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! 


“There are people who will protect fluoride no matter what the cost, no matter what the evidence says. They will disregard the evidence and continue to say that it is unequivocally safe and effective. We’ve seen this over and over by people who have strong interests in promoting fluoridation.” - Christine Till, PhD  (2020)


To counter the fluoridation promoters, let me recommend an outstanding video produced by a single working mother and water worker, Brenda Staudenmaier. This honest working woman very nicely sums up some of the major points against fluoridation in Message to Water Operators


For those of you who would prefer scanning recent science, see these 2021 items: 


  1. Genetics determine who will be more susceptible to fluoride toxicity:
    • Zhao L, Yu C, Lv J, Cui Y, Wang Y, Hou C, Yu J, Guo B, Liu H, Li L. Fluoride exposure, dopamine relative gene polymorphism and intelligence: A cross-sectional study in China. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2021 Feb;209:111826. 
  2. Early life exposure to 'optimal’ fluoridation in US cities increases the likelihood of kidney disease in later life: 
    • Yudan Wei, Jianmin Zhu, Sara Ann Wetzstein. Plasma and water fluoride levels and hyperuricemia among adolescents: A cross-sectional study of a nationally representative sample of the United States for 2013–2016. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. Volume 208. 15 January 2021.
  3. Inflamed guts and microbiome result from any fluoride exposure: 
    • Dionizio A, Uyghurturk DA, Melo CGS, Sabino-Arias IT, Araujo TT, Ventura TMS, Perles JVCM, Zanoni JN, Den Besten P, Buzalaf MAR. Intestinal changes associated with fluoride exposure in rats: Integrative morphological, proteomic and microbiome analyses. Chemosphere. 2021 Jan 11;273:129607.
  4. Adequate Intake (AI) recommended by the IOM poison baby brains
    • Castiblanco-Rubio, G., Muñoz-Rocha, T., Cantoral, A., Téllez-Rojo, M., Ettinger, A., Mercado-García, A., Peterson, K.E., Hu, H., Martínez-Mier, E. (2021). Dietary Fluoride Intake Over the Course of Pregnancy in Mexican Women Public Health Nutrition, 1-25.
  5. Neurological damage for babies in the womb where the effects persist throughout life.
    • Ferreira MKM, Aragão WAB, Bittencourt LO, Puty B, Dionizio A, Souza MPC, Buzalaf MAR, de Oliveira EH, Crespo-Lopez ME, Lima RR. Fluoride exposure during pregnancy and lactation triggers oxidative stress and molecular changes in hippocampus of offspring rats. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety. 2021 Jan 15;208:111437

As to the political wrangling, in January 2021, the NASEM wrote that the NTP should clarify their processes in order to satisfy stubborn factions (an impossibility), but does not dispute the NTP conclusion that:


”…fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans. This conclusion is based on a consistent pattern of findings in human studies across several different populations showing that higher fluoride exposure is associated with decreased IQ or other cognitive impairments in children." - Draft Monograph from National Toxicology Program, “Systemic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects”


Also in January 2021, the EPA advised that they do not have to consider fluoridation programs, that they are too busy with more important things. 


Let me try to clarify for AARP :

  • Senior citizens consider fluoridation important. We recognize that when we poison baby brains in the womb, the neurotoxic impact is life-long. When we continue to poison consumers with fluoride, we damage bodies, bones and brains. Fluoridation policy is #Womb2Tomb poisoning. 

25 of 27 NTP Studies25 of 27 NTP Studies

Trusted Contributor

0 Kudos

“New evidence questions existing policies about the safety of fluoride for babies' developing brains. Given that safe alternatives are available and that there is no benefit of fluoride to babies' teeth before they erupt or appear, it is time to protect those who are most vulnerable.” - Bruce Lanphear MD, PhD; Christine Till PhD; & Linda S. Birnbaum PhD in “It is time to protect kids’ developing brains from fluoride.” Environmental Health News (October 7, 2020)


  1. Randy Johnson signs his name and links to his private blog posts and to material from the pro-fluoridation group to which he belongs as a member of the "communications committee." That is self-promotion not science. 

