Content starts here
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

“The evidence that fluoride is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming… fluoride may be destroying our bones, our teeth, and our overall health.” - Dr. Hardy Limeback,  former President of Canadian ADA, Head of Preventive Dentistry at Univ of Toronto, 2006 National Research Council Scientist (2007)


The 2006 National Research Council on Fluoride in Drinking Water commented to the EPA that fluoridation at 1 ppm can be anticipated to be harmful for those with reduced renal function and the elderly. The NRC confirmed that fluoride not excreted by kidneys builds up in bones, resulting in arthritic pain and increased brittleness. However, there were no EPA studies on the whole health impacts of fluoridated water on susceptible population such as kidney patients, children, those with prolonged disease or the elderly. There still aren’t. 


However, there is mounting science from other sources that “optimally fluoridated” water, which is known to cause varying degrees of dental fluorosis in 58% of Black American adolescents and 36% of White American adolescents, is causing subtle deficits in ability to remember or focus. That same “optimal level” has also been proved in a 2014 study as being nephrotoxic in rats with chronic kidney disease. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects approximately 15% of Americans, although CKD is quadruple the rate in Black Americans, and predictably worse in older Americans. 


Perhaps the most horrifying part of the story of fluoridation is that not only is at least 50% of every drop of fluoride that has passed the lips of a Baby Boomer permanently stored in bones, fluoride isn't the only poison in packages of fluoride that originate as the waste product of aluminum an phosphate industry. 100% of the fluoride sampled in a 2014 study was contaminated with aluminum; arsenic and lead were other common contaminants. In other words, fluoridated water serves as a delivery system for aluminum and lead into our bones and our brains. As we all know, aluminum is associated with Alzheimers in adults, and lead is associated with learning disabilities in children. Approximately 15% of the population who is sensitive to chemicals cite inability to think clearly and overwhelming fatigue as symptoms of exposure to fluoridated water. 


Our generation was part of a great human experiment. It may have had noble intentions based on the faulty hypothesis that  drinking fluoridated water prevented cavities. It is now known that any perceived benefits of fluoride are from tooth brushing.  Our grandchildren are the third generation in this travesty. I suggest we all DEMAND the AARP stand up for us and our grandchildren by issuing a strong position paper calling for the cessation of water fluoridation. 



  1. 2014 in Toxicology. Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. (“Optimal levels” worsen kidney function😞
  2. 2015  in Neurotoxicology and Teratology. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: A pilot study.  (Children with visible dental fluorosis perform less well on memory tasks, correlating with the degree of severity of their fluorosis. One of a series of human and animal studies with the same consistent findings.😞 

  3. 2014 in Physiology and Behavior. Fluoride exposure during development affects both cognition and emotion in mice. (Measurable behavioral changes😞

  4. 2014 in International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health. A new perspective on metals and other contaminants in fluoridation chemicals. (All samples of fluoride are contaminated with aluminum, plus other contaminants like arsenic, lead and barium); 

  5. 2014 in Scientific World Journal. Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention. (Health risks and cost don't justify minimal and questionable dental benefit.):



Here are three Oct 2014 news articles on the content of the Freedom of Information Act documents. Rev. Andrew Young, former UN ambassador has pursued them with the CDC, but to little effect. Civil Rights leaders have been calling for an end to community water fluoridation (CWF) since 2011. 



There is a legal initiative in Peel, Ontario (pop 1.3m) to remove fluoride from the water supply based on the principle of gross disproportionality, i.e. marginal benefit does not justify great risk of harm. There is also a political effort afoot in Canadian govt to mandate fluoridation and thereby make the legal argument moot. I suggest this document is well-worth printing.

  • a. The first 19 pages of this document is about the legal strategy. It includes summary of US legal cases that found water fluoridation harmful to the public, but legal under US "police power" mandate.
  • b. Starting on page 20 is a devastating affidavit by Dr. Kathleen Thiessen, NAS/NRC scientist and international expert in risk assessment. Very readable summary of science indicating harm to populations in “optimally” fluoridated communities. 



  1. In excess of 25% of previously healthy Gulf War Veterans have Multiple Chemical Sensitivities, which includes sensitivity to fluoride. See: 
    1. EXCERPT: “It is well established that some people are more vulnerable to adverse effects of certain  chemicals than others, due to variability in biological processes that neutralize those chemicals, and clear them from the body.” - Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses 2008 
  2. Affidavit of Dr. Hans Moolenburgh:
    1. Except: “As a summary of our research, we are now convinced that fluoridation of the water supplies causes a low grade intoxication of the whole population, with only the approximately 5% most sensitive persons showing acute symptoms.The whole population being subjected to low grade poisoning means that their immune systems are constantly overtaxed. With all the other poisonous influences in our environment, this can hasten health calamities.” 
  3. PubMed Listed Studies on immune system response: 
    1. a. Fluoride makes allergies worse, rats (1990): 
    2. b. Fluoride makes allergies worse, in vitro (1999):
    3. c. Immune system of the gut (2010): 
    4. d. ASIA Syndrome, adjuvant impact (2011):
    5. e. Gene predicts fluoride sensitivity (2015):
    6. f.  Brain has an immune system (2015):


