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

There are a finite number of kids afflicted with moderate dental fluorosis in the U.S.. It is named fluorosis because it is a poisoned condition. Although it may be a small % of the population that has cognitive deficiency from fluoridation exposure, it is an unthinkable and disgusting result because F is not a mineral nutrient and has no place in the human diet other than by accident. Fluoridation is an avoidable source of F intake and it must he stopped, not only for healthy nonfluorotic  teeth but for nonfluorotic bones as well.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor

One of the major findings of the Swedish study (Aggeborn and Öhman, 2017) is that that good dental health is a positive factor on the labour market. Who can argue with that? But good dental health does not depend on swallowing fluoride.
There are many qualifications in the robustness analysis of this report and the opening sentence of the discussion section states, “It is always more difficult to conclude a zero-effect.”
Aggeborn and Öhman conclude, even though they state that their results indicate that the dangerous level is not below 1.5 mg/l, “Future studies should try to establish where the dangerous level of fluoride begins. Since we know that fluoride is lethal and dangerous in high dosages, it is crucial to find the safe limit for fluoride in the drinking water.”
Note the word ‘crucial’.
There are similar precautions offered by Grandjean, Malin, Till and Choi et al.
Shouldn’t we should all take heed?

The safest level, of course, is zero by assuming that there is no threshold below which there is no systemic fluoride effect.


Ross, that is not the finding of Aggeborn and Öhman. What they actually reported is that fluoride has a positive effect on income and well being in later life as well as on dental health. They actually say:

"Fluoride has positive effects on log income and employment status which could indicate that better dental health is a positive factor on the labor market."

That is, they are offering a hypothesis to explain their findings.

This is from their abstract:

"First, we investigate and con rm the long-established positive relationship between fluoride and dental health. Second, we find precisely estimated zero-effects on cognitive ability, non-cognitive ability and education for fluoride levels below 1.5 mg/l. Third, we find evidence that fluoride improves later labor market outcomes, which indicates that good dental health is a positive factor on the labor market."


They did, however, use some dental repair data to support this hypothesis and commented:


"The estimated effect could be interpreted as a beauty-ffect. Given that we found larger effects for non-academics in the earlier reduced-form analyses, one explanation might be that people working in the service sector { which is not uncommon for this age-group { are more sensitive to bad looking teeth. This is probably not the entire explanation however. Having bad dental
health is probably associated with pain, and individuals with dental problems should on
average be more sick and more absent from work. This could explain why they earn less
and are less likely to be employed."


Yes, it is always more difficult to conclude a zero effect - that is the real only valid criticism of the Dunedin study (and all other studies). But Aggeborn and Öhman had a very large sample size which means their confidence intervals were very small. It would be simply desperate to argue that there really was an IQ effect hiding within that small confidence range.

There is nothing exceptional about fluoride at being dangerous at high concentrations - this is the case for other beneficial microelements as well. An upper limit of 1.5 mg/L seems well established and most authorities argue for a lower optimum level to overcome any risk of dental fluorosis.

None of the work of Grandjean, Malin, Till and Choi et al. would suggest changing that accepted level.

Bronze Conversationalist

I agree that the systemic blood level for fluoride should be zero, where F is not a component of normal human blood and is not a nutrient. This however will never be achieved in a country that uses natural fluoride present in some waters as an excuse to fluoridate people with intentionally added industrial fluoride.

There are several million people now in the U.S.with "moderate" fluorosis which means that all their teeth are fluorotic and afflicted with enamel hypoplasia (hypomineralization).. This abnormality is not just unsightly but is a disgusting attribute of a society that forces water distircts to infuse the substance to fluoridate people.

Severe dental fluorosis I suspect is accompanied with significant neurologic impairment. "Moderate" fluorosis may also, where this could be due to one or both factors, neurologic or behavioral.