  2. Claiming that those who oppose fluoridation are a handful of outliers, then  denigrating them with all sorts of other claims and name calling is known as a 'logical fallacy'  - a rhetorical technique to persuade people of something that isn't necessarily true, like in the story about The Emperor's New Clothes

  3. Endorsement by primarily dental organizations and Big Sugar are likewise not science. Neither are endorsements by organizations in support of their entrenched policies. This is a logical fallacy known as 'appeal to authority.'

    However it is an extremely weak appeal in the face of the documented science and NTP report. The graph I included in my previous comment clearly detailed the exposure levels and number of studies used by the NTP. Eleven of the 27 studies were at 'optimal' or lower concentration levels and found neurological harm. NASEM played a word game saying the majority of the studies were above 0.7 ppm. Yes, of the 27 studies, two studies found no harm (one at 'optimal' concentration and the other at 'safe' concentration), of the 25 that did find harm, 11 were at 'optimal concentrations' but 14 were higher. I agree 14 is greater than 11, but that's when the NTP talked about consistency. Click here for details

    Moreover, the authors of the quote above are a pretty authoritative group: 

    - Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, a physician and epidemiologist at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, has studied the neurotoxicity of lead, fluoride and other toxic chemicals for over twenty years. His studies were the key ones that led the CDC and the WHO to conclude that there is no safe level of lead in children’s blood. He recently testified as an expert witness in an ongoing U.S. trial agains the EPA re fluoride. Read his deposition


    - Christine Till, PhD, an associate professor of Psychology and clinical neuropsychologist at York University in Toronto, Canada has been spearheading a research initiative examining the neurotoxicity of fluoride on children’s intellectual abilities and behaviors. Dr. Till  received the President's Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) from the University of Toronto in 2019. 


    - Linda Birnbaum, PhD, is Scientist Emeritus and Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) and National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Birnbaum, who is internationally recognized for her work on the toxicity of flame retardants and other chemicals, was the Director of the National Toxicology Program when the report on fluoride began. Her expertise is in endocrine disruptors, for which she is recognized as an international expert. Fluoride is an endocrine disruptor. 

As to repeatability, that is exactly what has happened. The remarkable consistency refers to two separate teams finding the same results in two different North American countries using two different populations subjected to 'optimal'  fluoridation policies. Both the MIREC and ELEMENT studies are recognized as the highest quality studies on the topic of prenatal and infancy fluoride toxicity. Studies in other countries have found the same effect. 


Most importantly, the NASEM pointed out the NTP omitted performing a dose-response and other analyses. There was a reason for that.... dose-response and BDML analyses have been done and they all show that there is no safe exposure to fluoride - just like with lead


Also, just like with lead, smoking, and second hand smoke, the supporters of leaded gasoline and smoking furiously and adamantly refused to accept the science for decades. Ultimately, they never did but relented when those with integrity finally stood up and were counted. 


  • AARP - Demonstrate integrity! Stand up and be counted. 




Trusted Contributor

In fact:New evidencedoes not question existing policies about the safety of fluoride when used appropriately in drinking water for babies’ developing brains. Fluoridation opponents (FOs) ignore and misrepresent the actual science. “When focusing on findings from studies with exposures in ranges typically found in drinking water in the United States (0.7 mg/L for optimally fluoridated community water systems) that can be evaluated for dose response, effects on cognitive neurodevelopment are inconsistent, and therefore unclear.” (9/16/20 second draft of the NTP Monograph, p. 2) “… the [NTP] monograph cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding low fluoride exposure concentrations (less than 1.5 mg/L), including those typically associated with drinking water fluoridation.” (2/21 NASEM review of the second NTP Monograph draft)


CarryAnne conveniently failed to address my questions with any relevant answers. Specifically:

  1. My claims, referenced in the previous comment, simply confirm the scientific consensus that community water fluoridation is safe and effective – and provide specific references. That is, in fact, promoting the actual science – not self-promotion. As I noted, and as CarryAnne seems to have confirmed, there are no major, respected science or health organizations in the world that support the anti-F opinions. I asked for an explanation for that fact, and have received none. I will also ask CarryAnne to describe her understanding of a scientific consensus and provide some rational alternative if she believes the process is flawed.

  2. My claim that those who oppose fluoridation are “a handful of outliers” simply highlights the fact that FOs represent a very small fraction of relevant science and health experts. That statement is supported by the fact outlined in points #1 & #3.

