Dr. Paul Gilbert
The main purpose of this page is to help you
understand why fluoride in drinking water has
completely failed as a cavity prevention technique
for teeth. The other purpose of this page is to help
you understand why diet and whole food nutritional
supplementation are more effective and safer cavity
fighters for teeth.
Healthy Teeth 'n' Gums
Fluoride and Teeth
First let’s look at how you get cavities.

According to the traditional dental view, tooth decay is essentially a unique type of
infection caused by certain bacteria which feed on the sugary drinks or high carbohydrate
foods sticking to your teeth. The germs produce acids by fermentation of the sugar and
carbohydrates. The acids then dissolve the outside enamel layer of teeth.  

This creates a weakened enamel tooth surface that breaks down, forming a small initial
cavity. The process slowly continues, allowing germs in the plaque to penetrate through
the tooth enamel to the inner layer of teeth, or dentin. The dentin then becomes infected
with large numbers of bacteria and other microorganisms, which results in the destruction
of the dentin.

Eventually the small beginning cavity may become a big, sensitive or painful, infected,
decaying, rotting hole. The infection may even spread into the nerve inside the root,
reaching the bone around and beyond the end of the tooth root. Ouch!

Learn more about the subject of tooth decay and cavities by looking at the
Dr. Paul Gilbert
Does fluoride in your drinking water stop tooth decay?

In this article, the process of adding one of a number of chemicals containing fluorine to
your drinking water is called artificial water fluoridation. Dentists, for the most part, like to
market fluoridation to the public with more palatable names, like optimal water fluoridation.
Perhaps they hope you will be fooled into thinking it’s something it isn’t.

Many people are familiar with the repeated claim made by most dentists that fluoride in
your drinking water prevents cavities. Traditional dentists just love fluoride. They insist
that water fluoridation is scientifically proven, because that is what they are taught in
dental schools. It’s a subject that is almost like a religion of faith. They really believe it’s
the answer to tooth decay.

Unfortunately, the claim that fluoride in your drinking water prevents cavities doesn’t pass
scientific muster. Read this article and you will understand why the science behind
artificial water fluoridation is shaky at best and why
artificial water fluoridation doesn’t
stop cavities.  

The peculiar history of artificial water fluoridation:

Very few of us realize that the concept of chemically medicating your drinking water is
unique to dentistry.
Before the introduction of fluoride, the only chemicals
purposely added to your drinking water were those intended to make it safe to
Fluoride does not do this. With the introduction of water fluoridation, what
had previously been sensible public health policy became a policy that subjects
many people to unnecessary health risks while offering little if any benefit.
let’s take a good look at the curious history of fluoride in drinking water.

It all started like this. Early settlers of Colorado Springs, Colorado, had the strangest
looking teeth. Some were yellow, light brown or an ugly dark brown while others were
ragged with holes in the enamel. The mildest discolorations were chalky and paper white.
In the early 1900’s, the discolorations were called “Colorado Brown Stain” or mottled
enamel. Although the discolored teeth looked ugly, they usually had fewer cavities than
normal looking teeth.

By 1909, two early dental researchers who were aware of Colorado Brown Stain, Dr.
Frederick McKay and Dr. Greene Vardiman Black, started working together studying this
peculiar dental condition in Colorado. Because they were dentists, they especially noticed
that the discolored teeth resisted tooth decay.

Dr. McKay continued his research after Dr. Black died in 1915. Dr. McKay suspected that
something in the water was causing the brown stain. But test after test failed to identify the
critical substance. Finally, by 1931, the discolorations known as Colorado Brown Stain
were traced to the drinking water, which contained
high concentrations of the element
, in the form of calcium fluoride. The fluorine came form the mineral cryolite,
which was abundant in the Pike’s Peak region of Colorado and would wash out during the
runoff of rain and snowstorms. At last, after twenty-two years of investigation, Dr. McKay
finally had the solution and the answer to the cause of Colorado Brown Stain.†

One result of this scientific discovery was that scientists, finally knowing what caused
Colorado Brown Stain, renamed the condition, dental fluorosis, or simply, fluorosis.
Because of its appearance, it was also called mottled enamel.

