Content starts here

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! 


CarryAnne and Ken,


Your comment is both respecful and accurate, gentle and firm.  


KenP has confirmational bias to the extreme.  


Ken asked me to debate him on his blog and I agreed, but I chose the topic "excess fluoride exposure."  First he dodged claiming his computer had problems.  I sent him my side of the first debate and he has refused to respond.  The simple answer is too many are ingesting too much fluoride as reported by several streams of evidence.  Excess fluoride does not confim KenP's bias so he refuses to investigate and comment.


Instead, KenP is refusing to look at the "weight of evidence" and "streams of evidence" and his research limitations.


For example, Ken P should consider the JAMA Editor noted regarding the Green et al study.  Remember, this Journal has promoted fluoride, most of their members promote fluoride.  I have had them speak publicly in favor of fluoridation when I spoke opposed.   JAMA is a pro fluoride Journal.  


To speak up against what they have promoted did not come lightly.  In effect, they are admitting they may have been wrong.  Not easy for anyone.


The Editor wrote:

"This decision to publish this article was not easy. Given the nature of the findings and their potential implications, we subjected it to additional scrutiny for its methods and the presentation of its findings. The mission of the journal is to ensure that child health is optimized by bringing the best available evidence to the fore. Publishing it serves as testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be. That said, scientific inquiry is an iterative process. It is rare that a single study provides definitive evidence. This study is neither the first, nor will it be the last, to test the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive development. We hope that purveyors and consumers of these findings are mindful of that as the implications of this study are debated in the public arena."
The Editor also included a pod cast, short and informative.
Harvard Professor Dr. David Bellinger provided an editorial piece (JAMA August 19, 2019) noting:
"The hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration…It is instructive to recall that the hypothesis that subclinical lead exposures pose a neurodevelopmental hazard was bitterly contested in the 1980s and 1990s, and it was only the weight of evidence that eventually accumulated that led to the now widely held consensus that no level of lead exposure is safe…If the hypothesis is true, the implications are worrisome. Exposure to fluoride has increased substantially in recent decades…If the effect sizes reported by Green et al and others are valid, the total cognitive loss at the population level that might be associated with children’s prenatal exposure to fluoride could be substantial."
The problem I think Ken has is considering the "weight of evidence and combining that with the "streams of evidence."   
When it comes to risk, harm, researchers cannot knowinging cause harm to evaluate safety.  Therefore, judgment must be used on the weight of evidence from all streams of evidence.  
Some streams which must be included, are:
1.  Too many ingesting too much fluoride. (EPA, NRC, CDC, etc)
2.  Research on efficacy is incomplete, low to moderate quality.  Percentages are used as gee whiz marketing rather than absolute numbers.
3.  Fluoridation may not reduce dental expenses.  No high quality studies.
4.  Fluoride, according to many studies, is a known carcinogen.  Yes, more research would be good, but the low to moderate studies have weight.
5.  Fluoride makes teeth harder, delays diagnosis of caries, increases bone fracture.  Yes, more research would be good, but the low to moderate studies have weight.
6.  Fluoride reduces IQ.  Yes, more research would be good, but the more than 50 low to moderate studies are over 90% consistent which adds weight.
7.  Supplementation of fluoride without consent, without knowing whether the patient has dental fluorosis, swallows toothpaste, has high levels of fluoride in their urine or is chemically sensitive is ignored. . . the motto is "give everyone more fluoride regardless of whether they are ingesting too much."
The weight of evidence from all streams makes the issue of fluoridation mute.  Fluoridation of public water must stop, at least until quality research confirms safety for all.  Fluoridation is not the only source of fluoride and an individual can ingest more fluoride from other sources if they want.    
Fluoridation is the worst case of big government thinking they know what is best for everyone and individuals are too stupid to make health care decisions on their own.
Ken, look at all streams of evidence.  Look at the weight of evidence.  Consider Green et al is one of many studies and goes against the JAMA past bias.  Consider your evaluation of Green just might be incomplete.
Bill Osmunson DDS MPH



Bill,  you say:

"Ken asked me to debate him on his blog and I agreed, but I chose the topic "excess fluoride exposure."  First he dodged claiming his computer had problems.  I sent him my side of the first debate and he has refused to respond."

