Fluoride in Tap Water

Image Credit: Joe Shlabotnik / Flickr

The dangers of fluoride (tap water fluoridation)?

Dr. Greger, I have heard some talk about the dangers of fluoride. When I research this all I stumble upon are propagandists websites without scientific backing. Is there any truth to these claims that fluoride in our water supply and toothpaste is damaging our health?

Toxins / Originally asked on the NutritionFacts.org facebook page


The proposed EPA changes to water fluoridation have sparked a resurgence of many of the old anti-fluoridation arguments, which as far as I can tell were successfully debunked over 50 years ago. According to the CDC, fluoridation of drinking water joins vaccination (another unjustly vilified practice) as one of the greatest public health achievements in the last last century.

Image credit: Joe Shlabotnik / Flickr


Michael Greger M.D., FACLM

Michael Greger, M.D. FACLM, is a physician, New York Times bestselling author, and internationally recognized professional speaker on a number of important public health issues. Dr. Greger has lectured at the Conference on World Affairs, the National Institutes of Health, and the International Bird Flu Summit, testified before Congress, appeared on The Dr. Oz Show and The Colbert Report, and was invited as an expert witness in defense of Oprah Winfrey at the infamous "meat defamation" trial.

180 responses to “The dangers of fluoride (tap water fluoridation)?

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

    1. I agree. I drink distilled water (for 14 years) and get my minerals and vitamins from a great vegan diet, supplementing B12 and D. Wht try to be healthy and eat organic clean food, etc., and then 6-8 glasses a day of dirty tap water containing chlorine, floride, arsenic, etc., etc. Those that say tap water is tested and has to meet special requirements… humbug! Just as our meat and fish and chicken and on and on is so carefully inspected. Don’t believe it!

        1. Personally, I love the taste of distilled water. I don’t like the taste of tap water, but if I happen to be in an area with good well water I might want to drink it for the mineral benefits and because it’d be cheaper than buying distilled water.

        2. tap water has a bad taste…sometimes chlorine…it affects the taste of tea for sure. Even if it didn’t taste bad I wouldn’t want to drink it.

    2. Calcium Fluoride is found naturally in water and it’s probably the calcium benefitting teeth, but Sodium Fluoride is the major by product of aluminum manufacture. The initial “fluoride is safe” campaign was sponsored by Alcoa aluminum. The government tells us Fluoride is Fluoride which is akin to saying a Calorie is a Calorie discounting the intrinsic value of fiber, nuts, etc as well documented by Dr. Gregor. I think the Fluoride issue needs more attention rather than relying on this 1960 study. Thank you for your amazing work.

      1. Interesting you talk about percentages of cities as if USA is the only country in the world with cities. Very few EU countries have continued with fluoridation of water supplies as the scientific evidence mounted up against it.

        For Dr Gregor — for whom I hold a lot of respect — to just cast the issue aside with a “debunked 50 years ago” claim and throw in an unrelated vaccination issue for good measure should remind us all that even scientists can resort to unclear thinking on issues and attempt to use “anti-science” framing on issues they don’t actually have a great deal of knowledge on. Since when has Dr Gregor ever relied on a single nutritional study from the 60s on any other issue? Since when has he not attempted to explain the mechanism the paper (if clinical) is attempting to illuminate.

        Is Dr Gregor suggesting the fluoride compound added to municipal water supplies is a nutrient?

        1. Sorry percentage of cities comment was meant in reply for a different comment than yours. When I signed in I lost the comment I was intending to reply to.

        2. Dr. G does not cherry pick data. The benefit and safety of fluoride are well documented in many unbiased peer-reviewed clinical studies over many decades. There is no controversy among those familiar with all the data. In Europe, the water may not be fluoridated but the reasons have nothing to do with any imagined health hazards. Fluoride is still present in the EU as well in toothpaste, salt and milk.

          This is an evidenced based website. We welcome all evidence for evaluation. If you can find unbiased clinical evidence published in major scientific journals that suggests any health hazards of the fluoride levels in drinking water we’d like to see it in the form of links to the specific journal citations on PUBMED.

          Dr. Ben

          1. Dr Ben, your continued use of the word “unbiased” and the context in which you use it carries an implicit suggestions that any published peer reviewed paper that doesn’t sit with your conclusions is therefore biased. There are comments under this post laden with recent papers that look at the issue of fluoridation of water supplies and other health issues associated with fluoride. There’s a body of public health officials and medicos who have reviewed the literature, especially in Europe and are perplexed by English speaking nations fixation with fluoridation of water supplies.

            Even if these other potential health issues only effected a sub-set of the population, and arguably they effect all, why should people be medicated without their consent. Even the paper Dr Gregor links to has comments about why fluoride medication through water supplies is a better delivery method than, say tablets because people might get dosage wrong, or assume higher dosages are “better” (‘one is good, two must be better’ is the phrase they cite) and this would be a big problem because double the dosage could be toxic. Well that suggests potential for negative health impacts from compulsory fluoridation in the very document that Dr Gregor rests on (even if it was written decades ago).

            I’d suggest you get up to date on the research rather than repeating Dr Gregors sweeping dismissal of the issue and referring to inconsequential papers written thirty odd years ago that were purpose designed to dispel myths rather than review the best science available and identify where the science needed more research (including an odd reference on Dr Gregor’s part to vaccinations, as if slurring people with supposed positions on that issue was somehow constructive to an understanding of the public health impacts of fluoridation). The links are in this thread, please look at some of the science.

            Just because a website has a position for or against something doesn’t mean the arguments made or the papers cited are any more or less scientific. That has to be determined on the merits of the arguments and science cited itself.

          2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ this article is concerning as it states many studies showing adverse health effects under the third section “3. Adverse Impacts of Fluoride Ingestion on Human Health” about halfway down the page. Also Dr. Greger if you could please make a video on this I would really appreciate it. I’ve also seen videos you have made stating how harmful mercury and aluminum are and vaccines contain which most vaccines are supposed to be free of this but the CDC also claims thimerosal containing vaccine with 3 micrograms of thimerosal or less to be “thimerosal-free”? This is their definition, and they even site studies to support it (JAMA 1999; 282(18) and JAMA 2000; 283(16)). Dr. Greger you are such a role model to me and you know how corrupt big pharma is and vaccines make them tons of money when there is a lot of evidence that they do more harm than good as well as not letting nature develop ways to combat these. If vaccines are still fairly new on our human history how could we be so sure of their benefits as well as the ever increasing number of vaccines children are being forced to take. I know you are mostly focusing on food but water is extremely important and your stance on vaccines needs to be made clear not just with a one word sentence. Please look into these more for the benefit of us all. Much love and thanks!