Dental Fluorosis, even mild fluorosis, is a visible sign of fluoride exposure and
accumulation of the fluoride in all the hard tissues of your body, especially your
teeth and bones. Since fluoride is a poisonous chemical element, dental
fluorosis is also an unmistakable sign of chronic fluoride poisoning.

This is what mild, moderate and severe dental fluorosis or mottled enamel looks
tooth decay and dental plaque pages on this website.
like. It can make teeth look quite ugly. Click here for more photos on the Fluoride
Action Network (FAN) website.
How did fluoride become known as a cavity preventer?

Up to this time, Dr. Frederick McKay was on the right track. He had discovered that
fluoride was the cause of the Colorado Brown Stain. But Dr. McKay had
not discovered
the cause of the resistance to tooth decay associated with Colorado Brown Stain.

However, other researchers studying Colorado Brown Stain made the assumption that the
same fluoride that caused Colorado Brown Stain had to also be responsible for the fewer
cavities and unusual resistance to tooth decay. Tooth decay was very common at this
time and no one had a solution for preventing it. Suddenly, fluoride looked like the long
sought after answer.  

Please keep in mind that this was strictly an assumption and not a tested, proven,
scientific finding. It was essentially scientific speculation, sometimes called a hypothesis.
The researchers overlooked, or didn’t know that there were other possible causes
besides fluoride for the apparent scarcity of tooth decay. They didn’t realize that the
waters in Colorado where Colorado Brown Stain was prevalent were also calcium and
magnesium rich, minerals that contribute to strong, healthy bones and teeth, and
therefore would have helped reduce cavities.

The story is not over yet. In 1935, Dr. Henry T. Dean, a dentist with the United States
Public health Service, also studied tooth decay and fluorosis, this time in residents of
various Texas communities. He determined, from his studies of water naturally
contaminated with fluoride that a low concentration of fluoride in drinking water would not
cause the brown tooth mottling of dental fluorosis. Dr. Dean concluded that at a
concentration of one part per million, fluoride in water would only cause mild enamel
fluorosis in a small number of people, and not cause any tooth discoloration in most

Like most other dental researchers of his time, Dr. Dean believed that fluoride, besides
causing dental fluorosis, also protected teeth against cavities. He evidently assumed that
somehow, when naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water was ingested and then
incorporated into teeth as they developed in the jaw bone, it made them more resistant
to tooth decay. He just didn’t know exactly how it happened. If it worked with water that
naturally contained fluoride, then presumably, he reasoned, the same result would
happen if the fluoride was intentionally added to drinking water that didn’t contain

Up to this point in time, everything was essentially unproven hypothesis, except
the reasonably proven connection between fluoride in drinking water and the
unwanted appearance of dental fluorosis. We now know that even one part per
million of fluoride in drinking water creates dental fluorosis in many more
children than originally believed.

Why some people were made the unwitting subjects of a risky experiment.

By 1939, Dr. Dean proposed to his colleagues at the U. S. Public Health Service the idea
of using fluoride to prevent tooth decay by adding it to drinking water to the one part per
million level he already thought was biologically and cosmetically safe. It wouldn’t cause
any health risks and it would only cause minimal dental fluorosis. At least, that is what he

This was a scientific hypothesis or assumption that finally, had to be tested. In today’s
world, animal studies would always be done first. However, this was 1939. Not surprisingly,
some of the incentive to put fluoride in drinking water also came from the Aluminum
Company of America (ALCOA) which was interested because the processing of aluminum
yielded large quantities of toxic fluoride waste, and they were looking for a way to dispose
of it profitably.

For an alternative solution to healthy teeth without any fluoride, click here.   

Thus, with the approval of the U. S. Public Health Service and other public health
agencies, human experiments with fluoridation began. In contrast to modern
research, animal studies were never done. In effect, the safety of adding
fluoride to drinking water was never tested.

On January 25, 1945, without any previous testing for safety, sodium fluoride was added
to a water supply for the first time, to presumably decrease dental decay. This was in
Grand Rapids, Michigan. Nearby Muskegon acted as the non-fluoridated control.

