Content starts here

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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


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


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


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


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



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

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

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

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



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



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

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



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


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Regular Contributor

Fluoride ingestion (fluoridation of public water) does not markedly prevent dental caries as my public health and my dental professions claim.  


Scientifically, the question is whether ingested fluoride "mitigates" dental caries, and the best evidence is that it might or might not.  


Several streams of scientific evidence need to be weighed in order to make judgment on fluoridation.


First stream of evidence is " Ethics and Jurisdiction" in the USA.


     Fluoridation lacks individual consent.  Do you see the anger, hostility, fear, emotions over wearing a simple face mask?  What if the public really understood fluoridation is mass medication without FDA NDA and without individual consent or doctor's supervision?  And fluoridation is usually done by elected city or water district managers, not scientists.

     Mass medication can indeed ethically be done to control highly infectious diseases which are highly lethal.  The COVID pandemic certainly demonstrates public health powers, all be it with serious push back.  


     However, dental caries are not highly lethal or contagious.  


2.     We have many sources of fluoride and the body does not seem to differentiate the source of fluoride.  Whether we take fluoride diluted in water or dry in a pill or mixed in medicines or pesticides, the body absorbs most and the kidneys clean out about half of what many of us ingest.


3.     In all countries there is a drug regulatory agency which reviews the science and approves drugs/medications with the intent to prevent or cure diseases in humans.

     Drug Therapy in 1975 published a letter from the FDA to 35 fluoride supplement manufacturers, ". . . there is no substantial evidence of drug effectiveness as prescribed, recommended or suggested in its labeling. . . marketing is in violation of the new drug provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; they have therefore requested that marketing of these products be discontinued."   


What?   The FDA did not and does not find the science is adequate to determine efficacy.  After all, if it doesn't work, any speculation of risk or cost or consent is too much.


The FDA also says unapproved drugs are illegal drugs. 


The letter was for fluoride supplements.  However, simply diluting the drug in water does not change the intent of use, safety or efficacy or requirement to receive FDA approval.  

    Discussion has been made that the EPA approves the addition of fluoride to water as a treatment for humans.  However, the Safe Drinking Water prohibits the addition of any substance with intent to treat humans.  Letters from both Agencies lawyers point the finger of jurisdiction at each other.  Without any agency accepting jurisdiction over fluoridation, the Dark Ages of fluoridation persists.


The FDA testified in Congress 2001 that fluoride is a drug.


The Washington State Board of Health confirmed June 4, 2009 that fluoride is a legend (prescription) drug.


Steve Neugeboren, Ass. General Counsel, Water Law Office EPA 2/14/2013 confirmed in writing that, "The FDA, remains responsible for regulating the addition of drugs to the water supply for health care purposes."


The FDA has approved fluoride in toothpaste because the evidence of efficacy has provided adequate strength.  However, the label says, "Do Not Swallow."  The concern is a pea size of tooth paste which contains 0.25 mg of fluoride, similar to about a glass of fluoridated water.


Question, "How much fluoride should a person ingest?"  In other words, "What is the optimal tooth fluoride concentration?"  The most fundamental question of pharmacology.


The answer:  No one knows because both teeth with caries and without caries have a similar tooth fluoride concentration at each level throughout the tooth except for the outer few microns where topical fluoride might be beneficial.  Swallowing fluoride which has effect inside the tooth does not have a recommended tooth concentration.  


We have a problem.  If we don't know the ideal or optimal fluoride tooth concentration then how do we determine how much we need to ingest and at what age?  Simple answer, we don't know.    Should we mass medicate everyone with an uncontrolled dosage of fluoride when we don't know how much fluoride mitigates tooth decay?   


As the EPA scientists have said, "fluoridation boarders on a criminal act."


The irony of it all is fluoridation promoters claim to have the science.  They don't have science, they have endorsements and their heads buried in the Dark Ages of trust, hope, faith rather than science and fact.  


The next post will consider, "Too Many are Ingesting Too Much Fluoride."



Regular Contributor

Part II  

Review the streams of evidence of fluoride's dosage.  Too many ingesting too much fluoride.


Dental fluorosis is a biomarker of excess tooth fluoride exposure.  The tooth got too much fluoride while it was developing.  Dental fluorosis occurs while the tooth is developing before eruption into the mouth, in other words up to about age 6 to 8.   Any benefit from ingestion is also during those ages and those are ages of concern for the brain and other tissues.


When fluoridation started, my professions assured us that only maybe 10 to 15% of children would get dental fluorosis with fluoridation.  In  2000 NHANES (US National Health Assessment and Nutrition Evaluation Survey) reported dental fluorosis in about 40% of children with some degree and 7% with moderate/severe. 

