Silver Bullet Enterprises

Producers of Safe, Simple and Economical

Colloidal Silver Generators

and related Products...  

111 W.S. 1st Street, #110

Johnstown, Colorado 80534


World's Finest Home Colloidal Silver Generators

We are retailers of Colloidal Silver Generation Equipment. We believe that the information we provide and the equipment we sell can help you to improve the quality of life for yourself and your family . That is our goal.  

         USP II                      USP            GALLON BATCH     DC POWER     SOLAR POWER


            nano and conventional           nano only                          conventional only                   conventional only             conventional only

gastritis, kidney infection, toothpaste, water, fluoride,health articles,fluoride toxicity, tooth decay, dental health, population control, fluorine

The Truth About


Fluoridation of public water supplies for the prevention of dental carries is a controversial and emotional subject to many well informed  people worldwide.

The following essay ( 24 pages and worth the time) came to me via an email. It was written by a British Couple. Since their concerns mirror my own, and I found most of the information compatible with my own independent research, I feel that you may benefit from the knowledge as well.

Fluoride, by Tony & Caren Pickering

May 13, 2009



A key dumbing-down ingredient of Prozac and Sarin nerve gas


 Used by Nazis to sterilize inmates and make them docile.


 Used on inmates of Russian and US Prisons to keep them docile and subservient.


A poison of choice against cockroaches and rats


Added to our drinking water... to prevent tooth decay?????



"It is quite ironic that Prozac, which is 94 percent fluoride and given to hyperactive children, requires a prescription from a licensed physician while the same substance can be placed in our drinking water by dealers who have no medical training, no license to dispense medications, and no idea to whom they are administering this corrosive, toxic, and impairing substance." -- "The Rise of the Fourth Reich," by Jim Marrs (HarperCollins, 2008, p. 193)

Dear Friend, 

I recently learned that Birmingham, a place where I have many friends, is the UK's MOST fluoridated area, and that another much-loved area of mine, the North East, runs a close second. I then discovered that other areas of the UK where I visit friends regularly, such as West Sussex, also have significant fluoride levels in their drinking water. And to top all that, I discovered that my favourite and most frequently visited holiday town -- Clearwater, Florida -- is one of the many, many fluoridated areas in the US (more than 70% of the US is fluoridated). And finally, I have just discovered that a nearby city (Manchester) is the next UK city on the agenda to have its drinking water supply fluoridated. Knowing what little I knew about Fluoride... and I knew it wasn't good... I began to research the subject of mass fluoridation and... what an eye-opener... now I understand why I feel persistently tired and docile when visiting these fluoridated places. And coming from a non-fluoridated city, myself, the sudden impact of consuming high levels of this toxic waste, hits even harder. 

So, now I have discovered the following shocking truth about fluoride, I thought you, too, should be made aware of it! This email is long, but well worth the read, although, I hope you have a high confront of evil!!!  

(Forward this email to all your friends and copy and paste sections of it if you wish, when writing to your local MP and to your local water authority.)


 First of all, it needs to be stated that the 'substance' referred to as 'Fluoride' is a misnomer - there is no such substance listed in the periodic chart of the elements, nor in the sacred 'bible' of the pharmaceutical industry -- the illustrious 'Merck Index'. Instead, we find a GAS called Fluorine. Fluorine is a pale yellow gas and a deadly poison. This very reactive element will bind with almost any other element to form a fluoride. By the use of fluorine gas in various industries (such as in the manufacturing of aluminium and in the nuclear industry), certain toxic by-products are created. One such toxic 'by-product' is called Sodium Fluoride. According to the Merck Index, Sodium Fluoride is 'primarily used as rat and cockroach poison' and is also the 'active ingredient in most toothpastes' and as an "additive to drinking water." Go and check your toothpaste..."sodium fluoride!"
But sadly, there is much more to this sordid tale.

Did you know that sodium Fluoride is also one of the basic ingredients in PROZAC (FLUoxetene Hydrochloride) -- the drug is 94% Fluoride? Yes, Prozac, the same mind-altering drug prescribed by doctors and psychiatrists for a number of "psychiatric disorders" and depression. Did you also know that Sodium Fluoride is one of the basic ingredients in Sarin Nerve Gas (Isopropyl-Methyl-Phosphoryl Fluoride)? Yes, the very same Sarin Nerve Gas that terrorists released on a crowded Japanese subway train -- not only causing injuries to hundreds, but also DEATHS!!! Let me repeat: the truth the public needs to understand is the fact that Sodium Fluoride is nothing more (or less) than a HAZARDOUS, toxic waste, used as a main active ingredient for some of the most powerfully toxic agents on earth. In addition to being the primary ingredient in rat and cockroach poisons, it is also a main ingredient in anesthetic, hypnotic and psychiatric drugs as well as in military NERVE GAS (note: nerve agents are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations)!!!

Why, oh why then is it allowed to be added to our toothpastes and drinking water???

The promoted theory behind toothpaste and drinking water fluoridation stems from the fact that "Fluoride" has a particularly strong affinity for calcium, with which it forms a strong bond. In nature fluorine is most commonly found as calcium fluoride. During the last years of the nineteenth century the inhabitants of several areas of the USA had mottled teeth. In one area it was called "Texas teeth", in another, "Colorado brown stain". This stained effect was caused by fluoride ingestion. Because of fluorine's strong affinity for calcium (calcium being the material from which bones and teeth are made) it has been suggested that fluoride might also be the agent responsible for conferring protection against dental decay as "Fluoride helps to remineralise teeth." You should know that there are NO laboratory tests to conclusively support this belief, as will be proven when you read further down this email. Nevertheless, this has been the promoted "science" behind "fluoride supplementation." 

There is, however, some evidence that fluoride retards the development or the activity of decay-causing bacteria. But, it is vital that it is understood that ALL living cells, whether human, animal, vegetable or bacterial, are extremely sensitive to fluoride. In other words, ALL living organisms, including decay-causing-bacteria AND humans, are retarded by fluoride. If you didn't get that, read it again... ALL living cells are retarded by fluoride!!!