            1. There is nothing significant here. The amounts showing detrimental effects are above the optimal level of 0.7 ppm which is much closer to the “low” levels as defined in the study. There is no evidence that at this optimal range is detrimental to health. The follow-on pilot study which has very questionable value does not add any compelling information either. We’ve known for a long time that excess fluoride above the optimal amount is detrimental to health.

        3. I have been looking at the staff replies concerning this issue. For those of us whose common sense dictates that big brother’s adding fluoride from industrial waste materials is unhealthy, I resent being told that “50 years ago this was debunked”. Where is your study concerning that?
          I rest my case and encourage the reading of the book “The Fluoride Deception”. There are enough verifiable facts in that book to debunk the claim that it was debunked 50 years ago.
          I have learned from and enjoyed Dr. Greger’s information, and he was my go-to doctor concerning nutrition. Sadly, this topic has caused me to change my opinion about this site.

          1. I am very surprised as well of Dr. Greger’s answer, so much I am actually doubting it was his own answer, but an assistant or copywriter for the website instead. I really hope more light will be shed on the case by Dr. Greger, using recent and updated science and studies.

        4. I agree whole heartedly. With respect to vaccines, the idea is solid in some cases. There are many diseases where the benefits outweigh the risks. The thing that makes me crazy is the heavy metals and pollutants that are used as stabilizers or preservatives in the vaccines. Why can’t they use less harmful substances? The second thing is that we don’t need vaccines for everything, we need healthy immune systems in most cases. Using ingredients in vaccines that cause genetic damage seems like a terrible idea, and is why a lot of people are against them.

    3. I completely agree. The fluoride is beneficial to our teeth if we swish the fluoridated water in our mouth and spit it out. The evidence that was posted has not done any experimental research on the effects of our internal . Especially the affects on our brain

      1. Casey,

        Relating to the effects of fluoride on our brain:

        Sodium fluoride is a neurotoxin: yes there are 22K plus references, (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=sodium+fluoride+neurotoxicity&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart) however keep in ind that the overwhelming number of studies use animal models.

        The mechanism of action is known: Collectively, these data suggest that the developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride is associated with the impairment of synaptogenesis, which is caused by ERK1/2-mediated BDNF-TrkB signaling disruption.(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X18302531)

        For those wanting to continue to address this issue, there were 1400+ publications with fluoride/neurotoxicity in human or directly related studies in 2018 alone.https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&as_ylo=2018&as_vis=1&q=sodium+fluoride+neurotoxicity+human&btnG=

        To amplify the questions of fluoride toxicity and dosing, I would recommend the review by the National Academy of Sciences Engineering Medicine (https://www.nap.edu/read/11571/chapter/9) . It’s a good overview of many findings/studies, and yes this was done in 2006, but remains applicable.

        As to the idea that you will eliminate the fluoride solution by spitting out the liquid and retaining it on teeth, I’m far more than skeptical. I was unable to find mucosal uptake studies but it would next to impossible to completely eliminate the solution without some ingestion.

        This contentious issue will probably remain in the political and fiscal arena for many years to come. Clearly and sadly health has taken a back seat.

        Dr. Alan Kadish moderator for Dr. Greger http://www.Centerofhealth.com

  1. Dr Doctor, I have just read at a website of a company producing cosmetics for vegetarians, that human body absorbs fluoride only until late teens, therefore we should not take it any later. Is this true? I cannot find any research results supporting this. Regards, Marta, PL

    1. An adult with healthy kidneys retains 50% of the fluoride ingested. When exposed to fluoride in utero or during youth, that means developing teeth and brains absorb fluoride. Dentist like to claim it makes teeth harder by virtue of very mild dental fluorosis…. it may to a certain extent, but it also makes them more brittle. Moderate to severe dental fluorosis which afflicts approximately 10% of youth in fluoridated communities (mostly non-white because of genetics and poor because of nutrition) suffer from disfiguring moderate and severe fluorosis which is very costly to fix with veneers and crowns.

      There are also 20 years of animal, in vitro, and epidemiological studies showing that during this same period, fluoride causes subtle neurological changes resulting in increased learning disabilities. Additionally, fluoridated communities have more than double the rate of low thyroid disease, as it affects normal hormone functioning. Girls will also experience menarche sooner.

      Depending on the health of your kidneys and your water intake, arthritic symptoms will begin to manifest somewhere between 2 and 20 or so years of exposure to fluoridated water and food. Those with sensitivities, can expect to experience a worsening of autoimmune diseases like allergies, Celiac or Crohn’s diseases, lupus, etc.

      Brockovich et al 2015 Letter: http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/pdf-documents/Brockovich-Letter-to-US-Natl-Acad-Science-Inst-Medicine.pdf

      2014 Peel Legal Memo & Thiessen affidavit: http://momsagainstfluoridation.org/sites/default/files/Fluoridation-Legal-Opinion-June-24-14.pdf

      Limeback 2007 Letter: http://www.eidon.com/dr-hardy-limeback.html

      Mullenix 1999 Letter: http://www.nofluoride.com/mullenix_bsa.cfm

      Kennedy 1998 Letter: http://www.nofluoride.com/kennedy_letter.cfm

      Colquhoun 1993 Affidavit: http://fluorideinformationaustralia.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/affidavit-of-dr-john-colquhoun.pdf

      Collection of 23 Affidavits filed in US courts: https://fluorideinformationaustralia.wordpress.com/legal/affidavits/

      1. Thank you for providing a great comment to counter Dr. Greger’s (in my professional opinion) very erroneous statement on fluoride. His dangerous blanket statement on vaccination is equally disturbing. Because of these two claims, I will never refer anyone to this website. The CDC vaccination schedule is insane… recommending too many, and too early.

        1. Yes, I, too, used to refer people to this site who are very interested in better nutrition. Because of Dr. Greger’s and his staff’s responses about the issues discussed in this topic, I will not be promoting this site anymore. The best response from him and his team would have been that there have been no studies….however, I know that is not true, but no I’m not going to try to find them. The whole story around putting fluoride in our drinking water is actually scary, and this is not even acknowledged by the doctor.

        2. @Heather One hundred percent my sentiments as well. Relying on an extremely old study does not show much concern or intelligence for someone who purports to be up-to-date on health matters. I have always had enormous respect for Dr. G. but have lost it completely as a result of his dismissal of the topic and support of fluoridation in an Instagram interview.