By 2012 that number had increased to 70% of children with 28% having moderate/severe dental fluorosis.  The diagnostic definition was changed and current numbers reported have dropped due to change in definition.   


Health and Human Services (PHS) recommended a lowering of fluoride concentration in water to 0.7 ppm.  A direct recognition of too many ingesting too much fluoride.


1994 WHO advised, "Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride program for caries prevention."    The question must be asked, how much fluoride are people getting without water fluoridation and is it adequate?  We don't have good measurements (urine or serum) of current individual or regional fluoride exposure which is publicly available.


CDC advised, "Dental fluorosis only occurs when younger children consume too much fluoride, . . . when teeth are developing under the gums."   


Fluoride in water is an uncontrolled unapproved lacking in a legal intermediary dose of fluoride, in part because the NRC 2006 p 23 states, "Some subpopulations. . . consume much greater quantities of water. . . "

Mean is about 1 L/day or 0.7 mg/day

90th percentile is 2.3 L/day or 1.4 mg F/day (p 379)

99th percentile consume 4.8 L/day or 3.4 mg F/day

100th percentile consume over 10 L/day or 7 mg/day of fluoride just from fluoridated water.  


What dosage of fluoride is beneficial?  We don't know.  

How much fluoride is too much?   Certainly over 1.4 mg F/day is a concern.  

At least 10% of the population is getting too much fluoride.


American Dental Association Paffenbarger Research Center in 2012 stated, "After 60 years of community water fluoridation we still do not know how much fluoride is required to prevent caries."


Come on scientists.  Are you for real?  60 years and we don't know how much fluoride is required to prevent caries.  


The concept of forcing everyone with or without teeth, regardless of other sources of fluoride, regardless of health, without a doctor's supervision, to ingest an unregulated dosage of fluoride when we don't know how much is needed, borders on a criminal act.   Certainly that is not science.

Regular Contributor

Part III   Fluoride is unlikely to reduce tooth decay.


CDC, "Ingestion of fluoride is not likely to reduce tooth decay."  +1999, Achievements in Public Health Fluoridation of drinking water to prevent dental caries MMR, 48(41); 933-940.  


A systematic review:  "The results show that the reviewed original studies on economic evaluation of caries prevention do not provide support for the economic value of caries prevention." Acta Odontol Scand. 2003 


After 70 years, no Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials of either fluoridated water or fluoride supplements (pills).  Pills would be easier than water, but neither have been done.  

FDA places responsibility for research on the "final manufacturer" of the drug, cities and water districts.


Current research on fluoride's alleged benefit have serious limitations.  A few concerns come to mind:

A.  Not one study corrects for confounding factors such as the huge decline in dental caries before fluoridation started and in other non-fluoridated countries.

B. Socioeconomic status often not controlled.

C.  Inadequate size of study

D. Difficulty in diagnosing dental caries

E. Delay in tooth eruption not controlled.

F.  Diet such as Vitamin D, calcium, strontium, sugar, fresh and frozen year round vegetables and fruit consumption not controlled.

G.  Total fluoride exposure not controlled. 

H. Oral hygiene not determined.

I.  Life time benefit not considered.

J. Estimating the subject actually drinks the water.

K. Dental treatment expenses not included.

L. Mother's exposure, breast feeding, infant formula not considered.

M.  Fraud, gross errors, and bias not corrected.

N.  Genetics not considered.


Regardless of fluoride consumption, all developed countries have reduced dental caries to similar prevelance.  (Chen et al BMJ 5 Oct 2007 and Neurath Fluoride Research 2006.


Prior to widespread use of fluoridation and fluoride toothpaste, from 1930 to 1960, caries declined from about 12 cavities per 12 year old to about 6 cavities per 12 year old.  No one has determined why, what caused the decline, what was the huge unknown crushing dental caries.  However, to this day the CDC suggests fluoridation is the reason dental caries has declined.  How did fluoridation reduce caries before fluoridation started?  CDC does not respond.


2009 Iida and Kumar reported an increase in dental fluorosis with an increase in water fluoride concentrations.  Seems reasonable.  However, caries remained similar regardless of fluoride concentration.


Comparing caries rates of the various states in the USA, finds no significant difference in dental caries regardless of fluoridation, but a significant difference in caries with SES.


Proponents suggest for every dollar spent on fluoridation, $38 of treatment are saved.  However, that concept is based on estimates of assumptions, not measured evidence.


Ko 2015 reported: "$3 per person per year for best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis."  Int J. Occup Environ Health.


If fluoride ingestion at some undetermined dosage is not significantly effective, any discussion of risk is mute.  However, Part III (another day) will start a review of fluoride's risks.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH













Regular Contributor

Part IV  in the stream of evidence which needs to be weighed before judgment on fluoridation is determined.




