Free E-Book: The Fluoride Deception, by Christopher Bryson

Posted on July 19, 2011


Title:  The Fluoride Deception
Author:  Christopher Bryson, with a foreword by Dr. Theo Colborn
Date:  2004


“The Fluoride Deception” Videos: 

PART 1  –  PART 2  –  PART 3 

From the Introduction:  Warning:  Keep out of reach of children under 6 years of age.  If you accidentally swallow more than used for burshing, get medical help or contact a Poison Control Center right away.

NEXT TIME YOU confront yourself in the bathroom mirror, mouth full of foam, take another look at that toothpaste tube.  Most of us associate fluoride with the humdrum issue of better teeth and the promised fewer visits to the dentist.  yet the story of how fluoride was added to our toothpaste and drinking water is an extraordinary, almost fantastic tale.  The plot includes some of the most spectacular events in human affairs–the explosion of the Hiroshima atomic bomb, for example.  Many of the principal characters are larger than life, such as the “father of public relations” Edward L. Bernays, Sigmund Freud’s nephew, who was until now more famous for his scheme to persuede women to smoke cigarettes.  And the twists and turns of the fluoride story are propelled by nothing less than the often grim requirements of accumulating power in the industrial era–the same raw power that is at the beating heart of the American Century.

Fluoride lies at the elemental core of some of the greatest fortunes that the world has ever seen, the almost unimaginable wealth of the Mellons of Pittsburgh and the DuPonts of Delaware.  And no wonder the warning on the toothpaste tube is so dramatic.  The same potent chemical that is used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons, to prepare Sarin nerve gas, and to wrestle molten steel and aluminum from the earth’s ore is what we give to our children first thing in the morning and the last thing at night, flavored with peppermint, strawberry, or bubble gum.

Fluoride is so muscular a chemical that is has become a lifeblood of modern industry, pumped hotly each day through innumerable factories, refineries, and mills.  Fluoride is used to produce high-octane gasoline; to smelt such key metals as aluminum, steel, and beryllium; to enrich uranium; to make computer circuit boards, pesticides, ski wax, refrigerant gases, Teflon plastic, carpets, waterproof clothing, etched glass, bricks and ceramics, and numerous drugs, such as Prozac and Cipro…..



JAN 07, 1930:  Sodium Fluroide Causes Two “Mystery” Deaths – The Bulletin 
APR 13, 1931:  …”best poison for ants and roaches is sodium fluoride. . . It is…poisonous to man and shoud be used with care”… – The Bulletin 
FEB 04, 1933:  Fluoride of Sodium Powder Makes Good Roach Exterminator  –  The Deseret News 
APR 19, 1934:  Insecticides Are Cheap to Make  –  Three Forks News 
NOV 22, 1935:  Barrel of Poison – Poisoned Soda Death Mounts to 5  –  The Milwaukee Sentinel 
MAR 01, 1937:  Find Poison in Baking Powder  –  Saskatoon Star-Phoenix     
FEB 03, 1939:  Poison Pie Probers Meet With Coroner  –  The Pittsburgh Press 


NOV 12, 1940:  Poison Pancakes  –  The Evening Indpendent 

Dr. Robert Kooser, resident physician at St. Francis hospital said the roach powder — sodium fluoride — is “a terrible poison.”  –  “It destroys the blood cells,” he said. 

FEB 12, 1941:  The Doctor Says, by Logan Clendening, M.D.  –  The Calgary Herald 

“…Last year I said in this column that sodium fluoride is a good roach powder because it is almost harmless for man.  Manufacturers wrote me protesting.  All sodium fluoride should be labeled “Poison” on the can.  Agreed!  But naturally one must assume that everybody will realize that if sodium fluoride will kill roaches, enough of it will kill a man.” 

NOV 20, 1942:  Mass Murder in Madhouse Theory Probed in 47 Deaths  –  The Pittsburgh Press 
MAY 08, 1942:  Fluoride Solution Believed Easing Tooth Decay Problem  –  Reading Eagle 

“The report was based on a study by Dr. Virgil D. Cheyne, of Indianapolis, who experimented for a year with 27 children treated with the solution, comparing observations with a control group of 19 whose teeth were untreated.  The research, he said, showed the untreated group developed about twice as many new decay areas.  …Since fluoride is highly toxic, extreme care was necessary in applying the solution as well as preventing the patient from swalling any of the water used to rinse the teeth after the treatment…”

