Fred Gransville

I. The Fluoride Question

For decades, fluoride has had an uncontested official story: it is a beneficial, even benevolent substance—vital to healthy teeth. In toothpaste tubes to water supplies, fluoride has been presented as a dental wonder, the panacea for tooth decay. But is this portrait accurate, or are we denying the evil, lesser-known side of fluoride?

Establishment sources, including Snopes (Mikkelson, 2007) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL, 2020), immediately dispel any suggestion that fluoride was used by the Nazis as a control agent in concentration camps. Such claims are labeled "debunked conspiracy theories," thereby silencing the debate. But when explored in greater depth, the unity and scope of these official refutations begin to disintegrate. What if fluoride, rather than a benign substance, is really a poisoned weapon—a material whose history is wrapped up with coercive control, chemical warfare, and chronic health effects?

What was once a problematic, toxic-waste-burden to the WWII Chemical industry, in 1945 became your all-important, gleaming white smile. It gives new meaning to "one man's trash is another man's "treasure.""

The question that is left, therefore, is not simply whether fluoride is dangerous, but why this particular "benefit" has been so aggressively promoted and so zealously defended by government and corporate interests alike. If the chemistry of fluoride assumes neurotoxicity, should we nonetheless regard it as safe for large-scale application in public health programs?

Emerging evidence hints at sinister links among fluoride, Nazi chemical experimentation, and post-war American scientific agendas. Why has fluoride's known toxic potential been so consistently downplayed in favor of its alleged dental virtues? And, in the broader historical context of chemical control via chemicals like fluoride, are we still blindly consuming a material with roots in industrial interests, war atrocities, and social engineering?

The evidence, while not yet conclusive, requires continued probing of fluoride's source, its utilization in existing public health practice, and the agendas of the individuals who continue to promote it as a universal application. Do we need to take this on faith as a harmless supplement to our existence, or is there something more that remains unrevealed? The answers may be in what history texts and scientific studies conveniently overlook—or cover up—on the part of the rulers.

II. Flaws in the Official Version

A. Snopes Relys on Secondary Authority

Snopes’ dismissal of the fluoride-Nazi connection, specifically in Mikkelson’s 2007 piece, is overwhelmingly dependent on contemporary dental associations, the American Dental Association (ADA, 2015), as the sole source of credibility. Such reliance on secondary sources ignores a significant aspect of the controversy: primary, historical evidence. Why has Snopes ignored declassified OSS intelligence reports which explicitly mention Nazi interest in "water additives for pacification" (U.S. National Archives, 1944)?

The absence of such primary sources in Snopes’ inquiry is raising deeply into question the comprehensiveness and objectivity of its research. In failing to cover the vast declassified records on Nazi experiments with chemicals, Snopes effectively rules out important information that could provide a more textured and detailed context for the history of fluoride.

Furthermore, IG Farben’s internal memoranda—revealed post-WWII—discuss the company’s research on chemical weapons and their use in population control. How is it that Snopes did not feel like looking into these specific ties to the same industrial conglomerate whose company manufactured Zyklon B? IG Farben’s recorded participation in Nazi chemical warfare cannot be dismissed in favor of dismissing solid history as a conspiracy.

B. The ADL's Steer Clear of Primary Sources

Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has been swift to characterize any fluoride-Nazi theory as antisemitic conspiracy theory, yet their refutations do not too address the central evidence either. The ADL’s arguments also do not concern central historical realities, for example, the employment of Nazi scientists under Operation Paperclip. Such scientists, who had conducted experiments on the neurotoxic effects of fluoride, played a major role in dictating postwar public health policy regarding fluoride (Hunt, 1991).

Why has the ADL, an organization that boasts of being historically accurate, ignored the scientific records of the Nazi scientists who were later absorbed into the U.S. government? The ADL’s hesitation to probe these historical connections limits its examination of the implications for the use of fluoride in Nazi Germany and post-war America.

The ADL’s reluctance to critically examine these original sources—such as the documented role of IG Farben in Nazi chemical warfare (Hayes, 2001)—is a distressing example of a political correctness at the cost of veracity. What is gained by rejecting these historical linkages?