Mild fluorosis is to me a misnomer since no one should say I have only been "mildly poisoned" when the result is permanent, irreversible, lifelong. Your teeth will never be normal ever again.  You have been permanenlty poisoned by fluoridation advocates who could care less and in fact will tell you that you are better off with mild fluorosis, which of course is nonsensical. I have seen many people who feel self-conscious because of "mild" fluorosis and whose job prospects have been lost because of it, especially those who work for the public, in the public eye.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

But it must be pointed out that all cities that intentionally fluoridate their citizens experience increased incidence of dental fluorosis and there are no exceptions. Even fluoridationist Pollick publishes this. The mechanism by which cognitive adverse effects  can occur, whether caused by the ion known to enter brain tissue, or caused by dental fluorosis being unsightly, or both, may never be known with absolute certainty. Regardless, impaired cognition due to fluoride exposure in children must be avoided, and abstaining from fluoridating children is an important part of that. 

Not fluoridaitng water supplies would then not violate the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Hippocratic Oath, and the lack of government regulation of fluoridation would then be unimportant.

It's a nice goal but apparently won't happen any time soon.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, any increase in dental fluorosis associated with community water is of only the questionable or very mild form. The more serious moderate and severe forms are associated with excessive F consumption - eating toothpaste etc.


of course, it may not be obvious whether cognitive deficits are caused by toxicants or physiological deficiencies. But it is wrong to restrict one's hypotheses in the way the Granbdjean, Till, Choi group have.

For example, the Swedish research showing a relationship of improved quality of life and income with fluoride concentration in drinking water is an interesting result. It seems to me that a physiological mechanism linking better oral health with success in life (something that I think is obvious) is a more credible mechanism than a claim that increased fluoride somehow magically causes one to earn more in later life.


KenP - If you didn't co-author the study on sexual abuse, contact PubMed about the misfile.


Screen Shot 2019-09-17 at 4.50.46 PM.png


CarryAnne - what misfile? That author is clearly not me. Any reasonable person would have noticed that.

0 Kudos
Trusted Contributor

Thank you for that insight Carry Anne! Why would anyone listen to biased voices from venally interested parties? Obviously they have an agenda different than “health of the population” or “truth” for that matter. Thus, why to even argue with such biased voices? I won’t anymore. 


As for science, fluoridated antibiotics have been shown to cause arterial aneurisms. This new study was just published:



Recent studies have linked fluoroquinolones (FQs) to cardiac adverse events, including aortic dissection and aneurysm. To date, whether FQs can increase the risk of aortic or mitral regurgitation has not been studied.

This disproportionality analysis and case-control study examined whether FQs increase the risk of aortic and mitral regurgitation.

Data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s adverse reporting system database was used to undertake a disproportionality analysis, and a random sample of 9,053,240 patients from the U.S. PharMetrics Plus database (IQVIA) was used for the matched nested case-control study. Current FQ exposure implied an active prescription at the index date or 30 days prior to the event date. Recent FQ exposure was defined as FQ use within days 31 to 60 and past within days 61 to 365 prior to the event date. Rate ratios (RRs) were compared to users of amoxicillin and azithromycin. Conditional logistic regression was used to compute RRs adjusting for confounders.

The reported odds ratio for the disproportionality analysis was 1.45 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 to 1.77). A total of 12,505 cases and 125,020 control subjects were identified in the case-control study. The adjusted RRs for current users of FQ compared with amoxicillin and azithromycin users were 2.40 (95% CI: 1.82 to 3.16) and 1.75 (95% CI: 1.34 to 2.29), respectively. The adjusted RRs for recent and past FQ users when compared with amoxicillin were 1.47 (95% CI: 1.03 to 2.09) and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.91 to 1.21), respectively.

These results show that the risk of aortic and mitral regurgitation is highest with current use followed by recent use. No risk was observed with past use of FQs. Future studies are necessary to confirm or refute these associations.



Etminan, M., Sodhi, M., Ganjizadeh-Zavareh, S., Carleton, B., Kezouh, A. & Brophy, J.M. (2019). Oral Fluoroquinolones and Risk of Mitral and Aortic Regurgitation. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 74 (11): 1444 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.07.035 Retrieved from


Bronze Conversationalist

Finally Levaquin has been black boxed by the FDA. I wrote to them several times asking them to ban its use but that failed.

I was injected with Levaquin on a hospital visit when it was thought I had a lung infectiion but didn't. My back was a giant red rash which of course was blamed on the plastic tubing which I am not allergic to. I knew full well what it was when identified to me and requested it be halted. Fortunately my regular doctor agreed and halted it.

