Dentists Against Fluoride

Dr. Michael Fleming, DDS, PA

Dr. Fleming maintains a general dental practice geared towards health conscious patients and their families in a caring environmentally friendly setting.  His practice is stationed on Hillandale road in Durham, NC.  In 2007, Dr. Fleming was featured in a ABC 11 article by Steve Daniels where he denounced the practice of fluoridating public drinking water.

See an excerpt from the article below:

Source: WTVD

November 8, 2007 — For years, cities and towns have added fluoride to water supply. We’ve been led to believe that fluoride is supposed to make our teeth stronger. But now some scientists are pointing to a growing body of evidence suggesting fluoride could be damaging our teeth, causing cancer and possibly leading to other health problems.

“There is no need to fluoridate the water supplies,” says Dr. Michael Fleming. He’s a Durham dentist who thinks we’re getting far too much fluoride.

“Fluoride in the water is essentially a drug, it’s an uncontrolled use of a drug,” says Dr. Fleming.

Dr. Fleming is on an FDA dental advisory committee but he says these are his opinions.

“The primary benefit of fluoride is topically, used as a topical addition, not internally,” says Dr. Fleming.

Everyone knows fluoride is in your toothpaste and in some mouthwash. But fluoride is also in places you may have never guessed. It’s in soft drinks and beer. Thinking of having orange juice and oatmeal for breakfast? If they’re made with water in a fluoridated community then your breakfast comes with a side of fluoride.

Dr. Fleming says because fluoride is all around us his interest is in controlling the dosing from all sources.

Most communities in the triangle add fluoride to their water supply. The water treatment plant in Raleigh serves more than four hundred thousand people in Wake County. There’s a special room where liquid fluoride is added to the water to keep the level within federal recommendations at about one milligram per liter of water.

Continue Reading…

  1. pluckypoppy says:

    Is applying fluoride topically still detrimental to your overall health, or is the amount in a topical application (I’m assuming the best example of this is fluoride toothpaste) a healthy amount?

    • Kyle says:

      Applying fluoride topically is in no way detrimental to your over all health. All fluorides used are anthropogenic meaning man made, and they are not even man made purposefully as they are by products of industry. Hazardous by products that that, literally they must be disposed of properly as industrial waste, but this is avoided when the compounds are sold privately where like magic they become a product: a fake tooth medicine. Fluoride including natures natural fluoride CaF2 is not an essential nutrient meaning you can go your entire life without it. If you want good teeth then avoid acidic foods and drinks, or when in contact with any acidic foods rinse with or drink regular water as fast as you can which will save you from mineralization.

    • Steve Martin says:

      Read the Warning on the back on Children toothpaste Warning if a pea sized amount is swallowed call Poison control??

      • Saiful Rimkeit says:

        I can’t swear to it, but an outfit that looks into quotes and factoids mentioned there is a strong possibility that Hitler and Stalin may not have used fluoride to make the population docile. However, this is not the final word, because I too used that same quote. My take on it was that Hitler used a fluoride to make the people in prisons docile. If you have a better source, please share it, if you think what I post here is not correct. Just trying to be helpful.

  2. Steve Slott says:

    I suppose that “Kyle” is serious when he authoritatively makes the ridiculous statement that all fluorides used are man made? The hydrofluorosillic acid, refined and diluted for use in water fluoridation systems, is extracted from naturally occurring phosphorite rock in a wet process that also yields phosphoric acid. Phosphoric acid is further refined to be used in fertilizers that are utilized to grow our foods, in soft drinks, and other uses. The HFA and phosphoric acid are co-products of the same process. A “fake tooth medicine”? Well, the first thing I would ask of “Kyle” is that he support this equally ridiculous statement with scientifically accepted studies. As for his advice on how to obtain “good teeth” I would ask that he produce his dental credentials and license to practice dentistry. I would then advise him to contact an attorney to assess his liability for dispensing dental advice under the guise of being authoritative.

    • Kyle says:

      Could you possibly reply with more hate Steve?