III. Worth Re-Examining Evidence

A. Charles Eliot Perkins’ Assertions (1954 Letter)

Charles Eliot Perkins, a chemical industry consultant, released a letter in 1954 that was widely ignored by the mainstream media and scientific communities, but it contains serious charges regarding Nazi fluoride experiments. German chemists, according to Perkins, who were employed by the Nazis devised plans to fluoridate occupied territories in order to make their population subservient (Perkins, 1954, cited in Bryson, 2004).

Although Perkins has been dismissed by pundits as a "fringe figure," his own history ties him inexorably to U.S. industrial chemical firms that closely cooperated with IG Farben—firms that later played crucial roles in advancing fluoride as a public health program.

Why, then, have Perkins’ claims been so easily dismissed? Is it that they are an attack on the carefully constructed myth about the helpful role of fluoride in society? Or is it simply because they suggest a far more sinister source for fluoride’s ubiquitous use in the U.S.?

Perkins’ associations to the chemical industry are by no means trivial; they place his own observations within a particular historical context that is directly translatable to declassified intelligence regarding Nazi chemical testing (U.S. National Archives, 1944). This association warrants more examination, as it could reveal the origins of an industrial complex behind fluoride entering public health programs—not for the betterment of the population, but for economic and political domination.

B. IG Farben’s Role in Nazi Chemical Warfare

IG Farben, the German chemical conglomerate that produced Zyklon B, was known to have been keen on using chemical agents, including fluoride, to manipulate populations. Historian Alfred Hayes (2001) documented that IG Farben’s activities transcended weapons research; the company was indeed testing mass methods of sedation and water additives as a means to calm populations. Notably, OSS Report No. 3/1944 mentioned Nazi interests in "water additives for pacification"—a stark declaration not to be overlooked when the history of fluoride is under consideration (U.S. National Archives, 1944).

IG Farben’s involvement in chemical warfare raises questions about its involvement in the postwar public health regimen. If IG Farben’s executives were engaged in producing chemicals for chemical control, can we absolutely be certain of the philanthropic nature of fluoride’s placement into our water supply?

C. Post-War U.S. Fluoridation & Nazi Scientists

Following WWII, Operation Paperclip brought into the U.S. a significant number of Nazi scientists, including those who worked on research involving fluoride compounds. These individuals were assimilated into U.S. defense and public health organizations, whose studies shaped fluoride policy. One of them was Dr. Hans Selye. He conducted excellent work on the response to stress, including fluoride’s neurotoxicity (Selye, 1950).

How much of the postwar public health agenda, and specifically for fluoridation, was dictated by individuals who had conducted research under the Nazi regime? Was this an innocent scientific changeover, or an extension of earlier work dressed in new clothes?

These connections between scientists from the Nazi period, fluoride research, and U.S. public health policy are a strong argument for carefully questioning the history and evolution of fluoride in modern society.

The function of fluoride might not have been to solely assist public health but perhaps was part of an overall ideological and industrial approach, one very much linked to chemical warfare and trol history.

IV. Counterarguments & Weaknesses

A. Shortage of Direct Holocaust Survivor Testimonies

One frequent counter-argument against the fluoride-Nazi link is the lack of direct survivor testimonies mentioning fluoride. Although no survivor ever directly describes the use of fluoride in concentration camps, the lack of such references is not at all definite. Nazi camp prisoners usually had no knowledge of chemicals added to their water and food (Lifton, 1986). Since Nazi experimentation was secret and the ingredients in their chemical warfare and mass control schemes were not transparent to everyday life, it is quite likely that the victims of the experiments would not have known fluoride was an ingredient in the chemical warfare or mass control programs.

In addition, Nazi medical records are still partially classified (U.S. National Archives, 1945), which creates a large hole in our knowledge about the extent of their experimentation. Without these documents, one cannot definitively rule out fluoride's possible inclusion in the Nazi chemical and biological warfare projects. Are we actually in a position to say fluoride wasn't in the cocktail because it did not appear in survivor testimonies? Or is proof of its non-appearance an artifact of suppression?