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

"The National Toxicology Program on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication."Brenda Balletti, PhD, March 16, 2023 


“The only reason we were able to get Kumar’s emails is because he’s a government official who is subject to Freedom of Information requests. It raises the question of what else we would learn if the emails of private actors, like the PR strategists who Kumar works with, were also accessible.” - Michael Connett, J.D. in  "Researchers Hid Data Showing Fluoride Lowers Kids’ IQs, Emails Reveal” by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D. (May 30. 2023)


It took long enough, what with the political machinations of bad actors, but the final phase of the lawsuit brought by the Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA for its failure to adhere to the regulations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) specific to the evidence of developmental neurotoxicity when exposure is pre- or post-natal even in low doses consistent with 'optimally' fluoridated city water will be heard (barring a government shutdown) between Jan 31-Feb 14, 2024. This is a historic trial because it is the first time that the EPA has been brought to task for failure to protect 'susceptible sub-populations' like infants under TSCA.


As previously noted in this thread, the brain damage to infants resulting in cognitive-behavioral deficits like more learning disabilities, lower IQ and behavioral problems is also noted in adults who have consumed fluoridated water for decades, resulting in dementia and other neuro-degenerative conditions. 


Additionally, kidney disease, arthritis, degenerative disc disease, brittle bones, etc. are caused by or exasperated by fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water. 


However, this month's "Fluoride on Trial" is only looking at the very high quality evidence of brain damage in the very young. For a preview of what is going on, see: 



Also out this month, a pdf detailing the pattern of fraud at the CDC which  benefits itself and its partners in the fluoride deception:



For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 


View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

Your brain doesn’t need fluoride. Your thyroid gland doesn’t need fluoride. Your bones don’t need fluoride. The only part of your body that may benefit from fluoride are your teeth. And you can get the fluoride to your teeth through a very simple, elegant mechanism. You put it in toothpaste, you brush it on and you spit it out.” - Michael Connett, J.D., partner at Waters Kraus & Paul (2024) 


 “The controversy about fluoridation was inevitable because fluoridation was, in a real sense, conceived in sin. Fluoride is a major waste product of industry and one of the most devastating pollutants of the aluminum industry. The government not only dismissed the danger and left industry free to pollute, but it has promoted the intentional addition of fluoride - most of which is recycled industrial waste - to the nation’s drinking water.” - Prof. Albert Schatz  (1995)


If you or anyone in your family have thyroid or kidney disease, bone spursspondylosis, arthritis or any other bone disease watch this documentary. If you or anyone in your family has cataracts, learning disabilities or a degenerative neurological disease like dementia, watch this documentary. 


They knew in the 1940s and 1950s that fluoride caused a range of disease, and they know today. Fluoridation stakeholders who included some criminal medical and legal actors promoted it then, and similarly compromised players promote fluoridation now and for the same reason - it is profitable. Power, prestige and paychecks hinge on fluoridation policy. 


WATCH "Fluoride on Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health"



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court

EPA Paid Expert Witness $137,000 to Testify in Landmark Fluoride Trial

Fluoride Expert Squares Off Against EPA on Day 1 of Landmark Trial


My goodness! It has been an exciting ride. The witness testimony in the #FluorideTrial has ended, but closing arguments will be heard on Tuesday 2/20/2024. 


Plaintiff witnesses were wonderful, and were not shaken by EPA Counsel. The Defense witnesses were another matter. 


Not only did David Savitz clearly and several times state that neither he nor the NASEM committee he chaired to review the 2019-200 early drafts of the NTP report dispute the NTP conclusions or fault the NTP methods, he articulated that the NASEM group only felt the communication should have been clearer. Right there, that's a big win. But there is more. Savitz: 

  • Admitted he knows little about fluoride science and hadn't read that much
  • Misrepresented the findings of several studies (called out on cross examination as wrong)
  • Claimed there is no sex difference associated with neurotoxins which makes him question those studies (cross examination pointed to toxicology texts confirming sex differences are common; Savitz excused his error by saying he hadn't read them because he is not a toxicologist)
  • Admitted that he pulls in big bucks as an "expert" - including for the Telecom Industry which he repeatedly brought up. His rate is $500 hr and he has earned well over $100k in this trial
  • Recently sat on a panel for Health Canada concerning fluoridation policy with two other paid fluoridation shills. Health Canada apparently had no problems with the obvious conflict of interests 
  • Received multimillion dollar grants from pro-fluoridation sources like NIDCR. 


