
complete cusp fractures?” and they keep track of them. In an area where there
is almost no fluoride in the water or they don’t fluoridate, there’s virtually
nothing. Two percent of the visits were because of complete cusp fractures. In
an area where there is 19% fluoridation, there was 4.2% visits based on
complete cusp fractures, and where the area was fluoridated, 7% of the visits
were complete cusp fractures.
Now,
complete cusp fractures means that you’re probably going to have to have a
crown or have the tooth taken out. That may be one of the reasons why we are
not seeing a decrease in dental expenses is because perhaps fluoride does
reduce some decay. However, it makes the teeth more brittle and we end up with
more fractures and therefore more dental expenses. And that evens itself out.
DM: Well, they do the same crazy
mistake in the treatment of osteoporosis in the
They
seek to prescribe these biphosphinates that do the same thing. They actually
kill cells in the bone, the osteoclast or the bones that are responsible for
remodeling the bone and eating it up. The osteoblasts, of course, repair it. So
they kill this and the bone gets thicker. Imagine that.
You
kill those cells, the bone gets thicker but it is weaker and actually gets more
complications in addition to other complications. As a dentist, you would
appreciate the osteonecrosis of the jaw bone. So, it’s just crazy what they’re
doing and unfortunately, people like -- DO: What’s interesting is that
it has fluoride in it for the osteoporosis. They were giving fluoride for quite
a while to do that and reduce the osteoporosis. However, remember that dentists
are the ones who are pushing this on the fluoride. So then they end up with
this bone-necrosis of the jaw because of the extra fluoride that is being given
and when we get in there and try to do some dentistry on the jaw, it can
absolutely be a nightmare as far the damage that can be caused from that and
that’s biting us in the rear when it comes to us giving so much fluoride out.
DM: Alright, I think that’s
probably all the time we have before our recording runs out.
But, I
really appreciate all the insights you’d given us. I think you really have done
a great service for catalyzing the time and for your prediction, which is that
fluoride will be viewed upon as the worst public health blunder of the 20th century. I’m looking forward to
that day that it will come true.
DO: Joe, I want to thank you also
for the work you do in - I get emails from you and I enjoy reading all of them.
I think everybody should be looking at those things because you give some great
nuggets of important information in concise capsules that are wonderful for people
who look at it and improve their lives.
There
are so many things that we have to take control of, of ourselves and of on our
own health. And you give some nuggets every week. It seems like more or less,
that help us out. So thank you. Bravo for doing that.
DM: Well, that’s my goal. But this
is a boulder we’re giving now, with your information.
So
thank you very much and I’m sure our listeners will really appreciate it.
REFERENCES
MENTIONED: Fluoride
Action Network, www.fluoridealert.org
Second Look, www.slweb.org International Society for
Fluoride Research Inc., www.fluorideresearch.org