DEC 04, 1942:  Physicians Report First U.S. Case of Bone Hardening:  Fluorine in Water Causes Death of Young Soldier  –  The Evening Independent 
APR 02, 1943:  Fluorides may Be an Answer to Tooth Decay, Report Says  –  The Milwaukee Journal 
APR 14, 1944:  Whole City to Test Dental Decay Salts  –  The Pittsburgh Press 
APR 16, 1944:  Long Test Planned by City to Block Decay in Teeth  –  The Milwaukee Journal 
JAN 20, 1945:  Fluorine Gaining Favor As a Tooth Decay Preventative  –  The Norwalk Hour 
JUN 21, 1946:  Dental Decay Control Sought:  Fluorine Tests Made On School Children  –  Toledo Blade 
DEC 17, 1947:  State Will Provide “Paint” For Teeth:  Michigan to Check Decay In Children’s Mouths  –  The Windsor Daily Star 
JAN 23, 1947:  Dental Work Is At Record High:  Number of Dentists Increasing In U.S.  –  Kentucky New Era 
OCT 25, 1947:  Health Official Lauds Lewiston Water Program  –  Lewiston Morning Tribune 
MAY 4, 1948:  Sodium Fluoride Now Available To All Dentists:  Saves Decay of Teeth  –  The Newberry Observer 

JUN 22, 1948:  Fluoride Doesn’t Work In Paste, Dentist Says  –  Youngstown Vindicator 

Dr. H. B. Millhoff, director of the Ohio department of health’s division of dental hygiene…said…that tooth pastes and mouth washes containing sodium fluoride “have been thoroughly studied and have been found to be absolutely worthless in preventing tooth decay.”

MAY 29, 1948:  Uncle Sam Will Spend $1,000,000 to Tell State of Sodium Fluoride  –  Ludington Daily News 


APR 13, 1950:  Educators Deplore Dentists’ Reaction  –  The Tuscaloosa News 

“We are 100 per cent for the sodium fluoride program to help our children prevent tooth decay…” superintendents of Tuscaloosa’s city and county schools said today.  …11 Tuscaloosa dentists…voted 6 to 5 against approving the program.

JAN 06, 1951:  Things Told by The Tattler  –  The Day 

Some questions also arose whether fluorides might not be present, in the natural state in some sources of water supply, in such quantities that the use of the water might be dangerous, for these substances in a stronger solution than normally used in artificial “doctoring” of water, are definitely poisonous.  …opponents, including Dr. Manning, insist that the effect of the fluorides is cumulative–that the chemical taken into the human body works slowly, that the quantity deposited in the bony structure of the body in time may reach dangerous proportions, and that it may conceivably be years before adverse effects are noted.  Dr. Manning has contended…the serious results might not show up until years later, probably in the form of rheumatic complaints.  …This, says Dr. Manning, is mass medication of populations with a vengeance, without permission and in such form that the individual has no alternative…but to take the medication.

JAN 19, 1951:  Do We Need Medicine In Drinking Water?  –  The Deseret News 
JUN 28, 1951:  Fluoridation of Water Discussed  –  Lodi News-Sentinel 

Stating his opposition to the project was Albert McDonald, 420-1/2 N. Church street, whose avocation is chemistry.  He submitted figures from a study made by the University of New Mexico which showed that fluorine has a damaging effect on the system.  “I can’t see how an inorganic substance can build tooth structure.  Fluoride must be taken into the system naturally, through plants and other sources,” he stated.

SEP 16, 1951:  Magazine Gets Praise For Edit  –  Tri Cities Herald 

It seems that the drug interests are not satisfied with their already enormous profits through the regular “public health” channels but are finding the food market to be an additional source of gain.  As one writer quipped “They are now not only seeking to pollute the water mains of every community in the nation in order to sell more fluorides.  They want everything that grows, moves or breathes on the earth to be immersed in or sprayed or injected with something created in a test tube.”

SEP 27, 1951:  Dental, Health Groups Endorse Fluoridation  –  St. Petersburg Times 

Arguments against fluoridation of public water supplies are the same ones that were raised against putting chlorine in water to purify it–that it would be dangerous and produce harmful effects.  The same arguments were used against use of iodine in table salt in the goiter belt and against vaccinations to prevent smallpox. 

SEP 03, 1951:  Pros and Cons of Plan to Fluoridate City’s Water Supply Are Many  –  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 

Dr. Hurme urged further consideration of the effect of fluorine on people with diseased kidneys and other disorders, particularly in the middle-aged and eldery groups.  (Arguments against fluoridation included the following:)  The fluoride intake might be dangerously high for adults who drink large amounts of water because of occupations, disease or diet requirements; Direct application is more economical and less dangerous because it can be controlled completely; (continued on following day) fluorine in water will benefit only teeth that are being formed…[but] nothing at all for adult teeth. 