Then there was the officious Brian Barone of the EPA who bored us all to tears with his complicated descriptions of processes. His primary job seems to have been to confuse the judge with meaningless drivel. Barone claimed he: 


  • Can't do a scientifically justifiable risk assessment because of all the uncertainty
  • Believes there is "something there" (a neurotoxic effect), but won't determine what it is until there is more precise science for him to begin his calculations
  • Pulled a  couple of "Bill Clintons" when he claimed "Health Protective" can mean different things and retorted to Plaintiff Counsel "depends on how you define 'plausible'" in his defense of a bizarre study that contrary to every other study found that boys drinking fluoridated water have 21 point higher IQs  
  • Judges that the NTP and all the other scientists did things wrong, that as the EPA "Director of Integrity" only he knows the right way to do science
  • Attributes levels of fluoride in the urine of 3rd trimester women living in fluoridated communities as probably largely due to their kidneys being oversaturated with fluoride and therefor unable to process it appropriately. 


When Plaintiff Counsel asked Barone if he was "comfortable" with the kidneys of pregnant women being oversaturated with fluoride, Barone gulped and said, "My comfort level is not germane to the issue.




Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 


Judge Chen is reviewing taped deposition testimony on that bizarre outlier study prior to asking a few more questions of counsel and hearing closing arguments scheduled on Tuesday, Feb 20th. It'll take a couple of weeks to get a ruling, and then there is always the option of appeal. Stay tuned. 



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

 Dr. Joel Bohemier’s presentation to the Commissioners of Collier County, FL  includes quotes for EPA, CDC and others under oath from TSCA trial depositions. This presentation was part of the Commissioners deliberation that resulted in its unanimous vote to end fluoridation last week:  


It is in the hands of Judge Chen, now, but I've got to say that the closing on Feb. 20th was odd.


Not only did Judge Chen pepper both attorneys with questions, the EPA attorneys seemed to admit that fluoride exposure at doses consistent with water concentration of 1.5 ppm, 2 ppm and 4 ppm had been proven to result in lower IQ per studies of mom-child pairs performed in Canadian and other communities across the world. They admitted this despite the official policy of the U.S. EPA stating there is no harm up to 4 ppm (the actionable threshold for remediation) other than mild cosmetic dental fluorosis (tooth staining) at or above 2 ppm. The Canadian government has an actionable threshold of 1.5 ppm which is consistent with the WHO guidelines. 


When Judge Chen challenged the EPA that per both plaintiff and defense witnesses, shouldn't there be a protective uncertainty or safety factor of at least ten to protect consumers applied to 2 or 4 which would protect teeth from moderate dental fluorosis which a recent Health Canada is concern at 1.56 ppm and from severe dental fluorosis which the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) said was an adverse health risk at 4 ppm which would also protect brains, EPA Defense attorney said that would be an interesting thought experiment, but Plaintiff attorney didn't argue about dental fluorosis (which by the way is positively associated with lower IQ and learning disabilities) so the judge could not legally do so. Frankly, it almost seemed like the EPA attorneys were threatening the Judge. 


Judge Chen pushed back about EPA "Health Protective Assumption" guidelines, but EPA insisted that the Judge must not act based on science or consumer protection, but on strict interpretation of statutory law and the skill of the Plaintiff attorney in proving his case. 


On the other hand, Plaintiff attorney was clear that the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) only requires that any specific use of a chemical (fluoridation programs) not pose an "unreasonable risk" to consumers which include susceptible sub-populations like pregnant women and their offspring and bottle-fed babies. All five plaintiff witnesses were quite clear that optimally fluoridated water per CDC guidelines is subtly and permanently damaging the brains of millions of children. Even EPA witnesses and attorneys admitted that there is "something there" in the scientific evidence showing neurotoxic effects at 0.7 ppm, but argued it is not clearly defined enough to identify a "Point of Departure" for the EPA to perform a risk assessment. 




Three Benchmark Dose Analyses which are the gold standard for beginning risk assessments and established uncertainty factors have identified that 0.2 mg/L, which is one tenth of 2 ppm, as harmful. This suggests that no fluoride exposure is safe for baby brains and is a scientifically justifiable Point of Departure in anyone's book.  




But let's make it even easier for thick-headed fluoridationists to understand: 

  • No amount of fluoride in water or food is safe for pregnant women and their fetuses; bottle-fed infants and young children; the elderly and any in fragile health, such as diabetics or those with thyroid or kidney disease. 



View solution in original post


CarryAnne - you claim that Adam Kruchten made "epic mistakes" in his analyses and that he more or less admitted this.

Could you please let us know what those "epic mistakes" were? (I couldn't see any) and provide a link to his admission?