In 2006, before numerous current studies have been done, the NRC committee raised concerns for the following risks from fluoride ingestioin:


1.  Tooth Damage

2.  Rheumatoid and Osteoarthritic-like Pain

3.  Bone cancer

4.  Bone Fractures

5.  Thyroid Reduction, Obesity & Diabetes

6.  Kidney damage

7.  Reproductive problems

8.  Lower IQ and Increased Mental Retardation

9.  Allergies (overactive immune system)

10.  GI disorders.  


In the last 15 years new research has confirmed and strengthened the NRC 2006 support.


Without benefit, the ethics, jurisdiction, and risks become overwhelming.  I will briefly cover a few highlights of fluoride's tooth damage here.  The others in the next posts, when I have time.


Tooth damage.  The NRC 2006 unanimously found severe dental fluorosis and adverse effect.  NHANES 2012 reported 2% of the USA population have severe dental fluorosis.   How many people with harm are you willing to accept before you suggest that fluoridation is not safe for everyone?


I diagnose dental fluorsis frequently in my patients, although I don't usually treat the dental fluorosis because patients do not find it cosmetically objectionable for questionable with very mild or mild.  


In the previous 3 posts I did not raise the concern of the EPA judge regarding fluoride post-harvest fumigants on food.  He ruled:

"EPA agrees that aggregate exposure to fluoride. . . does not meet the safety standard in FFDCA section 408."

* "The fluoride MCLG is not protective of the effects of fluoride on teeth and bones:

The fluoride MCLG is not protective of other neurotoxic, endocrine, and renal effects of fluoride;

Epa has not adequately protected children;

EPA cannot determine the safety of sulfuryl fluoride and fluoride in the absence of a developmental neurotoxicity study.

EPA has underestimated exposure to fluoride; and 

EPA has committed procedural errors in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA).


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH



Trusted Contributor

BillO, CarryAnne, rs5526, WillardO:  Remarkable! 

  1. You continue to dodge my questions and divert attention away from the fact that a significant number of major science and health organizations (over 100) continue to support fluoridation and none support your anti-F opinions. I will continue to ask, where is the evidence that any major science or health organizations support your anti-F opinions??? 
  2. You also continue to make false, unsupportable claims that there is relevant, legitimate scientific evidence proving fluoridation is harmful and ineffective that major science and health organizations worldwide are selectively ignoring.
  3. It is informative that CarryAnne’s 02-02-2015 H. Limeback claim  that “The evidence that fluoride [with no context of exposure level]  is more harmful than beneficial is now overwhelming…” is still as misleading, false and unsupportable, in the context of community water fluoridation, as it was back then.  Links to support the following discussion.


BillO, 03-01-2021 10:17 PM:
The levels of a number of chemicals in drinking water are regulated by the EPA to ensure the health benefits of drinking the water are maximized and any potential risks are minimized. You seem to confuse the abbreviation EPA with FDA. The widely used disinfectant chlorine, for example, has been used as a chemical weapon, and it creates a number of byproducts like chloroform which, to use the out-of-context lingo of fluoridation opponents (FOs), are highly toxic. “Some people drink very little if any water and others drink 10 times average.” So, according to your “logic” you should be as opposed to disinfection as fluoridation. Actually, by your logic, water should be banned, since according to the Mayo Clinic adults should drink 2.7-3.7 liters of fluids a day. Drinking ten times that amount, 27-37 liters (7-9.8 gallons) will probably be lethal – water, after all, is a poison – to use a typical anti-F, out-of-context claim.


True, “There has never been a prospective randomized controlled trial of fluoride ingestion and they could be done.” Perhaps you could outline specific details of a fully blinded, randomized trial that would expose a few hundred families to either optimally fluoridated or low fluoride-level water – all other factors in their lives being similar &/or carefully monitored – for five to 10 years. The 2015 Cochrane Water Fluoridation Review stated, “…research questions where evidence from randomized controlled trials is never going to be available due to the unfeasibility of conducting such trials. Community water fluoridation is one such area.” FOs have had over 75 years to conduct a scientifically valid randomized trial…


So, for 25 years you accepted the scientific consensus of the 74 organizations listed – not to forget the state health organizations and over thirty dental organizations worldwide, and then you suddenly had an epiphany and decided to abandon the processes of science and attack fluoridation based on your “new interpretation” of “evidence” that had been rejected by the scientific community. Wow, that’s an interesting confession!