Fluorine based drugs are in general a scourge and should not be used unless there was a very unusual situation that was life or death that I cannot imagine. They are metabolized partially by the liver to render the drug inactive but only 10% of the C-F fragments are broken to release free fluoride. Those fragments are highly lipophiliic and incorporate readily into brain and other lipids. I discourage their use for all my family and friends but of course any change of course for any particular case must be discussed with one's physician.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Periodic Contributor

If you tell a physician you dont want fluoroquinolones, they will honor it.  They know its black boxed.  I put it on my allergy list.  


Avelox, a fluoroquinolone, was given to my friend.  After a few doses, she developed numbness in her extremities.


General anesthesia uses a F bolus to help put you to sleep and wakes you up with CaCl to bind the F.  For some people, cognitive issues persist for 30 days or more until enough of the F dissipates from the body.


AARP needs to take this information, research it, and let seniors know the risks involved.  This is an extremely critical health information.


A Registered Nurse


"In this prospective birth cohort study from 6 cities in Canada, higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with lower IQ scores in children measured at age 3 to 4 years. These findings were observed at fluoride levels typically found in white North American women. This indicates the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy." - Conclusion in Green et al, 2019


"The problem is that it's an uncontrolled dose – everyone is exposed to different levels. It may be prudent for pregnant women to reduce ingesting fluoride during pregnancy.” - Christine Till, PhD (2018)


What advocates of fluoridation fail to take into consideration is that good scientists should take care to report data and facts, and although they can draw conclusions within the confines of the data, scientists should neither dictate medical treatment nor stray beyond what the data reveals. This is what Dr. Till is doing.


The other item that fluoridationists seem to have a problem with is that using municipal water to mass medicate the population is a violation of individual medical consent and as such constitutes medical assault on those who object or who are ignorant of the harm caused them, i.e. the unborn. 



Johnny Johnson is the president of the American Fluoridation Society,501(c)(3),  created in 2015 to promote fluoridation policy. Apparently the AFS has assetts in excess of $100k. The same membership created the American Fluoridation Institute, a 501(c)(4), in 2019, apparently for further financial benefits and lobbying opportunities. 


Ken Perrott directed me to his other published fluoride related document (an opinion piece claiming that kids with dental fluorosis likely do badly in school because they disengage due to embarrassment over their unatractive teeth instead of because of neurological damage). His conflict of interest statement on that paper states that KenP's affiliation is Making Sense of Fluoride which he writes is an incorporated society in New Zealand that focuses on community water fluoridation.


The 3rd article that comes up in PubMed under KenP's name is not about fluoridation. This 1998 article is about coping mechanisms of those who experienced childhood sexual abuse. The author (KenP says it's a different KenP) proposes that reframing the abuse is generally a positive strategy. That is interesting because the language and approach our KenP uses in fluoridation reframes the discussion and fluoridationist lobbyists emphasize changing the topic to 'win' the debate, i.e. 'reframing.' 

Harm Wheel CWFHarm Wheel CWF


Carry Ann - you claim my paper Perrott, K. W. (2015). Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 48, 78–79:

was "an opinion piece claiming that kids with dental fluorosis likely do badly in school because they disengage due to embarrassment over their unatractive teeth instead of because of neurological damage."

Not true. It was correspondence (not an opinion piece) responding to Choi et al. (2014) who reported no effect of drinking water on child IQ but an effect of dental of fluorosis on IQ. I was simply pointing out a limitation that the authors were considering only chemical toxicant mechanisms whereas physiological factors like tooth decay and dental fluorosis affecting appearance are known to influence the quality of life and could be considered as possible factors.

Indeed, in parts of Africa dental fluorosis is described as psychological fluorosis for this reason.

I find it significant that the Till, Grandjean, Choi, et al group seem to always ignore most non-chemical toxicant factors. Malin & Till (2105) also fell into that trap with their ADHD paper.


CarryAnne, you say:

"What advocates of fluoridation fail to take into consideration is that good scientists should take care to report data and facts, and although they can draw conclusions within the confines of the data, scientists should neither dictate medical treatment nor stray beyond what the data reveals. This is what Dr. Till is doing."

I suspect you did not mean what you wrote at the end of this, although I agree that in her promotion of this work Christine Till is not behaving as an objective scientist.