The reason for having a control, in this case a similar city without fluoridation, was to
make sure that it was the fluoride, and not something else in the water that was
preventing or reducing cavities. If, during the study, cavities were also reduced in the non-
fluoridated control city, then obviously, it couldn’t be the fluoride that was doing this. It
would have to be something else, which would then have to be tested, just like the
fluoride. Without a control city, it would be impossible to scientifically prove that fluoride
decreased tooth decay, and any claim that it did would be scientifically invalid.

This study was planned to last 15 years. But, after only five years, Muskegon health
officials demanded the same fluoride “benefits” as Grand Rapids, because the rate of
tooth decay in young adults in Grand Rapids had shown some decline.

Public health officials made available to the public
only the results from fluoridated
Grand Rapids
. Together with dentists, they ignored the fact that there was a similar
decline in tooth decay in young adults in non-fluoridated Muskegon.
Although there was
essentially no distinction between the reduced tooth decay rates in the two
cities, dentists and public health officials began to heavily promote water
fluoridation. So Muskegon became fluoridated well before the experiment was
supposed to have ended.

In effect, when Muskegon insisted on, and got fluoridation, the city no longer
acted as the control for the experiment. The study became uncontrolled before
it was finished,
which basically ended the experiment well before it could prove
anything about the fluoridation of public water. It certainly failed to prove that
fluoridation was effective as a means to control tooth decay.

There were other paired cities, such as Newburgh and Kingston, New York that conducted
human experiments with artificially added water fluoridation. Dr. David Ast, the New York
State Dental Director started a ten-year fluoridation experiment. On May 2, 1945, upstate
Newburgh’s water supply was artificially fluoridated to one part per million leaving Kingston
non-fluoridated as a control to compare results.
Again, no animal tests or
experiments were first conducted, to determine if the amount of fluoride added
to the drinking water was even safe for human consumption.

Public health officials observed a drop in tooth decay in Newburg, the fluoridated city.
After only five years into the experiment, fluoridation was declared a success in
Newburgh, even though the experiment was supposed to last ten years, so that the
permanent teeth of children born into the experiment could eventually be examined.
Adults who drank the experimental potion were never even studied. Once again, from a
scientific standpoint, the Newburg - Kingston experiment, like the Grand Rapids –
Muskegon study, ended before it could prove anything.

Apparently, most local public health officials, didn’t care if the existing science supporting
water fluoridation was faulty. Compared to today’s standards, the science was crude. By
1947, officials in several other cities started water fluoridation on a study basis. Dentists
began to get on the bandwagon, claiming that fluoride stopped tooth decay. Because of
political pressure, in 1950, the United States Public Health Service finally endorsed
fluoridation. The American Dental Association soon followed
while the Grand Rapids -
Muskegon and Newburgh - Kingston fluoridation experimental trials were still in

Think about this. The American Dental Association endorsed artificial water
fluoridation well before it was possible to come to any meaningful scientific
conclusions about the then current studies! When these studies are carefully re-
examined, which has been done, it becomes clear that they all failed to prove
that artificial water fluoridation stops or reduces tooth decay.

In spite of all this lack of scientific support, artificial fluoridation of drinking
water still continues to be taught in all the dental schools in the United States as
a scientifically proven, effective solution for tooth decay.

There is plenty of additional science and research available. You can find it on the
website of
Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Click here for an alternative solution to healthy teeth without any fluoride.  

How effective is artificial water fluoridation?

The dental profession and public health officials claim that artificial fluoridation
of your drinking water is effective. Is this really so? Let’s look at the evidence:

  • Major dental researchers now concede that fluoride's assumed benefits of
    reducing tooth decay are topical and not systemic, which is exactly the
    opposite of what Dr. Dean believed way back in 1939, and why all those paired city
    fluoridation tests were doomed to fail. For readers who might need some
    explanation, topical means the fluoride directly contacts the surface of a tooth, such
    as might occur with the high concentrations of fluoride in tooth paste and systemic
    means that the fluoride gets into your teeth when they are developing in your jaw

    The primary support for the conclusion that fluoride works topically and not
    systemically is a remarkably revealing scientific article published more than a
    decade ago in July of the year 2000 in the Journal of the American Dental
    Association. This article admits that “fluoride incorporated during tooth
    development is insufficient to play a significant role in caries (tooth decay)
    protection”. Just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, the article
    further admits that fluoride “works primarily via topical mechanisms”.