I have seen extremely little of Adam  Krutchen's analysis on social media - I don't think many people are even aware of it.

Bronze Conversationalist

Omitting 20% of the data points isn't epic enough for you, KenP? 


I cited JAMA Pediatrics per NYSCOF's Twitter response to Adam, not myself.


Listen to JAMA Pediatrics podcast with the editors and notice the bit about the "shift in the curve" as being quite important. Also that Green did sensitivity analysis and used individual level data in  "a very good cohort study." Plus the editors who are medical doctors noted that gender differences of neurodevelopment in humans and animals are well known. The editors also noted that systemic fluoride could still be harmful to infants and young children after birth because brains are still developing after birth. Dr. Christakis said JAMA Pediatrics had "several" stats reviews before publishing. 




Carry Anne, have now listened to this and think you have assumed a little too much. A throwaway statement indicating there had been a contentious discussion of the paper in during its review and that it had subjected to (contentious) statistical review - several of them. That does not equate to including two statisticians on the review panel as you implied.

It does suggest to me that the contentious discussion, the disagreements, were about the stats - not effect on policy. I am not surprised.

My take away impressions is that both of these editors are quite ignorant of fluoridation and the controversies. To not have an understanding of how wide the health measure is used in Europe and Canda is, to me, telling. To confuse the "topical" and ingestion issue again implies they are ignorant. And to be unaware of similar studies also indicates their poor background on the issue. Those guys were clearly out of their depth

I do not see any value in the podcast (or their advice) except to reinforce the impression that the publication of this paper was very contentious, the statical analysis was a contentious issue, and that the editors may now be having misgivings as they see the more detailed critiques coming through.

I only hope the journal will publish critiques and not ban them as happened with my critique of the Malin & Till (2015) paper - see need mor...). I am pessimistic because so far no assurance has been given.


CarryAnne, so you rely on your own twitter response as an authority for your claim that the paper was reviewed by two statisticians!!

Amazing. This is how fake news is generated.

I would love to know just what reviewers did say about the statistical problems in this paper. it might help explain the exceptionally unusual manner the editor dealt with this paper.

0 Kudos

CarryAnne, the incomplete recovery of data from the graph is not an "epic mistake," it is a simple fact of digital extraction. In this case, I do not believe all the data was included in the graphs. I managed to extract a few more points than Adam but find it hard to believe that so many points are hidden.

However, I guess only the authors will be able to tell us if they omitted 20% of the data points - and they are not responding to critiques.

With the points, I extracted I managed to produce almost the same value as the authors for mean IQ values and the comparison of fluoridated and unfluoridated areas. Here are my values of mean IQ with those of Green et al in brackets:

All children: 106.6 (107.2); nonfluoridated: 108.3 (108.1); fluoridated:108.8 (108.2)
Boys: 104.0 (104.6)
Girls: 109.6 (109.6).

The fact you use the emotional "epic mistake" for a recognised and acknowledged problem of digital extraction (especially where authors do not include all their data points) and ignore these vey close values says something about your desire to avoid facing up to problems with this paper.

Extremely close and confirming their result that there was no statistically significant difference in mena IQs of children for mothers from fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.


Bronze Conversationalist

No. From unfluoridated areas that already contained sufficient fluoride to minimize the difference in urine F to only 0.3 ppm.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, the mean water fluoride levels were 0.13 mg/L for the unfluodiated areas and 0.59 for the fluoridated areas.

The corresponding mean MUFs were 0.30 and 0.93

But no difference in child IQ.

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

More false claims from a fluoridationist. The mean urinary fluoride level in women in fluoridated areas was 0.69 ppm. The mean level in areas without fluoridated water (natural fluoride was present) was 0.4 ppm. The difference was a mere 0.39 just as I stated.

I don't know where you get your data, but I got mine from the actual source.


And by the way if the IQ drop in boys the authors reported was in your opinion not significant, then what about the difference in IQ drops between boys and girls?  The authors ate also wrong about this noted difference? 


Stop changing data collected by others please.


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Sorry, I read the F intake estimates.

But you seem to be saying that in this study the intake levels were too similar to deliver an IQ difference in children? In other words, the study did not show an effect of fluoridation on child IQ?

So why are anti-Fluoridationists using this study to claim the fluoridation reduces child IQ as they do in my city? Are they telling porkies?
Hamilton image.jpg

0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

Are you really serious right now? You expect me to explain yet again the results when we  already went over this?

The increase in urinary F is reported to produce a  detectable lowering of,IQ, as one would expect from many other studies for the increase in urinary F found.

 If the control women had been typical of levels found in most nonfluoridated areas as published in the NRC Report them a greater IQ lowering would have been expected.