      Why I stated HFSA or other silicofluorides to be a fake tooth medicine is because they have actually never been tested. The actual fluoride products used in artificial water fluoridation have neither the required animal studies nor the required human studies to determine safety. In the absence of these safety studies, any claims that these products are “safe” are false and misleading. Additionally I say fake tooth medicine because fluoride does not prevent cavities, and rather than typing why I’d prefer to copy and paste as to explain it better and not waste time on replying to your hatred:

      “(ref 4) Tooth enamel (essentially calcium phosphate) reacts with all acids to form cavities (see any chemistry text dealing with solubilities). The proton of the acid pulls the phosphate right out of the enamel, and fast. By drinking a sip of water along with the acid during eating, the acid reacts chemically with water immediately to form hydronium ion and thus the enamel is saved. One can use milk or coffee for the same purpose, since they are both non-acidic. Dr. Albert Schatz, Nobelist who discovered streptomycin, found several decades ago that sharks’ teeth with their excessive fluoride would dissolve just as readily in citric acid as ordinary non-fluoridated teeth, laying to rest the hypothesis that fluoride would stop cavities. The dental people (American Dental Association) pushed aside this discovery and Dr. Schatz’ discoveries regarding excessive baby mortalities caused by fluoridation in Chili, South America as insignificant. They returned his mail 3x unopened and would not deal with him.”

      As for you saying I make comments “authoritatively”, honestly I’m just trying to ensure that people not be mass medicated and especially not done so without proper warnings. For years warnings have existed that infants not have their formulas made up with fluoridated water and what average person knows that? You label me “authoritative” for wanting to place and end to AWF while promoters like yourself literally shove a medication and poison down peoples throats an in a method which the chemical is absolutely unavoidable! And you want to call me authoritative? Get a hold of yourself Steve, and please look in the mirror.

      As for my advice on how to obtain good teeth I stated the short and sweet summary of what Dr. Gerard F. Judd, Ph.D., Chemistry and Fluoride Researcher covers in his book Good Teeth, Birth to Death. And honestly while you ridicule me, dentists continue to promote fluoridation when in fact they have no say in the matter. Dentists see teeth, not the body, and what is fluoride exposed to in AWF? Every cell of the human body of course. We know fluoride devastates the thyroid, and what do dentists know about the thyroid? Nor do they know anything in toxicology, risk assessment, the bones, the brain, the pineal gland and so much more.

      I won’t waste time replying to you again Steve so don’t bother antagonizing myself. Thanks.

      • Steven D. Slott, DDS says:

        Kyle, your ignorance of the facts is appalling, but typical of antifluoridationists. If correcting your misinformation is your definition of “hate” then so be it. To put it in simple terms, HFA is completely hydrolyzed (dissociated) at the ph of drinking water. Thus when introduced to that water, HFA immediately and completely hydrolyzes. After that point, it no longer exists. As it no longer exists, it is not ingested. As it is is not ingested, there are no requirements, nor any need for safety testing of HFA. The only products of this hydrolysis are fluoride ions which are identical to those found naturally in water, and trace levels of contaminants in such miniscule concentrations that they pose no threat, whatsoever, of adverse biological effects.

        If you guys would stop relying on “information” spoon-fed to you by Paul Connett, you would be far more informed and educated on this issue. But, that’s up to you. I will begin paying far more attention to your activities than I have, and will correct you every time I see your nonsense appearing anywhere.

        Steven D Slott, DDS
        Burlington, NC

    • Noeleen Dempsey says:

      Can Steven D.Slott explain why the warnings on fluoridated children’s toothpaste If it is as inocuous as he/she claims? If it is safe for children in toothpaste,so long as they don’t swallow it- how can it be safe for them to swallow water and foods with the same ingredient? Call me thick if you like but I don’t get it?