    The fact is, a very vocal minority, with very strong opinions, does not have legitimate, relevant scientific evidence to change the scientific consensus that fluoridation is safe and effective – it they did, the scientific consensus would change. Lanphear, Till, Birnbaum and others who challenge the accepted scientific consensus are free to do so – challenges to an accepted scientific consensus or theory is precisely how science progresses. As I have noted, I have found no evidence that any major, respected science/health organizations support the anti-F opinions.

    Those challenges, however, require legitimate, relevant, reproducible, accurately presented scientific evidence to change the scientific consensus – that is also, precisely how science progresses. So far, those who have presented “evidence” FOs claim “proves” fluoridation lowers IQ and causes a wide range of other health issues have been unsuccessful in changing the scientific consensus – as evidenced by the conclusions of the NTP noted above. That lack of legitimate, validated, accepted evidence however, doesn’t prevent FOs from misrepresenting the “evidence” in an effort to bypass the scientific process and hijack the democratic process by trying to scare voters and elected officials (most of whom are not scientists) into fearing a safe and effective public health measure.

  3. Making absurd claims that “Endorsement by primarily dental organizations and Big Sugar are likewise not science. Neither are endorsements by organizations in support of their entrenched policies.” clearly demonstrates that CarryAnn has no concept of how the scientific process works to ensure legitimate, science-based evidence supports public health measures. I have found and verified over 100 major science and health organizations worldwide that support fluoridation (referenced in my previous comment) – well over half of those, listed below, are not “dental organizations”. If there was legitimate scientific evidence supporting anti-F opinions, one might expect the World Health Organization and the other organizations listed below to change their support.
    Does CarryAnne actually believe that ALL these organizations have made statements supporting fluoridation without bothering to initiate a careful, ongoing review the evidence?
    Again I ask, CarryAnne to explain how recommendations from any of these organizations could be trusted if they just blindly accepted random health claims without a thorough, review of the evidence.


Bottom Line: Trust the Experts – as represented by the overwhelming majority of science/health experts.


These are the non-dental organizations I have found that support fluoridation. The health departments of all 50 U.S. states, 6 Australian states and 10 Canadian Provinces also support fluoridation. If they can’t be trusted to make accurate, completely informed decisions, as CarryAnne and other FOs suggest, we are in deep trouble.

  1. World Health Organization (WHO)
  2. Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
  3. American Academy of Family Physicians
  4. American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
  5. American Association for the Advancement of Science
  6. American Council on Science and Health
  7. American Dietetic Association
  8. American Heart Association
  9. American Medical Association
  10. American Nurses Association
  11. American Osteopathic Association
  12. American Society for Clinical Nutrition
  13. American Public Health Association
  14. American Water Works Association (AWWA)
  15. Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
  16. Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
  17. Australian Government Department of Health
  18. Australian Medical Association
  19. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)
  20. British Medical Association
  21. Canadian Medical Association
  22. Canadian Paediatric Society
  23. Canadian Public Health Association
  24. Center for Public Health Law Research
  25. Centers for Disease Control
  26. Council of State Governments
  27. Community Preventive Services Task Force
  28. Department of Health & Social Care, UK
  29. Environmental Protection Agency
  30. European Food Safety Authority
  31. European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER)
  32. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
  33. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI)
  34. Green Facts
  35. Health Canada
  36. Health Research Board, Ireland
  37. Health Resources and Services Administration
  38. Health Resources in Action (HRiA) policy
  39. Indian Health Service (U.S.) states
  40. Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy
  41. Institute for Science in Medicine
  42. KidsHealth
  43. Linus Pauling Institute
  44. Mayo Clinic
  45. National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine
  46. National Association of County and City Health Officials
  47. National Association of Local Boards of Health
  48. National Black Caucus of State Legislators
  49. National Cancer Institute
  50. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia)
  51. National Health Service, UK
  52. National Kidney Foundation
  53. Network for Public Health Law
  54. New Zealand Medical Association
  55. New Zealand Ministry of Health
  56. New Zealand Nurses Association
  57. Paediatric Society of New Zealand
  58. Pan American Health Organization
  59. Pew Charitable Trusts
  60. Public Health Agency of Canada
  61. Public Health Association of New Zealand
  62. Public Health England
  63. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  64. Royal Australasian College of Physicians New Zealand
  65. Royal Society of New Zealand and Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor
  66. Singapore Ministry of Health
  67. Singapore’s National Water Agency, PUB
  68. State of Israel Ministry of Health
  69. U.S. Department of Defense
  70. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  71. U.S. National Institutes of Health ODS
  72. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)
  73. U.S. Public Health Service
  74. U.S. Surgeons General’s statements
Randy Johnson
0 Kudos

Hi Randy,


I will only address a couple of material flaws in your post of 3/1/21.  