This is yet again changing my words so as to have the luxury of claiming I am incorrect when such is not the case. Who in his right mind  takes such liberty with the statements of otjers? Sorry but I dont get it and actually I dont want to get it.


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, you are not being clear nbut I gather you do agree with me.


Do you agree with that? After all the figures are clear nonfluoridated mean IQ = 108.1, fluoridated mean IQ = 108.2. Nothing to do with urinary F.

So the billboards used in NZ are wrong? Their claim is completely fake.

As for the rest - you are speculating. Urinary F data is so rare and the methodology used in this paper so inexact that one just cannot extrapolate.

But even so, considering this study alone, would you consider the difference between the 25th and 75th percentiles to be realistic for the effect of fluoridation. From the data what do you expect the IQ difference to be? What do you expect the CIs to be? Do you think that is at all significant?

Bronze Conversationalist

We have already addressed this in previous comments. You have your beliefs on what tne,data show  and the,authors and others have theirs.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

Yes, do listen closely.....  The Editor and editorial are severely lacking in dental expertise. 


Further, the Editor, a physician, has spoken openly in "print" media that he would not have his wife drink fluoridated water based on this study.  REALLY?  Like depending on one study on immunizations by Andrew Wakefield???  


Then, the Editor even mentioned Wakefield in the Podcast.  Yah, go listen.  Then he does exactly the same thing and makes a recommendation based on ONE study.  And he says that he'd recommend that pediatricians questioned on it recommend this too.  He'd have them drink bottled or filtered water.  He doesn't state which bottled water or filters.  That is poor.  Bottled water can contain up to twice or more fluoride than tap water and isn't labeled on the bottle's contents.  You know this I'm sure.  But for the readers here that really want to know, this information can be found by calling the phone number on the bottle, or on the International Bottled Water Association's website,


Filters:  Which filters?  We know it is reverse osmosis and whole house carbon filters, don't we?  Of course we do.  We've spoken about this in other forums.  Don't try to decieve the folks here.  I'm an AARP member and won't let you scare them or their children/grandchildren who may be pregnant.


Nearly 75 year of credibly conducted scientific research that's been published in peer-reviewed, credibly recognized scientific journals has repeatedly shown water fluoridation to be effective and safe for everyone.  Over 6,500 articles are listed on Pubmed when the word fluoridation is entered.  One study does not reverse the overwhelming body of evidence on water fluoridation.  Neither do 3-4 which have not been repeated.  If and when something changes, the scientific community will be the first to announce it, not you and others who oppose fluoride in water at any level, even the natural levels that are in all water in the world.


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Life Fellow, American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry

Diplomate, American Board of Pediatric Dentistry


Periodic Contributor

Mr. Johnson,

"Thou protesteth too much, me thinks."  A reasonable person without an agenda would be pleased for new research and request/encourage even more.


Should a 'pill' be offered to increase IQ of the children, I bet many would ask for it.  If there is some idea or suspicion that something may decrease IQ of the children, that is equally worth attention as well as alarm or avoidance.


See what this Medical Doctor has to say about the study.


I wonder why you protest so much and so strongly.


A registered nurse.


CarryAnne I see you cite yourself regarding the claim that "JAMA had two professional statisticians review the research. "

I think we need something more authentic. Could you please let us know where you got this from? Did JAMA announce this? Have you seen the statisticians' reports, etc?

it would be highly unusual to include 2 statisticians in a review panel (I have never experienced more than 1), but this may be because of arguments over the statistics used - that has been widely criticised by independent experts for this paper.

Bronze Conversationalist

How do we know lack of fluoride does not cause dental caries? Easy. Read and read more. And remember that on the world stage fluoridation only started 75 years ago and people had lived for millennia and many still had normal teeth.


1. The Ziegelbecker extensive data set on natural fluoride in water supplies proved no link whatsoever with caries incidence and F level even up to 6 ppm F. This includced the Dean data set that was found to be mere scatter in the 1 ppm F level area.

2. The Yiamouyiannis extensive analyses that included most major U.S. cities both before and after artificial fluoridation began showed no effect whatsoever iln anyh age group on dental careis incidence.

3.The Teotia and Teotia 30 year extensive world wide analysis of careis incidence and the levesl of calicum and f in water which showed that the highest careis incidccne occurred in areas with high flujoride an low calcium ahd the lowest incicence occurred in ares with low F and high calicum. This is becuae calicum builds storng teeth, not F.

4. The Phillip Sutton extensive analysis of all fluoridaotn traisl that proved all claims of effectiveness were from "studies" that were notr controlled properly. Talk about lies abounding--wow.

5.And of course the NRC data which show that F does not actually incorporate into the enamel matrix.. CaF2 globules on teeth from brushing with F'd toothpaste is readily dissolved upon eating/drinking and the F is swallowed and incorporated into bone, not teeth.