    Folks, the one sure conclusion that can be made from this scientific article
    is that artificial water fluoridations is ineffective as a means for controlling
    tooth decay! In the world of scientific research, the phrase “insufficient to
    play a significant role” is the equivalent of “without any observable
    effect”. It’s a stunning admission from the American Dental Association
    that their claim of fluoridations effectiveness has no scientific basis or
    merit. An astounding admission when you take into account that historically, the
    American Dental Association has been one of the principal supporters and
    defenders of water fluoridation.

    If fluoride only works topically, is there a possibility that fluoride in drinking water
    may actually have some beneficial topical effect? No one really knows because the
    topical affect of artificially fluoridated water has never been studied. What
    we do know by now is that artificial fluoridation of drinking water is a failure,
    regardless of how it is supposed to act upon teeth. Keep on reading to see the

  • Other methods of topically applied fluoride are definitely not the cure or
    antidote for tooth decay.  Neither are they as safe as you may think.
    Although this page is primarily about fluoride in drinking water, what about fluoride
    in tooth paste or the fluoride treatments my dentist’s hygienist is always
    recommending? Do these help stop cavities? After all, tooth paste and
    professionally applied fluoride treatments are essentially topical applications of

    The concentration of fluoride in tooth paste or a dental fluoride treatment
    is more than a thousand times higher than in drinking water. Even at this
    extreme concentration, the fluoride doesn’t stop cavities. At best, it
    controls the rate at which cavities develop. In other words, it just slows
    them down.

    Beware that at these high concentrations, there is enough poisonous
    fluoride in a tube of tooth paste or a professionally applied liquid or gel to
    kill a small child.  Fatalities have occurred. Remember, to a child, most toothpaste
    looks like and tastes like candy. For similar reasons, don’t let your child get fluoride
    treatments from your dentist’s hygienist. Children always swallow some of the gel or
    liquid, even if they are told not to.   

    Do you need to be convinced? Next time you brush your teeth with any toothpaste
    that contains fluoride, read the fine print on the tube. You will see a warning that
    you should “Contact a Poison Control Center” if you think your child has eaten or
    swallowed more toothpaste than used for brushing. If your child is small or an infant
    and has eaten any toothpaste, definitely call. Since most toothpaste containers
    have no Poison Control Center phone number listed, call the American
    Association of Poison Control Centers hotline at 1-800-222-1222.
The statements and information on this website have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration and
are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. The body's ability and power to heal depends
upon the totality of diet, nutrition, lifestyle and environmental factors.  No claims for the cure of any disease is
intended, or implied.  Always consult a health care practitioner when dealing with disease states.
  • By the mid-1980’s, studies revealed that the reduction of cavities in the
    permanent teeth of children who lived in communities with fluoridated
    water was not much less than among those living in communities without
    fluoridated water. This contradicts earlier studies which reported a reduction of
    tooth decay attributable to fluoridation that ranged from 50% to 70%. The most
    recent surveys conducted in the United States show only minute differences in
    tooth decay between children who had lived all their lives in fluoridated, compared
    to non-fluoridated communities. The difference was shown to be neither
    clinically nor statistically significant.  

    Recent research shows children in fluoridated Newburgh have more tooth decay
    and more dental fluorosis than never fluoridated Kingston. This means that the
    early studies were inaccurate, or that the results were exaggerated.  

  • Since the early days of community water fluoridation in the United States,
    the prevalence of dental decay has declined in both communities with
    and communities without fluoridated water. This certainly doesn’t support the
    concept of water fluoridation. Please keep in mind that to this day it is still being
    asserted by public health officials and the dental profession that fluoride in the
    drinking water is one of the reasons for any decrease in cavities in the fluoridated

  • Cavities do not increase when fluoridation stops. In contrast to the earlier
    findings, a number of published recent studies have reported no increase in tooth
    decay in communities which have ended fluoridation. If artificial water fluoridation
    is as effective as it is supposed to be, wouldn’t an increase in tooth decay be
    expected after it is ended? Yet it doesn’t happen. These studies obviously
    contradict the assumption that community water fluoridation is effective.