Historically, sodium fluoride -- the industrial waste product -- was quite problematic and expensive for the worlds' premier chemical companies to dispose of - but in the 50's and 60's - Alcoa and the entire aluminium industry - with a vast overabundance of the toxic waste - SOMEHOW sold the FDA (the US Food and Drug Administration) and the US government on the insane (but highly profitable) idea that they should buy this poison at a 20,000% mark-up, to inject it into the US water supply as well as into the nation's toothpastes and dental rinse. Yes that's right, a 20,000% markup. Consider also that when sodium Fluoride is injected into our drinking water, its level is approximately 1 part-per-million (ppm). However, since we only drink a percent of the total water supply, the remainder of this hazardous chemical literally 'goes down the drain,' and voila! -- the chemical industry has not only a free hazardous waste disposal system - but tax-payers have also PAID the chemical industry handsomely in the process!!!
What's more, when sodium Fluoride is injected into our drinking water at a ratio of around 1 part-per-million (ppm), the "health-conscious," who drink an abundance of water to stay healthy, will consume more of this poison than say, the average person. Or, in the case of the hotter climates, where one has no choice but to attempt to consume greater quantities of water in their endeavour to avoid dehydration... well, you get my point. What's worse, are you one of the scores of millions who suffer from diabetes and/or kidney disease? If it is true that diabetics drink more liquids than other people, then according to the Physicians Desk Reference these millions of people are at a much higher risk drinking fluoridated water because they will receive a much deadlier dose because of their need for higher than normal water consumption. And kidney disease, by definition, lowers the efficiency of the kidneys, and the kidneys being the primary means by which fluoride (or any other toxic chemical) is eliminated from the body... Well, again, you get my point. Does it not make sense that these sick people shouldn't drink fluoridated water at all? Does it not make sense that we should each, as individuals, make our own individual decisions as to dietary "supplementation" -- a choice as to what we put into our own bodies (yes, our OWN bodies)? Cases are on record (Annapolis, Maryland, 1979) where ill kidney patients on dialysis machines died because they ingested relatively small amounts of SODIUM FLUORIDE from unwittingly drinking the 'fluoridated' city water supply? Will adequate warnings be given to people with weak kidneys, or will the real cause of such deaths be 'covered up???'

Independent scientific evidence over the past 50 plus years has shown that sodium fluoride shortens our life span, promotes various cancers, osteoperosis, memory impairment and various other mental disturbances, and most importantly, sodium fluoride makes humans stupid (yes, it actually lowers IQ), docile, and subservient, all in one neat little package.
Also, there is increasing evidence that aluminium in the brain is a causative factor in Alzheimer's Disease, and evidence points towards sodium fluoride's strong affinity to 'bond' with this dangerous aluminium (remember sodium fluoride is a by-product of the manufacturing of aluminium) and as Sodium Fluoride has the ability to 'trick' the blood-brain barrier, this toxic chemical is thus allowed to access brain tissue.
Honest scientists who have attempted to blow the whistle on sodium fluoride's mega-bucks-propaganda-campaign, have consistently been given a large dose of professional 'black-listing.' And so the evidences and valid points raised by these scientists who dare to speak out, never have received coverage in the national press. Just follow the money to find the 'control' and you will find prominent American families to be key 'players' in the scandal. In 1952 a slick PR campaign rammed the concept of 'fluoridation' through US Public Health departments and various US dental organizations. This slick campaign was more akin to a highly emotional "beer salesman convention" instead of the objective, scientifically researched program that it should have been. It has continued in the same vein right up to the present day - and now, big money-making sodium fluoride use has become 'usual and customary'. I'll give them credit, these propagandists really have succeeded in pulling the wool over the eyes of the public.

I personally, have yet to find even ONE objective, double blind study that even remotely links sodium fluoride to healthy teeth at ANY AGE (see all such studies below). Instead, I hear and read such blather as "9 out of 10 DENTISTS recommend 'fluoride' toothpaste" etc. etc.. Let me reiterate: truly independent scientists (i.e. "independent" in that they are unattached to moneyed vested interest groups) who have spent a significant part of their lives studying sodium fluoride and working with this subject have been beat down with hard-hitting character assassinations -- hit by strong vested-interest groups who reap grand profits from the public's ignorance, as well as who profit from the public's subsequent illnesses. Just follow the money!!!
Concerning the 'practice' of putting sodium fluoride into drinking water, where did this insanity begin and WHO tried it first? From personal research, the very first occurrence of purposefully putting sodium fluoride into drinking water was in the German ghettos and in Nazi Germany's infamous prison camps. It might not yet have jumped to your attention, but the Gestapo, you see, had little concern about sodium fluoride's 'healthy' effect on Jewish children's teeth!!! No, their reason for the war crime of mass-medicating water with sodium fluoride was... lo and behold... to STERILIZE HUMANS!!! Another one was to force those concentration camp victims into calm, bovine, submission. (See for reference: "The Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben" written by Joseph Borkin. Note: the President of I.G. Farben was imprisoned for crimes against humanity after WW II.) Kind of shocking isn't it folks!! Ah, but it gets even better. Sorry this email is so long, but there is just so much you need to know!!!

The following letter was received by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, Milwaukee Wisconsin, on 2 October 1954, from a research chemist by the name of Charles Perkins. He writes:

"I have your letter of September 29 asking for further documentation regarding a statement made in my book, "The Truth about Water Fluoridation", to the effect that the idea of water fluoridation was brought to England from Russia by the Russian Communist Kreminoff. In the 1930's Hitler and the German Nazis envisioned a world to be dominated and controlled by a Nazi philosophy of pan-Germanism. The German chemists worked out a very ingenious and far-reaching plan of mass-control which was submitted to and adopted by the German General Staff. This plan was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water supplies. By this method they could control the population in whole areas, reduce population by water medication that would produce sterility in women, and so on. In this scheme of mass-control, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place.