      • hello says:

        I know this is an old post, but I’ll answer that question. The golden rule of toxicology is that the dosage makes the poison. Quite simply, the amount of fluoride in toothpaste is much much higher than that of drinking water, since you spit toothpaste out and don’t ingest it. A cup of tea has more fluoride than 4 glasses of flurodated water

    • JLSS says:

      Dear Dr. Slott,

      As such a highly respected and well educated dentist I am sure that you are very well aware that certain of your patients are allergic and/or sensitive to certain drugs and/or materials that are used in dentistry. Please answer each and every question–

      1. When a new patient comes to your office for treatment do you have them fill out a questionnaire first so you can identify which drugs and/or materials a patient is allergic and/or sensitive to? Yes or No

      2. Would you just go ahead and treat them without having this vital information in advance? Yes or No

      3. If you answered “Yes” to 2., what would the legal and moral implications of your doing this be? Please Explain

      4. If you answered “No” to 2, why you would not do it? Please Explain

      5. If a patient discloses to you that they are allergic and/or sensitive to a certain drug and/or material what do you do? Would you go ahead and use it anyway since most of your other patients tolerate the drug and/or material? Yes or No

      6. If you answered “Yes” to 5, why would you think it would be legally and ethically all right for you to do so? Please Explain

      7. If you answered “No” to 5, is it because you could inflict harm and even possibly kill the allergic/sensitive patient? Yes or No

      8. If you never met me would you come to my house and without knowing my medical history and which drugs and/or materials I am allergic and/or sensitive to force me to ingest or apply to my skin a drug and/or material? Yes or No

      9. If you would do such a thing why would you think it was safe or ethical to do so? Please Explain

      10. If you would not do such a thing why wouldn’t you? Please Explain

      11. Would you urge anyone else to come to my house and do that to me? Yes or No

      12. If not why not? Please Explain

      13. As a dental professional are you aware that allergic/sensitive reactions to various drugs and/or materials can vary from individual to individual and that different people can exhibit different reactions. For example one person could get nauseated or another could become dizzy or another may suffer a fatal episode of Anaphylaxis? Yes or No

      14. Considering that approximately 1% of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you think that segment of the population ought to be forced to ingest artificially fluoridated water and to apply it to their skin which results in dermal absorption–for example every time they wash their hands or take a shower? Yes or No

      15. I am one of those people who are allergic/sensitive to fluoride. In my case exposure to artificially fluoridated water results in serious and potentially fatal reactions. I do not have to drink it to suffer these symptoms–simple dermal exposure results in my suffering the same reactions because it is absorbed directly through the skin and is disseminated systemically. Do you think I should be forced to have fluoridated water? Yes or No

      16. If you answered “Yes” why do you think so? Please Explain

      17. If you answered “No” why do you think so? Please Explain

      18. Knowing that a certain segment of the population is allergic/sensitive to fluoride do you believe that it is ethically and legally permissible for you to publicly proclaim that artificial fluoridation is safe without providing a qualifying statement that it is harmful to a certain segment of the population? Yes or No

      Of course artificial fluoridation has numerous other detrimental systemic health effects–for instance on the thyroid, kidneys, brain, bones etc. However I want to confine my questions and your answers to just this one specific aspect–that of allergy/sensitivity to fluoride.

      I do not want my time wasted with proclamations of the prevalence of fluoride such as the amounts of calcium fluoride found in nature. Nickel is also a common naturally occurring and widely prevalent element yet is well known to be a strong allergic sensitizer. For example almost all of us know someone who cannot wear jewelry which contains nickel. Hopefully you would be so incompetent so as to placeM a nickel based crown, for example, into the mouth of a patient with nickel sensitivity and then when the patient reacted badly proclaim that it did not matter that you had acted in such a reckless manner because nickel is such a prevalent element that the patient could not avoid it completely.

      Thus please confine your answers to the specific above questions which I have numbered for your convenience. I am looking forward to reading the responses you will provide. Please number your responses to correspond with the questions.

      * I have asked the exact same questions of you which I have copied and pasted above on numerous other comment sections but you have yet to answer them. Neither would pro-fluoridationist Johnny Johnson D.D.S. who frequently appeared on the same comment sections that you did. Instead both of you tried every trick in the book to evade answering them. Something is very wrong when neither of you would answer very simple and easy questions which would only have taken a few minutes.

