You can think of this as a cult deprogramming tool.

Works for both proponents and opponents of fluoridation!

Writers: click here if you are a believer.

Picture editors try this.



The early evolution of Fluorothink in the UK.



Translating Fluorothink back to Reality is mainly a matter of replacing the word "water" with "people" or something like that...

 Did you notice a slight nausea as the deprogramming begins to work?  It's quite normal, as reality starts to return. Don't worry.

Hang on to your hat for the next lesson...




 Grab these quick and easy Fluorothink Stamps (click here)





"Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.” - Benjamin Lee Whorf




Legally unenforceable claims earning the Weasel Words stamp...





Legal decisions based on Fluorothink can be safely ignored...they haven't got it yet.




Be sure not to miss any sneak reinforcements





Dealing with bossy attitudes and the questions your fluoridators think you should ask... 



You are now free. As far as the language part of this goes, anyway. 

Your freedom means you don't have to help anyone reinforce an association between fluoride and water or donate free propaganda by mindlessly repeating the bad idea that water is the target for added fluorides - even if this still sounds strange at the moment to people stuck inside the Fluorothink bubble. 

Persevere, give your fellow cult members a hand, and you will win great rewards...like being able to look people in the face, and at your own in the mirror.



Congratulations! By discovering that water has no teeth, and learning that you are not a tap, you will no longer be able to emit Fluorothink without rejoining the cult. You are no longer able to disguise the true nature of fluoridation, deny or diminish your role, or hide its victims behind a technical and inert object, H2O.

Click for more articles edited for Fluorothink 


Thanks for skipping through this far. An example of non-Fluorothinkian language in action is this Freedom of Information Request to Yorkshire Water, sent 8th August 2018.


Dear Yorkshire Water

Legal Status of Non-Fluoridating Companies Billing Consumers With Elevated Fluoride Contents Due To Network Design. A Freedom of Information/Environmental Information Regulations Request.


In 2009 it was revealed that, due to admixture of supplies arising from the layout of the water network, some people in Sheffield were being fluoridated. It appears they are billed by Yorkshire Water which has never added fluoride to its customers.


My first FOI/EIR question. Ideally by means of a map, and at least by postcode, and expressed as a percentage of all addresses billed by Yorkshire Water, can you illustrate all areas where, during 2017, customers of yours could have potentially experienced elevated industrially-sourced fluoride in themselves due to demands for fluoridation made upon adjacent water companies?


With it variously described as a "fraud" and a "hoax", nobody up to and including Public Health England and the American Medical Association will legally guarantee the safety of fluoridating people, even if everything functions according to plan.

Meanwhile many who are into the issue would attest to a pattern of deceit on the pro-fluoridation side, formed from slit-vision, selected interestedness, psychological manipulation by and of the media, industrial octopus, secret lobbying, weasel words, ontological error, low credibility, unscientific theories, ad hominem attacks, fallacies including petitio principii, onus probandi, circular cause and consequence, ignoratio elenchi, argumentorum ad nauseam/verecundiam/antiquitatem/populam, overwhelming exception, and thought-terminating cliché...along with drastic oversimplification and reckless abandonment by the perpetrators to a degree which has become an insult to anyone of average intelligence.

Intelligence being a rigid parameter, growing evidence suggests this would by comparison include some below average intelligence unfluoridated people as well.


To take a single possible example of many, a customer might read that Mexican children in a high urinary F-As group were less able to copy a complex figure than children in DDT-PCB and Pb-As groups, and that the fluoridation reagent H2SiF6 was by far the greatest contributor to arsenic in the finished water in New Haven, Connecticut.

He might compare these detailed and carefully controlled scientific researches to some flim-flam PR material from PHE saying that nobody's ever found anything wrong with fluoride, at a concentration that could result in a wide range of doses - which is a concentration now 42% higher than the supposedly safe concentration in America, and which has remained the same even as the average weather has become hotter, and the average person thirstier.

He might observe how little this affects the 1ppm gang, supported by paid flacks in the US, who just attack anyone they cannot steamroller, buy, or sneak around. Like a cult.

Your customer might conclude that anyone seriously advocating this was already some kind of idiot. The flim-flammers would not raise the issue of contaminants but when pushed, of course, it would say somewhere that it's all under control.

Looking at this in the round, our customer might reasonably conclude that his interests were not best served by being fluoridated, which sentiment he would likely extend to his family, likely resulting in much trouble, inconvenience and expense for that household if they tried, as best as could be managed, to avoid it.

He might even decide the deceit of "water fluoridation" extends to the language used to describe it - that even its name is fraudulent and misleading. From there it would be a short step to the realisation that he is up against the very best kind of propaganda - because even the people issuing it have not seen through the trick.

Yet, he might want his kid to be able to copy a picture and get it halfway right. For reasons like these your customer might reasonably conclude that the fluoride PR people have been negligent in their investigations, and are merely Potemkin experts relying on people's faith in an authority they cannot possibly possess, and that his or her supply of potable water had been interrupted. Or at least requires further treatment, e.g. distillation.

Finding that their sole point of financial contact on the issue was with their water company, that family might seek restitution and damages in law. I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that Yorkshire Water would be on a rather sticky wicket if someone on its side of the crossover area went to law, as people have the right to be frightened given reasonable cause - even if they are wrong to be. Not to mention that their interests are supposed to be represented by their local authority, in a less popular part of the flim-flammers' job, rather eclipsed by the Nuremberg Code and its descendants.

As the fluoride prophets crusade on, skeptics may note how the only reason this legal leakage is being announced in the Yorkshire Post is because it presents a useful fait accompli which can be used as a psychological cosh. They know that people will be more resigned to having fluoride put in them if they think it already is.

This is cognitive psychology 101. They expect opposition and they want to wear it down. The Yorkshire Post's patently phoney "exclusive" is the very rude salesman's foot in the door. It's Willy Loman. More like a bailiff really. 

As payee you would be 100% responsible in law, but rightly affronted if unable to sue your puppet neighbour in turn, whose indemnities might not extend to such largesse. And onwards and upwards the legal bills - all paid on the pro-fluoride side - would go.

After wising up to the flim-flam, any average person can work out that water doesn't have any teeth, and see proof which supposedly "doesn't exist" from reputable sources.




This was my feeling when I lived in the Anglian Water region and this was subsequently expressed in a County Court case in which AW midway abandoned its claim for payment up to the enactment date of the so-called Water Fluoridation Act. www.nfl.si/new_doctors

Being very grateful for your time and attention on this, and having now sketched out the background and one example tort, here are my second and third FOI/EIR questions.

Is Yorkshire Water prepared to legally guarantee the safety of adding these chemicals to the population in the network crossover areas?

Is Yorkshire Water indemnified against claims for a) harm, b) interruption of supply - attributable to the intended fluoridation of people situated within its commercial territory?

The results will be posted at www.nfl.si/foi100001

One really dumb outcome of this enquiry would be if Yorkshire Water decided they wanted to fluoridate everyone just so they could get the legal indemnity against the people they haven't fluoridated, but have charged, up until now. Congratulations meanwhile to Yorkshire Water on not being ordered to fluoridate anyone so far, and thank you.

Julian Bohan







6 Sept 2018

Yorkshire Water does not fluoridate any of its supplies on behalf of any local authorities. Any fluoride that is present in Yorkshire Water’s supplies is naturally occurring. Fluoride is naturally present at low levels in most drinking water in England and Wales. Levels are all within the prescribed concentration of 1.5 mg/l as set out in the Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2016. 1.5 mg/l is also the World Health Organisation Guideline Value. 

The Yorkshire Post article cited refers to customers who do not receive drinking water supplies from Yorkshire Water who live within the south of the Yorkshire Region / North Derbyshire. Yorkshire Water bill a number of customers in this area for wastewater services provided by us. In response to your first question, I attach a map showing this area. 

The Severn Trent Water and Yorkshire Water mains systems are hydraulically separate. Severn Trent do fluoridate some of their supplies and on their website they provide a map showing those areas where they have fluoridation agreements in place. 


In April 2013, the Water Act meant that the Secretary of State for Health became responsible for all existing fluoridation schemes. At that time, local authorities became responsible for proposing and undertaking consultation on new schemes or changing existing fluoridation schemes. If local authorities carry out proper public consultation and can prove the public supports such a move, they can ask Public Health England to ask their local water company to fluoridate. 

Like other water companies in England and Wales, we are bound by the Water Act 2013. Should any Local Authority with our region carry out proper public consultation and demonstrate support for such measures, they can ask Public Health England to instruct Yorkshire Water to fluoridate. 

As Yorkshire Water do not fluoridate any of its supplies we are not affected by issues cited in your second and third questions.



next bit...