Water concentration is not dosage.  Some people drink very little if any water and others drink 10 times average.   Many are ingesting too much fluoride as seen by serious increases in dental fluorosis.   0.7 ppm fluoride in water is not an individual dosage.  


There has never been a prospective randomized controlled trial of fluoride ingestion and they could be done.  Perhaps they have and the results did not support policy.   Good research can be done and should be done.


The second item is the list of more than 70 organizations you suggest support fluoridation of public water.  An impressive list, except the list of endorsements has serious limitations.  For 25 years of practice I believed those organizations because I did not look at the research they used and I failed to look at the research for myself.   


For example, the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) has not approved fluoride supplements or fluoridated water or the ingestion of fluoride with the intent to prevent dental caries.  Fluoride is an unapproved drug which the FDA clearly states is an illegal drug.  The FDA has approved fluoride toothpaste with the warning "Do Not Swallow."  Their concern is for the same amount of fluoride as delivered in each glass of fluoridated water.  Do Not Swallow.  The biggest risk of excess dosage is during the first 6 years of life and exactly when fluoride might be effective.  


Lawyers and proponents of bottled water circumvented the New Drug Approval process and simply notified the FDA they would make a health claim based on other agencies support.  Fluoridated bottled water never went through FDA approval process and does not have an NDA number.  All approved drugs have an NDA number.    Please provide the NDA for fluoride ingestion with the intent to prevent dental caries either tablets, liquids, fluoridated water, fluoridated bottled water or any fluoride.  Does not exist.  FDA has not approved the ingestion of fluoride with an NDA.


And we need to consider most developed countries have rejected fluoridation of public water for various reasons.  97% of Western Europe is fluoridation free.


Perhaps you could send a link for each or any of those organizations you list and their scientific evaluation of the research where they have included the current developmental neurotoxic research.   


From what I have seen, those organizations primarily endorse policy and do not review science to develop policy.  They have not kept up on the more than 60 human studies on developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride.


I agree with you the historical policy of fluoridation has been accepted by many English speaking organizations.  The marketing and promotion has been intense.  But the marketing has not been driven by current science.


Think dosage.  


Think primary evidence.  


Bill Osmunson DDS, MPH

0 Kudos

Bill - you say "Water concentration is not dosage. " True of course (if dosage has any meaning in the context of nutrition) but why don't you tell that to the people in the Till group who alternate between water F, urine F and blood plasma F as measures of F exposure.

They disingenuously advocate for a specific measure, and against other measures, depending on the extremely poor relationship they find from the data dredging and p-hacking. One paper they will say urine F is not good. In another paper they say it is good and water F is no good (for example, see - That behaviour is a strong indicator of cynical data dredging and p-hacking.

In fact " the current developmental neurotoxic research." you advocate and place so much trust in is very poor science (hence their publication in friendly pay-to-publish journal). Of course, they are not the only researcher resorting to such bad methods in the search for personal fame and career advancement - the epidemiological research literature is full of such papers. One reason why Ioannidis and others tell us that most research papers (in this and similar areas are simply wrong.

the sensible scientific reader must not take these sort of claims on trust. They should critically asssess each paper and not simply cherry-pick whatever findings they claim as support for their own agenda - confirmation bias which is standard practice in the anti-fluoride community.

Taht si the problem ith papers from that groups. They relying on data dreging, p-hacking and motivated reasoining.

0 Kudos

'The MIREC & ELEMENT studies are strong, well-conducted studies - the best science we have..... I don't believe the results.' -  Dr. Ellen Chang, Experian scientist for hire testifying for the EPA


'My main point is I’d hope the EPA would apply the proper standard and look at new evidence presented in this case.' - U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chan, presiding over Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA


The quotes above are from my notes of the trial on fluoridation policy suing the EPA for failure to follow their own rules relevant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The quotes may not be letter perfect, but they are pretty close. The trial began on June 8, 2020 and is currently paused by Judge Chan in order to give the EPA an opportunity to re-examine the evidence provided by plaintiffs in order to take actions consistent with its mission to protect the public from harmful chemicals in water supplies. The EPA has until August 6th to come up with a response/actions that satisfies plaintiff attorneys.  