      Please simply answer the 18 very easy questions. Do not yet again evade answering. Do not go off on other tangents. Do not bring up other subjects I have not even asked about. Do not make nasty and rude remarks. Do not make untrue and deliberately misleading remarks and claims. Do not attempt to falsely claim that allergy and/or hypersensitivity to fluoride does not exist when it is clearly described in the peer reviewed medical literature and on numerous products and drugs themselves as you well know because I previously provided the literature citations to you. You have repeatedly done all of these things. Please confine your responses to the questioned asked and number your responses to correspond to the questions.

  3. Steven D. Slott, DDS says:


    This copy/paste list of irrelevant questions has appeared on several sites under different pseudonyms. As I have responded each time, it is nothing more than a ridiculously transparent attempt by anitifluoridationists to further the nonsense that fluoride at 0.7 ppm is a “drug”. It is not, as the courts have upheld each and every time this gambit has been attempted in court. It is simply mineral identical to that which already exists in your, water, fluoridated or not. If you want to continue to argue that point then I suggest you do so with the EPA, the FDA, and the court system of the United States. If you elect to do so, however, I would suggest not attempting to cower behind a pseudonym. These entities will probably frown on that.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    • JLSS says:

      Dear Dr. Slott,

      Yet again you are evading answering my very simple questions. Please answer them. Number your responses to correspond with the questions.

  4. Mary says:

    I’ve run into this Dr. Slott and he is one piece of work. I swear he and his crew COULD be paid by the chemical polluters who push this on the population. I’ve been in this “fight” for over 20 yrs….a real scam that continues….

    • JLSS says:

      Dear Mary,

      I too have run into Dr. Slott in various comment sections. Notice that he will not answer my very simple questionnaire. I have asked him the same very simple questions on numerous different comment sections and he continues to refuses to answer them.

      When an “expert” refuses to answer simple questions I believe that it is a huge red flag. It leads me to believe that the person may be dishonest or may be hiding something.

      In addition I found his response to Kyle to be extremely rude, hostile and uncalled for.

      Dr. Slott wrote in response to Kyle ” As for his advice on how to obtain “good teeth” I would ask that he produce his dental credentials and license to practice dentistry. I would then advise him to contact an attorney to assess his liability for dispensing dental advice under the guise of being authoritative.”

      Actually maybe Dr. Slott would like to explain his own numerous proclamations about the safety of whole body fluoridation for the entire population. He makes these claims rather often. He makes them with a very authorative air and leads people to believe that he is qualified to make such proclamations regarding its safety. It sounds like he is dispensing medical advice. Does Dr. Slott also have medical credentials and a medical license in addition to his dental credentials and license? If so I think he ought to produce them.

      It is my understanding that in the state of California that as a dentist Dr. Slott is not supposed to be making the sort of claims that would lead to the determination of whether a specific individual, or subset of the population, is at any time suffering from, or will suffer from, adverse health effects outside of the oral cavity from ingested fluoride. That is outside the purview of dentistry according to the California State Board of Dental Examiners. That would be a medical diagnosis and Slott is not a medical doctor. Yet Slott persists in proclaiming the safety of whole body fluoridation–something he is not qualified to do.

      Because Dr. Slott has made these proclamations in the state of California via comment sections in California newspapers it appears that he has not only make statements that he is clearly not qualified to make and which are clearly outside his scope of practice but he has also crossed state lines to do so. In addition I am pretty sure that most, if not all, other states also have limits over which dentists are not supposed to step under the guise of their profession. And Slott has advocated whole body fluoridation as being safe for everyone in numerous states–not just California– via comment sections.

      If I am correct then it appears that Dr. Slott–and not Kyle– is the one who needs to contact an attorney. Maybe Dr. Slott should contact two attorneys–a malpractice attorney to check on what his liability is for making “authorative” comments that are outside his scope of practice and another attorney who is familiar with the possible federal penalties for crossing state lines via the internet to violate state laws that limit his authority to dispense medical advice which it appears he is doing when he recommends whole body fluoridation as being safe for everyone as opposed to his advocating the use of a fluoridated toothpaste or mouth rinse which is limited to the oral cavity and thus within his licensed scope of practice since he is a dentist and NOT a medical doctor.