Regarding the FDA: Most rational individuals, who aren’t trying to manipulate reality to fit their agenda, will understand that the FDA does not regulate any water treatment chemical added to protect the health of citizens. Rational individuals also understand there is a significant difference between fluoridated bottled water (0.7 ppm F-) which is regulated by the FDA as a “Food For Human Consumption”, and fluoridated toothpaste (over 1,000 ppm F-) which is regulated by the FDA as an “Over the Counter Drug”. Your arguments about “approval processes” are based only on your specific interpretation of “reality” – confirmation bias.


I understand enough quite about scientific research and “primary evidence” to fully appreciate how FOs manipulate that evidence to support their inflexible opinions – regardless of the cost. Frankly, I trust the organizations worldwide that support fluoridation over the opinions of a small minority of individuals who can provide no legitimate scientific evidence to support their opinions.


Three questions:

  • Do you have any evidence to prove your claim that all the organizations that support fluoridation do not review science to develop policy”? My conclusion is these organizations have, in fact “kept up on the more than 60 human studies on developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride”, and have come to the same conclusion as the NTP and the NASEM I quoted – that the studies are not relevant to fluoridation. FOs don’t bother with that detail.
    2) Do you trust any science-based conclusion
    about public health (like the efficacy of vaccination to protect people’s health) from the organizations that also support fluoridation? If members of these organizations are as dumb as you seem to believe, no health recommendation by the WHO, the AMA, AAP, NHMRC, BMA, CMA, CPS, EFSA, FSAI, HC, NZMA, U.S. DoHaHS, U.S. NIH, U.S. PHS, and dozens of others could be trusted.
    3) Again, can you provide the names of any respected science/health organizations in the world that support your interpretation of fluoride-reality?  Oh that’s right your other identity, WilllardO, listed the IAOMT and AEHSP which seems a bit short of the more than 100 actual science-based organizations that support fluoridation. 


WillardO, 03-02-2921 02:23 PM: The EPA 4.0 MCL is nearly six times the optimal fluoridation level and has nothing to do with optimally fluoridated water.  1.5 ppm is twice the optimal level in fluoridated water.  Why are you not opposing water chlorination since high levels of disinfection byproducts, like chloroform, can also be harmful to health?  Fluoridation levels are currently set at 0.7 ppm to maximize reduction of dental decay (which can have well-documented negative health consequences) and reduce the risk of mild fluorosis, which is the only documented negative consequence of drinking optimally fluoridated water – as confirmed and recognized by respected science and health organizations worldwide. 


There are many reasons that many European countries don’t fluoridate their water, but even respected organizations like the European Food Safety Authority and the European Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) recognize the benefits of fluoridation and don’t list any proven risks.

The IAOMT is a strange choice to list as a reputable health organization.  Last year, 9/20, defrocked British doctor Andrew Wakefield, whose study linking vaccines and autism (which fueled anti-vaccination passion) was exposed as fraudulent, and Judy Mikovits, a former biochemist who starred in a viral video that promulgated a litany of false information on the coronavirus spoke along with Christine Till.


The “American Environmental Health Studies Project” is an activist group ([cofounder] Cliff, who had grown up in an activist family , spending much of his formative years helping his mother run for Congress and sue the NRC…”)  which, like R.F. Kennedy Jr’s anti-vaccination/Anti-F activist group CHD, uses science denial and selective reporting of “evidence” to promote their ideologies.  


You continue to confuse EPA fluoridation regulations with FDA F-supplement regulations.


CarryAnne, 03-02-2021 08:44 AM:

  1. So, all of the organizations worldwide who don’t support your opinions have caved in to “political pressure to protect fluoridation policy”? That’s an excellent excuse when you have no supporting evidence.
  2. Of course, “People have different fluoride exposures based on their water consumption habits…”, just as they have different exposures to other chemicals in drinking water (residual disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, for example – unlike fluorine, most of them are not beneficial to health at any exposure level. The safe exposure levels for all residual chemicals are carefully regulated. Can you list some specific kidney organizations that have concluded that fluoridation causes kidney issues?
  3. Can you provide the name of any reputable science or health organization that has concluded community water fluoridation causes “fluoride toxicity in their [senior citizens] bones, bodies and brains.”?

The fact is, “The pattern revealed in the high-quality studies identified by the NTP is undeniable…The pattern in those studies, even if determined by the majority of relevant experts to be “high-qualitydoes not come anywhere close to proving fluoridation lowers IQ or causes any other harm.

However, first, the majority of relevant scientists (not just in the NTP) must conclude that the studies are “high quality”. There has actually been unprecedented criticism of many of the studies from experts from around the world – particularly for the 2019 Green, et al. study.