There were many highlights in the trial, but I've got to say that one of my favorites is when one of the high paid white coats for hire listed 10 studies that she considered in reaching her conclusion with the MIREC & ELEMENT studies on the top and the New Zealand studies, including one by Ken Perrott, at the bottom. She said specifically that none of the NZ studies were good, but particularly pointed out that Ken P's study was low quality and so she did not give it any weight, even though she included those NZ studies on her list to justify her opinion. 


Then in a small voice, I believe during cross examination after emphasizing how important it is to do the science in a disciplined way to prevent bias from coloring decisions, Dr. Chang said she 'did not believe' the findings of the best studies. OMG - poster child for scientific bias! 


Other highlights included when the EPA was called to task for misrepresenting findings of studies, like of Mullenix et al. 1995 (found neurotoxic prenatal impact), CDC and EPA management getting caught misrepresenting facts, and Dr. Kathy Thiessen's chart that shows even accepting the flawed (yet touted) McPherson et al. 2018 animal study from the NTP, the reference dose (RfD) for fluoride is well below the intake of many populations, especially of bottle fed infants. In other words, formula fed babies in fluoridated communities are being poisoned with a substance that can and does lead to learning disabilities and lowered IQ. These are life long neurological deficits that extend into old age. 


EPA tried mightily to impeach Dr. Thiessen and other plaintiff witnesses, to no avail. Plaintiff's witnesses actually used science and based their expert testimony & opinion on science, not beliefs. Even the EPA/NTP witness who was a 'fact witness' and barred from offering her expert  opinion said that much of the consistent animal evidence of neurotoxicity was of moderate quality and none was very low. In a previous setting, Dr. Kristina Thayer had said you would not expect that an animal literature review would ever rate higher than moderate. 


Dr. Thiessen's calculations of Reference DoseDr. Thiessen's calculations of Reference Dose



Fluoridation policy is an immoral medical mandate that pollutes a shared resource necessary to life with a toxin that compromises the health of vulnerable populations as well as poses an environmental threat to other species. 


Fluoridation is politics pretending to be science. City councils aren’t doctors, water workers aren’t pharmacists and my neighbors don’t have the right to make medical decisions for my family. No one has the moral right to add a drug to my water because he believes it might prevent a cavity in some hypothetical kid.


Fluoridation is medically contraindicated for millions with inflammatory/autoimmune, thyroid/endocrine and kidney diseases. It is also ill-advised for pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed babies & young children, the elderly and any in fragile health.


Despite claims of efficiency, independent sources who have tested filters have not found any that adequately reduce/elminate fluoride for the purported life-span of the filter. Perhaps some of the more expensive types are effective for two to four months of their six months warantee, but short of distilled water (which has other adverse health effects attached), filters are an imperfect remedy. Moreover, water is ubiquitous. When you depend on your filter, that doesn't address foods in restaurants, foods in the grocery, and even food and drink at your friend's house that are prepared with fluoridated water.


I trusted filtered water to my detriment for years. I didn't realize how badly my health was affected. I now use bottled water even to brush my teeth and no longer have kidney or liver issues. My arthritis, IBS, and dizzy spells are also a thing of the past.   


Some of the participants on this thread viciously attacked the MIREC study published in JAMA Pediatrics in August 2019 that found lowered IQs in 'optimally' fluoridated Canadian communities and found the result to be 5 IQ points per 1mg/L fluoride in maternal urine - this consistent with dozens of other studies in other populations.


In December 2019, JAMA Pediatrics published the attached pithy rebuke for the specious attacks on Green et al. Increasing numbers of toxicologists and medical doctors are recommending that pregnant women avoid fluoridated water in order not to cause subtle but permant brain damage in their children. 


The Canadian studies from the MIREC project are among those using Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) data which document fluoridation programs as womb to tomb poisoning of the population


JAMA Pediatrics Dec. 2019JAMA Pediatrics Dec. 2019


For more, see the references in this 2019 #WeToo letter:

Bronze Conversationalist

Thanks Bill. Also understamd that the FDA does not require food or beverage labeling for F content. And i know of no one in my town who is capable of measuring F content in the foods and beverages they consume. Adding F on purpose in all public water supplies which also increases the F level in mamy foods is inane. 