  • No difference exists in tooth decay between fluoridated & non-fluoridated
    countries.  The vast majority of the western European nations have rejected
    water fluoridation and never added it to their drinking water. According to
    comprehensive data from the World Health Organization, tooth decay rates in
    these countries are just as low, and in fact, often lower than decay rates in the
    United States.

  • In spite of artificial water fluoridations much touted benefits, the worst
    tooth decay in the United States occurs in the poor neighborhoods of our
    largest cities, the vast majority of which have been artificially fluoridated
    for decades. These cities include Chicago, Dallas, Baltimore, St. Louis, Denver,
    New York, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Houston,
    Pittsburgh, and San Francisco. Yet these cities have been experiencing a serious
    rise in tooth decay in their urban poor and economically disadvantaged children,
    in spite of a life time of exposure to fluoride.

    In a similar vein, although all Native American reservations are fluoridated,
    children living there have much higher incidences of dental tooth decay than do
    children living in other U.S. communities.

    The American Dental Association claims this is due to the inability if people in
    these communities to afford or obtain adequate dental care. Even if this is so, it
    still certainly indicates how ineffective artificial fluoridation of their drinking water
    has been.

Approximately 65% of the communities in the United States are artificially
fluoridated, some for more than forty years. Have you personally ever seen any
evidence of better teeth in an artificially fluoridated community compared to a
non-fluoridated community?

If fluoridation was really effective, don’t you think your dentist, or the American
Dental Association, would be proclaiming this loudly by pointing out which
communities are fluoridated and the better teeth their residents supposedly
enjoy? The dental profession is remarkably silent on this issue.

For an alternative solution to healthy teeth without any fluoride, click here.   

How safe is artificial water fluoridation?

The dental profession and public health officials claim that artificial fluoridation
of your drinking water is safe. Is this really so? Let’s look at the evidence:

  • In 2006 the United States National Research Council was commissioned to
    study possible health risks associated with fluoride in water. Since it was
    known that some people were drinking naturally fluoridated water with a
    concentration of at least 4 parts per million, which was and still is, the United
    States recommended maximum limit of fluoride in drinking water, the National
    Research Council chose to study this concentration. They didn’t study artificially
    fluoridated drinking water because the level of fluoride in artificially fluoridated
    water is never more than 1.2 parts per million.

    Other than the difference in the level of fluoride, and the source of the fluoride,
    there is little difference between naturally and artificially fluoridated water. As a
    matter of fact, artificially fluoridated drinking water often starts as drinking water
    with some natural fluoride in it to which additional fluoride has been added to bring
    the final concentration up to the “recommended” artificial level.

    The National Research Council came to the scientifically supported
    conclusion that there were health hazards associated with 4 parts per
    million of fluoride in drinking water and recommended lowering the level.
    The Council didn’t specify a new lower level, because they didn’t know
    what that level would be.  Instead, they recommended that the Environmental
    Protection Agency perform a risk assessment study to determine a lower safe
    level, assuming there actually is one. The Environmental Protection Agency has
    never done this recommended study.

    What this means is that a “safe” level of fluoride, whether naturally
    occurring, artificially added to drinking water, or a combination of both, is
    unknown to this day. The only thing known is that it is less than 4 parts
    per million.

    So don’t be mislead by the claims of the American Dental Association that the
    National Research Council’s study and its conclusions only apply to naturally
    fluoridated water. They know it’s not true and it’s just a smoke screen to prevent
    you from understanding that the study’s conclusions apply to all forms of
    fluoridated water.   

  • The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is proposing reducing
    the maximum recommended fluoride level of fluoride in drinking water to
    0.7 parts per million. The current maximum is 1.2 parts per million.

    One reason for lowering the level of fluoride is dental fluorosis, which has
    increased significantly in children since the introduction of artificial water
    fluoridation. This should not be surprising, since tests reveal that water used as
    an ingredient in most processed foods is likely to contain fluoride. Worse yet,
    without testing, no one can tell if it contains fluoride or not, because there is no
    label requirement for fluoride in water.