"Repeated doses of infinitesimal amounts of fluoride will in time reduce an individual's power to resist domination, by slowly poisoning and narcotizing a certain area of the brain, thus making him submissive to the will of those who wish to govern him. [A convenient and cost-effective light lobotomy?].

"The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children's teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty."

"When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go to Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plans to communize the world."

"I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great I.G. Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years' research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine --- any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically."

Signed: CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October, 1954.

Another letter needs to be quoted at length as well to help corroborate Mr. Perkin's testimony. This letter was written by a brilliant (and objectively honest) scientist named Dr. E.H. Bronner. Dr. Bronner was a nephew of the great Albert Einstein, he served time in a WWII prison camp and wrote the following letter printed in the Catholic Mirror, Springfield, Massachusetts, January 1952. It read:

"It appears that the citizens of Massachusetts are among the 'next' on the agenda of the water poisoners.

"There is a sinister network of subversive agents, Godless intellectual parasites, working in our country today whose ramifications grow more extensive, more successful and more alarming each new year and whose true objective is to demoralize, paralyze and destroy our great Republic ---- from within if they can, according to their plan --- for their own possession."

"The tragic success they have already attained in their long siege to destroy the moral fiber of American life is now one of their most potent footholds towards their own ultimate victory over us."

"Fluoridation of our community water systems can well become their most subtle weapon for our sure physical and mental deterioration. As a research chemist of established standing, I built within the past 22 years 3 American chemical plants and licensed 6 of my 53 patents. Based on my years of practical experience in the health food and chemical field, let me warn: fluoridation of drinking water is criminal insanity, sure national suicide. DON'T DO IT!!"

"Even in very small quantities, sodium fluoride is a deadly poison to which no effective antidote has been found. Every exterminator knows that it is the most effective rat-killer. Sodium Fluoride is entirely different from organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate needed by our bodies and provided by nature, in God's great providence and love, to build and strengthen our bones and our teeth. This organic calcium-fluoro-phosphate, derived from proper foods, is an edible organic salt, insoluble in water and assimilable by the human body; whereas the non-organic sodium fluoride used in fluoridating water is instant poison to the body and fully water soluble. The body refuses to assimilate it."

"Careful, bonafide laboratory experimentation by conscientious, patriotic research chemists, and actual medical experience, have both revealed that instead of preserving or promoting 'dental health', fluoridated drinking water destroys teeth before adulthood and after, by the destructive mottling and other pathological conditions it actually causes in them, and also creates many other very grave pathological conditions in the internal organisms of bodies consuming it. How then can it be called a 'health plan'? What's behind it?"

"That any so-called 'Doctors' would persuade a civilized nation to add voluntarily a deadly poison to its drinking water systems is unbelievable. It is the height of criminal insanity!"

"No wonder Hitler and Stalin fully believed and agreed from 1939 to 1941 that, quoting from both Lenin's 'Last Will' and Hitler's Mein Kampf: "America we shall demoralize, divide, and destroy from within."

"Are our Civil Defense organizations and agencies awake to the perils of water poisoning by fluoridation? Its use has been recorded in other countries. Sodium Fluoride water solutions are the cheapest and most effective rat killers known to chemists: colorless, odorless, tasteless; no antidote, no remedy, no hope: Instant and complete extermination of rats."

"Fluoridation of water systems can be slow national suicide, or quick national liquidation. It is criminal insanity ------- treason!!"

Signed: Dr. E.H. Bronner, Research Chemist, Los Angeles

Apparently, the public outcry by Dr. Bronner and others, precluded the fluoridation of public water systems by some months -- but soon thereafter, the American Food and Drug Administration allowed this deadly poison to be put in toothpastes, and our dentists were systematically brainwashed into providing 'fluoride treatments' to their many patients. Of course, today many major metropolitan areas (in the US) have a minimum of 1 parts per million sodium fluoride (and just under 1 parts per million in the EU) systematically added to their water supply, and more areas are seeking to add this poison every year. Add to this the fact that bottling companies (soft drinks, juices, etc.) use fluoridated water to make their products - is it any wonder that people can no longer think clearly and ask pertinent questions of their elected leaders? Is it also a mystery why so many top Nazi mind control scientists were brought to America by the CIA and their infamous 'Operation Paper Clip?'

If you believe all of this is 'just a coincidence' - go ahead and keep brushing your teeth with your 'fluoride' toothpastes and sucking on your sodium fluoride enhanced Coke or Pepsi product - for ignorance truly is bliss.

Mothers, if your little ones are having trouble concentrating at home or in school, or have been diagnosed as 'attention deficit' - perhaps you would be well advised to look for the culprit no further than your bathroom cabinet (your tube of toothpaste) and -- if you're in an area where water fluoridation is already in place (you can check this with your local water authority) -- check your tap water!!!


As the Case for the Fluoridation of drinking water rests simply on one perceived benefit --  that "fluoride helps to prevent dental decay" -- here are the facts and studies to disprove this claim. The following information might seem extensive and possibly even boring to some but I have included it should you wish to more professionally pose your argument when writing to your local water authority and/or your local Member of Parliament. Feel free to copy and paste into your letters any part of this statistical information:  
The first fluoridation of public water supplies was begun in 1945 in Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA and was quickly followed by similar programmes at other sites across the USA. Since then it spread throughout the (mainly English-speaking) world.

It was Dr. Trendley Dean, "the father of fluoridation", who first hypothesised that fluoridation would protect teeth from cavities. It was also he who declared that it was safe. In 1945 Dean established the above mentioned first trial of fluoridation of the water supply in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Since that time, however, he has twice confessed in court that statistics from the early studies, allegedly supporting the use of fluoridation in community water systems, were invalid.  