        3. My grandfather didn’t vaccinate his 4 children. One of them, my father contracted polio. Some heavy metals Vs polio, ect. Way the consequences and make your decision. Hopefully one day there will be a new video that starts something like this, heavy metal contaminated vaccinations to prevent polio…there’s got to be a better way and then go to explain that pork worms in the brain is what actually causes polio. So just don’t eat pork or have anyone that prepares your food eat pork. But until that time comes why not just take the best option available and be pissed off because our good doctor doesn’t know the answer yet. I guess I could be pissed off as well because he doesn’t show scientific proof that a WFPB diet doesn’t cure epilepsy. Although it did for me, that’s not scientific proof that it flat out cures all forms of epilepsy and that’s what this site and his life work of bringing the best available info of health to the masses is all about. What, you think he’s snickering to himself with the knowledge of how to cure polio but isn’t going to tell us about it? What’s wrong with you.

  2. Dr. Greger,
    I recently read that the fluoride added to 90% of drinking water is hydrofluoric acid which is a compound of fluorine that is a chemical byproduct of aluminum, steel, cement, phosphate, and nuclear weapons manufacturing. Is this true? If so, common sense dictates that floride might not be worth the benefits…

    1. HF, called Hydrogen Flouride is an extremely lethal and acidic compound that will burn through all organic matter and most inorganic matter. I highly doubt that the drinking water contains HF as a sip would burn a hole through the esophagus.

      1. Ann didn’t post that water was 90% HFA, but rather, that 90% of the water supplies have HFA added, a -very- small %. No “hole though the esophagus”, but still an unnecessarily-added poisonous by-product of aluminum smelting. How is it that the US National Research Council has taken fluoride off the list of essential nutrients yet still considers it “beneficial” ? Something stinks here.

        1. And table salt is a byproduct of combining an highly reactive explosive metal and a toxic and highly reactive gas. The process in which it is produced is inconsequential to the pure end product.

          1. My table salt comes from salt crystals in the mountains, other peoples from salt beds where sea water is evaporated. Doesn’t all come from chemical production facilities.

            1. Thank you very much for debunking the explosive metal and toxic gas claims. Throwing salt in there is simply a deflecting, “what about” tactic that we’ve seen too much in politics lately.

              1. Absolutely. This post and the comments would be funny if they weren’t so tragic. I just can’t trust anything this man says any more. Yes, a plant-based diet is good for you and I am vegetarian but the ridiculous response about a study for 50 – 60 years ago has opened my eyes big time.

        2. Mr. Markloyd, Thank you for your comment! I was thinking the same specifics that only a percentage was added and not the full concentration. I really dont like double talk. You should be a lawyer. You probably already are.

          1. I don’t think Ann was double-talking. There are some cities that don’t allow that to be put in the water, which she seemed to me to be indicating, that it wasn’t put in ALL cities’ water..

            About 10 years ago I started looking into what it would take to get the city of St. Paul to stop putting fluoride in our water and was told by someone at the water department that it would take a huge “marketing”-style campaign, that somebody tried to stop this ridiculous scam before, (MY word, “scam”) and I’d have to get politicians to concur, and at that time, St. Paul paid $250,000 a year to purchase the fluoride. I was suffering from continuous migraines and could not see fighting to get it changed. I started buying distilled water, and have recently been looking for a counter-top distiller.

            I hope Dr. Greger will check into this subject as described in “The Fluoride Deception”. Certainly the facts about the revolving door in government and business are true, and I hope someone I think we can trust, Dr. Greger, will provide us with some facts. Thanks.

      2. Municipal drinking water is injected with hydro flouricilic. Acid. The government says small amounts are not harmful when ingested in small concentrations in your water. In its purity it will dissolve and corrode metal, it is also a known carcinogen …..It causes cancer.

        1. At the rate of one part per million, or sufficient to bring it to that if there was a partial amount already in the water. Naturally-occurring water levels get up to 8 ppm where fluorosis of enamel is seen, Texas and Mexico. Some areas in the African and Himalayan regions get up around 60+ ppm.

          1. Be careful not to compare natural groundwater concentrations with industrial chemical fluorides.

            Without re-researching the different characteristics for this reply; natural groundwater concentrations are still harmful (like natural groundwater levels of arsenic, or like cadmium absorbed by plants, etc.), but industrial strength “waste,” added to the drinking water supply, is not naturally buffered and is some order of magnitude more pernicious (like 8x)…

  3. this page does not put any information about fluoride, no pro no cont,
    I’m sorry but what’s the use of creating this page?where is the explanation about fuoride be bad or neutral for our health?, I only saw a comment from carol, not any information on the main page, only in the comments?
    I wanted to know the real scientific facts about fluoride in tap water

    1. emerson berlanda: If you look above, you will see Dr. Greger’s answer to this question. In his answer, he has a link with text “debunked”. If you click this link, you will be able to download an 85 page paper on the topic that should provide the information you thought was missing. Hope that helps.

        1. Yes. I believe that was Dr. Greger’s point: ie, that this issue has been worked out for decades. Perhaps there’s new information since then? I don’t know. I didn’t have time to read the paper to find out if the conclusions would likely be timeless. I was just responding to the confusion about there being no scientific answer to the question. The answer is there, whether you like it or not. :-)

          1. He advocates for many things that are part of the fad diet sector. He sells tubs of coconut oil and advocates for raw milk amongst other things. He also claims without evidence that we should not shower with soap because we cant absorb vitamin D when we do. He is not the most reliable source, and is geared towards having his consumers buy his products.

            As for distilled water, I can’t imagine why it would be harmful. Bottled and filtered tap water has some trace minerals in it that are negligible, but other then that, its as H20 as bottled water is H20

              1. Dr. Greger does not recommend a specific water, it is not an issue. And I have seen the claim you have made (specifically from Dr. Mercola). You have to read his article with a skeptical eye, he provides zero citations to back up his claim.
                Much of the food we eat is full of electrolytes, the majority does not come from water. There are trace minerals found in water that are negligible (Na, K, Mg, Ca) but you can find these in much greater quantities in food. He is simply trying to scare his audience needlessly.

                1. Whatever water or other beverage you drink however, it should NOT come out of a plastic bottle or can which may leach bpa, phthalates or other endocrine disruptors or carcinogens into the contents. Distilled or RO water will absorb more from the plastic since it is more corrosive. Bpa-free often just means they have added other untested chemicals that could be worse than bpa. Also just because they tested a brand of bottle or can for endocrine activity does not mean the next one of the same brand wont – because the source can be changed or the supplier may change thrir formulation.