    Just as significantly, the science revealing the health hazards associated with
    fluoride in drinking water has become so overwhelming that even the federal
    agencies that are supposed to protect us are finally taking action. The reduction
    may not be much, but at least it is a step in the right direction.  

    Even though no one really knows what level of fluoride is safe, 0.7 parts per
    million was obviously chosen by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services because below this level, the concentration of fluoride is considered to
    be too low to be effective. Since the scientific reality is that artificial fluoridation of
    drinking water is not effective even at 0.7 parts per million, eliminating water
    fluoridation would immediately solve the whole issue of finding a safe level of
    exposure. It appears as if the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is
    still protecting the existing policy of artificial fluoridation of drinking water, rather
    than protecting the public.

    Whether the maximum allowed concentration of fluoride in drinking water remains
    at 1.2 parts per million, or is reduced to 0.7 parts per million, either concentration
    is very close to 4 parts per million which the National Research Council already
    says is associated with health hazards. That’s much too close for either level
    to be considered safe by any reasonable scientific standard of risk
    assessment. By itself, this should be sufficient reason to require a ban on
    artificial fluoridation of drinking water. How long do we have to wait for
    this ban? ††

  • Fluoride is a poison. It is still being used industrially and agriculturally as a
    rodent poison, food fumigant, and insecticide. This adds to the fluoride
    exposure children are already getting from drinking fluoridated water and
    eating processed foods containing fluoridated water.

    Fluoride accumulates in all the calcified tissues of your body, especially
    your teeth and bones. Fluoride is deposited into your teeth when you are young
    and your teeth are developing. It is stored in your bones all of your life.
    Approximately half of each day's fluoride intake is retained, because healthy
    kidneys can eliminate only about 50% of daily fluoride intake. This is what makes
    fluoride so dangerous.

    At one time, even the editor of The Journal of the American Dental
    Association, Dr. Pierce Anthony, acknowledged that fluoride was a poison
    and recommended that the dental profession have nothing to do with it.

    As late as October of 1944, in an editorial in the journal, Dr. Anthony warned
    dentists, “We do know that the use of drinking water containing as little as 1.2 to
    3.0 parts per million of fluorine will cause such developmental disturbances in
    bones as osteosclerosis,spondylosis, and osteopetrosis, as well as goiter, and we
    cannot afford to run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances in
    applying what is at present a doubtful procedure intended to prevent development
    of dental disfigurements among children.”

    Dr. Anthony concluded his editorial with these final words of wisdom, “Because of
    our anxiety to find some therapeutic procedure that will promote mass prevention
    of caries (tooth decay), the seeming potentialities of fluorine appear speculatively
    attractive, but, in light of our present knowledge or lack of knowledge of the
    chemistry of the subject, the potentialities for harm far outweigh those for
    good.” (emphasis added).  

    Apparently the concerns about the significant toxicity of fluoride vanished when
    the American Dental Association started to promote artificial fluoridation of
    drinking water.
  • Fluoride added to drinking water is contaminated with other poisons.
    Currently, the two primary sources of fluoride for artificial water fluoridation are
    hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate. Both are by-products of the
    manufacture of phosphate-based fertilizer. Both are contaminated with other toxic
    chemicals, such as heavy metals like lead and arsenic.

  • Fluoride has not been studied as well as the American Dental
    Association claims it has been, and certainly not as well as you might
    think. It may surprise you that water fluoridation has not been studied as
    rigorously as one might assume, with the exception of the studies in the 1930s
    and 1940s mentioned above.

  • Artificial fluoridation of drinking water has been scientifically linked to
    various health problems. Besides the very early connection with dental
    fluorosis, animal and human studies have linked fluoride to a growing number of
    serious health concerns. Some examples are, undesirable changes to bone
    structure and strength such as hip fractures in elderly people, osteoarthritis, bone
    cancer in young men, inhibiting the action of enzymes, suppressing thyroid
    function, lowering of IQ, birth defects, and adding to the risks already associated
    with kidney disease. You definitely don’t want to be on kidney dialysis with
    fluoridated water. Does drinking artificially fluoridated water still sound like a good
    idea to you?     