      If I am wrong about Dr. Slott exceeding his scope of practice restrictions then I would appreciate it if he would explain to me where I have inadvertently made a mistake.

      Of course I am also still awaiting his answers to my very simple and easy questionnaire which as a dentist he is certainly qualified to answer.

  5. mary says:

    No answers will come from that crew, only their scientific hogwash that they push, they are all pushers of pollutants…

    There is a retired dentist here in the San Diego area, Dr. David Kennedy, who has a lawsuit going on now against the city of San Diego for their fluoride actions…..Dr. Kennedy has been in the “fight” for a long long time, I know many in the fight here in California….the polluters continue to win….a true crime of mankind and human rights…. .

    The polluters came into the rest of LA, San Diego and Ventura counties and pushed thru “F” against MANY protests by many citizens….this was in the last couple yrs. I’m in So Cal and have been following this issue for years…..

  6. mary says:

    I have NOT read enough about ALL Slott has said about “F” being good for the
    whole body….so all I can come up with these “guys” are being paid very well to
    keep this FRAUD fired up and going in our universe… Too many of “his” kind out there.

  7. mary says:

    This just sent to me…The Real Story/History.‎CachedSimilar
    Is the Government Poisoning You? by Brad Hoppmann | Friday, August 15, 2014
    at 8:30am. Throughout our lives, we’ve all been cheated, taken advantage of …

  8. mary says:

    Know that, I don’t drink tea nor do I use “F” toothpaste and our public waters SHOULD NOT be mass medicated with this toxin….plain and simple…

  9. mary says:

    The morbid history of this Madness:

    This article is from Uncommon Wisdom Daily written by Brad Hoppmann.

    The same can be said for other public health decisions. It is not about objective science. It is about profits and benefits to a selected few at the expense of many.

    “When historians come to write about this period, they will single out fluoridation as the single biggest mistake in public policy that we’ve ever had.” – Paul Connett, Ph.D. in Biochemistry”

    The Silent Killer

    Before 1945, a little known toxin called “fluoride” was properly regarded as a universal pollutant.

    As a byproduct of the aluminum and fertilizer industries, fluoride waste destroyed all crops and animals in its path, wreaking havoc on the environment and anyone exposed to it.

    These toxic consequences led to many lawsuits and a public opinion – which, agreed upon, could eliminate fluoride completely to protect the environment and health of the people.

    However, as history repeats itself time and time again, all bets are off when money and power come into play.

    It all started with Alcoa (AA), a mega-producer of aluminum founded by Andrew Mellon, who is now considered one of the most successful entrepreneurs in the history of the United States.

    Alcoa was not only the largest aluminum producer in the country, but also the largest producer of toxic fluoride waste materials.

    Mellon, being the renegade businessman he was, realized that instead of simply dumping this waste product, he could replace the disposal expense with vast profits.

    So, on Sept. 29, 1939, Alcoa sought out and “heavily funded” scientist Gerald J. Cox.

    Cox began this fluoride scheme by fluoridating rats in his lab and mysteriously concluding that “fluoride reduces cavities” … though he could not provide proof to back up his claim.


    A very important note here – At the time, Andrew Mellon held the position of the Secretary of the Treasury, which holds direct jurisdiction over the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS).

    Furthermore, in 1944, Mellon appointed Oscar Ewing as head of the department. It’s important to note that Ewing was one of the top executives at Mellon’s Alcoa aluminum, where his salary was upward of $10 million in today’s dollars.


    Mellon and Ewing were now in a position to take over the policies of the Public Health Service.

    Under Ewing’s watch, a national fluoridation campaign rapidly materialized – spearheaded by the USPHS.

    Ewing didn’t take long to choose Edward Bernays, nephew of Sigmund Freud, as his PR man for the campaign.