Anyone with a moderate understanding of statistics can see that there is huge data scatter – which means that (1) any potential association between fluoride exposure and IQ is extremely weak, and there are other, far more important and unmeasured associations that could be responsible for the observations. (2) even a strong correlation between two things does not prove causation. In the graphs below, for example, there is clear evidence that increased sales of ice cream can increase murder rates and death by drowning, a higher income causes higher IQ and living in hotter climates lowers IQ.


rs5526, 03-02-2021 11:49 AM:

  1. Provide specific references that prove drinking optimally fluoridated water causes “substantial pain”, bone damage or other issues.
  2. So, you also believe the organizations I referenced have all supported fluoridation for over 75 years “based on anecdotal unproven observation”.  Do you trust any of the science-based health recommendations of any of those organizations – or do you just believe the unsupported anti-F opinions?
  3. How many of the studies fluoridation opponents use to try and support their opinions are published for free in reputable journals?
  4. Provide specific evidence that proves the “FDA has always opposed the ingestion of fluoride”.  I have never seen such a claim, and as noted, the FDA regulates fluoridated bottled water as a “Food for Human Consumption” not a drug – and there are no warnings required on fluoride-containing bottled water.
Randy Johnson
Regular Contributor

Randy, to your second question:


2.    You asked, "Do you trust any science-based conclusion about public health. . . "


         Yes, science but not policy.     However, the question does not make scientific sense.    “Trust” is a word to be avoided in science.  Policy should not be made on "trust."  When we start to trust (and we all make that mistake) we are not scientific.  And “conclusion” is another word avoided in science (yes, we also all make that mistake).  Science is dynamic, we are discovering both new concepts and knocking down the flawed traditions and policies of the past.  50% of what they teach us in school is wrong, but we don’t know which 50%.  We must constantly challenge our current understanding and be humble about our theories.


By the way, fluoridation and vaccinations are not related, to the best of my knowledge.  I have had my Moderna vaccinations, have you?  Over 1,000 have died from COVID Vacs in the USA.  It is not without risk.  However, as a health care provider it is important for me to use every precaution I can to not spread the disease and cause my patients harm.  The Vacs are safer than the disease, based on my evaluation of the data.

Bronze Conversationalist

Have you even read the text by Cristopher Bryson? FDA officials were opposed to fluoridation when the action first began in 1945.

The FDA has been the leading organization to oppose the free and  open addition of fluoride into public drinking water and recognizes that some water naturally contains fluoride. The FDA thus ALLOWS fluoride to be present in bottled water but does NOT approve its intentional addition. The reason fluoride content is not required to be listed on retail water or food containers is because Agency officials did not want the general public to presume that fluoride actually belongs in water or food (personal communication with FDA). The FDA ruled that kidney dialysis wards must use non fluoridated water in kidney dialysis units where fluoridated water in dialysis units causes high morbidity in kidney disease victims. The FDA ruled fluoride is an uncontrolled use of an unapproved drug and has never approved fluoride ingestion. The use of Luride by prescription only is ALLOWED, not APPROVED by the FDA. The FDA ruled that fluoride is considered unsafe to add to foods. The FDA ruled in 2015 that, although it argues the Agency has no authority  to ban fluoridation of public water supplies, that addition of fluoride, a toxic substance at any concentration, into water supplies falls under the Toxic Substances Control Act that the FDA insists the EPA is in charge of its enforcement. The addition of chlorine into water is an allowed exception to the TSCA only because chlorine sanitizes water rendering non-potable water potable. There are no such uses or TSCA exceptions for the infusion of fluoride. Fluoridation of public water supplies is a violation of :Federal law.. The TSCA prohibits adding any toxic material into public water at any concentration. Just because uninformed organizations "endorse" fluoridation this does not make it lawful. Fluoride is useless in public water and is harmful to those who consume it longterm, where a 20 year period causes the accumulation of about 2000 mg/kg fluoride into bone, forming fluoroapatite instead of normal hydroxyapatite by ion exchange that is not biochemically reversible at physiologic pH. Since bone pain occurs at levels above 1700 mg/kg, and the NRC concluded that about 80% of all consumed fluoride comes from drinking water, fluoridation of public water supplies is a bone accumulating insult. The fluoridation of bone begins with the first sip, where 90% of all retained fluoride is incorporated exclusively into bone. Sorry but your endorsements and complaints mean little to those who know the truth and speak it. Over my 50 year scientific career I have only been personally and viciously attacked by fluoridationists, so the idea that it is those who oppose fluoridation who most commit personal attacks is absurd.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Regular Contributor


Science should drive policy.  Policy should not drive evaluation of science.


Science is dynamic and changing.  Policy is too often anchored in concrete.


Those who claim to be science based are often policy based and lack science to support their claims.  Let me again explain more and answer your first question now and the other two in the next posts.