However, In light of such "evidence" major public health programmes around the world were initiated around the middle of the century to add fluoride to drinking water where it was considered "deficient.

And it couldn't be started too soon as this actual advertisement poster (below) demonstrates.

        Missing poster

Fluoridation was first introduced to Britain as part of an experimental programme in 1955 before being adopted at other sites around the country in the 1960s. But in Britain fluoridation has not, yet, been widely adopted (although there are plans in progress -- Manchester being next). At present, only about ten percent of the British population drink artificially fluoridated drinking water --primarily in the West Midlands or the Northeast.

In Britain, too, there were studies which purported to demonstrate that fluoride in the water resulted in a reduced incidence of decay. For example, in an extensive study, Hartlepool, a town with a naturally-occurring fluoride level of 2 parts per million, was compared to York which was not fluoridated. It was quite clear that fluoridated Hartlepool had far fewer carious teeth than unfluoridated York. The author ascribed this to the fluoride in Hartlepool's water. And without any other knowledge of the two towns, one could not argue against the findings, they appear quite conclusive.

However, when comparing towns like Hartlepool and York, one has to look more closely at other confounding factors. Doing this we find that Hartlepool's water fluoridation is naturally occurring, i.e. Calcium Fluoride, and is therefore already bound to calcium and thus, does not react destructively to human teeth and bones in the same way that the artificially fluoridating compound-- sodium fluoride -- does. It should also be noted that in the 1960s, when this study was conducted, the biggest employer in York was the sweets manufacturer, Rowntree's. Rowntree's employed a sizeable proportion of the city's population. Not only did it allow its workers to eat as much confectionary as they wished while they were at work, they were also allowed to collect all the bits left over at the end of the week to take home. Thus it is likely that employees' friends and relatives also had a higher intake of sweets than most. It is just as likely, therefore, that the reason York had a higher decay rate than Hartlepool was not a lack of fluoride in its water supply, but simply its greater intake of decay-causing sweets.

In 1969, the 22nd World Health Assembly passed a resolution recommending member states to "fluoridate water supplies where practicable in order to prevent dental caries". They also recommended that member states study other methods of using fluorides to protect dental health. They further called upon the Director-General of WHO (World Health Organisation) to encourage research into the causation of dental caries, the fluoride content of diets, the mechanism of action of fluoride at optimal levels in drinking water and the effects of greatly excessive intake of fluoride, etc..  

Five years later in January 1974 (bearing in mind that mass water fluoridation and toothpaste fluoridation was already well practiced by this time), the executive board, apparently noting that after five years no such research had been done, instructed the Director-General to present a report to the 28th World Health Assembly in 1975. When presented, this report was notable for the fact that it appeared to be merely a piece of propaganda for fluoridation. The question of what was an optimal level of fluoride ingestion was entirely ignored. The report contained no research into the causation of dental decay, apart from acknowledging that "there has been a rapid increase in the magnitude of the caries problem in the developing countries as their populations begin to ingest a diet of more refined foods" This was nothing new as it had long been known that this was the reason why dental decay is rampant in the developed countries. Nevertheless, the WHO (World Health Organisation) did not propose any action on this particular cause of tooth decay. Neither did the report contain anything on the other research subjects which the 1969 assembly had asked for. There was merely a proposal that some research should be done by somebody sometime in the future. 

Despite the shortcomings, the 28th World Health Assembly passed a resolution, the preamble to which stated that sufficient information on the safety and effectiveness of the use of fluorides as a method to prevent dental decay had already been obtained and that they recommended that WHO (World health Organisation) should undertake the programme proposed and shall promote approved methods especially by optimisation of fluoride content of water supplies.

In other words, decisions had been taken to carry out plans to fluoridate water supplies, WITHOUT evidence to support any benefits of doing so.

One of the World Health Organisation's findings was that this preventative programme (i.e. water fluoridation) could result in more than 30-fold saving in dental care. This has since been disproved. Far from saving money, fluoridation has been shown to be literally throwing money down the drain. Most treated tap water is used by industry, for washing or for watering gardens. Thus it is acknowledged on both sides of the argument that for every pound spent on water fluoridation, less than one penny reaches "its target." Added to this waste are the extra dental costs necessitated by more complicated and expensive dental work that fluorosed teeth required. Examples of this are revealed by regional analyses of dental health expenditures (see table below). As you can see from this table, not only are there MORE dentists in fluoridated areas, the amount spent per head of the population is also GREATER in those fluoridated areas.

(Although fluoride was by now believed by many to be beneficial in terms of tooth decay, there was still the problem of the unsightly staining. It was considered that this fluorosis [staining] must be the result of too much fluoride in the water and so an "optimal" amount, which would confer benefit without the risk of fluorosis was decided upon. This decided amount was: one milligramme per litre of water or one part per million (1 ppm). Above this concentration the risk of fluorosis was considered to outweigh the benefits of dental protection.)

The most critical way to assess the effectiveness of fluoridation is to examine how much money is spent on dental health costs within Regional Health Authority boundaries. For the purpose of this exercise, three regions have been chosen for close examination of dental health costs. The picture that emerges from artificially fluoridated districts is that MORE fluoridation usually results in HIGHER expenditure.


  Fluoride level Expenditure per Dentists, Dec 1996
District % affected + level Child adult Comb'd Dentists Den:Pop
East Anglia
Suffolk 100% natural, 0.1-0.95ppm 12.10 22.37 20.02 217 1:3049
NW Anglia not fluoridated 9.21 16.08 14.51 103 1:3980
Newcastle, N Tyneside 80% artificial, optimal 11.26 23.27 20.62 180 1:2644
Gateshead, S Tyneside 57% artificial, +24% natural 8.56 22.88 19.64 130 1:2747
Sunderland not fluoridated 9.87 20.44 17.89 89 1:3306
West Midlands
Birmingham 100% artificial, optimal 12.10 24.21 21.08 335 1:3047
Wolverhampton 32% artificial, optimal 7.57 21.53 18.11 71 1:3443
Western (affluent)
Worcestershire 33-71% artificial, optimal 16.14 19.65 18.86 173 1:3075
Shropshire not fluoridated 8.36 15.67 13.98 126 1:3343

Table 1: Comparison of dental expenditure in selected fluoridated and non-fluoridated districts.