            1. It’s said distilled water needs remineralisation or to balance the water with other fluids in your body it will “pull” minerals from elsewhere in your body, effectively making it nutrient poor or negative. I don’t know, but some companies that sell RO water remineralise it for that reason.

              1. “It is said” is not evidence. A lot of things are said, but when they are “put to the test” as Dr. G says, the evidence often mounts against “what is said”. A prime example is fish oil. Which “is said” to provide health benefits, but when “put to the test” does not.

                Another common fallacy is lab studies that do not override clinical data. Sure fluoride is toxic in the lab and in large quantities. So is sodium, potassium, chromium, iodine, etc which you’d die without. This does not mean that at 1PPM that any harm will come from fluoride. There is no risk. It prevents tooth decay. Infection from tooth decay was a major cause of death prior to 1940.

                When in doubt, just evaluate the real, unbiased, peer reviewed evidence to find the truth.

                Dr. Ben

                1. My issue is not whether or not distilled water leaches minerals from the body or not. I don’t drink it and never will choose it over rain water which I’m lucky enough to have access to ATM. I merely provided that comment as background to a comment somebody else made.

                  Rather than addressing the central concerns express by the majority or regular NutricianFacts readers you have yet again choosen to create a straw man argument to “deflect” from the principle request that Dr Gregor and his team review the latest literature around fluoridation issues. Saying that literature exists as you have is quite different to Dr Gregor ignoring it and citing a 50 year old debunking, which even in it’s own words identifies issues with “doubled” doses of fluoride tablets as having a toxicity issue (p58).

                  My issue is the ignoring of so much recent science (already linked to in comments) by Dr Gregor regards fluoridation of potable water supplies in USA, UK, Australia and elsewhere, and referring to a half century old paper that actually has a title “Classification and Appraisal of Objections to Fluoridation”, suggesting an agenda to ‘debunk’ from the outset.

                  I’m aware that some public health impact claims and ‘movements’ around them are bogus. I campaign for renewable energy adoption and in Australia we had this unregistered GP running all over the country (paid for by fossil fuels and land owners resentful about wind turbines) to scare people about alleged Wind Turbine Syndrome. Australia has seen something like ten public health reviews and parliamentary inquiries into the issue and nothing has ever come up even remotely connecting wind turbines with the symptoms people genuinely exhibit that get attributed to turbines appearing in their immediate landscape.

                  But here we have most EU countries strongly opposed to fluoridation, no credible evidence — either clinical or epidemiological that fluoridation via water supplies is effective, and plenty of papers suggesting unwelcome health impacts.

                  Of course some elements, minerals and compounds have toxicity associated with them at some dosages (even water can kill people, I knew someone who drank too much water, fearing dehydration, and died from it according to the PM) and not at other dosages but that’s skirting around the significant issues.

                  Please have Dr Gregor answer these questions directly:

                  1) is the fluoride compound most frequently used to fluoridate town water supplies a nutrient?

                  2) if fluoride either in elemental form, compound form or ionised state is a nutrient then what foods do we typically absorb fluoride from and what compounds are bioactive, i.e. the forms humans can typically absorb for use in our body? are there other nutrients required to be present.

                  3) if fluoride is not a nutrient, do we class it as a medication or toxin? (or both)

                  4) Dr Gregor frequently promotes his work and this site by announcing that his team reads every single paper published in a journal relating to human nutrition. I often recommend this site to people on that basis. Is it fair to say that Dr Gregor’s team has not read the Cochrane reviews on this issue? Is it fair to say that Dr Gregor’s has not read the numerous health impact studies linked to in comments here with pubmed references? Is it a fair ask that Dr Gregor’s team live to their word and review all these papers and the Cochrane reviews around this issue?

                  5) Does fluoride bio-accumulate in human organs (i.e. build in concentration like heavy metals do)? Are there known health impacts for overexposure to fluoride compounds?

                  5) If EU countries are choosing not to fluoridate for reasons “Nothing to do with health impacts” please enlighten us as to what these other concerns are.

                  6) What is Dr Gregors position on the forced mediation (in the abstract sense of any given medication) through drinking water on poor communities who have no other water resources available to them? Is it not true that any given patient can present with negative affects from any given medication due to reactions that may not be present in the majority of a population?

                2. Sodium, potassium etc are essential nutrients, fluoride is not so please don’t put them in the same boat. Fluoride is not required at all. So please stop speaking horse shite

  4. I find that there are many misconceptions about fluoride. Fluoride is
    not necessarily toxic. It depends on the concentration. The drinking water in
    Denver, CO, for example, contains naturally-occurring fluoride very close to
    the levels that are currently recommended for drinking water fluoridation (0.7
    mg/L to 0.9 mg/L). The water company (Denver Water) actually removes some
    fluoride when the naturally-occurring levels exceed the recommended levels. Much
    of this water comes from the Platte River which is used by many other cities on
    down the line. This water supply has been used by millions of people over 100’s
    of years without problems related to fluoride.

    I find that the public’s perspective is that the government adds all of this
    fluoride to all of the drinking water. That’s simply not true. The communities
    that add it are using a target value that’s very close to a natural
    concentration of fluoride, just not the natural concentration in their
    particular water supply.

    1. ted it depends on the way the fluoride is complexed. In naturally occuring waters its a different complexed fluoride./ The fluoride they lace our water supplies with is from industrial waste of aluminium production. You need know the history of this scam. There are docos about it., 1000s of patriots spent half their lives trying to get the word out to everyone else.

    2. Do some research before you try and sound like you know what you’re talking about.

      And don’t try to compare natural groundwater concentrations of fluoride with municipal adulteration. Or either of those and Special Interest tainted regulatory promoted “safe” concentrations that tend to be based on actuarial data and mitigation costs more than actual long-term effects or studies…

    3. Except that the added fluoride is not the same as naturally occuring fluoride. The added fluoride is a waste product that they are happy to dispose of for free, maybe even at a profit.

    1. Fluoride is in the halogen family along with iodine. Fluoride has been shown to inhibit the ability of the thyroid gland to concentrate iodine. Research has shown that fluoride is much more toxic to the body when there is iodine deficiency present. There have been no studies which prove that long-term ingested fluoride has any positive effect.
      Many medications that contain fluoride have been pulled from the market due to serious adverse effects. A study in New Zealand found that there was no difference in tooth decay rates between the fluoridated and the non-fluoridated areas. Many European countries have recognized the fallacy of adding fluoride to the water supply and have stopped the practice.

