Chemical treatment of public water supplies has reduced exposure to potentially harmful organisms for sure, and this has significantly reduced the prevalence of diseases that were falsely reported to to have been reduced by vaccines. Unfortunately, some of those chemicals remain in tap water above safe limits. There are water filtration, distillation, and osmosis systems that can be used by end users to remove the harmful chemicals. Purchasing purified water for consumption is an option as well. Having said that, flouride is a chemical that does not need to be in water to destroy potentially harmful organisms. If people want flouride, they can get it in tooth care products or dental procedures. It makes no sense to expose everyone to flouride.
With the new Administration there hopefully will be a ban on the aluminum, strontium, barium and other metals and chemicals that are being dumped on us from the sky! Clean water and clean non-existent chemtrails will go a long way in improving our health
If people want fluoride in their water, then there should be a vote on it. But it should NEVER go into the water without the people's endorsement. Natural fluoride is in water, but any additives to our water needs to be passed by the people first. The trouble is the entire water system is sloppy, the idea of centralized water systems is dangerous and stupid. Everything needs to be decentralized including water capture. This should be done on the house level predominantly. It's ridiculous to have to lay massive numbers of pipes down when water can be captured and treated at the home or neighborhood level. What about using copper to purify water? And of course stop the filth being sprayed on us daily by geoengineering.
Well it's not for us to say what people want. Some people believe it's good for their teeth! We need to get out of the idea that we can decide for others. If it was in your water supply then you'd have all the say in the world, or you should. We need the infrastructure for that. I have explained it here, called the Egalitarian Proposal System which gives total sovereignty to each and every one of us. https://deniseward.substack.com/p/outline-of-the-best-voting-system
If we lived this way, it would be a different paradigm and we'd be having outcomes that suit us, not just the ones who engage in genocide. With everyone having a say and coming to a quality consensus, this makes the conditions ripe for prosperity and unfavorable for psychopathy. Actually free speech is the remedy for psychopathy.
You don't get to vote to put toxins in my water, that I have to pay for. If you want to add fluoride to your diet, have at it. People are generally not well informed. Nothing should be added and they should reduce the limit to 0.7mg/l..
If a small town wanted it, they should be able to have it. Once we start deciding for others that's when we give consent to give others to decide for us. It is not likely if people had the choice though, that is the point. It's only because we don't get the choice that the few decide for us.
Hi Nicholas, excellent article. I found very interesting info on the effect of fluoride on nitric oxide in an interview with Dr Nathan Bryan here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU3Fp7R11KQ&t=134s, His research over many years shows the link between nitric oxide gas and most diseases.
I used to get fluoride treatments at the dentist. He’d paint it on my teeth and I’d sit there for three minutes. “Try not to swallow,” was the only caveat—cuz, you know, it’s a neurotoxin. But yeah! Let’s put it in the drinking water. Let’s throw in some anti-depressants while we’re at it. And COVID vaccines. AZT!
If we don’t stop the nano-sized spraying of heavy metals like aluminum and cadmium through stratospheric aerosol injection (aka chem trails), America’s water supplies have zero chance of not being deadly contaminated.
Thank you for giving us information about safe drinking water, Dr. McCollough. It is a broader subject than we knew and information that is needed to make informed decisions. I hope you are collaborating with the Trump team. Your voice is an important one in many areas.
With our first post on fluoride and water safety I was amazed how well-educated our audience was with very strong views that fluoride should be removed from the water. As an epidemiologist I was more impressed with the PAQUID study evaluating aluminum in drinking water. It had longitudinal follow up and found risks for dementia with aluminum that far exceeded neurotoxicity concerns from poorly done cross-sectional studies of fluoride. I am hoping this substack opens people eyes to the bigger issue of drinking water safety, particularly those fearful of fluoride resorting to bottled water/filtered water or using aluminum water bottles. Trump was right that he wants "pristine" water--we assume he means much more than fluoride out of the water supply. I think most would agree clean means getting these toxins out of tap and bottled water. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19064650/
Great article highlighting the critical need to improve the safety of our public water supplies! While the focus on reducing fluoride levels and addressing contaminants like PFAS is spot-on, I’d argue that the most effective long-term solution lies in free market environmentalism and strengthening property rights, particularly through water markets. Government regulations, like adjusting EPA contaminant levels, often lag behind emerging science and can be bogged down by bureaucratic inefficiencies or political agendas, as evidenced by the historical influence of groups like the Sugar Research Foundation on fluoride policy.