JAN 23, 1952:  Charge State Wards Are Subjects of Fluoride Tests Draws Fire  –  Meriden Record 

Charges that the State Department of Health has been “conducting experiments on defenseless children, state wards and orphans” by putting fluorides in their drinking water drew fire today at a public hearing at the State Capitol.  …Dr. Paul Manning…said the use of fluorides in drinking water violates human rights and cited the legal principles set forth by the international tribunal at the Nuremberg war crimes trials on the subject of medical experimentation on human beings.  Miss Van De Vere objected to fluoridation on the grounds that it would be harmful to elderly persons and that it was still in the experimental stage.  Several others voiced similar opinions.

MAR 05, 1952:  Fluoridizing Delay To Be Requested  –  Lodi News-Sentinel 

Albert J. McDonald…plans to renew his objections…  Others, including McDonald, feel that fluorine not only fails to achieve an appreciable reduction but is also harmful, even in small doses, when administered over a 10-20 years period.

MAR 09, 1952:  Fluoridation Is Opposed  –  Tri City Herald 

“Do We Dare Fluoridate Drinking Water” is the title of a challenging article by Dr. H. F. Strongin, M.D., M.P.H., appearing in the March issue of Life Today.  Dr. Strongin, former public health director of North Adams, Mass., makes a powerful case against artificially fluoridated water.  …Dr. Strongin seems a little apprehensive that medical doctors may have to treat patients with illnesses caused by accumulated fluoride poisoning in their system.  …artificial fluoridation of drinking water may (or may not…) make harder teeth in young children (although it’s no good after 12 years of age), it may also produce poisoning and toxic troubles later in life much worse than decayed teeth.  …Prof. George R. Cowgill, physiology department head at Yale says, “Fluorine is stored in the skeleton, both bones and teeth, just as calcium is stored.  …The amount of fluoride stored in the bones is greater with advancing years.”  Thus the Professor, also admits fluorine is cumulative and says that what it may do to you in future years “remains to be determined.”  While it may harden the teeth it also settles and accumulates in the bones, making them brittle and easily broken in advancing years.

MAR 13, 1952:  Fluoride Rejected  –  Tri City Herald 

Fluoridation was snowed under…  It involved the issues of benefits to a minority population group, anti-medication, religious and personal rights.  Opponents contended it might be harmful to some people and that it should be tested more extensively before putting it in the water system.  Some others argued that it was a step toward state medicine.

MAR 19, 1952:  Fluoride Dangers Cited  –  The Spokesman-Review 

I attended a meeting where the question of water fluoridation was discussed.  The speaker held up a small jar on which the label showed the skull and crossbones and a very emphatic caution regarding the use of its contents.  This poison was sodium fluoride, a basis for rat poison and insecticides and so deadly that no effective antidote has yet been found.  And this same poison has been suggested to be placed in our drinking water.  …If fluoridated water would lessen tooth decay by hardening tooth structure, might it not also harden other bodily tissues like the brain or arteries?

I could go on, but I think I’ve given the general idea.  In a nutshell, for decades, fluoride was known as poison and nobody would have ever dreamt to ingest it (except when poisoning somebody or committing suicide) any more than we would spray roach killer or rat poison on our food today.  Then, the “experts” came forward and claimed that since natural fluoride seemed to prevent cavities in children, let’s use the artificial variety and throw it in our drinking water supplies!  (Prior to the fluoridation of the water supply, fluoride was considered nothing more than a poison.  In the 50s and 60s, most fluoride used to fluoridate the water supply came from the aluminum manufacturing industry.  Fluoride was/is a toxic waste product, and that which couldn’t be sold as insect and rat poison–along with a number of other uses, was generally dumped in landfills and water supplies.  The fluoridation of the water supply allowed the aluminum manufacturers to make money, rather than to have to dump their massive supply of the toxic chemical.)  Those who were opposed to the fluoridation issue, were called silly, worry-warts, crackpots, etc. — which is a common tactic used by both government and media, in order to sell an idea to the public, while discrediting all those who fight the idea.  Doctors and professors even stepped forward, but since they were in the minority, and since those who are the most “concerned” with public health supported the measure, the majority was convinced that it must be a good thing…in spite of the fact that many studies have seen been performed, which supports the opposition’s view.  –Vicki Robison