 Notes to Table: In the table above, 'fluoride level' shows the proportion of a population affected and the level of fluoride received. 'Optimal' means the population received fluoridated water at a concentration of greater than 0.7 ppm. 'Expenditure' gives the average cost of dentistry per person. 'Dentists' are those who were practising at the end of 1996 and the ratio is based on the size of the total population divided by the number of dentists. The population levels are estimated at mid-1996 levels.


The primary claims of benefit for fluoride lie solely in its supposed ability to protect children's teeth from the effects of decay-causing bacteria. But just how strong is the evidence to support this contention as far as fluoridating drinking water is concerned?  

We often hear statements by proponents of fluoridation to the effect that "more than 50 years of research and practical experience have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that fluoridation is effective in preventing tooth decay. Hundreds of studies have demonstrated reduction in tooth decay of 60-70% in communities with either natural or controlled fluoridation". But it is impossible to find proof of such statements, as even the most manipulated investigations of the status of children's teeth have found little or no  benefit from living in a fluoridated area. Workers at the Turner Dental School in Manchester found no significant benefits on tooth decay with up to 2 parts per million of fluoride in drinking water. The Harvard School of Dental Medicine also reported that fluoride had no beneficial effect.  

These two studies were conducted on rats but similar results have also been demonstrated on human studies.  

The very first study not supporting the use of fluoridation was published in the Journal of the American Dental Association 1953. In a comparative study of tooth decay in 12-14 year olds in six Arizona cities, no reduction in decay and filled or missing teeth due to fluoridation could be observed. 

In 1955, the second study compared teeth of the residents of Cameron, Texas whose water contained 0.4 ppm of natural fluoride with those of Bartlett, Texas, whose water contained a whole 8 ppm of fluoride. The incidence of tooth decay was found to be no different between the two towns. [Although other pathalogical and psychological differences might be observed.] 

A study in Arizona published in 1993 of tooth-decay rates in 12 to 14 year olds in high- and low-fluoride areas found no significant difference between them.  

Dennis H Leverett, chairman of the Department of Community Dentistry, Rochester, New York, published a table in 1982 (Table 2 below) demonstrating that the dramatic declines in dental caries, which have been attributed to fluoride use, have also happened in unfluoridated areas.  

  Location Time Interval Age of subjects Caries (%)reduction
NW England 1969-80 11-12 40
Isle of Wight 1971-80 11-12 18
New Zealand 1950-77 5 44
Brisbane 1954-77 6-14 50
Geneva, NY 1965-77 12-14 41
Brockport, NY 1952-75 12 60
Boston, Mass 1950-80 5-17 40-50
Massachusetts 1968-78 >50
Ohio 1972-78 6-12 17

Table 2: Decline in dental caries in unfluoridated areas


The US National Institute of Dental Research figures for over 39,000 children from 84 locations in the USA indicated no difference in the numbers of decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) between those who lived in fluoridated, partially-fluoridated or non-fluoridated communities. Dr. Bette Hileman stated: "The average decay rates for all children aged 5-17 were 2.0 teeth for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas." 

The Director of the Division of Dental Health Services for British Columbia showed that the numbers of decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) for both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas was falling but the areas which had the fewest bad teeth were those which were NOT fluoridated

And a report from Holland stated: "Dutch scientists found essentially no reduction in caries when the fluoride users and non-users had been carefully matched"  

Dr. Albert Schatz Ph.D, co-discoverer of streptomycin, a drug which has saved millions of lives, is a respected scientist. In the early 1960s Dr Schatz studied the effects of water fluoridation in Chile. His work demonstrated that fluoride did not reduce caries, it merely postponed them by an average of 1.2 years. He also showed that fluoride INCREASED death rates. In 1964 Dr Schatz wrote to the editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) with a view to publishing his findings. The editor did not reply. In the first three months of 1965, Dr Schatz sent three further copies of his report to JADA. They were refused and sent back unopened. 

Dr Schatz says: 

"Such a response is typical of the proponents of fluoridation. The professional sanctions for opposing fluoridation can be severe, and it is best not to even acknowledge evidence of harm or ineffectiveness."

 The illusion that fluoride prevents dental caries: 

That "decreases" in dental caries reported from fluoridation trials, may be merely a statistical artefact due to a delay in the onset of the caries process, has been considered many times. North Shields and South Shields are very similar towns on opposite sides of the River Tyne in the North East of England. But, where South Shields water was naturally fluoridated at 1.4 ppm, North Shields water contained little or no fluoride. In 1948 the late Robert Weaver, then Senior Medical Officer to the Ministry of Education, compared the two towns and found that the amount of dental caries in the people of South Shields was no different from those living in North Shields. South Shields' fluoridated water, he found, merely delayed the onset of caries by about three years. Such a delay appeared to show benefits when children in fluoridated areas were compared with those of the same age in control populations, but the rate of increase in decay was the same in both groups when adults and children were included. Weaver concluded that fluoride at or around 1 ppm did NOT reduce dental caries. Stating "I think that the most important lesson to be learned from the North and South Shields investigation is that the caries-inhibitory property of fluorine seems to be of rather short duration." and ". . . there is in fact no very striking difference in the incidence of caries in the two towns." he advised that there was NO CASE FOR WATER FLUORIDATION. 

The case for fluoride's DELAYING of the onset of childhood caries, was strengthened by figures published by the UK's Ministry of Health in 1969. These showed that after eleven years of artificial fluoridation, fourteen-year-old children drinking fluoridated water had an average of 6.3 decayed teeth, compared with 7.2 in fourteen-year-old children drinking non-fluoridated.  