  5. The late Dr John Yiamouyiannis’s book: “Fluoride, The Aging Factor”, convinced me that fluoride is, at best, unnecessarily added to municipal water supplies & not responsible for improved dental health. At worst, it’s a poisonous waste product of aluminum smelting. Have you read the book?

  6. What about The Case against Fluoride: How Hazardous Waste Ended Up in Our Drinking Water and the Bad Science and Powerful Politics That Keep It There

  7. LOL at confident doctors like this who are so breezy with their “debunkings”… science is an ongoing, evolving process, as the recent Harvard fluoride study demonstrates.

  8. I think adding any form of fluoride to the water supply and then forcing people to pay for it through water rates, as we do here in the UK, whether the amount be deemed beneficial, harmful or otherwise, is simply dictatorial. I make the choice to apply my fluoride topically via toothpaste, but when it comes to drinking, I desire a liquid as untainted by artificially applied chemicals and heavy metals as is possible to supply safely. It doesn’t matter what the arguments for and against medicating supplies are, but when I know my wife reacts allergically to fluoride toothpaste, we wonder how she, and others, are reacting inside to Birmingham water. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be concerned by this regardless of the alleged historical safety assurances.

  9. There is scientific backing, look at the many countries that do not add fluoride and compare to those that do. Tooth decay has declined at the same rate… Forced medication as a form of repression may be the real danger.

  10. I discovered after years of getting sick every time I required antibiotics in a country where flouride is required by law for tap water that all I had to do was find water without flouridation and all of the antibiotic side effects disappeared.

    1. Ok well I guess that’s one way to go about it to get some kind of result but you could also attack the root of the problem by finding out why you keep getting sick and fix that, thereby not needed antibiotics which would also alleviate the side effects.

  11. Fluoride is the only drug dispensed without consumer consent.

    There is no requirement of fluoride in the human body.

    Most of the western world does not fluoridate. The World
    Health Organization shows no difference, across the world, in tooth health
    whether water is fluoride or not.

    One third of the young in the U.S. have fluorosis from too
    much fluoride consumption. What happens in the teeth, likely happens in the

    The ADA has announced that fluoridated water should not be
    used in baby formula.

    Mother’s milk has 250 times less fluoride than what we put
    in drinking water.

    Fluoride interferes with the pineal and thyroid gland

    The NRC investigated the neurologic effects of fluoride on
    the brain. They found evidence of damage to the brain and suggested this area
    desperately needs more study. Several studies from China indicate that fluoride
    consumption lowers IQ in children. A Harvard study found the same result.

    Journal of The AMA – more fluoride consumption equals more
    bone fractures.

    In most cases, the fluoride put in drinking water comes from
    a waste product in the phosphate fertilizer industry.

    1. rick: re: “There is no requirement of fluoride in the human body.” Do you have a source for that statement? Here’s why I ask: Our bones have fluoride in them. Are you saying that our bodies make all of the flouride that we need and that’s why we don’t need to get it from dietary means? Or were you not aware that flouride is an important ingredient in bone make up? re, “important ingredient” – I got that from the book, “Building Bone Vitality” by Amy Joy Lanou and Michael Castleman

      I’m not saying we have to get fluoride from material added to water. However, it’s my understanding that what they add to the drinking water just brings up water that is deficient in fluoride to levels that occur naturally in other water ways. So, it makes sense to me. I can get fluoride from beans and tea and potatoes and carrots. But it doesn’t scare me to get it from water too.

    1. I’m pretty sure that is the reason Dr Gregor is silent on this issue other than linking to a 50 year old debunking review of arguments against fluoridation. It’s controversial enough for him to be a vegan advocating vegan diets and he doesn’t want to be smeared.

      In spite of scientists and medical professionals being interested primarily in science, it’s all to common to see people associate anti-vax, anti-fluoride, climate change denialists, Wind Turbine Syndrome promoters as a collective of similarly uneducated or gullible conspiracy-theory victims. One of Dr Gregors’ mods on this page, already made such a slur. My guess is that Dr Greger is making a cost benefit analysis in being honest about the science around the issue of fluoridation of water supplies and figures it just ain’t worth his time.

      Of course if Dr Gregor just answered the list of questions I put up last year about whether or not the compound added to water supplies is a nutrient and follow up questions it would be a much more satisfactory situation.

  12. There is a more up to date research showing a link between fluoridated water and significantly lowered IQ levels in children: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22820538

    And when it comes to Europe:
    “Although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control hails water fluoridation as one of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” most of the western world, including the vast majority of western Europe, does not fluoridate its water supply.

    At present, 97% of the western European population drinks non-fluoridated water. This includes: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, Portugal, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, and approximately 90% of both the United Kingdom and Spain. Although some of these countries fluoridate their salt, the majority do not. (The only western European countries that allow salt fluoridation are Austria, France, Germany, Spain, and Switzerland.)

    Despite foregoing “one of the top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” tooth decay rates
    have declined in Europe as precipitously over the past 50 years as they have in the United States. This raises serious questions about the CDC’s assertion that the decline of tooth decay in the United States
    since the 1950s is largely attributable to the advent of water fluoridation.”

  13. Can we consider this study:

    July 25, 2012 — For years health experts have been unable to agree on whether fluoride in the drinking water may be toxic to the developing human brain. Extremely high levels of fluoride are known to cause neurotoxicity in adults, and negative impacts on memory and learning have been reported in rodent studies, but little is known about the substance’s impact on children’s neurodevelopment. In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.


    1. Hi Kaimana7,

      Thanks for your email. We are happy to consider that study and any others. I don’t think there should be anything off the table. The EHP article reviewed studies on IQ scores for children living in areas of China, Mongolia and Iran where the water supplies have unusually high, natural fluoride levels. In many cases, the high-fluoride areas were significantly higher than the levels used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S. In fact, the high-fluoride areas in these countries reached levels as high as 11.5 mg/L — more than 10 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.

      1. So what was the IQ correlation to higher fluoride levels. Is “natural fluoride” the same compound that is produced industrially as a by product of smelting and other processes and then put in the water supplies of English speaking countries.

  14. I assume not bad for you(?): lemongrass tastes like lemon lollipop in iced tea. My recipe is adapted from a recipe for lemongrass ginger soda, i.e.,

    1/2 cup thinly sliced peeled ginger
    4 plump stalks of fresh lemongrass, cut into 2-inch lengths and smashed
    6 cups water

    sweetener to taste (orig. 1 cup sugar, which is way too sweet for me)

    3 tablespoons freshly squeezed lemon juice
    Bring to boil sliced ginger, smashed
    lemongrass, and 4 cups of the water.
    Steep until cool (~ 2h).
    Add sweetener, if any.