We have gone over this several times in the last few years and your questions continue to have flaws.

  1.             You asked: “Do you have any evidence to prove your claim that all organizations that support fluoridation “do not review science to develop policy?”

            Yes.  The word "prove" is not correct.  I have enough evidence from what I've read of the organizations positions on fluoride to be confident they do not continually update their position with the latest science.  Read the organizations references, if and when they provide them.  Circular referencing.  For example, the CDC testified in court they had no studies which have found fluoridation is safe for the unborn or infants.  Instead of science, the CDC references other organizations such as SG, PHS, ADA, AAP, AAPD.  In turn those organizations reference the CDC.  Instead of quality research they reference each other.  Circular references is a house of cards and typical of flawed support of policy.

            You suggest the current developmental neurotoxic studies are not relevant to fluoridation.  Two serious concerns.  Proponents of fluoridation assume everyone ingests the same amount of fluoride and have the same ability to handle the fluoride and adequate intakes nutrients which reduce the toxic effects of fluoride such as iodine, calcium, potassium and other nutrients, and those individuals are healthy and do not have excess synergistic toxicants such as lead, arsenic, PCBs, pesticides,  etc.  And further, the best current studies do not find a lower limit where safety is found.   Of course, we want more studies, but we have enough for reasonable people to agree that some individuals or many are ingesting too much fluoride and the best place to reduce excess is stopping fluoridation.


Trusted Contributor

Correct, science should drive policy, and you have not provided a shred of evidence (only your opinion) that any of the 100+ science/health organizations I listed have failed to review the science.  You have also failed to explain why, if these organizations can't be trusted to carefully review the science, anyone should trust any recommendations from any of these organizations.


Also, as previously noted, the current science (including the studies promoted by fluoridation opponents) continues to demonstrate no harm from drinking optimally fluoridated water at any age.  As I referenced, both the current draft NTP monograph evaluating the studies promoted by fluoridation opponents and the NASEM reviewing the monograph have stated finding from studies with fluoride levels lower than twice that found in optimally fluoridated water are inconsistent, and therefore unclear and can not be used to draw conclusions about fluoridation.

Randy Johnson

“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 because it causes or worsens pain and ill health among us. 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

Bronze Conversationalist

Get a grip people.

1. The statement is correct, where ingested fluoride, most from industrial sources purposely added to much of our nation's water supply, as a cumulative poison at doses and concentrations low enough to prevent rapid morbidity, is slowly compromsing the health of our bones and other organs. The low concentration of fluoridated bone at which there is no significant pain is simply not known. The NRC data indicate that some have experienced substantial pain at levels as low as 1700 mg/kg F in bone. This level in bone where it does not belong, as a contaminant, compares to the fluoride level in toothpaste, and is accumulated after ony a few decades of drinking fluoridated water. 

2. "Endorsements" have little meaning but can readily spread a rumor, based on anecdotal unproven observations, to someone else. Millions of people and organizations for example endorse a man who was guilty of racketeering and business fraud, and who commits regular tax evasion, kidnapped children at the border and transported them across interstate lines without parental permission to detention centers, and does not stop rioters from kidnapping state ofificals in MI or seiging the captiol of our Nation. Endorsements?

3. Articles published in journals do not count if the journal charges authors for publication costs? What about Nature who charges authors $5,000.00 to print even a brief work?  This journal does not contain truth?  I have never paid a single dollar to publish a single article  my entire career, so does that mean the work is OK? I stand by all my published work, but paying fees or not has nothing to do with a work's validity. The best studies we have indicate that fluoride in water has no ablity whatsoever to significantly decrease dental decay, as published in the comprehensive work of Ziegelbecker, and that of Teotia and Teotia, and that of Yamouyiannis.  All other brief but numerous claims and anecdotes have no bearing on the matter other than to incite rumors and endorsements.

4. The FDA has always opposed the ingestion of fluoride because it is not a mineral nutrient and is in fact harmful when ingested. The most recent Agency ruling is that ingested fluoride is toxic at any concentration and since the TSCA prohibits any toxic substance from being added to our drinking water supplies, the FDA concluded that the EPA must control this action under the TSCA for toxic substances. But the EPA who has "endorsed" or "allowed" fluoridation, whichever opinion you may take, refuses, and insists the FDA regulate fluoride added to water because iti is being used as though it were a drug.  The bottom line is, avoid ingesting industrial fluoridated water. The FDA does not allow Luride tablets to be taken by children (under 6) in any area where the water fluoride level is above 0.3 ppm.  

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Trusted Contributor

Regular Contributor


To your third question, "names of any respected science/health organizations in the world" which support fluoridation.