In 1972, Dr. Albert Schatz Ph.D proved that the apparent reduction of dental caries in fluoridated areas was an illusion. As the decay-causing effects of carbohydrate foods only damage teeth once they have erupted and they are in contact with those foods. Teeth that erupt later are effectively younger than teeth which erupt earlier. [Note: fluoride retards the natural growth of developing teeth in young children.] In other words, the caries-causing bacteria have had less time to do their damage. And because of this shorter exposure, the teeth of fluoridated children understandably have less decay. He acknowledged that it can truthfully be said that fluoride is responsible for the lower rates of decay seen in fluoridated children who are the same age as unfluoridated children, yet it is NOT because fluoride has any beneficial action on the decay. It merely puts it off for a while -- when comparing like-for-like tooth age, tooth decay rates were similar in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated children.

 And in 1993 Dr. Schatz declared:  

"The data clearly showed that fluoridation only delays the appearance of caries . . . Fluoridated children develop the same amount of tooth decay as their non-fluoridated counterparts over their lifetime. The only difference is that caries start developing approximately 1.2 years later. 

"There is no economic benefit for such actions. Since fluoride does not reduce caries . . . both groups will therefore require the same amount of dental treatment. People in fluoridated areas therefore pay for the same amount of dental treatment plus the added cost of fluoridation." -- Dr. Schatz 

Table 3 demonstrates clearly this delay: differences between the numbers of decayed teeth in fluoridated and unfluoridated children becomes less as the children get older. 


Average DMFT per child


Fluoridated areas

Non-fluoridated areas

% difference in DMFT





























Table 3: Decay and filled or missing teeth (DMFT) for permanent teeth of fluoridated and non-fluoridated children.

This flaw, which was not noticed when the very early research was done, invalidates many epidemiological surveys that purport to show less decay in fluoridated children than in non-fluoridated children of the same age, on which the whole case for fluoride is based. 

Many doctors and dentists over the years have pointed to this flaw and have called for the numbers of erupted teeth to be counted in such studies, and published. As long ago as 1960 Lord Douglas of Barloch referred to the possible delay in the eruption of teeth, and stated: "If this is so, it is a matter of grave concern for it indicates a profound physiological change." But even today, this point still has not been resolved. It is standard practice for dentists to note and record for each of their patients, not only which teeth are decayed, filled or missing, but also which teeth have not yet erupted. Therefore it would be a very simple matter for any independent study to determine the average number of teeth which have erupted at each age, thus making fluoridation studies more accurate. Yet in official British experiments no such count has ever been published. The fact that these data are important has been made many times in the dental literature. Are these statistics suppressed deliberately? 

What's more, in 1997 a study carried out in Tanzania showed that the later in life enamel was completed, the higher was the severity of dental fluorosis.

False Statistics: 

The claim of, "over a hundred studies ..." appears to be backed by the WHO (World Health Organisation) publication "Environmental Health Criteria for Fluorine and Fluorides," which was published in 1984. The scientists who wrote this gave as their reference the data displayed in a poster by Drs. J J Murray and A J Rugg-Gunn in 1979. This poster stated that "120 fluoridation studies from all continents showed a reduction in caries in the range of 50 to 75% for permanent teeth". Although the WHO document doesn"t say it, the poster's data obviously came from the same source as those promoted in a table in a book, listing "128 studies that Murray and Rugg-Gunn had published" two years earlier.  

However, In 1988, Philip Sutton investigated the scientific basis for the WHO's paper and published the results in Chemical and Engineering News. Here are his findings: 


With these defects, the value of these studies as a basis for population-wide intervention was already precarious. Sutton found, when he delved deeper, even more disturbing aspects:

 Thirty-four studies were fictitious:  

Twenty studies were about something else:  

Fifty-one were of very poor scientific quality: 

The last twenty-three:

By now Sutton had whittled what had been an impressive list of 128 studies down by over eighty percent. But, even so, twenty-three studies, if valid, might be enough to back the claim that fluoridation decreases the prevalence of dental caries substantially. But these, like all the other studies, turned out to be just as suspect:  

Therefore, in what was boasted as 'comprehensive world-wide research,' it seems that Murray and Rugg-Gunn were UNABLE to locate a SINGLE study which demonstrated that fluoridation was effective at reducing or preventing dental caries. And the foundation on which the WHO document (and the subsequent fluoridation programmes adopted in many countries) was built, had proved to be as substantial as quicksand.

 Sutton discovered these discrepancies merely by referring to Murray and Rugg-Gunn's table and reading their references. Why didn't the WHO panel do this?

 A dentist defects:

The late Dr. John Colquhoun, was Chief Dental Officer of the Department of Health for Auckland, and President of the New Zealand Fluoridation Society and, of course, a fervent supporter of fluoride and fluoridation. However, he discovered a number of worrying signs which led him to question the advisability of fluoridation. As a result of what he discovered he came out against fluoridation. Dr Colquhoun explained why he had done so in a public lecture given in Fife, Scotland on 4 September 1996.

In Auckland, he had noticed a dramatic decline in decay rates which was not confined to the fluoridated areas. In both the fluoridated and unfluoridated parts of the city the declines were similar. It was suggested to him that this was due to the use of fluoride toothpaste by children living in the unfluoridated part of the city. But he knew that in the unfluoridated part, very few children used fluoride toothpaste, most had not received fluoride applications to their teeth and hardly any had been given fluoride tablets.

 When he received the figures for Auckland, Dr Colquhoun says:  

"To my horror, they showed that fewer fillings had been required in the unfluoridated part of Auckland than in the fluoridated part.

So he asked for the national figures for tooth decay rates of all 5-year-olds in New Zealand obtained from dental clinics throughout the country for the period 1930-1990, together with data on water fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste use.  

At Figure 2 you can see what Dr Colquhoun saw after he had analyzed the figures: there had been a decline in decay rates over the whole period, beginning well before fluorides started to be used.  

When Dr Colquhoun received these figures, they came with a warning that they were NOT to be made public. Dr Colquhoun realized why, he says, when he examined them: "They showed that in most Health Districts the percentage of children who were free of tooth decay was greater in the unfluoridated parts of the district". 

As part of his grooming for the post of Chairman of the national Fluoridation Promotion Committee, he was sent on a fact-finding world study tour. He found the sorts of evidence presented here.  

When Dr Colquhoun came out against fluoridation it was a great and courageous step on his part. Men in far less public positions had been summarily dismissed and shunned by their peers for speaking out against fluoride.  

(If you can't decypher the above graph (graph is missing), it basically shows a dramatic increase in "percentages of population with fluoridation or total toothpaste sales" (along the right vertical line) -- showing an average of 50% of the population with fluoridation from the mid 1960's to 1990, as well as showing soaring fluoride tooth paste sales since 1970. Yet, the "number of decayed teeth per child" has been steadily decreasing since 1930 -- WITHOUT the "assistance" of fluoride. In other words, in the mid 60's when fluoride was introduced, there was not even a valid cause for concern with regards to tooth decay, as tooth decay statistics had already dropped by 60% over the 35 year period PRIOR to fluoride interventions.) 

Earlier I mentioned the comparison between naturally fluoridated Hartlepool and unfluoridated York. Throughout any country it is not difficult to find a variety of levels of tooth decay in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. The United Kingdom Dental Health League Table, published in November 1997 by the British Fluoridation Society lists 208 districts, their levels of dental caries in 5-year-olds and levels of fluoridation. Top of the list, with 0.54 decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) is fluoridated Bromsgrove & Redditch; bottom with 3.96 DMFT is North Manchester which is, at present, unfluoridated. If one picks a fluoridated area with a low level of tooth decay and an unfluoridated area with a high level, disregarding any other differences between them, it is not difficult to "prove" that fluoride prevents caries.  

But there are several comparable districts, fluoridated and unfluoridated, where levels of carious teeth are the same. Gateshead and Liverpool are demographically quite similar and both have 1.85 carious teeth per child. But Gateshead is one-hundred percent fluoridated while Liverpool is unfluoridated. 

Other British studies were conducted which were not so contrived. They tell a different story. One major study conducted for the Ministry of Health measured tooth decay rates in 8 to 10-year-olds in five towns while, in another 9 to 14-year-olds' teeth were studied in Kilmarnock. Neither showed a significant beneficial effect from fluoride.  

The World Health Organisation monitors decayed, missing or filled teeth regularly. Its figures at Table 4 (below) provide no support for the claim that fluoridation of drinking water helps to preserve children's teeth.  


Finland 1975 7.5 1991 1.2 not fluoridated  
Denmark 1978 6.4 1992 1.3 not fluoridated  
UK (GB & NI) 1973 4.7 1993 1.4 10%  
Sweden 1977 6.3 1994 1.5 not fluoridated  
Netherlands 1974 6.5-8.2 1991 1.7 not fluoridated  
Irish Republic 1972 5.4 1992 1.9 66%  
Switzerland 1963-75 2.3-9.9 1987-9 2.0 One city  
France 1975 3.5 1993 2.1 not fluoridated  
Norway 1973 8.4 1991 2.3 not fluoridated  
Spain 1968-69 1.9 1993 2.3 1 plant  
Germany (GDR) 1973 6.0 1994 2.5 not fluoridated  
Germany (FDR)         2.6 not fluoridated  
Belgium 1972 3.1 1991 2.7 not fluoridated  
Austria 1973 1.0-3.5 1993 3.0 not fluoridated  
Italy 1978-79 4.0-6.9 1985 3.0 not fluoridated  
Portugal 1979 4.6 1989 3.2 not fluoridated  


Table 4: Comparison of Decayed, Missing or Filled Teeth (DMFT) in 12-year-olds in European Countries (Source: World Health Organisation, Noncommunicable Disease Division)  

The Republic of Ireland is Europe's most fluoridated country (66% fluoridated) and has been fluoridated for over 30 years. But in terms of the DECREASE in numbers of decayed, missing or filled teeth (DMFT) over those 30 years (which is where the benefits of fluoridation are claimed), it ranks sixth in Europe BEHIND five countries which are NOT FLUORIDATED. And the next most fluoridated European country -- the UK -- its REDUCTIONS in decayed missing or filled teeth put the UK in ninth place (with seven NON-fluoridated countries ahead of it). When these REDUCTION statistics are supposed to be an argument FOR fluoridation, we can see that the fluoridation argument fails miserably. So, the bottom line is, FLUORIDATION HAS ZERO BENEFITS. 

Evidence mounts! British Columbia has the LOWEST rates of caries in Canada. Yet it is only eleven percent fluoridation compared with between forty and seventy percent fluoridation in the rest of Canada. If that weren"t enough, the LOWEST rates of caries are found in those parts of British Columbia which are NOT fluoridated at all.  

The WHO reported a decline in dental decay in Western Europe and they say that Europe's DECAY RATES are at least equal to and sometimes better than rates in the USA. Yet, while the USA is largely fluoridated, Europe is hardly fluoridated at all. So again, we find either no difference or better statistics in hardly-fluoridated Europe.  

The largest study on fluoridation and tooth decay ever undertaken was performed by the USA National Institute of Dental Research. The subjects were 39,000 children aged five to seventeen living in eighty-four different areas. A third of the places were wholly fluoridated, a third were partially fluoridated, and a third were not fluoridated. There were NO statistically significant differences in dental decay between them.  

All Native American reservations are fluoridated. Yet children living there have much higher rates of dental decay than do children living in other U.S. communities. 