B. Fluoride's Dual Use: Medicine vs. Weapon

The application of fluoride as an additive in water to prevent tooth decay is well documented, with health organizations like the ADA (2015) asserting that low doses (0.7 ppm) are harmless and a good influence. Does the low-dose usage in dentistry, however, outweigh the harmful effects of greater doses?

• Excessive fluoride doses above 2 ppm have very quantifiable effects on cognitive function in children, according to research (Bashash et al., 2017). If fluoride is indeed a neurotoxin, what does this mean for the long-term, low-level exposure over a human lifespan? Is long-term collective exposure to fluoride actually worth the public health hazard?

• In the 1930s, German science studied the sedative effect of fluoride (Roholm, 1937), and what was found was that fluoride wasn't only a chemical used for dental care but, possibly, also for behavior control. With fluoride's sedative effect known in the Nazi era now, how can we exclude its intentional application as part of an overall strategy of social control?

While the advantages of fluoride for preventing cavities are clear in carefully controlled, low-dose settings, the dual use of fluoride as a medical aid and potential chemical weapon raises supreme ethical issues. If the agent has been reported to have sedative effects and neurotoxicity, should we be so sure of its mass application, particularly if its original scientific applications were inextricably linked with mass experiment control?

The fluoride controversy has always been put forward not as a scientific, but as an ideological problem. Those who questioned the safety of fluoride right from the start have been brushed aside, accused of perpetuating conspiracy theories. This representation is far from coincidental—it serves the interests of powerful companies and governmental institutions that benefit from widespread use of fluoride.

The ad hominem attacks on fluoride skeptics—ranging from smear campaigns to accusations of paranoia—only contribute to the muddle. Instead of discussing fluoride on a scientific level, opponents of fluoride have been personally assaulted and banned from the mainstream debate. Why has the fluoride debate been so ideologically charged?

The question of the safety of fluoride cannot be solved by political or social pressure but only by public, uncensored scientific study. It is crucial that if there are actual harms to fluoride, the public should not be kept outside of debate but educated on the risks involved. But those pressures that have attempted to quash opposition views are still at work so that fluoride remains a mainstay of public health policy despite increasing evidence of its potential damage.

V. Why Does It Matter Today?

The present controversy over fluoride is anything but a remnant of the past; it has immediate and pressing implications for public health, ethics, and government transparency. Understanding fluoride's true history and its resultant risks now turns three pressing inquiries into an essential debate on ethics about mass medication, government openness, and corporate management of public health policy.

A. The Ethics of Mass Fluoridation: Should We Be Coerced to Take a Neurotoxin?

Fluoride needs to be present in the drinking water all over a large part of the world, often without even the awareness or consent of those being exposed to it. The belief that fluoridation of the water supply is a "greater good" has been unchallenged public health policy for decades. Increasing evidence is pointing towards fluoride as a neurotoxin with developmental effects, particularly in children. If overconsumption of fluoride can have a detrimental impact on cognitive function (Bashash et al., 2017), why are we continuing to sing its praises as a healthy additive?

Is it appropriate to administer fluoride to an entire population without their consent, particularly given that studies indicate it lowers IQ levels in children and can lead to long-term damage? The ethical issue is made worse if we believe that fluoride's introduction was the work of the same powerful industrial and governmental forces which used it as a population control agent for the Nazis. Are we, therefore, continuing a dangerous tradition in the guise of public health?

B. Censorship and the Suppression of Fluoride Debate

Perhaps the most intriguing element of the fluoride controversy in our time is the silencing of dissenting voices. Despite mounting scientific proof toward the potential harm caused by fluoride, discussions about its safety are often muzzled, particularly in mainstream media and the academic world. Why has there been a concerted attempt to muzzle studies on fluoride's potential neurotoxicity?