That is completely incorrect. You have completely misrepresented the situation and I ask you, as a matter of good faith, to correct this. My offer to you for an exchange on my blog was repeated as recently as last month in this forum. (See post 101) when I wrote:

" I am interested in critiquing the dental fluorosis argument – specifically the Neurath paper you rely on in your article – so I am keen for the exchange to go ahead."

Anyone interested to the truth in this matter should refer to the email exchange between Bill and me which is reproduced in that post 101 (at the moment the link is but this probably changes as more posts are made. Just page 

This is the second or third time I have had to deal with this particular misrepresentation, Bill. I said last time (in post 101):

"I repeat I do not appreciate the misrepresentation you have indulged in, Bill, or the resort to abusive terms. These should not be used in a scientific exchange – another reason why I think the Open Parachute blog is the best place for such an exchange."

I think your persistent misrepresentation in this matter (the facts of which are easy to verify) says something about your whole approach to this exchange. How can one participate in a respectful exchange when there is no good faith, or any respect for the truth, on the part of one's discussion partner.




You say, "You have completely misrepresented the situation" regarding a fluoride debate and that I am completely wrong.   Sorry, I'm very busy and must have missed your answers and documentation on:


1.  How much total fluoride exposure is necessary for dental caries prevention? Desired individual dosage?  (mg/kg/day)


2.  How much fluoride is too much and based on what evidence?


3.  What government agency determines the safe and effective dosage of chemicals/substances and gives approval with cautions and warnings?


I sent you many references and streams of evidence and have not seen your response.  If you post responses somewhere in social media, please also send it to my email address so I don't miss it.


Ken, you seem to be intent on showing how research is flawed which finds fluoridation is harmful or excessive.  Yet I don't hear you present any high quality studies on safety, efficacy or dosage.  Do you agree with any research?


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH 


Hello everyone,


Whilst we welcome robust debate, we ask that everyone abides by the guidelines.


Please be respectful and refrain from making hateful and/or incendiary comments. You are free to express your opinions, but you must do so in a way that respects the opinions of others.

Bronze Conversationalist

There is no basis upon which to make the claim that has been made by fluoridation promoters, that the urinary fluoride study proves that water fluoridation does not decrease IQ. This is inane. The study did not include people who had systemic fluoride levels and urine fluoride levels reflective of normal controls in more typical nonfluoridated areas. Therefore the claim that "fluoridation" does not decrease IQ is, as I said, nuts.

The difference in urine fluoride is far more reliable as a chemical measurement even though it is criticized in the previous post.

Also I think the readers are perfecxtly clear that I do NOT disagree with the authors of the study, that is, that a 1 ppm increase in maternal urine fluoride is associated with a significant several point drop in IQ in male offspring.  The authors are far more in tune with their data and trustworthy than the critic.

Finally, if a larger urine fluoride difference had been present, all previously published well controlled studies indicate even a larger IQ drop would have been found.


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, you are playing with words. The anti-fluoride people are NOT claiming "that the urinary fluoride study proves that water fluoridation does not decrease IQ." They are claiming the exact opposite.

The point is that there is absolutely no evidence in this study that fluoridated water lowers kid's IQ" as they are specifically claiming about the study. The billboard is presenting a lie.

I noticed you refused to answer my questions relating to your attempt to draw conclusions from the urinary F data relevant to fluoridation. And you avoid the extremely weak nature of the association involved. (You will recall I called out Malin & Till for the association they reported (and they had R-squared values of about 22 to 34%. Even so, their claimed relationship of ADHD with fluoridation disappeared when better risk-modifying factors were included).

The statistical analysis indicates that the data in the Green et al paper was not distributed normally, the variance was too high for that according to the probability distribution. This, together with the extremely weak nature of the association (R-squared around 1%) means the result is really meaningless and will be seen as such by the experts.

You are busily avoiding the elephant in the room - the weak nature of the reported relationship and the questionable regression used to obtain it.

Bronze Conversationalist

What? Read the post. I said fluoridation promoters. Of course those opposed to fluoridation make no such claim.