    Strain through a fine-mesh sieve, discarding ginger and

    Stir in the lemon juice and remaining 2 cups of water.

    Refrigerate until chilled.
    (I chill for a couple days until unappealing greenish brown turns pale pink.)

    1. Please share studies to support your youtube video and I will do my best to review them with Dr. Greger to see if we need to update our information. Thanks, Nihi.

      1. There are thousands of peer reviewed papers listed at http://fluoridealert.org/. There are a few problems with water fluoridation. Firstly, the dose cannot be controlled accurately. Water intake depends on weather, exercise, etc. Secondly, there is no need to expose your whole body and internal organs to fluoride. The benefit of fluoride is mainly obtained by exposing fluoride to the teeth (i.e. brushing). Embedding fluoride in the bone does not strengthen, but weakens bone. Plus there are lots of studies that show potential health risks of ingested fluoride. I’m not sure about the amount of fluoride and the increase in odd ratio, but why take the risk when brushing is just as good?

  15. Doctor, I’m afraid you’re promoting endorsements rather than science.

    2015 Cochrane international review of dental studies reveals BIAS, not benefit, i.e. 151 of the 155 dental studies purporting to support fluoridation policy were blatantly biased. Cochrane panelists went on to say the results were inconsistent and did not provide evidence of benefit to poor children or any adult, plus most studies were quite old and not relevant to today:

    2015 Cochrane review of dental studies: http://www.cochrane.org/CD010856/ORAL_water-fluoridation-to-prevent-tooth-decay
    2015 Scientific Opposition: http://www.earthclinic.com/news/why-the-us-should-ban-fluoride-in-drinking-water-by-jason-uttley.html
    2014 Legal Analysis: http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/

    1. The fact that fluoridation is more harmful than beneficial doesn’t prevent CDC and the fluoride lobby from contorting the truth. They did so with the 2000 York Review which had the same complaints of low quality studies with conclusions not supported by the evidence. The York panelists actually spoke up against the “spin” the government proponents put on their report.

      On 2000 York Review: Two main findings were that fluoridation reduced cavities by 15% in young children, which amounts to one or two fewer cavities during childhood and that fluoridation increased dental fluorosis in children by 48 % with 12.5 % of children having severe or moderate fluorosis which is disfiguring and requires costly remediation. Fluoridation proponents (often echoed by the media) claimed that the York Review gave fluoridation a clean bill of health. Professor Trevor Sheldon, Chair of the study committee, had no patience with the spin thus applied to the research findings. He wrote: “It is particularly worrying then that statements which mislead the public about the review’s findings have been made in press releases and briefings by the British Dental Association, the National Alliance for Equity in Dental Health and the British Fluoridation Society. I should like to correct some of these errors:

      1. Whilst there is evidence that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries, the quality of the studies was generally moderate and the size of the estimated benefit, only of the order of 15%, is far from “massive”.

      2. The review found water fluoridation to be significantly associated with high levels of dental fluorosis, which was not characterised as “just a cosmetic issue”.

      3. The review did not show water fluoridation to be safe. The quality of the research was too poor to establish with confidence whether or not there are potentially important adverse effects in addition to the high levels of fluorosis. The report recommended that more research was needed.

      4. There was little evidence to show that water fluoridation has reduced social inequalities in dental health”….

      A highly respected British medical writer, Douglas Carnall, wrote in response to the York Review: “Previously neutral on the issue, I am now persuaded by the arguments that those who wish to take fluoride (like me) had better get it from toothpaste rather than the water supply.”

  16. Dr Greger, I am stunned at your response here. To my knowledge, fluoride (and bromide/bromine) displace iodine and magnesium. So fluoride in drinking water can block the action of these 2 incredibly important minerals. I believe this is well documented, including by Dr Carolyn Dean, MD, and Dr David Brownstein, MD. I hope you will check into this and do a series on fluoride, one aspect of which is that it stops the necessary tearing-down mechanism in teeth/bones and causes brittle teeth and bones. Many, many drugs now use fluoride as a component of them and this has further caused many severe problems (such as joint damage from Ciprofloxacin–I know this from personal experience, torn tendons, mental issues from further loss of magnesium, brittle bones from osteoporosis drugs, infertility and pregnancy problems such as pre-term labor, etc). And further, there appears to be no reason to use fluoride anyway–magneiusm, vitamin A, vitamin D, and vitamin K2 all synergistically help escort calcium out of the blood/tissues into the bones and teeth, including the remineralization of teeth and bones. See Dr Mark Sircus’ and Dr Kate Rheaume-Bleue’s books on Magnesium and K2, respectively.

  17. This is getting glaring Dr. Gregor. To blithely dismiss concerns with fluoridation by simply pointing at a CDC top 10 list and one paper is completely non-rigorous and debate inhibiting. Many people have left informative comments with studies to refer to yet this post still stays unchanged since 2012. Maybe you could bolster your pertness with, um, some (maybe recent) data? Address the Harvard study? A video articulating your position more? Is this topic too touchy, too political? If so, it’s best if you don’t comment rather than flippantly discard people’s serious concerns. At least such political fear could be deduced by your readers. A disappointed (ex)-fan, Tim.

  18. >> According to the CDC, fluoridation of drinking water joins vaccination (another unjustly vilified practice) as one of the greatest public health achievements in the last last century.

    I am not sure how to evaluate that statement. I think there are huge differences between vaccination and water fluoridation. The first one is the method of administration. I am not a disbeliever in vaccination, but I would not vaccinate people by putting the agent for vaccination in the water, 99% of which would be sprayed onto our lawns or on our skin when we take showers – and end up in the lakes and rivers. I would also not see taking that treatment and making it mandatory as a plus. I drank fluoridated water all my life and yet I have plenty of cavities. If reducing cavities is the goal I believe Dr. Greger’s main theme of eating whole foods plant based diet is far superior to fluoridating all of our water.

  19. I side with Dr Connett (fluoridealert.org) as there seems to be no benefit to fluoride in the water. Topically applied you can make a case for it.

  20. Dr. Greger…I appreciate the work you are doing. I must encourage you to take a position on this matter. Your response to the question is somewhat bewildering given your thoughtful and thorough approach on every other account I am familiar with. A current review of the totality of the research along with thorough consideration of the impacts of such a public health policy to a free society are in order. This issue falls well within your ballpark and the scope of the clear mission of this endeavor of yours…Nutritionfacts.org. The common sense starting point would be to give a call to the good people over at the Fluoride Action Network…researchers, scientists…trustworthy, well-intentioned professional people…not unlike yourself. Whether you side for or against the current policy, a more thoughtful and thorough response than the one given is called for.