I have no illusions about the politics of science and have written about it specifically regarding Till's work - see Politics of science – making a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.


Specifically, I am concerned that while she is definitely aware of the work of Huber et al (2015) and Perrott (2018) showing the relationship of ADHD prevalence to altitude and the lack of a relationship with fluoridation when this is considered she and her coauthors studiously ignore that research in their discussion.


I am also concerned that she appears to have responded to this be studiously refusing to include the full statistical analyses in the more recent papers. While this covers the fact that the reported relationships are extremely weak and therefore meaningless I do concede that she and her co-authors have published the data allowing others to do their own analyses. I suspect, though, that she will continue to ignore these critiques.

It is concerning that she and her coauthors also studiously refused td to comment on the fact their own figures show no effect of community water fluoridation on child IQ in the Green et al study. See the data extracted from their Table 1 [please ignore the (SD)].

table IQ.png
This is even more concerning because anti-fluoride campaigners have made claims completely in conflict with that data and, so far, Till has not repudiated those claims. See this recent billboard:

A New Zealand anti-fluoride billboard misrepresents the Green et al findingsA New Zealand anti-fluoride billboard misrepresents the Green et al findings

Finally, I am concerned at the poolcy of the journal where Green et al published. It now appears that it will not publish critiques or responses to the paper (They have a 4-week deadline) and this is sad because it interferes with peer review - I strongly believe that scientific peer review should continue after publication - see 
We need more post-publication peer review and that policy makes this far more difficult.

It is sad that the journal editor could only see discussion of this research in the non-scientific media instead of his journal.



CarryAnne - could you please provide a link to this article you refer to - it is complete news to me as I have never published on his subject and have no ewx[pertise in the area:

"This 1998 article is about coping mechanisms of those who experienced childhood sexual abuse. KenP proposes that reframing the abuse is generally a positive strategy."

I appreciate you are not objectively looking at the literature and simply wishing to confirm biases (and attacking the man rather than the ball)- but this seems to be a huge mistake on your part. I suggest an apology is in order - especially as this claim could become another part of the list of fictional crimes I have committed in the view of the anti-fluoride campaigners. I can see your mate Geoff Pain confidently asserting this in his next false description of me.

My earlier fluoride publications (60s and 70s) were about reaction fo fluoride with minerals and soils. - not directly relevant to community water fluoridation. However, in the 2000s I did research fluorosilicic acid (as an acid extractant for heavy metals) and am therefore familiar with its reactions and the purity of the chemical used.

By the way - institutional affiliation is not a conflict of interest and never stated as such.

Trusted Contributor

Again Ken here retorts to attacking everyone else in an effort to swamp the truth by irrelevant minutiaea. He calls his own opinions, and his own papers, as proof of truth of the matter asserted. Then he calls the same as “intelligent discussion based on science”, when in reality this tactic is a circular argument and hearsay. To engage in a valid discussion, one needs to synthesize relevant sources, other than one’s own articles only, and mere attacks based on manipulations of data, as presented in the valid peer revieved studies. In reality, science speaks for itself, and concensus has been tipping on the side of the precautionary principle for a long time.


I just provided a new study, which “speaks for itself” and is not my own opinion or paper. However, the fluoride promoters have chosen to ignore this new highly relevant study, which again adds to the consensus thar fluorides are neurotoxic and harm the brain.



Strunecka & Strunecky (2019) aimed to provide evidence of fluoride (F-) neurotoxicity. They assessed the risk of chronic F exposure in the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) etiopathology and investigated the role of metabolic and mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress and inflammation, immunoexcitotoxicity, and decreased melatonin levels. These symptoms have been observed both after chronic F exposure as well as in ASD. Moreover, they showed that F in synergistic interactions with aluminum’s free metal cation (Al3+) can reinforce the pathological symptoms of ASD. This reinforcement takes place at concentrations several times lower than when acting alone. A high ASD prevalence has been reported from countries with water fluoridation as well as from endemic fluorosis areas. Thus, Strunecka & Strunecky (2019) suggest focusing the ASD prevention on the reduction of the F and Al3+ burdens from daily life.