    Using classical Freudian principles, Bernays maintained that a well-oiled propaganda machine could make the public believe practically anything, even the exact opposite of what had been already proven by all existing scientific research.

    This is exactly what Ewing needed in the case of fluoridation.

    ‘An Unapproved Drug’

    Over the following years, three important events took place:

    ” The American Dental Association received over $50 million in federal funds to adopt fluoridation.

    ” Procter & Gamble (PG) released fluoride in its Crest Toothpaste, claiming it was “an important milestone in medicine” without any evidence to support their claims. It was a marketing ploy that eventually brought in billions of dollars.

    ” The World Health Organization established an Expert Committee in Geneva to study fluoridation. At least five out of seven committee members had promoted fluoridation in their own countries for personal profit.

    ‘Like being against motherhood or apple pie’

    With both corporate America and the government pushing fluoridation, opposition to fluoride soon became taboo … it was like being against motherhood or apple pie.

    Fast-forward to today, and most people are completely in the dark about this poison running rampant in our water supply.

    So what exactly are the dangers?

    Still to this day, fluoride used for water fluoridation does not have FDA approval and is considered by the FDA as an “unapproved drug.”

    Adverse effects from fluoride ingestion include:

    ” Chemicals used in fluoridation are byproducts of manufactured aluminum and fertilizer and contain a high concentration of toxins and heavy metals such as arsenic, lead and chromium. All of these toxins are proven to cause cancer.

    ” According to the National Research Council (NRC), fluoride can damage the brain. Studies by the EPA show fluoridated water to cause dementia-like effects and lowering of the IQ.

    ” Fluoride damages sperm and increases the rate of infertility (N.J. Chinoy and M.V. Narayana, 1994)

    ” Fluoride negatively affects thyroid function. In the Ukraine, P.P. Bachinskii found a lowering of thyroid function, among otherwise healthy people. Symptoms of hypothyroidism include depression, fatigue, weight gain, muscle and joint pains, increased cholesterol levels, and heart disease.

    ” Fluoride causes symptoms of arthritis. Skeletal fluorosis (a fluoride-induced bone and joint disease) mimic the symptoms of arthritis.

    ” Fluoride damages bone. An early fluoridation trial (Newburgh-Kingston 1945-’55) revealed a twofold increase in bone defects among children in the fluoridated community. Hundreds of studies are shown with direct correlations between fluoride use and osteoporosis.

    ” Austrian researchers proved in the 1970s that as little as 1 part fluoride per million parts water (ppm) concentration could disrupt DNA repair enzymes by 50%. When DNA can’t repair damaged cells, we get old faster!

    And you know what’s the real kicker … fluoride doesn’t even prevent tooth decay and may in fact make it even worse!

    But hey, whatever it takes to keep you coming back to the dentist.

  10. joose says:

    Tell that slott faggot to get his polluted faggotry the fuck out of this planet. Silly old cunt.

  11. Tony Cook says:

    “yQDZrGRqWunqpVYxSteveS – Australia June 20th 2015
    Obviously your “study of the effects of fluoridation on human health” has been limited to perusal of filtered and edited “information” posted on antifluoridationist websites and blogs. 
    If you care to differ with this assessment then provide valid, peer-reviewed scientific evidence of any of the “risks” you purport there to be from optimal level fluoride. 
    Steven D. Slott, DDS”

    Here’s one Steven –
    Nucl Med Commun. 2012 Jan;33(1):14-20. doi: 10.1097/MNM.0b013e32834c187e.
    Association of vascular fluoride uptake with vascular calcification and coronary artery disease.
    Li Y1, Berenji GR, Shaba WF, Tafti B, Yevdayev E, Dadparvar S.
    sodium [¹⁸F]fluoride PET/CT might be useful in the evaluation of the atherosclerotic process in major arteries, including coronary arteries. An increased fluoride uptake in coronary arteries may be associated with an increased cardiovascular risk.


  12. Debbie says:

    Dear Dr Slott or whatever you are. From all of us over in Australia who are sick of you sticking your nose in our local papers comments with your lies, go fuck yourself.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s