A University of Arizona study in 1992 found that [quote] "THE MORE FLUORIDE A CHILD DRINKS, THE MORE CAVITIES APPEAR IN THE TEETH."   

Fluoride damages teeth: 

Much research from many parts of the world has suggested that, far from protecting teeth, fluoride actually damages them. One of the largest studies into fluoride levels and dental caries ever carried out comes from Japan. In this study, researchers at Tokyo Medical and Dental University examined the teeth of 20,000 students and showed clearly that they had been harmed by fluoride. The researchers compared students who came from areas with more than 0.4 parts per million fluoride in the drinking water with those whose water contained less than 0.4 ppm. Their results showed clearly that there was significantly more decay in the areas that had the higher levels of fluoride. Note that the 0.4 ppm that was harming teeth is less than half the "optimal" level -- US and UK water fluoridation levels are minimumly 0.8ppm

Similarly, another study, conducted in Ottawa, Kansas, to assess the effects of adding fluoride to the town's water found that fluoridation was a disaster: in the first three years of drinking fluoridated water, the numbers of DMFT in 5- to 6-year-old children more than doubled, while the numbers free from decay nearly halved. 

That fluorides have not been shown to benefit teeth should not come as a surprise to the dental profession. As long ago as 1940, it was suggested that seventy percent of the caries in children was in the form of pits and fissures. Recent reports indicate that today, eighty-three per cent of all caries in North American children is of this type. And there is no reason to suppose that children in other Western countries are any different. Pit and fissure cavities are prevented with sealants, they are NOT preventable with fluoride. To reiterate, 70% of caries in children cannot be addressed with fluoride.

Fluoridation is stopped and teeth get better: 

The town of Kuopio, in eastern Finland, was fluoridated in 1959. But owing to strong opposition by different civic groups, water fluoridation was stopped at the end of 1992. It was a perfect opportunity to examine the consequences of this discontinuation on dental health. If the theory that fluoride prevented caries was correct, then discontinuing fluoridation should lead to increased caries. To test this, in 1992 and 1995, independent random samples of all children aged 6, 9, 12 and 15 years were drawn from Kuopio, with a nearby low-fluoride town, Jyvaskyla (whose distribution of demographic and socio-economic characteristics were similar to Kuopio's), acting as the control group. Dental caries was registered clinically and radiographically by the same two calibrated dentists in both towns. In the 1992 study (in the year that fluoridation was stopped in Kuopio), the mean DMFT (decayed missing or filled teeth) values were lower in the fluoridated town (Jyvaskyla) for the two older age groups, but no meaningful differences were found in the two younger age groups. However, in the later 1995 study (three years after the cessation of fluoridation in Kuopio), the only difference with possible clinical significance was that there was an eighteen percent reduction found in the 15-year-olds in non-fluoridated Kuopio. I.e. a REDUCTION in decayed, missing or filled teeth SINCE FLUORIDATION HAD CEASED! What's more, in spite of water fluoridation having ceased, there was no indication of any INCREASING trend of caries in Kuopio -- as one might expect if fluoridation were truly effective against caries. 

The researchers initially considered that, perhaps, caries were prevented by better or more aggressive dental care. But in fact the numbers of fluoride varnish and sealant applications by dentists had decreased sharply in both towns. The researchers concluded that there was NO evidence that the cessation of water fluoridation was having a detrimental effect and also that the decline of caries in the two towns had little to do with professional preventive measures performed in dental clinics. 

Dentists modify their initial claims: 

As the years have passed, dentists and others have made progressively more modest claims for fluoride. The American Dental Association claims today that fluoride reduces caries by between eighteen and twenty-five percent, while just over a decade ago, they were claiming forty to sixty percent reductions. Other former supporters are beginning to question water fluoridation. In 1990 a report from the National Institute for Dental Research in the USA stated that "it is likely that if caries in children remain at low levels or decline further, the necessity of continuing the current variety and extent of fluoride-based prevention programs will be questioned."  


Given the strength of the evidence presented, the case for the fluoridation of tap water to prevent dental decay fails miserably. Nevertheless on both sides of the Atlantic, proponents, seemingly oblivious to the evidence that fluoride does more harm than good(or perhaps having some other hidden agenda), are currently trying to get still more areas fluoridated. In 1992, when sixty percent of the US population was already fluoridated, the American Public Health Service set a goal of having seventy-five percent of the population drinking fluoridated water by the year 2000. Have they succeeded? Likewise, here in the UK, in the year 2000, the government-funded, "British Fluoridation Society" (funded by UK tax-payers) was actively lobbying for a change in the law to compel UK water companies to fluoridate tap water when Health Authorities demand it. Did this British Fluoridation Society succeed??? Well, it looks like it! 

BUT, DO NOT DESPAIR!!! Write to your Local MP (UK). You will find his/her name on and also write to your Local Water Authority. If you are reading this and you are in the US, you can do a similar thing. Whichever way, make sure you do something! Remember, this mass poisoning is a violation of your human rights, it is done without your consent and with the blatant lie that it is "good for you." The wrong thing to do would be nothing! If, however, you find yourself feeling apathetic about doing anything about this, maybe you should look at your current fluoride intake!!!

All the best, Caren.

Nothing on this website is intended to be taken as medical advise. We are not physicians. We do not claim to be physicians. We do not sell products intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease. The FDA has not reviewed or approved any statements made on this website. Any use  made of colloidal silver by any person reading this website is presumed to be the sole responsibility of the end user.


In the hands of clear thinkers, reality will reveal itself.

We are not licensed Medical Professionals. We endeavor to provide accurate and useful information BUT we do not guarantee the accuracy of information on this site or any site to which we have linked. We specifically deny all liability for the use of any information on this site. We strongly recommend consultation with licensed professionals prior to beginning, ending or changing the course of treatment for any medical condition.  

                Silver Rod & Other products    Conventional Generators  USPII Generator  

Order Form  Literature    Merchandise Disclaimer    Home