Strunecka, A. & Strunecky, O. (2019). Chronic Fluoride Exposure and the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health,16(18), 3431. doi:10.3390/ijerph16183431


sirpac - I have not attacked anyone - I suspect you are simply feeling that my identification of problems in studies is an attack but that is the way scientists work. Data, hypotheses, and conclusion are put up for discussion. Discussion is helpful - it is not a personal attack.

You are wrong to call the very high scatter in the Green et al relationship, the very low explanatory power of that relationship, the fact that Malin & Till's relationship with fluoridation disappears when other risk-modifying factors are included  "irrelevant minutiaea." Those facts are extremely important and should be considered by the authors and their supporters.


“This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water” - Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician and reknowned expert in  environmental exposures and children's health at New York University Langone Health on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)


"There have been similar findings related to exposure to fluoride and IQ from children in China. So this observation or association has been reported before. - Dr. Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science on Bashash et al. (Sept 2017)


"The mission of the journal is to ensure that child health is optimized by bringing the best available evidence to the fore... This study is neither the first, nor will it be the last, to test the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive development." - Dr. Dimitri Christakis, editor in chief of JAMA Pediatrics (August 2019)


“It’s actually very similar to the effect size that’s seen with childhood exposure to lead.” - Dr. David Bellinger, senior scientist in environmental health and neurology at the Harvard School of Public Health on Green et al. (August 2019)


The irony in KenP's repeated insistance that everyone should read his blog post 'critiques' that refute the findings of a series of high-quality U.S. government sponsored studies is that KenP claims that he isn't influenced by the opinions of anyone else... Notice that KenP is spending a lot of time trying to influence participants in American social media with his non-peer-reviewed and self-published opinions. I believe his only published paper on this topic is an interesting attempt to disappear the evidence by adding elevation into the equation - his numbers appear correct in that one item, but it also could be totally meaningless to the question at hand. 


In any event, I suggest the opinions of experts such as those quoted above and the peer-reviewed published papers of expert teams from presitgous American and Canadian universities are better sources of truth than the blog of a retired agricultural chemist from New Zealand. 


See sources attached to this opinion item, We Too: Medical Assault and Battery



CarryAnne, I will just remind you of an important quote you presented here:

“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts.” -  Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel laureate on evidence and data analysis (1959)

As I said at the time this is so true. And in fact, that is the attitude all credible scientists take - to look at the evidence, data, discussion, logic. Not rely on "authority" statements, promotions, unsupported claims, etc.

This is the attitude I take so, please, be aware that your continued resorting to "authority" statements mean nothing to me. Show me the data.

And in this respect, this data from Green et al is what should be discussed - especially the huge scatter of the data and the fact the best fit line is meaningless in terms of prediction.
Canada 1.jpg
I am glad you accept the fact shown in Perrott (2018) that inclusion of elevation in the regression of Marlin & Till (2015) shows that fluoridation has absolutely no effect. Of course, this does not prove a cause for elevation - but it does show that the relationship reported by Malin & Till was false.

Of course, if you prefer opinions instead of intelligently considering the evidence that is your prerogative and, while it is unscientific, it is the usual approach anti-fluoridationists take. But one can select opinions to suit any bias.

In the end, the only thing of value is the data.

[Incidentally, I have several other peer-reviewed publications on fluoride - look them up - one of them relevant to IQ - Perrott, K. W. (2015). Severe dental fluorosis and cognitive deficits. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 48, 78–79.]

Trusted Contributor

Despite of any techical issues or minor inaccuracies, the real issue is why does fluoridation continue, when there is no valid evidence of safety or effectiveness? All the polemics aside, this is a serious issue and not a matter of opinion. 


Since there are now hundreds of studies

establishing harm, and none to establish safety, then even if there were some ridiculous benefit of adding these highly toxic chemicals in to the water supplies, such practice would still violate all the basic ethical principles. These principles are based on informed consent and such consent belongs to individuals, not to any state or other governing body. 


Thus, why do the fluoridationist and fluoride promoters insists on stumping over individual rights? It appears the US does not respect such individual rights, or ethics, as long as the fluoride poisoning continues. 

Periodic Contributor

I agree with sirpac. 