By contrast, well-defined property rights and water markets empower individuals and communities to manage water resources directly. When water is treated as a tradable asset with clear ownership, stakeholders—whether farmers, businesses, or local governments—have a vested interest in maintaining its quality and availability.
Moreover, free market environmentalism encourages innovation. Private entities, driven by profit and accountability, are often quicker to adopt new technologies—like advanced filtration systems or PFAS removal methods—than public agencies constrained by budgets and red tape. Enhancing property rights also means communities can hold polluters accountable more effectively, as legal ownership provides a clear basis for litigation or negotiation.
NH, Dr. M, or Mr. L, I have gone through two different posts, this one, and the other one by Dr. M, and tried to click on links re fluoride, and they just disappear when I click on them. I can no longer post links either. Can you please let me know if that’s something we’re no longer able to do on this site? Thank you.
Fluoride binds with metals, like aluminum, making them more easily assimilated into the body. Most fluoridation water additives are also contaminated with aluminum, as well as with arsenic.
The impact of fluoride on the brains of infants and children is similar to the impact of lead. Consequently, I recommend the EPA standards:
- Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) should be zero.
- Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL) is a politically determined compromise between the goal and what is feasible which requires remediation and should be no more than 1 ppm.
- Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) that requires warnings to consumers should be 0.3 ppm.
And obviously, fluoridation policy that conflates concentration in water with dose consumed by individuals should be banned in order to protect consumers and the environment as about 99% of the water additives goes directly to waste water where it affects flora and fauna.
Chemical treatment of public water supplies has reduced exposure to potentially harmful organisms for sure, and this has significantly reduced the prevalence of diseases that were falsely reported to to have been reduced by vaccines. Unfortunately, some of those chemicals remain in tap water above safe limits. There are water filtration, distillation, and osmosis systems that can be used by end users to remove the harmful chemicals. Purchasing purified water for consumption is an option as well. Having said that, flouride is a chemical that does not need to be in water to destroy potentially harmful organisms. If people want flouride, they can get it in tooth care products or dental procedures. It makes no sense to expose everyone to flouride.
Fluorid is a neurotoxin, gives no benefit´for tooth health, just lower IQ and other harm.
Amen. Fluoride in any dose poisons bodies, brains and bones. See science with hyperlinks: https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/
With the new Administration there hopefully will be a ban on the aluminum, strontium, barium and other metals and chemicals that are being dumped on us from the sky! Clean water and clean non-existent chemtrails will go a long way in improving our health
If people want fluoride in their water, then there should be a vote on it. But it should NEVER go into the water without the people's endorsement. Natural fluoride is in water, but any additives to our water needs to be passed by the people first. The trouble is the entire water system is sloppy, the idea of centralized water systems is dangerous and stupid. Everything needs to be decentralized including water capture. This should be done on the house level predominantly. It's ridiculous to have to lay massive numbers of pipes down when water can be captured and treated at the home or neighborhood level. What about using copper to purify water? And of course stop the filth being sprayed on us daily by geoengineering.
Why put it there in the first place? Profit, and getting rid of a waste product. Why should a neurotoxin be voted on when it is obviously unhealthy?
Well it's not for us to say what people want. Some people believe it's good for their teeth! We need to get out of the idea that we can decide for others. If it was in your water supply then you'd have all the say in the world, or you should. We need the infrastructure for that. I have explained it here, called the Egalitarian Proposal System which gives total sovereignty to each and every one of us. https://deniseward.substack.com/p/outline-of-the-best-voting-system
If we lived this way, it would be a different paradigm and we'd be having outcomes that suit us, not just the ones who engage in genocide. With everyone having a say and coming to a quality consensus, this makes the conditions ripe for prosperity and unfavorable for psychopathy. Actually free speech is the remedy for psychopathy.
Every individual should have the right to informed consent for all medical interventions. Voting has no place in such matters.
We can't bank of informed consent. The way to be able to rely on it is if censorship was condemned and unacceptable.
You don't get to vote to put toxins in my water, that I have to pay for. If you want to add fluoride to your diet, have at it. People are generally not well informed. Nothing should be added and they should reduce the limit to 0.7mg/l..
If you want fluoride choose Crest!
If a small town wanted it, they should be able to have it. Once we start deciding for others that's when we give consent to give others to decide for us. It is not likely if people had the choice though, that is the point. It's only because we don't get the choice that the few decide for us.