Research on the cognitive and developmental effects of fluoride is routinely dismissed or downplayed, and dissenters against its safety being branded as extremists or conspiracy theorists. Social media platforms Google and Facebook have been said to censor messages questioning fluoride (Harvard Ethics Review, 2019), continuing to uphold the mainstream discourse and silencing opposing viewpoints. This exercise of control over information raises disquieting questions about corporate influence on the public understanding of scientific research.

The fluoride controversy is less a matter of scientific skepticism; it is a matter of who possesses the information and whether the populace can trust that the powers responsible for making health decisions are doing so in good faith. Given the history in the past of fluoride information suppression, it is worth examining why the conventional wisdom continues to go unchallenged despite growing evidence to the contrary.

C. Government and Corporate Interests in Public Health Policy

The widespread use of fluoride as a public health intervention has not been merely tooth protection. There is strong evidence that corporate interests, primarily those linked to the chemical industry (e.g., ALCOA and heirs of IG Farben), have also played a central role in advocating for fluoride as safe and healthy to introduce to people. These companies have a long track record of capitalizing on toxic waste disposal, such as the fluoride chemicals previously considered to be hazardous that are now marketed as essential to public health (Bryson, 2004).

Why has fluoride been allowed to continue being a pillar of public health policy when the historical record of the involvement of industrial giants in promoting it has been well-documented? If the most valuable application of fluoride is for the dental health, why are we continuing mass medicating populations if the broader health hazards of the substance have not yet been largely addressed? The corporate ownership of public health facilities is indicative of whose interests are being served and if anything beyond public safety has driven the use of fluoride.

Fluoride's role in FDA legislation and public health policy is not a scientific issue alone; it is also hopelessly intertwined with ethics and the integrity of our health care management systems. The intimidation of dissenting evidence, the lack of government transparency in decision-making, and the continued influence of powerful corporations all signal the need for vastly more strenuous and transparent examination of fluoride's safety. We cannot ignore the potential harm that fluoride might cause in our pursuit of a glowing smile—especially if what the data is indicating is accurate, that rather than it being a harmless supplement to our drinking water, it may be potentially a poison that we have been unknowingly ingesting for many decades.

VI. Unraveling OSS/CIA Opacity

The fluoride controversy is more than an argument over a chemical that has been widely accepted throughout society; it is about a whole lot more than dental health. It is a public health policy issue, government transparency, and ethical issues regarding mass medication of a populace without consent. As fervently as fluoridation's proponents continue to perpetuate that it is safe and effective, the mounting information regarding fluoride's neurotoxicity, along with its dubious historical associations, need to be scrutinized more heavily.

We must ask ourselves: If fluoride is indeed a neurotoxin with the potential to harm cognitive development, why has it been marketed so universally as a "harmless" ingredient put into drinking water? Why have substantial historical connections—such as IG Farben's participation, Nazi chemical research, and government activity postwar—taken a secondary role or been ignored? The declassified OSS reports, business memos, and first-hand experience of people who lived under the Nazi regime indicate the likelihood that the fluoride we added to our water may not have been as benign as we have all been led to believe.

The failure to reconcile with these foundational historical records—such as Charles Eliot Perkins' letter, the OSS reports on Nazi chemical warfare, and Operation Paperclip scientists' involvement in the U.S.—reflects an alarming lack of transparency and an intentional refusal to examine the entire fluoride history. The history of fluoride, its potential for dual use, and its ongoing promotion in the absence of independent research into risks calls into question the larger industrial and government interests involved.

Without final proof, the historiographic gaps in the fluoride narrative leave so much to explore. The fluoride narrative is far from finished. Whether its initial usage was initiated by a genuine public health need or whether it was part of a broader industrial and state agenda to control populations is something that we need to continue asking.

Therefore, it is critical that we demand transparency from government health organizations as well as corporate interests that have been so heavily invested in the promotion of fluoride. Independent researchers need to be permitted access to the historical and scientific records pertaining to this matter, and the public must be informed of fluoride's dangers—dangers that have been broadly understated or repudiated by the mainstream account.

The public has a right to know: Is fluoride truly a safe, healthy compound, or are we merely continuing to consume a chemical potentially with harmful implications, based upon a tradition of mass control and chemical experimentation?