There is no valid evidence for safety and effectiveness studies for ingesting a pharmaceutical grade or a non-pharmaceutical fluoride.   Harm has been established and further studies are needed.  If a physician who has respect for the JAMA study is concerned, why do the fluoride promoters protest with such vigor?  What is the agenda of fluoride promoters?  Their agenda does not seem to be public safety or safety of the children.  It appears they are insistent on defending an outdated policy without taking a breath to consider the big picture of harm.  The fluoride promoters’ arguments are the same after every study showing the potential for harm.


There are other ways to help the teeth than by contaminating the drinking water for all people thereby stomping on individual rights.  I think the fluoride promoters would best turn their energy to other ways to help the children whose parents cannot figure out the importance or the technique of how to brush their teeth.


Dr. Berry – watch his sensible video.            


AARP, take note of these things and offer a sensible piece in your bulletin.                  


A registered nurse.


Regular Contributor

Maybe it's time for JAMA Peds Editor Christakis to begin listening to what Christine Till is having to say now about drinking fluoridated water:


MONDAY, Aug. 19, 2019 (HealthDay News) -- Fluoride exposure from drinking water during pregnancy could be making children less intelligent, a new Canadian study argues.

Pregnant women should consider reducing their exposure to fluoride, Till said. That might include avoiding public water sources that are fluoridated, since those account for 70% of fluoride exposure in adults.




September 14, 2019

“I think this message could be easily misconstrued as us saying don’t drink fluoridated water — we’re not saying that,” study author Christine Till, professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, told BuzzFeed News.



If Till has changed her tune on drinking fluoridated water, how can the Editor of JAMA Peds stick to his medical statement to avoid it?


Johnny Johnson, Jr., DMD, MS

Pediatric Dentist

Periodic Contributor

In an environmental context, the precautionary principle can be defined as such: when an identified threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment or human health exists, a lack of full scientific knowledge about the situation should not be used to delay remedial steps if the balance of potential costs and benefits justifies action (Resnik, 2003).

Bronze Conversationalist

Perhaps Till does not want to take a stand on a govenrment, police protected policy and face fluoridationist rancor and criticism. This interferes with investigations a scientst wants to do. 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Trusted Contributor

New Autism study again condemning fluoridation!

The continuous rise of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) prevalent in the past few decades is causing an increase in public health and socioeconomic concern. A consensus suggests the involvement of both genetic and environmental factors in the ASD etiopathogenesis. Fluoride (F) is rarely recognized among the environmental risk factors of ASD, since the neurotoxic effects of F are not generally accepted. Our review aims to provide evidence of F neurotoxicity. We assess the risk of chronic F exposure in the ASD etiopathology and investigate the role of metabolic and mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress and inflammation, immunoexcitotoxicity, and decreased melatonin levels. These symptoms have been observed both after chronic F exposure as well as in ASD. Moreover, we show that F in synergistic interactions with aluminum’s free metal cation (Al3+) can reinforce the pathological symptoms of ASD. This reinforcement takes place at concentrations several times lower than when acting alone. A high ASD prevalence has been reported from countries with water fluoridation as well as from endemic fluorosis areas. We suggest focusing the ASD prevention on the reduction of the F and Al3+ burdens from daily life.

Strunecka, A. & Strunecky, O. (2019). Chronic Fluoride Exposure and the Risk of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health,16(18), 3431. doi:10.3390/ijerph16183431

Trusted Contributor

It appears that the fluoride poromoters are complaining about their “criticisms not being heard”, when in reality regardless of the overwhelming science that condems fluoridation and the FDA not having approved such practices, fluoridation continues without justification or even slight (or any valid) evidence of any true benefit. Thus, overwhelming or denigrating opponents is the means to stifle truth now by the polluters. 


If even fluoridated salt can cause IQ loss, and brain damage in developing brains, then what will daily exposure to silicofluorides in the public water do?