A small effect is noticed with a small F increase. So what? F levels in controls, from drinking tea, or whatever, predict a small effect from a small additional increase in F from fluoridation above that level  And a low r^2 does not disprove its reality. Who says it must be linear? And any small effect can have a low correlatiom coefficienr even wben the effect is real. 

As stated before the controlled mammal studies prove F'd water incduces brain abnormality. You can't get a perfect study like those in humans who cannot be caged.

Stop changing what i state to suit your own needs.



Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard - read my post and stop diverting. In fact, the anti-fluoride campaigners are telling lies about the Green et al paper as my photo of their local billboard shows. It is likely they will be asked by the advertising authority to remove these billboards - several local authorities have already ordered them down. And the local media is very critical of the scaremongering involved in their advertising.

They are simply scare-mongering, in the worst possible way targeting children and pregnant woman, and they are simply lying. The study says nothing of the sort - in fact, the data shows no effect of fluoridation - as you admit. The local anti-fluoride peop[le have really misjudged the situation this time and will find it very difficult to recover from this.

Who says it must be linear - not me and I found a more normal distribution of the data using partial log transformation. The authors acknowledge the data was not perfectly normal but judged they should not transform the data (they say because of difficulty in interpreting a model but more probably because the transformed data was unlikely to show a relationship).

A low R-squared value shows that the relationship is incapable of explaining much of the variance - in this case only 1% which is extremely weak. It is telling the authors did not discuss the R-squared values and relied simply on p-values which can be very misleading.

I have not commented on the correlation coefficient, low or high is immaterial. The relationship is so weak and the regression so questionable I do not believe we can extract any meaning from that coefficient.

Bronze Conversationalist

The trustworthy well controlled caged mammalian studies are the most reliable,, proving beyond doubt that fluoridated water ingestion in newborn offspring leads to damaged brain function. There is no debate about this. The blood levels used for F were comoparable to that for humans ingesting fluoridated water.  The case is closed for me. It does not need to be proven in humans who cannot be caged anyway and for whom it is difficult to obtain a good control.

The data are what they are, and if F causes brain dysfunction in childhood as rpeortedin manyhuman publications, then the small increase in urinary F here in the JAMA article that the authors claimed may be responsible for the corresponding expected small lowering of IQ is consistent with the known toxic effects F is known to have.

As far as those who oppose fluoridation in advertising claims, vs those who promote the industrial fluoridation of people, I side with those who are rational and oppose fluoridation of people with a known toxic substance, regardless of whether the effect can be easily detected or not, where humans cannot be caged like animals can. For example, the formation of bone of poor quality begins with the first sip of F'd water. But can we detect with current methods any observable effect from it in such people? Of course not. Does this mean you should continue to incorporate fluoride into your bones by drinking fluoridated water because it appears nothing is wrong with it? Of course not. Just like smoking, the longer you do it, the more toxic effects accumulate. All toxic effects of fluoride ingestion have their own intrinsic diffiuclty in assessing in man. I do not condemn as "liars" those who repeat what the JAMA authors claim is real. Sorry.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

For heaven's sake, KenP - I gave you the audio link where the JAMA Pediatrics editors said they performed "several" statistical reviews, but highlighted the twitter response (not my own) that said two reviews as a visual and you imply that I'm using my own tweet as a reference in order to generate fake news? 


Then you reverse my point that you and Adam omitted 20% of the data in your amateur statistical reviews that you threw together within a day or two of the publication of this prospective cohort study. Your review and Adams's were being used by fluoridationists to cast shade on the findings which had several professional reviews by the premier medical journal who took great care in confirming the quality and accuracy of the study. Really? 


  • If I may use your own words, misrepresentation such as you demonstrated "says something about your desire to avoid facing up to problems."


The exceptional & unusual handling of this paper by the editor that you reference was explained in the beginning of the JAMA Pediatrics podcast. Because fluroidationists have drilled it into the orthodoxy that fluoridation is safe and any science that claims otherwise must be false, these top notch scientists and doctors wanted to be sure that the science was solid. The editors also mentioned that in performing their due diligence they learned lots of facts that they didn't know (because they had been so close minded due to their indocrination) - such as fluoridation is not universal in the modern world (including Canada and Europe) and fluoridation is not necessary for healthy teeth. 