Dental caries are caused by acids formed by bacteria feeding on sugar in the oral cavity.

Personal testimony from trusted sources are also valuable. For example, my WWII 101st Airborne Uncle who learned how to care for teeth in the Army. He never had a single cavity his entire 85 years of life . He did not use F'd toohtapse or f'd water and lived on a farm in IN that had spring water without F. He was spared because he brushed with baking soda daily which neutralizes any bacterial acids before any damage can be done. He brushed after eating sweets.

Good dental care, which is made easiest when one has had a good level of dietary calcium during the teeth-forming years, is how to prevent caries. F has nothing to do with it and was a false correlation made on a limited set of data that led to the deceptive story told to the Public Health Service.

There you have it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoridation is ordered into water by Boards of Health in the US using their police powers. This happens despite the fact that if any wants to consume fluoridated water, it's cheap and easy to do so while the water 'filters' that actually reduce fluoride are expensive and generally ineffective.


I depended on a high quality water filter for drinking water for decades. It may have reduced the fluoride a little, but it did not eliminate the fluoride and was insufficient to protect my health. I accepted diagnoses of arthritis, IBS, chronic fatigue syndrome, etc. not realizing I was being fluoride poisoned. Those decades of misery ended quite quickly when I switched to bottled water, even to brush my teeth. 


Moreover, some people shouldn't even shower in fluoriated water as liquids that go on the skin, also go in the skin. I know of people who have spent thousands on whole house systems only to find them ineffective for their needs. I know of others who have rigged up complex systems for bathing and still need to time their showers and change their filters much more often than recommended in order to prevent their symptoms of fluoride poisoning. 


There are obstetricians, pediatricians, thyroid doctors, kidney doctors and oncologists who recommend their patients avoid fluoridated water. Hence, artifical fluoridation of water supplies is a immoral medical mandate that harms many consumers, especially the poor.


Water, like air, is necessary to life. Safe water, like safe air, should be safe for the most vulnerable among us. Therefore, the appropriate government model should be the one adopted in many places that ban public smoking. 


Shower Setup to avoid fluorideShower Setup to avoid fluoride



Bronze Conversationalist

Some of my students have F reactions on skin when showering which began when fluoridation began. The way they cope with the red rashes is to use calcium gel on their skin during bathing. 

The F anion is the same size as the water molecule except the ion is spherical. So yes a traditional filter has no ability to remove F from treated water. Some properly made bone char (baked bone hydroxyapatite) can remove it, and modern RO membranes under pressure can remove it well. But only thise who can afford very expensive whole house RO which wastes much water could treat their home water supply.

All this remember is not accompanied with any effect on teeth.  Lack of F does not cause dental cavities. 

Amazing, no?


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

It must be nice to change the words of  opponents so it gives you the luxury of condemning them. 

I did not say the U.S. is a police state.. I said the truth, which is water  fluoridation is a police action and in CA it is a mandate forced by the State. It is a blunder.

Adding F into public water, which does not sanitize water, is illegal. The SDWA prohibits even the addition into water  of a banana peel , or vitamin C, etc. The public water supply is not a repository or medium to be used to treat humans with any food , nutrient, drug, or in the case  of F a poisonous substance. The Act is a derivative  of the water pollution control act which was first conceived by president John F Kennedy, with the purpose of maintaining the  chemistry of the natural  waters of the country. 

But fluorudationists have broken the law by excusing the  infusion of F which fluoridates peoples' bones, where 95% of assimilated F accumulates . 

Only substances that purify water and make it potable and non-infective are legal  additives. 

But when laws are broken and the police do nothing abour it  and in fact help enforce tbe breaking of the law,

call it what you like, but it is nevertheless illegal, anti democratic, and there is nothing a normal cirizen  can do to correct it.  And Im not crying crocodile tears. I feel sorry for people who are so taken in by falsehood. Again, I fail to see the humor. And posting the truth online does not force anyone to stop fluoridating themselves. Just brush one extra time daily with F'd toothpaste and that should cover what you  get  from the fluoridation of a cities' entire water supply to treat teeth. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

The purpose of this AARP forum is to empower Americans over age 50 to live their best lifes. The purpose of JAMA Pediatrics is to advance the health and well-being of infants, children, and adolescents. 


JAMA Pediatrics is the oldest and top ranked pediatric journal in the world. It subjected the MIREC study by Green et al. to extensive scrutiny from expert scientists, including a number who support fluoridation policy. JAMA Pediatrics also subjected this study to two independent statistical analyses - all because the editors wanted to believe the myth of fluoride instead of the science. However, those medical professionals had the integrity to admit that this study is very high quality with sound findings and conclusions that deserve to be published. The editors also noted that science is iterative and consequently changes with new information. 


