Content starts here
Bronze Conversationalist

Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

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


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


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


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


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



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

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

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

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



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



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

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



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


AARP - STAND UP on our behalf! 

Bronze Conversationalist

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


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


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


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


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


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



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



For some recent science specific to the health of seniors: 


View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

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


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


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


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


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



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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




Liars, sociopaths and criminals! All of them. 


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



View solution in original post

Bronze Conversationalist

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


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


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


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


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


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




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




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

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



View solution in original post

Regular Contributor

Hi Randy,

Have you watched Fluoride On Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health | Childrens Health Defense?

I promise you, the evidence is troubling.


You mention 100+ organizations which support fluoridation.  OK.  Fair enough.  Now let's look at some of those organizations. At the top is WHO with a reference to the "Community Dental Health" Journal which has a long tradition of fluoridation support and unwillingness to publish any research raising caution or lack of benefit.  I do not see a reference you provide to the WHO. 


First question: "What country provides the largest contribution financially to the WHO?"  I've heard the USA is right up there, as it should be.  More people are fluoridated in the USA than all the rest of the world.  WHO needs to protect their funding and yet they have said,


"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."
WHO (1994). Fluorides and Oral Health. WHO Technical Report Series 846.



What is the total fluoride exposure you are ingesting?  Your community and your state?  Per person?   Has total exposure been measured for you or your community?


The WHO continues:


"Estimation of the amount of fluoride ingested from all environmental and dietary sources is important so that rational and scientifically sound decisions can be made when guidelines for the use of fluorides are reviewed periodically and modified."

 Pang D, et al. (1992). Journal of Dental Research 71: 1382-1388.


And what is the estimated exposure from all sources for your community?

Dental fluorosis, a biomarker of excess fluoride has increased to 2 out of 3 children in the USA.  When was the last time your community estimated the total exposure and evaluated and modified exposure?




Name one and we can dig into the evidence of their support. 

0 Kudos
Trusted Contributor

I definitely have lost my faith in any dentist who supports fluoridation. Most of such dentists know barely anything about fluorine chemistry and have not read any of the science. I have asked many dentists such questions and very few know much anything about fluorides. Yet, they are the experts? What a joke! 

Regular Contributor

You may have lost faith in any dentist who supports fluoridation, but as a dentist who supported fluoridation for 20 years and have 50 years of clinical experience, you may miss out on a good dentist because of one aspect.  The problem is the dental lobby, not individual dentists.  


If a dentist tried 10 new products a day, the dentist could not keep up on all the new products introduced into dentistry each year. . . and each new product needs careful repeated long-term evaluation.  I tried a product which was alleged by the manufacturer and experts to be fantastic and last long term for baby teeth and so easy to place.  Well, it only lasted a few months. . . poor kids had to have work redone.


A dentist trying to keep current has no time to spend hundreds and thousands of hours on what the dental lobby thinks is established science and if the dentist became concerned about ingested fluoride and spoke up with concerns on fluoride exposure, they would be alienated from their peers, loose referrals, judged as a quack, jerked in front of the Boards.  Not fun and a big loss of income.  

Just tell your dentist and hygienist, no fluoride please.


Fluoride Abundant in Foods, Beverages, Dental Products & More; US Kids Fluoride Over-Exposed: Fluoridation Unnecessary

Whether one is for or against fluoridation, there is no scientifically valid reason to continue it.  After 79 years of fluoridation, our food supply is saturated with fluoride - from processing with fluoridated water, from fluoride-containing pesticides and more. Some foods like tea and ocean fish are naturally high in fluoride.  There is no dispute between those for and against fluoridation that too much fluoride is a bad for bones and teeth.

Total fluoride intake should be determined before prescribing more, reported former New York State Department of Health Dental Director, J. Kumar, He wrote: “Because of the availability of fluoride from multiple sources, practitioners should prescribe other forms of fluoride therapy based on an understanding of patients’ total exposure to fluoride and the need for it,” (NYS Dental Journal, February 1998). Few dentists, if any including him, heed that advice.

But now, as the California state dental director and American Dental Association's National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, Kumar says "my job is to promote fluoridation." 
Never is fluoride intake tallied when communities are pressured to continue or start fluoridation. Legislators should know how much fluoride children already ingest before feeding them more via their water supply.

Periodic Contributor

Sad but Great Comment @sirpac271999  Unfortunately-Some Dentists are so busy they do not have time to follow the new science--Especially because it is censored/hidden --sad we do not have many REAL Journalists--and even if articles are written main stream media is afraid to run the articles with the TRUTH! Sooo some are ignorant-- and unfortunately many make money and they do not want to stop this! And SOME know the truth but they have been supporting the lies for a while (knowingly or not) and even if they want to come out --it is like someone said "how do you get off the back of a tiger" --many just stay on! The Dallas Chairman Bazaldua of the Quality of Life Committee in October talked out against Fluoridation--and in November made a COMPLETE flip Flop! here is a EIN PRESWIRE talking about this and more -Hope you will read and share 

Regular Contributor

Hi Randy my friend,


Watch the video: Fluoride On Trial: The Censored Science on Fluoride and Your Health | Childrens Health Defense


You may have spent time reading about fluoridation, but you have, at least in the past, been reluctant to read from those opposed.  


Consider the common adjectives describing a "Good Scientist."


“Good Scientists:” 

Curiosity to Learn, Critical Thinker, a Desire to gain Knowledge, Persistent, Courageous, Honest, Analytical, Open-Minded and free from Bias, Patient, Ethics, Skeptic and Communicator. 


Terms such as: Belief, Trusting, Follower, Obedient to Authorities, Traditionalist, cherry picking science, do not fit the concept of a “Good Scientist.”


A Good Public Health Professional, or employee of the dental lobby, required to be obedient to authority, following authority, trusting authority, promoting policy and tradition would be a very frustrated “Good Scientist” and change professions.


 Public Health Professionals are by nature, training, and practice obedient to authority on matters of science and resistant to evidence not supporting authorities and policy.


The paradigm shift (for me and probably you) is significant.  The new evidence is strong, yet it contradicts our past and some authorities.  Each of the streams of evidence must be incorporated and valued appropriately.  Some evidence is stronger than others, but each adds to the total picture: Many are being harmed from fluoridation.



Bronze Conversationalist

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.
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.

Bronze Conversationalist

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

Bronze Conversationalist

"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.

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

"I downloaded AARP Perks to assist in staying connected and never missing out on a discount!" -LeeshaD341679

AARP Perks