Hi Nicholas, excellent article. I found very interesting info on the effect of fluoride on nitric oxide in an interview with Dr Nathan Bryan here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU3Fp7R11KQ&t=134s, His research over many years shows the link between nitric oxide gas and most diseases.
So thorough and easy to understand. Thank you!
I used to get fluoride treatments at the dentist. He’d paint it on my teeth and I’d sit there for three minutes. “Try not to swallow,” was the only caveat—cuz, you know, it’s a neurotoxin. But yeah! Let’s put it in the drinking water. Let’s throw in some anti-depressants while we’re at it. And COVID vaccines. AZT!
How about “people who want fluoride in their water can put it in their own supply.” Oh wait, those supplements were banned!
Thank you for all your hard work, Nic. I’m having a little trouble retaining all of this right now, but I will read it again.
To our beloved Veterans: Thank you for you and your families’ sacrifices! I will always be your number one fan! Love and Respect always.
If we don’t stop the nano-sized spraying of heavy metals like aluminum and cadmium through stratospheric aerosol injection (aka chem trails), America’s water supplies have zero chance of not being deadly contaminated.
Geoengineering.org
I can't decide what's more unsettling...
the "flouride stare" or the "vax stare" :/
Excellent response, as morbid as it is!
lol they both kinda look the same
That's why I have a Berky water filter! We have well water and no smooth off drilling can get below the roundup in the water table.
I have a reverse osmosis water system that removes fluoride.
Thank you for giving us information about safe drinking water, Dr. McCollough. It is a broader subject than we knew and information that is needed to make informed decisions. I hope you are collaborating with the Trump team. Your voice is an important one in many areas.
With our first post on fluoride and water safety I was amazed how well-educated our audience was with very strong views that fluoride should be removed from the water. As an epidemiologist I was more impressed with the PAQUID study evaluating aluminum in drinking water. It had longitudinal follow up and found risks for dementia with aluminum that far exceeded neurotoxicity concerns from poorly done cross-sectional studies of fluoride. I am hoping this substack opens people eyes to the bigger issue of drinking water safety, particularly those fearful of fluoride resorting to bottled water/filtered water or using aluminum water bottles. Trump was right that he wants "pristine" water--we assume he means much more than fluoride out of the water supply. I think most would agree clean means getting these toxins out of tap and bottled water. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19064650/
Great article highlighting the critical need to improve the safety of our public water supplies! While the focus on reducing fluoride levels and addressing contaminants like PFAS is spot-on, I’d argue that the most effective long-term solution lies in free market environmentalism and strengthening property rights, particularly through water markets. Government regulations, like adjusting EPA contaminant levels, often lag behind emerging science and can be bogged down by bureaucratic inefficiencies or political agendas, as evidenced by the historical influence of groups like the Sugar Research Foundation on fluoride policy.
By contrast, well-defined property rights and water markets empower individuals and communities to manage water resources directly. When water is treated as a tradable asset with clear ownership, stakeholders—whether farmers, businesses, or local governments—have a vested interest in maintaining its quality and availability.
Moreover, free market environmentalism encourages innovation. Private entities, driven by profit and accountability, are often quicker to adopt new technologies—like advanced filtration systems or PFAS removal methods—than public agencies constrained by budgets and red tape. Enhancing property rights also means communities can hold polluters accountable more effectively, as legal ownership provides a clear basis for litigation or negotiation.
NH, Dr. M, or Mr. L, I have gone through two different posts, this one, and the other one by Dr. M, and tried to click on links re fluoride, and they just disappear when I click on them. I can no longer post links either. Can you please let me know if that’s something we’re no longer able to do on this site? Thank you.
Fluoride binds with metals, like aluminum, making them more easily assimilated into the body. Most fluoridation water additives are also contaminated with aluminum, as well as with arsenic.
The impact of fluoride on the brains of infants and children is similar to the impact of lead. Consequently, I recommend the EPA standards:
- Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) should be zero.
- Maximum Contaminate Level (MCL) is a politically determined compromise between the goal and what is feasible which requires remediation and should be no more than 1 ppm.
- Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) that requires warnings to consumers should be 0.3 ppm.
And obviously, fluoridation policy that conflates concentration in water with dose consumed by individuals should be banned in order to protect consumers and the environment as about 99% of the water additives goes directly to waste water where it affects flora and fauna.
See: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/MWRAletter_2023.03.pdf