Click here for an alternative solution to healthy teeth without any fluoride.

Is artificial fluoridation of drinking water a form of forced medical treatment?

  • In the United States, citizens are supposed to have the right to refuse
    medical treatment.  By fluoridating the water supply, people do not have the
    opportunity to refuse treatment. Consider that the amount of fluoride added to the
    water supply is meant for the average person, and does not take children, babies,
    or smaller than average people into account, and the effects it has on them.

  • The FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is
    no proof of safety or effectiveness. In fact, the FDA has not approved any
    supplement claiming to promote healthy teeth through fluoride ingestion.
    If the FDA considers fluoride an unapproved new drug for which there is no proof
    of safety or effectiveness, why does the American Dental Association still insist on
    claiming that “…fluoride supplements are effective in preventing caries.”? It’s right
    there in the conclusion of a report by the American Dental Association Council on
    Scientific Affairs in the December 2010 issue of the Journal of the American
    Dental Association.

    Fortunately, the FDA is not always asleep at the wheel. Not long ago, in an
    aborted attempt to sidestep the FDA, the dental profession started calling fluoride
    an essential nutrient. The FDA actually had to stop the dentists from doing this,
    because they had absolutely no evidence to support such a claim.  

With 65% of the communities in the United States fluoridated, it is safe to say
that the dental profession has made a huge mistake.

What other options for healthy teeth are available instead of drinking artificially
fluoridated water?

Almost every other page on this website points you to a nutritional approach, because it
is an infinitely safer and more effective way to fight cavities.

As discussed on other pages, you must make your immune system as strong as
possible to adequately cope with germs.

The human body is a marvelously designed living organism with the ability to grow,
regulate, repair, and defend itself when given high quality, natural supplements
containing the full spectrum of nutrients derived from natural and organically grown
A well nourished body is able to resist disease better than a poorly fed
That’s exactly what usually happens when you add all natural supplements
derived from whole foods to your diet. You strengthen and support your immune system
by elevating the health of your entire body.

Cavities are simply infections of your teeth. Doesn’t it make sense that a
vibrantly healthy immune system will enable you to deal with any infections in
your teeth?

Whatever health benefits you are seeking, you are invited to try the products described
on this website and see for yourself how they can elevate you to a new level of
confidence regarding the health of your teeth and the rest of your body. That means
greater peace of mind for you.
How much is that worth?

For an alternative solution to healthy teeth without any fluoride, click here.   
Dr. Paul Gilbert
†An interesting sidelight is that Dr. McKay was assisted in finding his answer to the cause of
Colorado Brown Stain by Harry Churchill, the chief chemist of the Aluminum Company of America
(ALCOA). What piqued Harry Churchill’s interest was that the children of Bauxite, Arkansas, an ALCOA
company owned town, were growing up with discolored, pitted teeth that looked just like Colorado
Brown Stain, while children in a nearby town had normal appearing teeth. Mr. Churchill had already
discovered that the water supply of Bauxite, Arkansas was contaminated with high levels of fluoride, a
major byproduct from the smelting of aluminum. The nearby town had no fluoride in its water supply.
He rightly suspected that Bauxite’s fluoride contaminated water was the reason for the similarity with
Colorado Brown Stain. So Mr. Churchill contacted Dr. McKay to bring him samples of the Colorado
water to test, and sure enough, it also contained significant levels of fluoride.

††Based on the modern science of risk assessment, a safe level of exposure to a known toxin is
generally chosen to be anywhere from one hundred to one thousand times less than the lowest  
known level with proven harm. Artificial water fluoridation, unless it is banned altogether, can never
comply with this standard.  

Click here for
Dr. Gilbert's
No Obligation, No Risk
Nutritional Consultation

Click here for
Dr. Gilbert's
No Obligation, No Risk
Nutritional Consultation

Click here for
Dr. Gilbert's
No Obligation, No Risk
Nutritional Consultation
Keeping Your Teeth nGums Healthy For a Lifetime