If you want to continue to believe that consuming fluoride provides some dental benefit, this study has no opinion on that.... but even if fluoridation did prevent cavities (the best evidence finds it doesn't, or at least not by much), there is substantial evidence including the evidence in this study that finds fluoridation and low dose exposure to fluoride causes subtle brain damage. Since that brain damage manifests as lowered IQ in the very young, the best modern recommendations are that pregnant women avoid fluoride and fluoridated water during pregnancy. Other studies recommend the same for families with preschoolers because of evidence of unsafe fluoride overdoses from diet. Researchers in fluoride and neurodegenerative diseases like dementia recommend the same thing for seniors


Students of statistics and anyone else with time on their hands are welcome to play with the numbers themselves, but, in my opinion, persistent use of this forum in an attempt to deny valid published science based on amateur evaluations of data that differ from the expert analyses  contradicts the purposes of AARP and JAMA Pediatrics. 

Bronze Conversationalist

Now that the difference betwen correlation and causation has been brought up, let's mention the real culprit in all this floridation nonsense. In the 1930's Dean looked at the correlation between fluoride content in drinking water and dental caries and claimed that the correlation was indeed a causation, that higher F levels actually caused lower caries incidence. That was a gross blunder and is the reason we still have water fluoridation today. What really happened is that higher F levels increased dental fluorosis incidence, which is unsightly and people who have it think they are not taking care of their teeth well so they tend to brush teeth more, so of course it is possible that F in water might be associated with caries going down.

However, the bottom line is that the entire data set (that Dean ignored in order to make the correlation and the causation claim) was published by Ziegelbecker and it reveals over a very broad concentration range that F in water does not affect caries in the slightest, even up to 6 ppm in drinking water.

But before the complete data set was examined, the boondoggle of water "fluoridation" was sold to the Public Health Service. Several of the dentists who proposed it later recanted and apologized, but a military government program, who can stop? We are still unable to stop it even 75 years later, especially when we have people claiming that there is no harm based on small differences in correlation studies over small F level range differences, where higher F levels demonstrate the neurotoxicity -- all while those same  people claim F in water decreases caries a little bit when even at 6 times higher levels there is no effect.

Talk about baseless self promotion of one's own idea while at the same time spewing baseless denunciation of others' truths -- wow. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Here in the 21st Century we have someone claiming that fluoride or fluoridation does not affect IQ based on this single study with only slight differences in urinary F levels that occurred with only slight corresponding differences in IQ.

That is as absurd as claimng: since the stuctural damage to the city this year from 65 mph winds was not markedly different than last year at 61 mph, that it must be that wind does not cause structural damage !!.

I am newly astounded daily at the misinformation that is spread by proponents of fluoridation, most of whom think everyone else is a crackpot and "anti-science" and should bow down to them and accept the fluoridation of your bony skeleton because they know more than you, that the treatment is for your own good..


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Below is a list of the claims you made in this discussion (copied for you to re-read).The only reason I added a comment is because of these insane comments that left alone are bald faced lies. You have no right to twist the Green study into the claim that fluoride has no effect on IQ. The study ws not on caged humans where some were not exposed to any lfuoride. The difference in fluoride content of the mothers in the control and experimental groups was very small. If water already contains substantial fluoride, then adding a little more will only produce effects that are difficult to detect, obviously. So your claim is nonsense.


Your posts:

there is no effect due to fluoride on IQ ("The answer is a resounding no in the digitized data.")


But I stress - there is no effect of fluoride on IQ


In fact, fluoridation has no effect on the mean IQ for boys (104.78 vs 106.31) or for girls (111.47 vs 109.68)

There is a very significant effect of sex on IQ - once that is removed there is no effect of fluoride on IQ.


What I am saying is that the data in the table shows no difference - no effect of fluoride on IQ.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, Bill and whoever. I have posted an article on the Green et al study - you can find it at "If at first you don’t succeed . . . statistical manipulation might help."

This is attracting some good comments so hopefully we can develop a good exchange there.

0 Kudos
Trusted Contributor

These fluoridation proponents claim that the authors of the Green et al. (2019) study manipulated statistics and then outrightly dismiss the very evident significance between boys and girls exposed to fluorides as "highly irregular". However, it is well known that there is a 4/1 sex difference in neurodevelopmental disorders, where boys are most affected. Thus, these fluoridation proponent arguments are approaching laughable, since there are now over 50 human studies and hundreds of animal and other studies finding harm from fluoridation. Yet, these proponents claim that there is nothing to see and then manipulate statistics to show something else.