    Sincerely and in appreciation for your endeavors…Joel Oyer

  21. See citations in this 2016 letter to the American Thyroid Association. Then print it out and share with your own doctors: http://www.ehcd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016_02_11_ATALtrCWF.pdf

    Also see this 2014 legal argument, also full of modern scientific references. http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/

    And for those of you worried about lead in the water, fluoride increases lead in water and in children. See: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxPjobYjirCIa0o2elJjQm9scVk/view

  22. I’d be interested to know what you think of the pollitical bias presented in research studies done. ie financial gain and study bias towards a particular product or research center university funded to Carry it out. Is there such a thing as a true study?

  23. I wonder if the fluoride in our water competes with our absorbing iodine (since they are both halogens), thus increasing the likelihood of hypothyroidism. Dr. Greger, can you comment on this? Thanks.

  24. I read “The Fluoride Deception” and that has colored my view of how I feel about drinking the city water in Minnesota. Dr. Gregor, can you comment on that book? Is it all a made up lie? Is it true that the insides of silos are scraped to get the fluoride they put in my water? I drink distilled water because I hate the taste of city water, but I wonder about the fluoride I’m absorbing during showering…

    Thank you for the work you do…I hope you will see if some proper studies have been done by now.

  25. Hello. I’m a moderator with nutritionfacts.org. I would be careful about taking information from a book over peer reviewed research data. I realize this is a bit ironic given that Dr. Greger is the author of best seller. But all of his data is based on peered reviewed data with sources sited. There is a lot of conspiracy theories out there about fluoride in water. I didn’t find any videos specifically about fluoride, but I just heard Dr. Greger mention during one of his live chats that he drinks tap water as it is often safer and more ecological than bottled or filtered water. It’s in here somewhere:

    NutritionFacts Moderator

    1. Thank you very much for your response. I will just continue to drink distilled water as I like it better than city water, whether or not it is fluoridated. I’ll just continue to take my chances with showering. I am happy to be learning how to view some claims. I really appreciate Dr.
      Greger and the people who volunteer on this site.

    2. Throwing around “conspiracy theory” is not an adequate response to the scores of references in the literature about fluoride affects on health that have been left in these comments. Are you suggesting the fluoride compound typically added to water supplies is a nutrient? If you are making that claim then say it.

    3. Wait for a second, are you saying Dr. Greger is not worried about Chlorine and Chloramines in tap water? (I am not even going to go into the rest for the sake of simplicity).

      He knows everything about food, but did he really leave water out of the equation? How much research has he actually done about it?

      Please, can you guys dig deeper into this issue, without worrying about “conspirations” and “vaccinations” which only distract you and the readers, lead to apply logical fallacies to the case and can potentially misinform and harm your readers?


    4. “Conspiracy theories” are frequently what people who can’t be bothered to research properly like to call the information espoused by people who do. It’s a way of putting down differing—and often more intelligent—points of view. Also, the word is “cited” not “sited” and it is “peer-reviewed” not “peered reviewed.”

  26. Hello,

    Thanks Dr. Gregor for all of the wonderful info!

    However, I think new information has come up that you should look into regarding fluoride from NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/). Considering the enormous amount of people drinking fluoridated water and this new information that has come to light, this topic deserves more attention.

    Also, I already spot one glaring sophistry in the 1960 work which you cite – it defines preventive medicine out of existence! I’m pretty sure, after reading your book and watching your videos, that you believe in preventive medicine. But it turns out these guys sure as heck don’t! Check it out – page 58 “Fluoridation is Mass Medicine” – the appraisal which follows (https://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/classification_of_objections.pdf).

    If anyone is curious, Webster’s 2nd meaning of medicine (the secondary meaning): “2 a : the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease.” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medicine). Note the word “prevention.”

    If there is one rat (i.e. sophistry), there are usually more.

    So why should I trust that study you mentioned?

  27. I have been and was enjoying all this wonderful information n this site. Until reading this! Reading this is very disturbing to me. What a strange response to a topic regarding putting deadly chemicals in your mouth every single day……..wtf?!
    i will no longer be reading this site or recommend it to people.
    not happy about it.

  28. This site and Dr. Greger’s work in general is based on sound, unbiased scientific evidence. If you can cite any peer-reviewed evidence that supports your point, I’m sure Dr. Greger would be interested in seeing it.

    Dr. Ben

    1. Plenty of peer-reviewed evidence has been proffered. We look forward to Dr Greger’s readdressing of this important topic.

    2. We agree that “Dr. Greger’s work in general is based on sound, unbiased scientific evidence”, the problem here is that Dr. Greger seems to up not up to date with the science and also not very interested in digging deeper, since, apparently, he drinks tap water.

      How much research has he personally done about water, tap water and hydration?

    3. Many links to studies on PubMed have been posted in this conversion.

      Have Dr. Greger and his team gone through it yet? Are you guys going to clarify or update your position if necessary?

    4. I am so disturbed by this thread. I found Dr. Greger a couple of months ago, and I’ve been devouring everything he says and writes, and I bought his book, and I’ve been referring people. But this about fluoride (with the vaccination comment thrown in) is very disturbing. I keep seeing this same kind of response over and over, from the moderators, such as the one from Health Support Volunteer Ben (Dr. Ben) asking for people to cite evidence, and they have done so countless times! I am so disappointed…sigh…I thought I had found someone I could trust.

      1. “I thought I had found someone I could trust.” — To be fair to Dr Greger, he himself says not to trust himself but to trust the science. I am confident that Dr Greger will eventually get around to re-evaluating the evidence on ingested fluoride.

  29. Well i read the link “debunked” 85 pages of crapy arguement questions being answere. Not once did they touch the topic about fluoride calcifing the peneal gland and decreasing brain function. Nor did it touch the subject of fluoride damaging healthy cells in our body. The focus was on dental health and mass medicating the population against their free will or consent. Ignoring the elephnt in the room “calcification of the peneal” . Im not no super educated person. I probably made a bunch of spelling mistakes too, but I do think that fuoridated water is not good for us. The benifit to our dental health is possibly true but the fluoride benifits our teeth when we swish the water in our mouth and spit it out. Not for the ctual consumption of fluoride.

    1. Dr Kadish…I just saw this comment from you. Does this mean Dr. Greger will be updating/changing his opinion about the safety of fluoride in drinking water? When I did a search on tap water, his old comment about how the dangers of it were debunked 50 years ago is what comes up. I have also heard him say he drinks tap water in a youtube video. Please clarify…this is confusing and disappointing.