A blood level of 1 ppm as in kidney patients who are dialyzed with city water have chronic heart muscle degeneration

Blood levels of about 0.08 or so in F'd water consumers cause chronic bone changes. F blood levels of 3-5 ppm of course as during accidental overfeeds at a time wben one happens to be extremely thirsty is acute poisoning.

Why on God's earth would anyone intentionally add a contaminant like that, which is useless when ingested for its intended purpose, to establish a country's policy wben the FDA does not approve the ingestion of any fluoride? Absolutely idiotic.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Bronze Conversationalist

Give us a break from a CDC advertisement please. An upper limit of 1.5 ppm F in water does not protect all consumers from either dental or bone fluorosis. Humans do not live in cages so as to not be exposed to other significant sources that depend on the dietary behaviors among various people. And even if they were caged from other F sources, bone F levels during lifelong consumption cause  formation of bone of poor quality. Fluoridation of people is a useless harmful waste.


Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.

Richard, you say:

"An upper limit of 1.5 ppm F in water does not protect all consumers from either dental or bone fluorosis"

That is trivially true as excessive uptake of fluoride can occur from other dietary sources - toothpaste, coal fires, black tea, etc.

But in a normal dietary situation where water is the main source of F this is what research has shown. A normally informed person understands the difference.




You responded in regard to 1.5 ppm fluoride in water:

"That is trivially true as excessive uptake of fluoride can occur from other dietary sources - toothpaste, coal fires, black tea, etc.

But in a normal dietary situation where water is the main source of F this is what research has shown. A normally informed person understands the difference."


Makes no sense. 


Who is a "normally informed person" when it comes to fluoride exposure.  Taken a long time us to even get you to admit some of the sources of fluoride let alone the wide range of fluoride exposure.


And what percentage of the population do you want to protect from excess fluoride?  90th percentile?  50th percentile?


When it comes to lead, arsenic, etc.,  we try to protect 100% of the population.


When it comes to the 200,000,000 in the USA on fluoridated water, 10% with excess fluoride exposure would be about 20,000,000 people you are saying it is OK to have excess fluoride, you can be harmed, go to hell with your health, because you are not "normally informed" purchasing non-fluoridated water, using nonfluoridated toothpaste, drinking too much tea, or had a general anesthesia, or taking fluoride medications, or eating mechanically deboned meat. 


Use some simple judgment Ken, what percentage of the population will you accept to be harmed?  Your family?  Mine?  Your town?  My town? 


Almost 70 human studies reporting neurologic harm and many more reporting fluoride as a known carcinogen.   How many people harmed in your "judgment" before you have a concern?


We are talking judgment, Ken.  Yours does not make sense to me, because you don't appear to have an intent to protect everyone to the best of our ability.


Bill Osmunson  DDS, MPH

Bronze Conversationalist

Nonsense.  Informed people understand that the NRC Report data is valid, where consumers living in a 1 ppm fluoridated water region experience elevated PTH and calcitonin, a pathologic effect of fluoride incorporation into bone, and elevated TSH, and also that fluoridation of bone is permanent, and it begins with the first sip, where fluoride alters the crystal structure of bone since it is not exactly the same radius and shape as the hydroxide ion it replaces by ion exchange. Fluoride in bone causes formation of bone of poor quality.

The FDA recognizes all this and ruled just last year that fluoride is a toxic substance at any level and should be regulated as such by the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act.

Where have you been?  It appears you need to study more.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
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

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

To our Online Community Members,

We wanted to let you know that our Community Guidelines and Terms of Service have been updated. The changes are intended to foster more civil discussions in AARP’s online communities. The issues discussed in these communities – including healthcare, retirement and politics – are serious and stir up strong emotions. We should have spirited debates about all of them, but those debates should always be respectful, on topic and fact based. We will be applying these standards in our online communities as we work together, with all of you, to address the challenges that face older Americans. Thank you.

AARP Membership Flash Sale

AARP Games

Throw it back and play Atari's Missile Command. Grab your arsenal to neutralize your enemy and protect your cities from a missile attack. You got this!

AARP Games Atari Missile Command

Your Daily Puzzle

Enjoy our interactive brain-teasers and treat yourself to some mental gymnastics. Try one today.

Your Daily Puzzle