Per Bashash et al. (2018): 
Fluoride, the ionized form of the halogen element fluorine, exists widely in the environment and is the most electronegative and reactive among all elements (ATSDR, 2010). Its well-known cariostatic effect led to the addition of fluoride to water, salt, and milk in some countries. Other sources of fluoride include dental products, such as toothpastes, mouth rinses, and varnishes, supplements, processed foods made with fluoridated water, fluoride-containing pesticides, teas, and fluorinated pharmaceuticals. Systemic ingestion of fluoride through water and water-based beverages is the main source of fluoride intake, accounting for approximately 75% of dietary fluoride intake among adults living in communities that fluoridate their water supply in the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2010; USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture), 2005). However, in Mexico City, individuals are primarily exposed to fluoride through fluoridated salt (mean concentration of fluoride in salt is 250 ± 50 ppm), and to varying degrees of naturally-occurring fluoride in water, which have been reported to range from 0.15 to 1.38 mg/L (Juárez-López et al., 2007; Martinez-Mier et al., 2005). Public water supplies are not fluoridated in Mexico and the mean fluoride content of the water supply is not publicly available.


Bashash, M., Marchand, M., Hu, H., Till, C., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Sanchez, B. N., ... Téllez-Rojo, M. M. (2018). Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6–12 years of age in Mexico City. Environment International, 121, 658–666. doi: 10.1016/J.ENVINT.2018.09.017


sirpac - you say:

"If even fluoridated salt can cause IQ loss, and brain damage in developing brains, then what will daily exposure to silicofluorides in the public water do?"

Where is the credible evidence "fluoridated salt" causes IQ loss? (Notice the word "credible). And what is this about "silicofluorides in the public water?" Did you not realise the existence of these species in a dilute form in water is chemically impossible.

As for the Bashash paper - why do you quote the first paragraph in the introduction and label it an abstract?

For a critique of that paper read: 

Evidence linking attention deficit hyperactivity disorder with community water fluoridation is poor

You will notice like most of these studies the reported relationships are extremely weak - although in this case the 3 to 4% explanation of variance is better than in their other studies.

It is also very likely that this study ignored some important risk modifying factors. Perrott, K. W. (2018). Fluoridation and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a critique of Malin and Till (2015). British Dental Journal, 223(11), 819–822 showed how inclusion of important factors (in this case altitude) removed any relationship of ADHD with fluoridation.

One needs to read these studies critically and intelligently.


“When studying any matter, ask yourself two things: what are the facts and what is the truth that the facts bear out. Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, or what you think would have beneficent social effects if it were believed. Look only and solely at what are the facts.” -  Bertrand Arthur William Russell, logician and Nobel laureate on evidence and data analysis (1959)
KenP - So after several comments attacking my veracitiy, even claiming I'm generating fake news despite my repeatedly providing the link to my source, you admit you hadn't followed the link before making your false claim. Your latest responses after finally checking the source aren't exactly word salad because they are coherent, but they so misrepresent the material with your "assumptions" that it's hard to see how you could rationally arrive at your claims. 
First, there is nothing "unprecedented" or exceptional about either the fact that there was a podcast or editorial meetings associated with the MIREC study by Green et al. The editors do a monthly podcast on 1 or 2 articles in JAMA Pediatrics. Moreover, mentioning the several statistical reviews in that podcast was not an offhand remark - the stated intent of this 12 minute podcast which was entirely devoted to the MIREC study was to explain the behind the scenes due diligence to ensure that the quality of the study was up to JAMA Pediatrics standards - which it was. Despite your claims that no one at JAMA Pediatrics or even the researchers who conducted the study were competent, the handling of the data was impeccable. 
As far as your personal armchair analysis of the study data, any analysis that relies on unadjusted estimates is meaningless because adjusted estimates from the regression model that control for all the factors that can influence IQ is what reveals significant patterns. Consideration of how many potential confounders were controlled is standard in review methods, such as the Cochrane reviews. Cochrane rates the quality of studies and their analyses.
KenP, that you rely totally on unadjusted data in your critique of this MIREC study is either a major blunder or overt manipulation, especially in this study that had several confounders such as higher maternal education in the fluoridated group. Confounders like this would obscure loss in IQ. Green et al., on the other hand, did it right.  Given the stature of the JAMA Network, I'm sure the "several" independent and professional statistical analyses that JAMA contracted did it right, too. 
But even without that fatal flaw in your critique, KenP, any analysis that controlled for zero potential confounders like yours, KenP, would be rated at very “high risk of bias” by Cochrane or any other competent reviewer and would less likely be published by any competent journal. It  certainly would not be published by a high quality journal like JAMA Pediatrics.  
I like data, but I am very aware of the data manipulation by biased players and so pay close attention to both the data and language used. I suggest your choice of language in social media and your quick criticisms of any comment that disagrees with you without even checking sources, as well as your non-standard handling of data confirms your pro-fluoridation bias as fact and suggests that you are afraid  the truth in the science published by both the MIREC and ELEMENT projects will not reflect well on your hobby of championing fluoridation policy by throwing stones at people and studies that disagree with your point of view. 
For more on truth revealed by the high-quality MIREC and ELEMENT studies relevant to fluoridation policy, see: 