  30. This is complete horse shite!
    We do not need fluoride in any way. It is not a nutrient. In fact it is a poison!
    You sir, Dr Greger have lost my respect with this article. Shame on you for being a fraud!

    1. “You sir, Dr Greger have lost my respect with this article.” — Well, it’s hard to imagine that the CDC would be wrong until you study the issue. I think Dr Greger simply hasn’t look at the evidence in this case.

  31. Dr. G spends all his time evaluating the evidence. There is ZERO evidence of any significant hazards of ingesting fluoride in the amounts required to prevent tooth decay. Tooth decay is a serious heath hazard that can result in death due to dental abscess. Fluoride prevents this to a very significant degree.

    If you want to know the truth, evaluate the actual clinical data.

    Dr. Ben

    1. Clinical data? What about the cost of watering the cavities in your lawn? and adding an uncontrolled dose of toxic chemical to the body.

  32. The Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. foundation comes out against water fluoridation:

    The fluoride chemicals added to drinking water are unprocessed toxic waste products—captured pollutants from Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry or unregulated chemical imports from China. The chemicals undergo no purification before being dumped into drinking water and often harbor significant levels of arsenic and other heavy metal contamination; one researcher describes this unavoidable contamination as a “regulatory blind spot that jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.”

    Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.


  33. I didn’t realize this, but FAN claims that nobody has ever published a randomized controlled trial that showed that ingestion of fluoride reduces tooth decay. So I challenge any fluoridation advocates to produce such a study.

    1. Hi Christine, the matter of dose is really at the core of the evil of water fluoridation programs.

      Fluoride is the only drug in the world added to prevent a disease not caused by dirty water.

      Nobody disputes that fluoride is toxic. The dispute is about at what dose it becomes toxic.

      Any doctor that prescribed a drug without consideration for the patient’s condition is a malpractice lawsuit waiting to happen…but we allow our cities and towns to practice medicine without a license AND do so in a way that would subject a licensed physician to a malpractice lawsuit.

  34. flouride added to the water supply is an expensive way to water the cavities in your lawn! a convenient
    way to dispose of toxic waste.Want to know why they do this? follow the money! I filter rain water by gravity through doulton water filters a very economical way to have good clean water much to be preferred to bottled water

  35. I think we need to stop pushing on the water topic. Even if it’s true with hard facts, but do you really expect Dr Greger & other qualified doctor to say, “Today, I delcare war on all you giant corporates & government”?

    Assuming we are all well-educated being, we all knew that Power=Corruption > Science. So what do you expect Dr Greger to do, to speak like Copernicus & (to burn) like a martyrdom? In that case, it would be their victorious, by having you all break into pieces that can voice no more.

    Personally I’ve read many time about the fluoride thing. Assume we all knew it, just we don’t say it. So those who critizing, did you only learned about the nutritions from Dr Greger, but what more important is the “critical thinking”. Everything is out there for you to research, having everything burden on one individual is not something that an intellengent being should do. Rather it sounds more like who had been intoxicated for decades who couldn’t think logically. Or if you’ve ever read the book “1984” from Orwell, think about the role of O’Brien.

    We human evolved not as an individual but a society, pointing fingers are easy but think about the consequences. I would rather talk less on individual topic, and have the chance on keep reading something that I never learn before in the future. Those who like to be a martyr, just let them be.

    1. Thanks Initial H, your theory of change seems to be do your own research and don’t criticise. My theory of change suggests you don’t know what you are talking about. Nobody is asking Gregor to say, “Today, I delcare [sic] war on all you giant corporates & government”?

      All we are asking is he use the same critical thinking response he uses on all other nutrition subjects. Your comment is rendered absurd given that what Dr Gregor is doing, exactly what use say he shouldn’t dedicating his life to work against the interests of the most powerful three lobbies in US and global food production, i.e. livestock, dairy and sugar. The fluoride lobby is minuscule by comparison. All he has to say is “the jury is out”, we need better epidemiological studies, or a comprehensive longitudinal study, or human clinical trials. The fact that he is repeating propaganda from the 50s is pretty alarming to me. I understand why he is avoiding that fight, but I don’t think his chosen method to avoid it is scientifically credible. I find it amazing that you’d come on hear and tell us (basically) to shut up.

      All the best.

  36. Published today: “A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14) in boys and girls.” This was the main effect. Also there was a sex interaction with boys show extra damage from fluoride compared with girls.

    And there was an editors note: “This decision to publish this article was not easy. Given the nature of the findings and their potential implications, we subjected it to additional scrutiny for its methods and the presentation of its findings. The mission of the journal is to ensure that child health is optimized by bringing the best available evidence to the fore. Publishing it serves as testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be. That said, scientific inquiry is an iterative process. It is rare that a single study provides definitive evidence. This study is neither the first, nor will it be the last, to test the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive development. We hope that purveyors and consumers of these findings are mindful of that as the implications of this study are debated in the public arena.”

    Audio commentary here, https://dts.podtrac.com/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/secure/jamapediatricseditorssummary/Association_Between_Maternal_Fluoride_Exposure_During_Pregnancy_and_IQ_Scores_in_Offspring_in_Canada.mp3

    Green R, Lanphear B, Hornung R, et al. Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada. JAMA Pediatr. Published online August 19, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.1729


  37. Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort In summary, fluoride intake among infants younger than 6 months may exceed the tolerable upper limits if they are fed exclusively with formula reconstitued with fluoridated tap water. After adjusting for fetal exposure, we found that fluoride exposure during infancy predicts diminished non-verbal intelligence in children. In the absence of any benefit from fluoride consumption in the first six months, it is prudent to limit fluoride exposure by using non-fluoridated water or water with lower fluoride content as a formula diluent.

  38. Hello Dr. Greger !

    In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health and China Medical University for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children.

    So, why accept fluoride in toothpaste when we can replace it with :
    – green tea:
    – or cocoa powder which contains theobromine, that showed in a published study in British Dental Journal that is more effective from fluoride

    Why accept any risk when we have better alternatives ?

  39. Sample size was almost 7000, published January 2020. Higher levels of aluminium and fluoride were related to dementia risk in a population of men and women who consumed relatively low drinking-water levels of both. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-british-journal-of-psychiatry/article/aluminium-and-fluoride-in-drinking-water-in-relation-to-later-dementia-risk/14AF4F22AC68C9D6F34F9EC91BE37B6D/share/e96e51d9de02acd4920718309ccb19f4b9543a2f

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This