I have previously answered this question.  97% of Europe is not fluoridated and their health agencies and dental associations do not endorse fluoridation, based on the best evidence I've read.  However, the question on endorsements is not one of science.   Approval by the FDA with NDA would be science I am more confident with.  


I have my Masters in Public Health, one of my professions.  My public health profession has wonderful aspects and like all professions has some flaws. 


     In public health we are taught to trust policy and not question policy.  When policy needs to change because science improves and good judgment determines the evidence has changed, my profession has staked their reputations on the policy and are very slow to change and follow the science.    In other words, trusting public health can be based on historic science.


An example is lead.  For years my public health profession did not object to lead in gasoline or paint.  For lead, there was no claimed health benefit but it still took years to get lead out of paint and gas.


Another example is mercury for treatments.  My professions claimed mercury was safe and effective as a treatment for disease (for many decades) and my dental and public health professions still claim mercury is safe for dental treatments even though the FDA has raised concerns and limitations for use.  My professions have serious financial vested interest in maintaining policy.  Change is slow and we don't want to change too fast.


Perhaps you studied about the "Dark Ages."   They thought they knew it all and any new information was wrong.  If we simply trust policy and organizations, then we are heading back to the dark ages.  



“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
Regular Contributor


You wrote, "New evidence” does not question existing policies about the safety of fluoride," however, the EPA has the "policy" of the Maximum Contaminant Level for fluoride in water of 4 ppm.   It appears you have agreed with the NTP that  above 1.5 ppm of fluoride in water is a concern for the developing brain.  


4 ppm is higher than 1.5 ppm.  Would you agree EPA's 4 ppm MCLG is a flawed "policy" and not protective of the developing brain?


Think dosage.  A simple example, 1.5 parts per million for one liter of water would be 1.5 mg of fluoride, a dosage of concern.  A child drinking three times as much water would ingest 2.1 mg of fluoride, more than the NTP concern.  And remember, some children swallow toothpaste which can provide much more fluoride than water.


And the research has not looked at high risk individuals, chemical sensitivities, synergistic effects, margin of error and ethics.  We simply cannot speculate that all evidence of risk from fluoride is in. More than 90% of developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride has reported harm.  What are the chances further research will report those studies are flawed?   Much more research will come and raise further concerns.  For example, fluoride has been used to cause cancer in animals so pharmaceuticals can be tested.   


You wrote, " As I have noted, I have found no evidence that any major, respected science/health organizations support the anti-F opinions." 


As I have written, fluoride ingestion has not gone through the NDA and been approved. 


Here are some respected science/health organizations.


Most European countries and their health and dental organizations do not support fluoridation of public water.  


The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxiciology has a very substantial science based position opposed to mass medication of fluoride.


The American Environmental Health Studies Project also has probably the largest body of published peer reviewed studies on fluoride and is opposed to excess fluoride exposure and fluoridation. 


Congress has put the jurisdiction on the efficacy and safety of fluoride ingestion with intent to prevent dental caries on an Administration evaded and avoided by many called the Food and Drug Administration.  The FDA has notified manufacturers of fluoride supplements to discontinue because the evidence of efficacy is incomplete. 


Get FDA approval with an NDA.   Why do promoters of the illegal drug continue to evade the FDA?


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH


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


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.


Fluoride toxicity symptoms are threatening to steal away the golden years of the 'baby boomers,’ the first generation to be experimental subjects to lifelong water fluoridation.” - Susan Kanen, biochemist formerly with Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Aqueduct, water treatment plant for Washington, DC, whistleblower on lead in drinking water (2016)


As to KenP's scientific interpretations, I particularly liked what was said about his fluoride work by EPA in the course of the TSCA trial (Click here


Bottom Lines: 

  1. The NTP who like the NASEM experiences political pressure to protect fluoridation policy could not deny the pattern of neurological harm and acknowledged that there is scientific evidence that some people are genetically more susceptible to that harm. More recent science has confirmed both that harm and the genetic intolerance of many consumers. 
  2. People have different fluoride exposures based on their water consumption habits and kidney function which mean that if 1.5 ppm concentration is unsafe as determined by the NTP, then 0.7 ppm is not safe for many consumers as, per standard toxicological protocol, the safety factor should at least be a factor of 10. EPA protocol suggests a greater safety factor for vulnerable populations who include senior citizens and those in fragile health, as well as pregnant women and bottle-fed babies. That the NTP failed to do the dose-response analysis was a political decision that tosses this hot potato topic into other laps. 
  3. Senior citizens are vulnerable to the culminative effects of fluoride toxicity in their bones, bodies and brains. We should avoid fluoride and our advocacy groups like the AARP should support the end of fluoridation on our behalf.   