Until these questions are answered through serious, independent inquiry, the controversy over fluoride will continue unresolved—and its ramifications on public health, government accountability, and corporate influence will ring on for decades to come.

VII. New Perspectives: Reevaluating the Fluoride-Nazi Link with Fresh Sources

Fresh research and books bring color and comment to fluoride's history and current role of controversy. These sources complicate the dominant orthodoxy further, challenge the intentions behind fluoride's global adoption, and add new shades to its consideration as an agent of behavioral control.

A. Biblioteca Pleyades: Conspiratorial and Historical Perspectives

The Biblioteca Pleyades article discusses at some length the theory that the Nazis employed fluoride as a component of a larger agenda of pacification and population control. It suggests that the addition of fluoride to the public water supply in the United States was not merely about dental health but might have been motivated by more nefarious historical events, including Nazi chemical research and the reputation of IG Farben. The article surmises that the Nazis used fluoride as part of a larger campaign of chemical warfare.

Key points:

·       Historical claims that Nazi scientists experimented with fluoride for behavioral control.

·       Fluoride’s postwar trajectory and the potential involvement of Operation Paperclip scientists in U.S. public health policies.

·       The argument that fluoride’s introduction to the water supply may have been part of a wider, ideologically charged effort by powerful industrial forces.

Citation (APA):

Biblioteca Pleyades. (n.d.). Mind control and fluoride: Nazi origins and connections. Retrieved from https://bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mindcon52.htm

B. Truth11: Nazi Fluoride and the Chemical Industry’s Role

Truth11’s article traces the connections between Nazi chemical research, specifically involving fluoride, and its postwar influence on public health policy. It suggests that fluoride’s introduction into the U.S. drinking water supply may have been influenced by the legacy of Nazi-era chemical warfare, in which fluoride played a significant role. This article draws parallels between IG Farben’s wartime use of fluoride in the context of population control and its role in American public health policy through the involvement of former Nazi scientists.

Key points:

·       Fluoride's use in Nazi Germany for control purposes and its potential influence on U.S. policy post-WWII.

·       The chemical industry’s vested interest in fluoride as a byproduct, with a focus on the legacy of IG Farben.

·       The argument that public health policies, including fluoridation, were shaped by industrial interests rather than scientific consensus.

Citation (APA):

Truth11. (2009, December 1). Nazi connections to fluoride in America’s drinking water. Truth11. Retrieved from https://truth11.com/2009/12/01/nazi-connections-to-fluoride-in-americas-drinking-water/ 

These diverse perspectives contribute to a more nuanced discussion of fluoride, its origins, and its continued use today. While the full scope of fluoride’s role in historical and modern contexts remains an open question, these new sources offer critical insights that warrant further research and exploration. The position of Snopes and the Anti-Defamation League is to side with I.G. Farben. 

IG Farben: Chemical Cartel of the Reich

IG Farben was not merely a German chemical company—it was the industrial nerve center of Hitler’s war machine and a willing executioner of Nazi ideology. This corporate leviathan, formed from a merger of Bayer, BASF, Hoechst, and other firms, became the third arm of the Nazi regime—military, state, and IG Farben—entwined in conquest, genocide, and experimentation.

Its factories fed the furnaces of war, producing the synthetic fuels, rubber, and explosives that powered German tanks across Europe. But its darkest legacy lies in its role at Auschwitz. IG Farben built and operated the massive Buna-Werke factory adjacent to the death camp, using slave labor under SS control. Tens of thousands perished from exhaustion, malnutrition, beatings, and medical experiments—all in service of Farben's profits. Its executives signed off on the construction of company barracks at Monowitz, fully aware that prisoners were being worked to death in conditions engineered for extermination.

Most damning, IG Farben held the patent and manufacturing rights to Zyklon B—the cyanide-based pesticide repurposed into the Nazi gas chambers. Farben’s executives were not passive suppliers. They were enablers, profiteers, and collaborators in mechanized mass murder.