In contrast, these fluoridation proponents have not a single valid empirical study showing any benefit of ingesting fluorides (i.e. opinion articles are not empirical studies). Still 70% of US public water is fluoridated with hydrofluorosilicic acid and sodiumhexafluorosilicate. Not so in Europe, where 98% does not fluoridate (only the Irish Republic, 11% of England, and 3% of Spain does). As for dental health and most cancer prevalence, the Irish republic has the worst dental health and cancer prevalence in Europe. We don't truly even need studies, since we can look at population statistics as evidence of the truth that fluoridation is harmful and not beneficial. For example, in the US, Kentucky is the most fluoridated state and they have the worst dental health. Thus, manipulating valid studies without the original data is a low point.

0 Kudos

sirpac - you seem to have a blinkered view of this research when you say it shows a "very evident significance between boys and girls exposed to fluorides."

You miss the whole point - it showed a difference in the IQ of boys and gurls for both fluoridated and unfluoridated groups. There was no statistically significant difference due to fluoridation. This is the data from Table 1 in the paper:

table IQ.png


0 Kudos
Bronze Conversationalist

But the authors who actually did the study concluded differently,  that for every 1 mg per day increased intake of F in pregnant expecting mothers, there was a 3.2 IQ drop for both boys and girls. One can twist data all they want and excuse fluoridation, but i dont give my innocent  grandkids drinks  made with fluoridated  water or foods made with the garbage.

Why cant everyone else in San Diego and elsewhere have that option in their public drinking water when they  want that?

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

rs5526 - how can you say they concluded differently when the data in my table is taken from their table 1?

As for their regression analysis (which explained only 1.2% of the IQ variance), you are completely wrong. They did not say:

"for every 1 mg per day increased intake of F in pregnant expecting mothers, there was a 3.2 IQ drop for both boys and girls."

What they actually said was:

“A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14) in boys and girls.”

I will reproduce below my lengthy explanation that I provided for Bill on my blog (he was having trouble understanding the statistics and I guess you are too).

1: I hope you are familiar with what the word “associated” mean. Particularly it should not be seen as some sort of proof of a cause.

2: Again, it does not say the coefficient (the slope of the best-fit line) was exactly 3.66. It quotes a 95% confidence interval – in this case –7.16 to -0.14. There is a 95% chance the coefficient will be in this range.

3: That is the coefficient – but what would be the associated IQ values be. [Please don’t forget the word “associated” – it is too easy to fall into sloppy thinking and assume we are talking about an actual loss caused by fluoride. That has not been shown at all.]

The figures relate only to the best-fit line and that range of coefficients indicate values for the best-fit l line at a MUF of 1.0 mg/l in the range of 103.13 to 110.15. (I am using a constant for the line of 110.29 estimated from the paper’s Figure 3).

4: Now here is the figure with the data points taken from the paper.

canada 2

5: Please note that the values from the quoted statement refer only to the line. 110.29 – 3.36 = 106.93 = the IQ value of the line at MUF of 1 mg/ml. The CIs indicate a 95% probability of values in the range 103.13 to 110.15. That range is indicated by the grey shade showing the place the best-fit line could occur.

6: Now note that at a MUF of about 1 mg/L ACTUAL values occur WELL OUTSIDE THAT RANGE. At least 74 to 140 or even wider.

In fact, only a few of the values are in the range given in the quote.

This tells you that the reported association [“3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14)”] is an extremely poor predictor of what the actual values associated with the MUF will be.

7: The reason should be obvious. The data has a very wide scatter and the fitted line explains only a very small percentage of the true IQ variance. This can be calculated from a normal regression analysis – the authors would have the figures but did not report them. I think that is a major deficiency in this paper and similar papers from this group.

My estimate (using digitally extracted data from the figure) is that the reported association explain only 1.2% of the IQ variance. That is a very small value.

8: Finally, the author’s rely on p-values (in this case 0.04) and conventionally we say a relationship is “significant” if p is less than 0.05. By itself, p-values can be very misleading – and are often simply used to confirm a bias. Authors should provide all the information for their statistical analyses. In this case, an R-squared value of 0.012 (which they refused to report) would have told us that the reported association was meaningless. I do not think this is honest or objective reporting by these authors

On the other hand, I must compliment them for at least showing us some of the data – this enables us to come to our own conclusions about the significance of their results. Of course, anti-fluoride activists will only be discussing the p-value in their misrepresentations.

0 Kudos



Do you know of any human studies on the toxicity of lead which you accept as quality and up to your standards?  Or do you consider lead to be safe to ingest?


Is there any study reporting harm to humans of any substance which meets your requirements?


And when are you going to respond to the total fluoride exposure excess?


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH


Bill, did you read my explanation of the statistical analysis in Green et al's paper? Did you understand it?

Do you agree the observed correlation is extremely flimsy?

Perhaps more could be said about the MUF analysis for boys. The residual plot suggests the assumptions inherent in a linear regression are suspect. The residuals are improved by a log transformation but I think this just adds to my point that this reported association is meaningless.


male residuals.jpg

0 Kudos