The pattern revealed in the high-quality studies identified by the NTP is undeniable, even as they and vested stakeholders try to obscure that pattern with their verbal tap dances. Fluoride even in 'optimal' concentrations is a neurological hazard to humans which results in lowered IQ on a dose-response trend-line.


Notice the p-value in the graph below


Dose Respons TrendDose Respons Trend 


'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.

Regular Contributor

I like the NZ saying, "play the ball not the man."   

In the USA we say "shoot the message, not the messenger."  


"normally informed person" shots the message.  Some are ingesting too much fluoride. 

4 ppm EPA MCLG is too high. 

1.5 ppm fluoride is too high for the brain, teeth, cancer, mitochondria, etc.   

1.0 ppm fluoride in the USA resulted in 2/3rds of kids getting some degree of dental fluorosis. 

0.7 ppm is still too ethically and medically high.  


The quality of research demonstrating 0.7 ppm fluoride in water prevents dental caries is mythology or speculation and is not supported by science.  Endorsements, Randy, are not scientific proof.


Ken, I don't mean to shoot you, seriously asking again because you do not accept the quality of research reporting fluoride's developmental neurotoxicity (and I also want more and better), where is the quality research fluoride prevents dental caries.  


Seriously, why are dentists doing so well in fluoridated NZ, AU, USA if dental caries are prevented.  Perhaps we should discuss mitigation because we know fluoride does not prevent dental caries.  If it did, I would be out of business.


Judgment requires viewing all streams of evidence.  I have not heard a robust defense of the benefit of ingesting fluoride.


Bill Osmunson DDS MPH


Bill, I can understand your specific obsession with the work of Till et al but you should understand that in my criticism of that work I have been consistently making the point that the problems of data dredging, p-hacking and motivated reasoning is a common problem in epidemiological research publications. This problem has become obvious to people in the street who respond to that latest "scientific" recommendation with the mantra - "you can't trust science. They say one thing one day and the opposite the next." See, for example, my article

What Ioannidis (2005) says in "Why most published research findings are false" is truly relevant here.

Of course, the research on dental caries is no different. But the saving grace here is that there is so much of it and a meta-analysis of the results consistently shows a positive effect of community water fluoridation on oral health. In contrast, meta-analyses of things like the effect of wine on cancer tend to show no effect (but one can cherry pick studies to confirm one’s own bias – I cherry pick the study showing the positive effects of wine).

The problem with the studies from the Till group is that they are in effect one study. Even within their papers it is easy to see that, for example:

1: There is absolutely no effect of community water fluoridation of child IQ – the results of Green et al & Till et al agree with those of Broadbent et al (2015): Anti-fluoride activists viciously attacked Broadbent’s study but are strangely silent on the Till studies showing essentially the same result.

2: Within their separate papers their reporting of questionable statistically significant effect is rather rare (which is typical of data dredging and p-hacking as one finds the occasional statistically significant effects even with completely random data). In their recent paper, Cunningham et al (2102) only one of the eight relationships reported is statistically significant (see This form of data dredging and p-hacking means the reported p-values have no meaning because of the consideration of multiple relationships and the cherry picking of one.

3: While all attention is directed to the results from the Till group others are simply ignored – for example like that of Santa-Marina, et al  (2019). Fluorinated water consumption in pregnancy and neuropsychological development of children at 14 months and 4 years of age. Environmental Epidemiology, 3. That showed an opposite effect so our meta analysis of the studies from only 2 groups suggest there is no effect.

4: I understand how individual researchers and their institutes will promote even questionable work because it brings them recognition and career advancement. With the Till group this attitude is even worse as they refuse to actually discuss their work and simply attack those who critique it. They seem to be circling the wagons, defending themselves against scientific scrutiny and instead promoting themselves as advisors on oral health. That is very poor science see “When scientists get political: Lead fluoride-IQ researcher launches emotional attack on her scientif...” -

5: One should wait until there is a body of research showing consistent results before launching into the advocacy of regulation. Yet this group is attempting to do just that, simply on the basis of their own flimsy results – they have cherry picked the rather rare relationships for which they claim statistical significance. See Grandjean, et al (2020) Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Pregnancy Urine-Fluoride and IQ in Children Keywords. MedRxiv, 1–20.

And also note that while this pre-publication document was meant to invite discussion, they consistently ignore my contribution to that discussion.



Sorry about the formatting - I can't seem to control it. This is a very difficult forum to comment on.





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

NEW: AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays! Achieve a top score in Right Again! Trivia and you could win up to $300 in prizes! Learn More.

AARP Games Tournament Tuesdays

More From AARP