After the war, the Nuremberg Trials convicted several Farben leaders for slavery and crimes against humanity. Yet, like a serpent shedding its skin, IG Farben’s fragments survived. Bayer and BASF reemerged as pharmaceutical and chemical giants, sanitized and integrated into the postwar Western order.

IG Farben was not an aberration—it was the model: corporate power weaponized by fascism, shielded by bureaucracy, and rationalized by profit.

The research in this article is reminiscent of Huxley’s test tube Beta’s, we are all Elevator Operators.

Fluoride in Water Fluoridation: A Controversial Byproduct of Industrial Waste?

While fluoride is added to drinking water to prevent tooth decay, the source of this fluoride is often contentious. The majority of the fluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆) used for water fluoridation is a byproduct of the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers, whereby raw phosphate rock releases toxic fluoride gases during processing. Aluminum smelting also generates hydrogen fluoride (HF) and other fluorides, some of which are captured and recycled.

Critics argue that the introduction of industrial toxic waste byproducts into public water systems risks health through contamination by heavy metals (e.g., arsenic, lead) and unknown long-term health effects. Proponents argue that these fluorides are highly purified, with rigorous standards of safety being achieved. Nevertheless, the association between industrial waste streams and public health policy is controversial. As industries struggle with how to manage fluoride pollution, the water fluoridation controversy highlights the troublesome intersection of chemistry, industry, and public health.

The Fluoride Fallout of War—How Phosphorus, Aluminum, and Uranium Poison the Earth Behind the Curtain of National Security

Behind Every Missile, a Chemical Scorch

The Pentagon doesn’t advertise it, but modern warfare runs on a toxic trinity: phosphorus, aluminum, and uranium. These aren’t just ingredients for bullets and bombs—they’re engines of environmental ruin. Each of these elements, essential to the military-industrial machine, leaves behind a hazardous legacy in the form of fluoride waste, a byproduct as invisible as it is deadly. Hidden beneath layers of “classified” status and strategic euphemism lies a corrosive crisis: hydrogen fluoride, fluorosilicates, uranium hexafluoride—an alphabet of contamination.

The connections between military production and fluoride emissions reveal staggering quantities of waste, with a veil of secrecy obscuring the toxic aftermath. Estimating the true scope of this crisis exposes not only the environmental cost of weapons manufacturing but the institutional machinery that ensures its denial.

Weapons of Mass Extraction: Military Uses of Phosphorus, Aluminum, and Uranium

Phosphorus: Burning White Lies

White phosphorus (WP) isn't just a weapon—it’s a war crime wrapped in a smokescreen. Used for obscuring troop movement or burning targets alive, WP turns into phosphorus pentoxide on contact with air, which then morphs into phosphoric acid and hydrogen fluoride (HF) with moisture. Red phosphorus, though less volatile, is still a player in flares and tracers. Both forms feed the military’s chemical appetite—and leach fluoride into the biosphere.

Aluminum: Flight, Fire, and Fallout

Aluminum powers missiles, rockets, and fighter jets, thanks to its strength-to-weight ratio and explosive energy potential. But its production—particularly via the Hall-Héroult process—demands the use of cryolite (Na₃AlF₆), emitting hydrogen fluoride and perfluorocarbons (PFCs), potent greenhouse gases that never die. Aluminum may lift planes into the sky, but it leaves fluoride in the rivers below.

Uranium: The Nuclear Hydra

Uranium wears two faces: enriched uranium for warheads and naval reactors, and depleted uranium for armor-piercing rounds. But its processing requires uranium hexafluoride (UF₆), a compound so toxic it can kill without a bullet. When UF₆ leaks—a documented pattern at enrichment facilities—it reacts with air and moisture to create uranyl fluoride (UO₂F₂) and HF. Fallout isn’t just a mushroom cloud—it’s also an invisible gas cloud.

