It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Fluoridation's Early Trials Were Tainted!!

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:30 PM

The early studies conducted in 1945 -1955 in the US, which helped to launch fluoridation, have been heavily criticized for their poor methodology and poor choice of control communities (De Stefano 1954; Sutton 1959, 1960 and 1996; Ziegelbecker 1970). According to Dr. Hubert Arnold, a statistician from the University of California at Davis, the early fluoridation trials "are especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude." In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could give no fluoridation trial a grade A classification – despite 50 years of research...

Many of the blunders were so glaring that I gave them to my beginning freshman classes in statistics at the very first meeting. The students see through them straightway, and are afforded great amusement. Uproarious laughter frequently ensues. No special statistical equipment is necessary to detect those peccancies. Of course the class and the Group soon tired of those infantilities, and sought and found greater challenge.

By the way, a study by John Yiamouyiannis and Dean Burke on possible connection between cancer and waterborne fluoride was fairly tightly reasoned. The statistical procedures were standard, and much better applied than in much of the Public Health work.

As I pointed out in a letter published in the proceedings of a congressional committee investigating the above connection, the real point is that direct chemical and controlled experimental research by unbiased uncommitted agencies is urgently indicated. Clearly fluoridation should be discontinued everywhere until definitive results on safety are obtained.

The fluoridation trials that were conducted in the cities of Grand Rapids, Newburgh and Evanston, in the U.S.A., and the two independent ones in Brantford, Canada, are of more than ordinary importance, because they constitute the main experimental evidence which has led to the introduction of this process as a public health measure. The fluoridation hypothesis is "that a concentration of about 1 part per million of fluoride in the drinking water, mechanically added, inhibits the development of dental caries in the teeth of the users of the water" (Brown, McLaren and Stewart, 1954b). In 1956 Nesin pointed out:

"It must be emphasized that the fluoridation hypothesis in its entirety rests on a very narrow base of selected experimental information. It is this very base which is vulnerable to scientific criticism. And, it is upon this very narrow base that the very impressive array of endorsement rests like an inverted pyramid."


A preliminary examination revealed that reports of these studies contain errors and show omissions, and statements made in regard to results are not justified by published data; therefore further study has been made of these crucial trials. This study attempts to evaluate their controls, and the discussion is limited to examination of published reports of (i) method of selection of control cities; (ii) their suitability; (iii) the experimental and statistical processes used in gathering and analysing the data (iv) the results stating the dental caries attack rates; (v) some comments made by the authors of these trials (and by others) on these results...

Furthermore, the erratic and arbitrary way in which the sampling of children from these cities was done has raised many an eyebrow. For example, when the Grand Rapids trial began in 1945, children from all 79 schools in Grand Rapids were examined. By 1949, however, examiners observed children from only 25 of these 79 schools. Meanwhile in Muskegon, children from ALL the schools were still being examined. Such problematic changes and inconsistencies in sampling size is further illustrated by the fact that when the Grand Rapids study commenced, the number of 12 to 16 year olds being examined was 7,661, but by the final year of the study, the number of 12 to 16 year olds being studied had dropped to just 1,031 (Sutton 1996).

Along with these arbitrary changes in the study's sampling methods, the study employed multiple examiners to assess the children's teeth. But as has been shown in studies from the American Journal of Public Health (Boyd et al., 1951) as well as the Journal of the American Dental Association (Radusch, 1934), there is a considerable variability between each dentists' assessment of a person's teeth. The study in the Journal of the American Dental Association found, for instance, that when 33 patients were examined by three of eight different dentists, "a deviation of 89% in the number of cavities was recorded (Waldbott 1978)." This being the case, it is significant to note that the examiner variability was NEVER assessed in the Grand Rapids study (Sutton 1996).

Despite these enormous weaknesses, these early studies are cited again and again to support the success of fluoridation.

"50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation"
"Statistician Discusses Fluoridation's Early Trials"
"Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials" / "The Grand Rapids Study"
"The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Critique of the CDC's Promotion of Fluoridation"

are we surprised that they're skewing a scientific study in order to further their own twisted, sinister agenda??

why, that seems to be the American way now - to trick us into believing anything they say by insisting that it's good for us, or that it's being done in our best interests... FOR OUR HEALTH AND BENEFIT, by golly!!

what's next?! it's not like they're going to trick us into trading in all our gold and silver - our only commodities worth anything at all - for paper money, similar to their Gold Confiscation Act of 1933...

oh wait...

how much longer until people realize that water fluoridation is horrible for us?! there are PLENTY of threads here on ATS that prove how bad it is for us, including the one that i've got in my very own signature below. fluoride may just be the single-most product that's preventing us from "waking up" in the first place, as ingesting is causes lethargy, indifference, and even DEATH!!