As for Johnny Johnson's comment where he implies that dentists are more expert in matters involving pregnancy and fetal neurodevelopment than scientists or the pediatricians and other doctors at JAMA simply because the study involves fluoride: 


"As a scientist, I hesitate to say any one observational study is definitive, but I'd definitely not allow my pregnant daughter or grandchildren drink fluoridated water after reading this one study. However, it isn't just this one study. There are studies of every type verifying that fluoride is poisonous to humans with an increased risk for the very young. As a scientist, I have no hesitation in saying that fluoridation is harmful to consumers beginning in the womb."  - A scientist commenting on “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada” published in JAMA Pediatrics (August 2019)



CarryAnne, OK, I haven't listened to that podcast yet. Instead, I was actually reading the paper, applying a bit of critical thinking, and lookin at the data. This takes time and is one of the reasons critical reviews were not immediate (except for the UK Science Media Centre which probably had early access).

Notice, I don't comment on paper undtill I have had a chance to read them and critically eview data. This contrasts with the immediate reaction from anti-fluoride cmapaigners, coauthors and their supporters who have ignored the data and relied on statements of "authority." None of those promoting the paper actually use or refer to the data - that tells us something.

I repeat, this paper has been handled in a very strange way. An unprecedented Editor's comment, and now a podcast. Unprecedented, and probably an indication  of the internal fighting that has been going on over publication of the paper in its current form,

I have enough experience of scientific and publication politics to laugh at the claim that the reason for the fighting was the effect the paper's findings will have on policy because we know it will not have any more effect than the Bashash papers - the reported relationships are so extremely weak as to be meaningless. And it is a fact that Green et al reported no difference in child IQ for mothers from fluoridated and nonfluoridated areas.

No, the expressed concern is just politics-speak to cover up what the real fighting was about.

However, I will get around to listening to the podcast. from what Jonny says it appears it is quite revealing as to the bias of the Editor and perhaps others.


"JAMA had two professional statisticians review the research. Adam only used 407 points because he couldn't find them all, leaving out 100 data points. Not good, scientific or accurate." - NYSCOF, August 21, 2019


This is too good not to share. Statistics student Adam Kruchten was one of a couple of quick-draw fluoridation apologists who were lionized on social media for sloppy attempts to discredit the recent MIREC study published in JAMA Pediatrics on August 19, 2019. 


Adam has removed all his tweets about this study and his critique because he had the good sense to be ashamed of his epic mistakes. Unfortunately, the repetition of those mistakes that were shared on other platforms outside of Adam's control will live on because not all fluoridationists have the integrity to admit a mistake. Consequently, those flawed amateur analyses will be cited again and again. Just refer back to the actual MIREC study by Green et al., the JAMA Pediatrics podcast, and Bellinger's opinion. Here's another useful summary by an investigative reporter. This isn't a matter of choosing sides, it's a matter of scientific truth and integrity. 


The image is from a cached screenshot of one of Adam's Twitter threads. 

Cached TweetsCached Tweets


“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)


This latest barrage of comments began with this comment on the recent MIREC study, the JAMA Pediatrics podcast, and Bellinger's opinion, all published on August 19, 2019.  


KenP is a frequent and prolifc defender of fluoridation in social media, routinely posting online  comments in American newspapers. This retired agricultural chemist from New Zealand has posted 15 comments on this AARP thread in two days. He is entitled to his point of view. Both fluoridationists and opponents have points of view and as the AARP moderator mentioned, robust discussion is encouraged. However, avoidance of issues and misrepresentation of facts is not of service to anyone. 


KenP complains that he has a hard time getting his critiques published. I pointed out that the studies he critques are strong and mentioned some detail of why his critique of this latest study was problematic. Matter of fact this flurry began because I noted that another amateur statistician had the good sense to erase his Twitter history about a flawed critique that shared some of the same flaws as KenP's. 


I find KenP's response to me troublesome. In fact, I suggest his real strength is in rhetoric rather than science. Yes, the editor's note was 'unprecedented' but the podcast and editorial meetings were not. Dr. Osmunson posted that editorial note in full, while KenP used the word 'contentious' four times in his response in order to plant an inaccurate image of the published material.   


