Fluoride Being Dangerous Isn’t New News

In 1937, Dr. Dean Burk cofounded the U.S. National Cancer Institute (NCI) and was the head of their cytochemistry department for more than 30 years. He did an interview in which he ‘equated water fluoridation to “public murder”, referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it. Apparently the study demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.’

On September 18, 1943, The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) wrote that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes.

On October 1, 1944, The Journal of the American Dental Association wrote that “drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.” [The current level for acceptable fluoride levels is 4.0 mg/L, which roughly translates to 4.0 ppm]

In 2006, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory.”


Retired chemistry professor Dr. Paul Connett made a statement recently that “in light of the new classification of fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin, adding more fluoride to American’s already excessive intake no longer has any conceivable justification. We should follow the evidence and try to reduce fluoride intake, not increase it.”

If so many journals, scientists, doctors, etc have been going on record as opposing fluoride – why haven’t we listened?

This really makes me question what we consider “reputable sources”. In doing my research, I strived to find sources that opponents couldn’t argue against: mostly, official sites (.gov, .edu) and well-known or established news sources. If I had it my way, this post could be ten times longer with all the other interesting information I found that I completely believe is relevant, but others are quick to discredit.

Why is it that CNN or Fox is reputable, but Natural News or InfoWars isn’t?

Because InfoWars doesn’t write on Chelsea Clinton’s baby or George Clooney’s wedding?

Why is it that we are so quick to listen to the CDC tell us something is “safe” while at the same time telling us not to give it to our infants? In fact, why do we trust a government agency who currently has three whistleblowers coming forward about vaccine-study fraud?

Why is it so hard for us to think critically, for ourselves?

Can I go a step further?

Why is it, that we can’t acknowledge that so much of “modern medicine” is a business? We want to believe that the “health industry” wants what is best for us, that we’d blindly look aside while our country keeps getting sicker and sicker, and those individuals at the top keep getting richer and richer.

Next in the series: we can choose not to fluorinate our water!

Photo Credit: Leonard Bentley via photopin cc

Leave a Reply