...let's get our act together, so we can progress on the same page!


...and never stop practicing Service-To-Others!!

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 03:46 PM
Hi Adreno ...very interesting ....I have not really dug into this subject but I find it interesting ....especially when my motto is if the Gov or any higher up (those in control) says anything is good for us ...I tend to believe it is just the opposite ...and if they say something is not good for us ...then it more than likely has something in it that is beneficial to our health and well being ..
No doubt about it THEY DO NOT CARE one whit about our health and well being .. ....that would lead to way too many healthy people (which healthy people dont make anyone any money for Drs and Hospitals and Cancer centers ..the drug companies etc .. ...there would be way too many highly paid people and centers out of a job ...

That is just my opinion of course ..based on all that I have read so far when it comes to the water,the foods we eat ...our drinks etc ......

PS ...I grew up in Alaska and we drank rain water two brothers and myself all had to have false teethe by the age of 25 rainwater wasnt much better ...

On a side note .....when I fill my hot tub up with fresh water I can use it for about three days before I need to add chemicals ...that says alot about all the chemicals they are putting in our water ...
But then again it is nothing but recycled sewer water which is really disgusting if you ask me ...

I dont drink water ...and I boil anywater I do use mainly because it just is not safe to drink at all ..

[edit on 26-3-2009 by Simplynoone]

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:14 PM
reply to post by Simplynoone

well fluoride is found naturally in water, but i hear the difference is that the natural one is calcium fluoride - they're putting sodium fluoride in our water supply!

i guess one is natural, and the other's a waste by-product of aluminum manufacturing... which is also why aluminum is apprently unhealthy for us as well, like in anti-perspirants.

but aluminum's a whole other story in itself...

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:01 PM
The conspiracy theory that I have heard is that fluoride is an
industrial chemical that gained a market in drinking water.

Some doctors decree that it hardens teeth against decay is touted.
Also past a certain age it may not help.
I actually perhaps know less about this than the average Joe.

If you really want to paint a bad picture, the conspiracy theory
calls fluoride an industrial waste product perpetrated on the people
by the Illuminati.

Illuminati circles run deep and even picket signs out side the water
company and signatures from every voter in town can't stop them.
Impact studies perhaps might be done on a town by town basis
but I don't see this issue erupting any time soon.

Banks can't invest in capital projects cause the holders of the
capital equipment will catch wind of it and put a stop to it, just
ask Tesla past the Niagara Falls project.
Florine is being use some where and invading our lives making
bottled water the big thing.

ED: Aluminum perhaps is needed for the aircraft industry.
Also the watt hour meter outside every host, perhaps a mini
generator in its own right. Used by Tesla to reflect magnetic
fields and going was out conspiracy wise, you awesome
UFOs will surely use aluminum. So flight seems to need
aluminum. Well, big heavy iron UFOs seems dumb but it
would eliminate aluminum processing and perhaps match
Tesla's noted iron stove comments.

[edit on 3/26/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:15 PM
trace levels of lead and arsenic can be found in fluoride added to drinking water. concerntration is apparently below measurement levels so is of no concern.
fluoride apparently decreases motor function and hypersensitivity.

[edit on 26-3-2009 by spearhead]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:56 AM
Good info adrenochrome, my city recently started fluoridating the water supply against some strong opposition from the public, my self included.
I no longer drink tap water at all, probably just as well as it's more of a chemical cocktail these days as well as being contaminated by the aging pipes.
The water tastes drastically different from suburb to suburb in my city, that should be a warning sign for most.

For god's sake it's the stuff of life, don't F#$% with it! The thing that infuriates me the most is simply that the choice is made for you, despite the protests.

Most interested in the subject have probably seen this but I thought I'd link it because I think it's one of the better mini docs on fluoride with some good historical perspectives.
The Fluoride Deception

S&F from me.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:20 AM
most modern day tap water filters remove added fluoride and many other nasties. we use one in a jug and it works well to moderate the fluctuating flavours of our towns water.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 07:59 AM
reply to post by spearhead

A filter is definitely a must for getting rid of most of the other crap, but It was my understanding that most filters don't remove fluoride except for expensive commercial types using reverse osmosis or distillation filtration.

And boiling water will only concentrate the fluoride I've heard.

Would be nice to have a reasonable price filter to do the job, are there any?

[edit on 27-3-2009 by squiz]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:49 AM
A very interesting topic indeed, Im reading up on all this to grasp what its all about, Its something for sure i have been thinking about,

Thanks for posting,

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 11:49 AM
How about an alternative water supply.

A new set of pipes and water towers to supply the cleanest water
possible for those who choose.

Put me down as a water tower investor.

You just need a pre fluoridation tap and a small water system.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:08 PM
According to Jim Marrs 'Rise of the Fourth Reich' would you be surprised to find out this is yet another result of the Rockefellers meddeling? I believe he stated that in the early inception of 'Boards of Health' that the Rockefellers actually controlled the boards in the south.

It's been said that flouride dulls the mind. Did you know that Prozac is 98% flouride?

If you want more info, I'd be happy to dig up my book and add direct quotes.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:11 PM
Someone is getting some very heavy kickbacks for adding fluoride to our water -
A governor - a city - a country.

It is harmful and unnecessary.
It's a "the people vs the greedy" elephant in the room.

We have been blocked repeatedly in the city where I am from -
from getting this issue into the courts and out of our water supply.
It gets to a certain level and then quietly disappears.
Just another criminal activity -
Right under our noses...

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:17 PM

Originally posted by adrenochrome
reply to post by Simplynoone

well fluoride is found naturally in water, but i hear the difference is that the natural one is calcium fluoride - they're putting sodium fluoride in our water supply!

i guess one is natural, and the other's a waste by-product of aluminum manufacturing... which is also why aluminum is apprently unhealthy for us as well, like in anti-perspirants.

but aluminum's a whole other story in itself...

Well you heard correctly. Calcium fluoride is found naturally in water. Sodium fluoride is a toxic by-product added to our water supply. Very, very different from calcium fluoride.

It's important to note that regardless of debate, there has never been a study done which proves sodium fluoride protects the teeth's enamel which is the reasoning we are told behind our fluoride ingestion.

Industry was required to pay large disposal fees to rid themselves of this harmful waste in the 40's until we were told it was beneficial to teeth. We began to pay them for it at this point.

These are conspiracy facts, not theories.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:52 PM
reply to post by adrenochrome

flouride is found naturally but so is radium and radon and lead.

fluoride found naturally is rarer then you think.

but you are right that there are different kinds. And the kind they distribute is not the good kind.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 03:29 PM

It's been said that flouride dulls the mind. Did you know that Prozac is 98% flouride?

If you want more info, I'd be happy to dig up my book and add direct quotes.
To the parents out there that just cant seem to understand why kids are so, well, stupid, think about it, long and hard. Then start thinking why dentist use x rays to find cavities. Thats right, because they don't usually start on the outside of the tooth, they come from the inside out. What good is it to harden the outside of the tooth?

Fluoride is known to leach calcium from the body from both sources, bones, and TEETH! They charge you to make you sick, then charge you for the cure, WHAT A RACKET!

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 04:48 PM
S & F

I would love to say how surprised I am by this, but based on what I see from all SORTS of various levels (water supplies, food additives, FDA meddling and attempts to outlaw vitamins / herbs, and chem-trail spraying and blanketing the environment) this appears to be par for the course. There is definitely some sinister forces at work, and the people behind these things are unbelievably twisted and dangerous.

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 05:20 PM
Great article. If you haven't heard of him, check out Dr. Hardy Limeback. He used to be a huge proponent of water fluoridation until he learned the incredible problems with it.
Dr. Hardy Limeback - Why I now oppose water fluoridation

Some basic things to know are

- The only beneficial type of fluoride is calcium fluoride
- Calcium fluoride is only beneficial when applied topically, not ingested
- What is added to our water is actually hydrofluorosilicic acid recovered from smokestack scrubbers!!
- Fluoride accumulates in your body, roughly half of all fluoride you ingest stays in your bones (In my opinion the REAL cause of "osteoperosis")

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:27 PM
thanks for the intelligent replies, everyone!!

a couple things come to mind now:

i've heard that 98-99% of fluoridated water isn't even ingested by the body, such as that used for washing cars, watering lawns, showering, etc. so then, why do they need to make all the effort to spend money to fluoridate the water still if most of it's going to go to waste??...

well, just in case, they know most people use water for tea (which has lots of fluoride in itself), kool-aid, coffee, cooking, etc., and we almost can't help but to ingest this "drug". our skin even absorbs some during bathing anyway...

which brings me to my other point:

all of the water filter systems i saw at Wal-Mart advertised all over that they "WON'T TOUCH THE 'BENEFICIAL' FLUORIDE"...
well, thanks guys, i'm glad you continue to pull a fast one over everyone's eyes so we can continue to consume your Illuminati drug... it disgusts me just as much as the nursery water they mass produce for infants, "NOW WITH ADDED FLUORIDE!"...

now, another article comes to mind, and i've quoted this before here on ATS somewhere:

"Fluoridation Fears"

"There is no need to fluoridate the water supplies," says Dr. Michael Fleming. He's a Durham dentist who thinks we're getting far too much fluoride.

"Fluoride in the water is essentially a drug, it's an uncontrolled use of a drug," says Dr. Fleming.


"The primary benefit of fluoride is topically, used as a topical addition, not internally," says Dr. Fleming.

Everyone knows fluoride is in your toothpaste and in some mouthwash. But fluoride is also in places you may have never guessed. It's in soft drinks and beer. Thinking of having orange juice and oatmeal for breakfast? If they're made with water in a fluoridated community then your breakfast comes with a side of fluoride.


"I think it's bad, having it in the water, we don't know what the results are going to be in the future," says Ed Daigle. He lives in the western North Carolina city of Brevard. Earlier this year, he led a one man crusade and convinced the city council to stop putting fluoride in the water supply.

"Why take a pristine water supply like we have and add a poison to it? Because it is definitely a poison," says Daigle.


But Triangle dentist Mike Fleming isn't convinced. He wants to see fluoride taken out of the water supply.

"Some people suggest, adding fluoride to the water is like adding sunscreen to the water to help fight skin cancer," said Steve Daniels.

"I think let's just keep it topical," said Dr. Fleming. He continued, "The studies clearly indicate that, that is where the benefit is primarily found. Therefore taking it internally doesn't make any sense to me."


...and this information is coming from dentists and doctors, yet we still remain mostly ignorant to this heavy-handed issue! sure, some on ATS are starting to wake up to this, but we're just a small handful compared to the rest of humanity...

that's why i'm glad there are sites such as , and , where you can find your local fluoride-free dentist!

the pineal gland thread in my sig also has tons of great information about fluoride, with even more factual links!!

i pray that one day we will all unite, and come to the realization that fluoride is probably the single-most chemical/drug that we ingest daily, that's causing us to remain indifferent and lazy about the ugly state the world is in right now, and it's keeping us from actually doing something about this disgraceful way of living humanity's going through!

the change starts with the individual, and being humble and practicing Service-To-Others is the only way to live - set your own example, practice what you preach, and others will follow!!

peace, everyone!

[edit on 27-3-2009 by adrenochrome]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 06:49 PM
reply to post by squiz

i've heard that cities in England are just starting to fluoridate the water supply, even though 72% of the residents oppose it!...

also, Only one of 12 fluoride decision makers lives in the area affected!!!

Only one of the 12 NHS bosses who gave the green light for fluoride to be added to tap water in Totton lives in the area that will be affected, it has emerged.


Objections to the plans by the city's primary care trust fear fluoride can cause mottling of teeth and even cancer, and resent being "force medicated" - so the news that only one of the decision makers will be affected the scheme provoked anger.


"The SHA (South Central Stragegic Health Authority) had a duty to consult, despite it being a rigged consultation in favour of adding fluoride. Over 70% of local people were against. This is the most shocking, anti-democratic way of proceeding that I have ever encountered."

However, the SHA pointed out in a statement that the region it oversees not only covers Hampshire but also Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire and the Isle of Wight.


Hampshire Primary Care Trust and Southampton City Council were in favour of fluoride but the councils of Hampshire, New Forest and Totton and Eling were all against. Out of 10,000 formal responses from the public, 7,000 were not in favour.


[edit on 27-3-2009 by adrenochrome]

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 09:29 PM
Your comment about the pineal gland related to this is what my intuition is leading me towards...These things are deliberately keeping / disrupting people from awakening to their full awareness of the "greater" reality, if you will. I think we are on the cusp of an evolution, or awareness, that once realized on a mass scale, will free the populace from the illusion that has been keeping them under control and servitude, and create a planetary paradigm shift, and the ones behind this are trying to prevent it by disrupting this process through chemical measures, to maintain this graqsp of control. That's just a gut feeling, but I am leaning towards this being a very real possibility...

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in