Let's make this easy: 



The MIREC study in JAMA Pediatrics is the 2nd NIEHS sponsored study to use maternal urine to measure dose in North American populations that found a dose related adverse impact on fetal brain development. An Asian study of fluoride in children's urine where the water concentration matched what is regarded as optimal to safe in the US found a strikingly similar impact - all in the past three years (see image below). 



Although AARP members are concerned with their family's health, the AARP forum is not the place for in detail scientific discussion about spedific studies. In my opinion, neither is the New Zealand blog of a zealous fluoridationist who is expert in rhetoric. 



Fluoridation policy is politics pretending to be science. It poisons bodies, bones and brains from womb to tomb. The very young, senior citizens and any with chronic health conditions like diabetes or kidney disease are most at risk. The evolving expert opinion based on scientific evidence is against fluoridation policy. Fluoridation policy is immoral and AARP should oppose it. 


Measuring dose in urineMeasuring dose in urine


CarryAnne - You say:


"KenP complains that he has a hard time getting his critiques published."


In fact, I have only had trouble with 3 contributions.

1: A critique of Hirzy et al (2016). As this was in the Journal "Fluoride" a well known anti-fluoridation propaganda outlet I was not surprised my critique was refused by the Editor Spittle (one of the Co-authors of the Hirzy paper). As this was the first paper I have ever had rejected (and I have published many) I felt really proud it should be rejected by such a shonky journal. That critique is available on Researchgate:


Does drinking water fluoride influence IQ? A critique of Hirzy et al. (2016)


2: My Critique of Malin & Till (215) ADHD paper - The Chief editor of the relevant Journal -

Environmental Health - Grandjean is a well-known critic of community water fluoridation and coauthor of some of the fluoride-IQ papers. He refused to allow it to be considered. I complained about the poor ethics of this to the administrators as the critique should have been published in the journal where the original paper was published. I understand he was disciplined for this behaviour.


My critique was instead published in another journal - see Perrott, K. W. (2018). Fluoridation and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a critique of Malin and Till (2015). British Dental Journal, 223(11), 819–822. 


My critique of the first Bashash maternal F/Child IQ paper was submitted to the journal where Bashash published - Environmental Health Perspectives. Unfortunately, this journal has stopped considering shorter communications like critiques so the paper could not be considered. Not really a rejection.

I have made that critique available on Researchgate - see Predictive accuracy of a model for child IQ based on maternal prenatal urinary fluoride concentratio....


I have also made a critique of the later Bashash et al ADHD paper available. So far I have not checked the possibility of publishing in the journal used (Environment International) but have made it available on Researchgate. See Evidence linking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with community water fluoridation is poor.


So far I have not considered publishing a critique of the Green et al paper - mainly because I am aware there has been widespread criticism of the paper and I expect better scientists than me to make critiques and submit them to the journal. However, I am concerned that the Editor did not seem keen to allow such criticism in the journal itself. In fact, on checking I see that this journal only allows critiques of a paper if received within 4 weeks - so it seems unlikely that journal will allow any critiques of Grenn et al to be published now.

Finally, I notice you are again retreating from a scientific exchange with the comment you made before - "the AARP forum is not the place for in detail scientific discussion about specific studies."

If you really believe this then you would not be commenting on these scientific papers or attempting to use them as authorities for your ideological/political advocacy.

It is perfectly normal for scientists to debate papers and, especially, to critically and intelligently consider the data and evidecne presented in papers.

Long may this continue.


Regular Contributor

Hi CA,


How do you know that this statement that you made is correct?: " Matter of fact this flurry began because I noted that another amateur statistician had the good sense to erase his Twitter history about a flawed critique that shared some of the same flaws as KenP's"


Where did you get this firsthand information?  Did you speak to the statistician?  I did. You are making statements that you are not in possession of. It is ok to have your own opinions, but not your own facts.


Are you aware that one of the co-authors of the Bashash, Till, and Green studies publicly still supports fluoridated water for pregnant mothers?   Now, that's a first hand fact.


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist


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.


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.

Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Need to Know

Cyber Week Sale! Join or renew for just $9 per year - $45 billed at the time of a purchase with a 5-year membership.
Join or renew
and get a FREE gift!

AARP Membership Cyber Week Sale

More From AARP