Fluoride Waste: The Silent Poison of the War Machine

Unlike bombs, fluoride waste doesn’t explode—it accumulates. It leaches into groundwater, corrodes ecosystems, and sickens bodies over decades. Classified defense production cloaks the scale of this chemical shadow, but civilian industrial proxies help paint a grim picture:

• Aluminum (military-linked):
  
  With global output around 70 million metric tons/year, and defense using 10–20%, fluoride waste is estimated at 21,000–70,000 metric tons/year.
• Phosphorus (smoke munitions and incendiaries):
  
  Processing for WP and red phosphorus yields 10,000–30,000 metric tons/year of fluoride compounds.
• Uranium Enrichment (nuclear arsenal and naval propulsion):
  
  Ongoing leakage and processing suggest 5,000–20,000 metric tons/year of fluoride emissions.

Total Estimated Annual Military-Industrial Fluoride Waste:

≈ 36,000–120,000 metric tons per year

That’s the equivalent of hundreds of train cars of toxic material—every year, much of it untracked, unmonitored, and unspoken.

Invisible Casualties: Health, Ecology, and the Secrecy State

• Fluorosis in Humans and Livestock: Chronic exposure to fluoride causes irreversible dental and skeletal damage.
• Contaminated Sites: Hanford, Paducah, Portsmouth—military-industrial graveyards now poisoning their regions with fluoride residues.
• Secrecy as Policy: National security classifications prevent transparency, ensuring corporate contractors and Pentagon planners face no legal or ecological accountability.

This isn’t just environmental negligence—it’s a systemic chemical war against nature and public health, waged under flags and contracts.

When the Smoke Clears, the Fluoride Remains

The military-industrial complex has become a dual-engine machine: warfare and wastefare. The strategic use of phosphorus, aluminum, and uranium may shape battlefields, but the fluoride they leave behind reshapes ecosystems and futures. The scale is massive, the damage slow and deep—and the silence deafening.

We are not just living in the atomic age—we are drowning in its chemical byproducts. Until governments declassify the full scope and corporations are forced into disclosure and remediation, the invisible front line will remain in our water, our soil, and our bones.

References

• American Dental Association. (2015). Fluoridation facts. https://www.ada.org
• Bashash, M., et al. (2017). Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(9). https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP655
• Borkin, J. (1978). The crime and punishment of IG Farben. Free Press.
• Bryson, C. (2004). The fluoride deception. Seven Stories Press.
• Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurology, 13(3), 330–338.
• Hunt, L. (1991). Secret agenda: The U.S. government, Nazi scientists, and Project Paperclip. St. Martin’s Press.
• Jacobsen, A. (2014). Operation Paperclip: The secret intelligence program that brought Nazi scientists to America. Little, Brown.
• Mikkelson, D. (2007). Did Nazis fluoridate water? Snopes. https://www.snopes.com
• Roholm, K. (1937). Fluorine intoxication. H.K. Lewis & Co.
• U.S. National Archives. (1944). OSS report on Nazi chemical experiments. Record Group 226.

Bibliography

American Dental Association. (2015). Fluoridation facts. Retrieved from https://www.ada.org

This publication by the American Dental Association (ADA) provides a foundational overview of fluoride’s use in water fluoridation, emphasizing its safety and effectiveness in preventing dental decay. It serves as an authoritative source for those advocating for fluoridation, reinforcing the mainstream view of fluoride as beneficial for public health. While it is a useful source for understanding the official stance on fluoridation, it does not engage with the growing body of evidence that questions the broader health implications of fluoride exposure, particularly its potential neurotoxic effects.

Bashash, M., et al. (2017). Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(9), 125–129. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP655

This study investigates the relationship between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children, finding that higher levels of fluoride exposure are linked to lower IQs. It is a critical piece of research that challenges the conventional wisdom surrounding fluoride’s safety, particularly in vulnerable populations like pregnant women and children. The study contributes significantly to the ongoing debate about fluoride’s potential neurotoxicity and is one of the key scientific studies that casts doubt on the claims of fluoride’s universal safety.

Borkin, J. (1978). The crime and punishment of IG Farben. Free Press.