CarryAnne, Love the quote from Betrand Russell. Sums up my whole approach. Facts, data, evidence are what should ground us.

As you will notice this has been my whole approach in this and other discussions. I have approached my analysis of the Green et al. paper by looking at, and dealing with, the data. I am not influenced by authority statements - either from the author, coauthors, editor or those who had early access to the paper and set out to promote it.

An Editorial note is unprecedented, as this editor specifically said. it is not something I have come across before in my extensive research and publication experience. 

I have written in detail about the handling of the data - I obviously do not agree with your unsupported claim this was "impeccable." But then again I deal with the facts, evidence, data - not personal "authority" assurances. And the fact that the editorial review was contentious (and the editor specifically mentioned contentious statistical review) surely supports my point.

Yes, the mean IQ values provided in Table 1 are not "adjusted" - how could they be. They are plain means, not the result of a regression model.

Yes, in the regression model adjustment for other confounders did influence the association or coefficient - it reduced it (from -2.6 to -1.95 for all children, from -5.01 to -4.49 for boys and about the same 2.23 to 2.40 for girls).

This is quite normal. When a model includes a range of risk-modifying factors that influence the outcome the correlation coefficients for a particular factor is reduced compared for unadjusted regressions. Sometimes, as in the case of the Malin & Till (2015) ADHD paper, adjustment actually removes an association completely. (In this case, their reported association of ADHD with fluoridation disappeared completely when the altitude was included in the adjustment - 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).

Apart from the fact that reference to adjustment is irrelevant to simple mean values it is surely straw grasping to talk about adjustment in the vain hope of converting a non-significant difference into a large difference. But I notice a few anti-fluoride campaigners are now starting to attempt this with a vague reference to "adjustment."

More worrying to me is the fact that the authors did not even refer to that specific data in their discussion. If there was an argument based on "adjustments" that would have been the place for it to be made.

But another, more political, point. There is nothing in the Green et al study to justify the claims of anti-fluoride campaigners in New Zealand that the study shows that "Fluoridated water lowers kid's IQ."  Quite the opposite. That claim is completely wrong and will probably lead to action from our advertising authority. It is false scaremongering - probably why several local authorities have ordered the offending billboards be taken down.

Your claim that I have only concentrated on the mean values form the papers Table 1 is completely wrong. I have spent some time showing that the regression analysis used by Green et al produces a best-fit line explaining only 1.3% of the variance in IQ. This is a fundamental and important point. This, together with the suspect nature of the regression (the data was not normally distributed so probably violated an inherent assumption) means that the much-touted value of the regression coefficient is meaningless. A simple look at the figures published in the paper confirms that assessment (see below). How could the much-touted coefficient of 4.49 predict the real values?

CarryAnne, I do not see you engage properly with any data. You instead rely almost exclusively on "authority" statements. While that is normal for anti-fluoride campaigners it is extremely poor behavior for any scientists. In fact, it is not at all scientific.

I leave you with this graph from the Green et al. (2109) paper which surely shows that the claims based on the best-fit line have absolutely no predictive power. They are meaningless. It is surely significant that the anti-fluoride campaigners promoting and misinterpreting this paper never show this data.

Canada 1.jpg




You remind me of Donald Trump when you say,  

"I am not influenced by authority statements - either from the author, coauthors, editor or those who had early access to the paper and set out to promote it."


Then I assume you do not agree with any research unless you did it yourself.


Authors, peer review, consistent multiple studies all mean nothing to you unless the results fit within your bias, gut feeling.  I call that "Trumpian science."


Too many are ingesting too much fluoride and they are being harmed.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH