John D. MacArthur
Coronavirus is reported to be responsible for more than 680 million cases and 6.8 million deaths worldwide. Although with only 4.2% of the world’s population, the United States has the highest totals: more than 105 million cases (15.5% of cases worldwide) and more than 1.1 million deaths (16.8% of deaths worldwide).1
More people drink artificially fluoridated water here in the United States than in the rest of the world combined. As someone who has long been wary of consuming fluoride,2 I wondered if our fluoridated drinking water was a factor. Did states with more fluoridation have more Covid-19?
According to the most recent fluoridation statistics, 63.4% of US population receives artificially fluoridated water.3 Since January 21, 2020, the CDC has been tracking Covid-19 case and death rates.4
After one year, Covid-19 case rates (per 100,000 population) averaged 11.8% higher in the 27 states fluoridated above the national average, compared to the 23 states fluoridated below it. Death rates averaged 8.6% higher. (Fluoridation rates averaged 72% higher: 74% vs 43%.)
In the 10 most-fluoridated states, Covid-19 case rates averaged 66.8% higher than in the 10 least-fluoridated states. Death rates averaged 50% higher. (Fluoridation rates averaged 300% higher: 83% vs 27%.)
Two years later, Covid-19 rates continue to be higher in the more fluoridated states, especially death rates. Correlation is not causation, but it certainly calls for real investigation. Many well-qualified people have done so, including the Union of EPA Scientists who voted to oppose fluoridation:
“Among the first things that became apparent when we began looking at fluoride was that the source of most of the fluoride going into drinking water was a hazardous waste (as defined in the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act) product of the phosphate industry. In producing phosphate fertilizers an early step is to heat phosphate ore containing, among other contaminants, lots of silica and fluoride minerals, with sulfuric acid.
“This releases silicon tetrafluoride (SiF4) and hydrogen fluoride (HF), both gases which are eventually vacuum stripped from the process stream by water scrubbers, producing hydrofluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6, HFSA). Prior to regulations under the Clean Air and Clean Water Act the gases were vented to the atmosphere, and any liquid waste steams discharged to waterways.”5
After these environmental laws went into effect, these toxic fluoride gases had to be recovered from the chimney water scrubbers of fertilizer factories. This produced hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA), an extremely toxic waste product that must be properly disposed of – a very costly problem for the phosphate fertilizer industry.
“Money, Money, Money seems to be a major reason why there is so little interest in Congress or EPA in stopping the addition of HFSA to drinking water supplies,” EPA scientists said. “In 2011, for instance, the U.S. Geological Survey Reported that about 275,000 tons of HFSA was sold for water fluoridation. At $700/ton, a conservative estimate, that amounts to over $190,000,000 in pure profit. That, coupled with avoidance of disposal cost of about $1.50/gallon for hazardous liquid waste yields an economic advantage to industry approaching $300,000,000 per year.”
The Union pointed out that a 1983 letter from the Environmental Protection Agency “explains why EPA is happy to let the practice continue: ‘Water and air pollution are minimized and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride’ – to the enormous benefit of the phosphate fertilizer industry. EPA’s rationale for defending fluoridation that is implied in that phrase is, ‘The solution to pollution is dilution, as long as the dilution occurs in drinking water systems and not in rivers or other waterways….’”
“Over 95 percent of the HFSA paid for by taxpayers… goes down shower drains, flushes toilets, washes clothes and dishes, waters lawns and puts out fires, then it goes into ambient waterways. In this way EPA and the phosphate industry turn a hazardous waste, whose disposal would cost the phosphate industry many millions of dollars, into a pure profit item for industry worth many more millions of dollars.”5
In today’s dollars, that’s a pure profit of more than $1,000,000 per day. No doubt, this has for decades allowed the fluoridation lobby to “convince” legislators and journalists, publishers and researchers, health agencies and water districts to not challenge fluoridation.
Artificially Fluoridated Water and Covid-19
The difference between the industrial hydrofluorosilicic acid added to drinking water and the natural fluoride compounds found in water is “chemically and biologically vast”:
“The degree of absorption of any fluoride compound after ingestion is correlated with its solubility… Natural calcium fluoride with low solubility and toxicity from ingestion is distinct from fully soluble toxic industrial fluorides [that] are completely absorbed… The fluoride that is absorbed into the bloodstream arises chiefly from public water supplies.”6 – Richard Sauerheber, PhD, Dept. of Chemistry, UCSD
“The solubility of fluoride correlates generally with the degree of toxicity.”7 – The Merck Manual (2013)
As the medical directors of Environmental Medicine Education Intl. reported in the November 2021 Townsend Letter:
“Despite a significant relationship between toxins and immune function, there’s been “an absolute blackout of information about how environmental stressors negatively impact immunity… Toxins dysregulate the immune system making it less capable of vigilant responses against invaders and more likely to respond inappropriately to a toxic exposure or a viral challenge… The contributions of toxicants to the current viral pandemic cannot be overlooked.”8
The authors of a comprehensive 2020 review of the “mechanisms of fluoride toxicity” concluded:
“Fluoride toxicity is a slow, hidden process. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride… Of all sources of fluoride, artificially fluoridated water is the most available practical source to eliminate fluoride intake to reduce its human hazards. Our review explains that fluoride could evoke unexpected epidemics in the future.”9
1945: Artificial fluoridation began in the United States based on fluoride in drinking water’s ecological association with decreased dental decay, despite a lack of science regarding causation.
2006: The US National Research Council concluded: “It is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain and the body by direct and indirect means… There is no question that fluoride can affect the cells involved in providing immune responses.”10
The US Food and Drug Administration, after reviewing the best evidence for the benefits of drinking fluoridated water, would only approve this health claim: “Drinking fluoridated water may reduce the risk of tooth decay.”11
2023: Artificial fluoridation must end. At a minimum, because “Drinking fluoridated water may increase the risk of Covid-19.”
First-year Covid-19 case rates averaged 66.8% higher and death rates 50% higher in the 10 most-fluoridated compared to the 10 least-fluoridated states.
Although ecological correlations are just the tip of the iceberg, my exploration of the Covid iceberg is being facilitated by EurekAlert!,12 the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s website that publishes daily news releases from universities, journal publishers, medical centers, and government agencies that describe and link to new Covid-related research in peer-reviewed journals.
During the last three years, in addition to fluoride’s well-established direct mechanisms of toxicity (inflammation and oxidative stress), many indirect mechanisms – including biomarkers, signaling pathways, morphological or functional alterations – have been identified for Covid-19.
Because fluoride is off the radar of professional researchers, it has not been mentioned in the EurekAlert! Covid reports. However, when a newly recognized pathological factor was reported, a search for that factor+fluoride in the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central led to considerable and significant evidence for fluoride’s role in Covid-19 infection, severity, and mortality.13
These “Fluoride Factors in Covid-19 and Underlying Conditions” will be published in subsequent Townsend e-Letters.
References
1. COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. Worldometer.
2. MacArthur JD. Increased lead exposure from silicofluorides in drinking water. The Human Brain. Franklin Institute Science Museum. Online from 2001 to 2014.
3. National Water Fluoridation Statistics. 2018. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Division of Oral Health. (Page last reviewed: September 8, 2020)
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. COVID Data Tracker. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; [January 21, 2020].
5. Fluoride. A History of the Environmental Protection Agency HQ Professionals’ Union.
6. Sauerheber R. Physiologic Conditions Affect Toxicity of Ingested Industrial Fluoride. J Environ Public Health. 2013;2013:439490.
7. Blakley B. Overview of Fluoride Poisoning (Fluorosis). Merck Manual. 2013.
8. Patrick L, Fine AM. Is This a Pandemic of Virology or Toxicology? Townsend Letter. November 2021.
9. Strunecka A, Strunecky O. Mechanisms of Fluoride Toxicity: From Enzymes to Underlying Integrative Networks. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(20):7100.
10. National Research Council. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Page 222: “Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects.” Page 295: “Effects on the Gastrointestinal, Renal, Hepatic, and Immune Systems.”
11. Health claim notification for fluoridated water and reduced risk of dental caries. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2006. “Content current as of: 03/07/2022.”
12. Latest News Releases. EurekAlert! COVID-19 Online Newsroom. American Association for the Advancement of Science.
13. PMC PubMed Central. U.S. National Institutes of Health
Published March 11, 2023
About the Author
Long interested in practical neuroscience, John D. MacArthur researched and wrote “The Human Brain” for the Franklin Institute Science Museum. His previous contributions to the Townsend Letter include seven reports: “Cell Phones and the Brain” (July 2002); “Too Much Copper, Too Little Zinc and Cognitive Deterioration in Alzheimer’s Disease” (with George J. Brewer, MD), and “Overdosed: Fluoride Copper and Alzheimer’s Disease” (October 2013); “Fluoride and Preterm Birth” (November 2013); “Placental Fluorosis: Fluoride and Preeclampsia” (May 2015); “Prenatal Fluoride and Autism” (April 2016); “Fluoride and Mental Decay: Causation & Correlation” (October 2019). Links to his other writings are at johndmacarthur.com.