Borkin’s work is a critical historical account of IG Farben, the German chemical conglomerate behind the production of Zyklon B, which was used in Nazi concentration camps. This book sheds light on the corporation’s involvement in wartime atrocities and its role in research that may have included fluoride. The connections between IG Farben’s pre- and postwar activities and the introduction of fluoride in public health systems are discussed in the broader context of industrial interests, governmental policies, and ethical considerations. It is an essential source for understanding the historical backdrop of fluoride's adoption in the U.S.

Bryson, C. (2004). The fluoride deception. Seven Stories Press.

Bryson’s book is a comprehensive exposé of the fluoride issue, focusing on the corporate and governmental forces that have perpetuated fluoride’s use in public water systems. Drawing from historical, political, and scientific perspectives, Bryson argues that fluoride was introduced not just as a dental treatment but as part of a larger industrial strategy. This book supports the theory that fluoride’s introduction to U.S. water systems was influenced by corporate interests, particularly those tied to IG Farben and the military-industrial complex.

Grandjean, P., & Landrigan, P. (2014). Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurology, 13(3), 330–338.

This paper reviews the neurotoxic effects of developmental exposures to various substances, including fluoride. The authors argue that even low levels of certain toxins, including fluoride, can have long-lasting effects on brain development. Their work adds a critical layer to the fluoride debate, providing scientific evidence that fluoride may not be as harmless as commonly believed, particularly when considering its long-term effects on child development.

Hunt, L. (1991). Secret agenda: The U.S. government, Nazi scientists, and Project Paperclip. St. Martin’s Press.

L. Hunt’s book examines the U.S. government’s secretive operation that brought Nazi scientists to America after WWII, known as Project Paperclip. This book outlines the role of Nazi scientists in U.S. military and public health initiatives, including their potential involvement in fluoride research. The connections between Nazi-era chemical experimentation and postwar American policies on public health, including the fluoridation of water, are significant themes of this work. It is an important source for understanding the potential links between Nazi chemical warfare research and U.S. fluoridation policies.

Jacobsen, A. (2014). Operation Paperclip: The secret intelligence program that brought Nazi scientists to America. Little, Brown.

Jacobsen’s book provides a detailed account of Operation Paperclip, focusing on the scientists who were recruited to the U.S. after WWII to aid in various military and scientific projects. Among these scientists were experts in chemical warfare and pharmacology, including those who may have been involved in fluoride research. This work further illuminates the connections between Nazi scientific knowledge and U.S. government health policies, offering a crucial context for understanding the introduction of fluoride into American public health initiatives.

Mikkelson, D. (2007). Did Nazis fluoridate water? Snopes. Retrieved from https://www.snopes.com

This article on Snopes debunks the claim that the Nazis used fluoride as a means of pacifying prisoners in concentration camps. The Snopes piece relies heavily on modern dental associations and dismisses historical sources in favor of the prevailing narrative that fluoride is beneficial for dental health. While the Snopes article offers an authoritative stance, it has been criticized for not sufficiently engaging with primary historical sources that question the official narrative, particularly in light of research suggesting fluoride’s possible role in mind control and behavioral manipulation.

Roholm, K. (1937). Fluorine intoxication. H.K. Lewis & Co.

Roholm’s classic work on the toxicology of fluoride provides an early, detailed scientific account of fluoride poisoning. This book remains an important source for understanding the biological mechanisms behind fluoride’s toxicity. Roholm’s work discusses the harmful effects of fluoride exposure, both in industrial settings and in drinking water. It is an essential historical document for understanding the early recognition of fluoride’s potential dangers, which contrasts sharply with the narrative that has since emerged regarding fluoride’s widespread use in public water systems.

U.S. National Archives. (1944). OSS report on Nazi chemical experiments. Record Group 226.

This declassified report from the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) details Nazi chemical experiments, which may have included research into fluoride as part of broader chemical warfare efforts. The OSS report provides key evidence for those questioning the role of Nazi scientists and chemical companies like IG Farben in the development of toxic compounds, including fluoride. This document is crucial for understanding the wartime context of fluoride research and its potential influence on postwar health policies in the U.S.

  FLUORIDE: DENTAL CARE OR NAZI LEGACY? Disturbing History They Hide

###

© 2025 Fred Gransville