Everything You Wanted To Know About Drinking Water
But Didn't Know What To Ask

Rick North – You are entitled to have your own opinions but not to manufacture “facts”

Discussion of your most recent claims
Pro-fluoridation resources
Organizations that support anti-F opinions
Reviews and studies in support of fluoridation

You apparently have no idea of what constitutes a scientific consensus, how to recognize one or even how to try and refute one.  

All you would have to do to support your claim that “there is no consensus fluoridation is safe or effective. There never has been” is to list a majority of reputable science and health organizations that accept the anti-F opinions as legitimate. 

However the fact is, according to the most comprehensive list I have seen posted by fluoridation opponents (FOs), support for their opinions consists of 6 alternative health organizations and about 10 environmental, marketing, spiritual and cultural organizations.
Groups and Organizations Publically Opposed to Fluoridation include:

  • INFOWARS, Alex Jones
  • Health Ranger, Mike Adams
  • AAEM: American Academy of Environmental Medicine
  • ICIM: International College of Integrative Medicine
  • IABDM: International Academy of Biological Dentists and Medicine
  • IAOMT: International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology
  • ICA: International Chiropractors Association
  • HDA: Holistic Dental Association
  • EWG: Environmental Working Group
  • CHEJ: Center for Health, Environment & Justice
  • Sierra Club: Environmentalists
  • OCA: Organic Consumers Association
  • FWW: Food & Water Watch
  • CAAP: Coalition of African American Pastors
  • LULAC: League of United Latin American Citizens
  • Mercola.com

Not one of your observations and opinions even remotely constitutes evidence to support your claim.  They simply constitute clear evidence that there are individuals who disagree with the consensus conclusions and that you apparently don't understand the concept of scientific consensus.

  • Opposition to a scientific consensus is not proof the consensus is false.
  • A personal interpretation of a 1950’s decision is an irrelevant opinion.
  • Stating that FAN has a database of “scientific studies” is meaningless.  Try searching pubmed.gov which provides an unedited listing of almost 6,500 studies that reference fluoridation..
  • Claiming that 4,700 professionals [out of millions of relevant practicing and retired professionals] have signed an anti-F petition is  evidence against the consensus is foolish. 
    The fact that 378 dentists (or about 0.02%), 581 physicians(or about 0.005%) and 196  pharmacists (or about 0.005%) have signed the petition is excellent evidence of anti-consensus, outlier status.
  • Listing a bunch of names of professionals who disagree with the scientific consensus is meaningless – I can list hundreds more who support fluoridation. 
  • A video of professionals explaining their opinions “in lay-friendly language” [Trust in me] is just more non-consensus opinions.
  • Listing political decisions in different countries is not relevant to the scientific consensus – The reasons I have seen listed are philosophical and/or have no evidence-based support.
  • A federal judge ruling that an anti-F lawsuit can’t be dismissed is not relevant – even a ruling about fluoridation (pro or con) would be irrelevant with respect to the scientific consensus.


In contrast, there are four significant pieces of evidence that confirm the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation (CWF) is safe and effective:

  1. Virtually all major science and health organizations worldwide publically recommend fluoridation as a safe and effective public health measure (many since the 50s and 60s).
  2. The hundreds of thousands of members of those organizations have not rebelled.
  3. No such reputable science or health organizations support the anti-F opinions.
  4. All of the 15 major scientific reviews/studies cited in this thread or the 34  study reviews referenced below conclude that community water fluoridation is effective and/or safe and confirm the fact that the scientific consensus on fluoridation is not under dispute – except by a relative few professionals and a number of non-professionals who have believed in them.

Your accusation that the "vast majority [of medical professionals] also have no idea of the numerous peer-reviewed studies finding fluoride’s toxicity to many segments of the population at levels in fluoridated wateris false, libelous and deeply troubling.

Do you really believe all health professionals who accept (or don’t dispute) the scientific consensus are selectively blind in their inability to evaluate evidence and recognize an allegedly dangerous, public health measure which impacts virtually every one of their patients – if they live in fluoridated cities?  You have made a completely unsupported and unconscionable charge that these professionals would care so little about their patients they would knowingly (or ignorantly) allow them (according to FAN) to suffer a significant risk of lowered IQ and harm to the brain, cancer, diabetes, arthritis, bone fracture, hypersensitivity, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disruption (hypothyroidism), hypersensitivity, kidney disease, skeletal fluorosis, male fertility issues and pineal gland issues.

I have repeatedly pointed out specific disingenuous tactics employed by you and other fluoridation opponents like doctoring the evidence so it is presented as supporting an anti-F position when it does not.  You have not addressed those accusations or answered my other very specific questions about tactics used by FOs.

The bottom line is that all anti-F tactics are designed to create confusion and inflict fear in citizens in an attempt to conceal the fact that the scientific evidence does not support their opinions regarding fluoridation. 

I do believe you and other FOs are caring and well-intentioned.  I also believe that you and other anti-F activists have exceptionally strong personal opinions about what you believe to be personal freedoms vs. public health measures and a particularly strong fear regarding the element fluorine.  Those fears and biases laser-focus your attention on any perceived evidence of harm and prevent a fair and considered evaluation of the body of scientific evidence – as summarized in the specific references provided, which you have failed to address (or have misrepresented).

Additional resources for understanding the benefits and risks of drinking water fluoridation.

Below are some critiques of a few high profile anti-fluoridation, anti-science individual supporters and groups. Obviously, if you accept the beliefs and positions of these individuals and organizations you will dismiss these critiques.  However, if you have any interest in understanding legitimate scientific and health positions based on an impartial evaluation of scientific evidence, it is worth examining the overall context of anti-science propaganda of all types as described below

Fluoride Action Network & Paul Connett, New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation and other ant-F organizations and activists:

Mike Adams (the “Health Ranger”) and Natural News:

Alex Jones and Infowars:

Joseph Mercola and his alternative health empire:

Additional References and highlights of tactics used by fluoridation opponents:

You never addressed the studies and reviews I listed.  What is your non-professional evaluation of the 35 reviews and studies published since 2000 that have unanimously concluded that community water fluoridation reduces dental decay?  None of these reviews reported any health risks from drinking optimally fluoridated water, only an increased risk of very mild to mild dental fluorosis from drinking optimally fluoridated water. 

The 35 reviews/studies include: