Federal toxicology agency under CDC now says fluoride lowers IQ, in comprehensive meta analysis of 74 studies
Where were they for the last 75 years?
The addition of Fluoride to drinking water is one of public health’s most durable achievements. Over 200 million Americans use water from public water supplies to which fluoride has been added. And most use toothpaste to which fluoride was added. One friend was instructed to swallow the fluoride toothpaste after brushing, which he did for many years. Please don’t.
This is what a historical NIH website has to say about the history of fluoridation, patting itself on the back:
In 1945, Grand Rapids became the first city in the world to fluoridate its drinking water. The Grand Rapids water fluoridation study was originally sponsored by the U.S. Surgeon General, but was taken over by the NIDR (NIH’s National Institute of Dental Research) shortly after the Institute's inception in 1948. During the 15-year project, researchers monitored the rate of tooth decay among Grand Rapids' almost 30,000 schoolchildren. After just 11 years, Dean- who was now director of the NIDR-announced an amazing finding. The caries rate among Grand Rapids children born after fluoride was added to the water supply dropped more than 60 percent. This finding, considering the thousands of participants in the study, amounted to a giant scientific breakthrough that promised to revolutionize dental care, making tooth decay for the first time in history a preventable disease for most people.
A Lasting Achievement
Almost 30 years after the conclusion of the Grand Rapids fluoridation study, fluoride continues to be dental science's main weapon in the battle against tooth decay. Today, just about every toothpaste on the market contains fluoride as its active ingredient; water fluoridation projects currently benefit over 200 million Americans, and 13 million schoolchildren now participate in school-based fluoride mouth rinse programs. As the figures indicate, McKay, Dean, and the others helped to transform dentistry into a prevention-oriented profession. Their drive, in the face of overwhelming adversity, is no less than a remarkable feat of science-an achievement ranking with the other great preventive health measures of our century.
This is what public health is supposed to do: Assess 3 things. It is really very simple:
What is the benefit, who benefits, and how large is the benefit?
What are the adverse effects of the intervention and how large a problem are they?
What is the $ cost of the intervention?
Then monitor the program to see if it met its expectations.
I asked the Perplexity “AI” what the cost was to add fluoride to our water, and what it would cost otherwise to dispose of industrial fluoride, which is considered a highly toxic waste product that requires special treatment. Here are the answers:
Therefore, putting it into municipal water supplies saved industry considerable sums they would otherwise have to spend for disposal. A true win-win situation, which costs cities very little to implement.
What about public health? As we learned from COVID, “public health,” despite being a public good we all pay for, does not monitor the results of its programs, or when it does, only acknowledges the evidence when it supports the chosen narrative. “Public health” has not been able to admit its mistakes.
However, as the inauguration comes closer and it looks like Donald Trump will really be President and RFK, Jr. will really be DHHS Secretary, the federal public health bureaucracy seems to be rethinking its “science,” and this meta-analysis of the ills of fluoride is the most prominent rethink so far. It comes from CDC’s National Toxicology Program, while CDC has so far advised cities to continue to add fluoride to their water.
______________
Breaking: New Study Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Sparks Renewed Calls to End Water Fluoridation
A meta-analysis examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure found that the more fluoride pregnant women and young children are exposed to, the greater the decrease in a child’s IQ.
Jan 06, 2025
A meta-analysis of 74 epidemiological studies examining the link between children’s IQ and fluoride exposure found that the more fluoride pregnant women and young children are exposed to, the greater the decrease in a child’s IQ.
The study, published today in JAMA Pediatrics, was conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) National Toxicology Program (NTP).
The in-depth statistical meta-analysis is the largest and most rigorous ever conducted on fluoride, according to a commentary accompanying the study, and their findings highlight the need to “reassess systemic fluoride exposure, again.”
The researchers analyzed existing studies globally, assessed their quality and accounted for variables including age, sex, fluoride levels, types of cognitive tests used, methods for measuring fluoride exposure and study locations.
They found a significant inverse relationship between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ scores, which means as the amount of fluoride a pregnant woman or young child was exposed to increased, IQs decreased.
They also found that across high-quality studies, the effect was significant at both higher and lower fluoride levels.
The data were divided into subgroups with fluoride levels of less than 4 milligrams/liter (mg/L), less than 2 mg/L and less than 1.5 mg/L in drinking water and in urinary fluoride — which estimates a person’s total fluoride exposure.
For every 1 mg/L increase in urinary fluoride, the study found a 1.63-point decrease in IQ in children.
The results were more uncertain at lower levels because exposure contrasts were harder to identify, the researchers said.
The U.S. Public Health Service recommends communities add fluoride to their water to reduce the risk of cavities at levels of 0.7 mg/L — a number it lowered from a recommended 0.7-1.2 mg/L in 2015.
In the U.S., about 40-70% of a person’s fluoride intake comes from fluoridated drinking water.
However, fluoride levels in water alone likely underestimate a person’s total fluoride exposure, the study said. Total exposure varies by individual behavior, including how much water, coffee or tea a person drinks, processed food consumption, whether infants drink formula rather than breastmilk, or what kind of fluoridated products like toothpaste or mouthwash someone uses.
The JAMA meta-analysis is part of an investigation the NTP scientists began in 2015 into the link between fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. The scientists published a monograph in August and today’s meta-analysis, both providing extensive data on fluoride’s neurotoxic effects on the developing brain.
NTP’s publications followed years of opposition by fluoride lobbying groups, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and public health officials, who tried to block its publication and pressure the authors to weaken and delay their findings.
The research underwent an unprecedented amount of peer review relative to all other research done by the NTP, which the former head of the NTP told The Defender was politically driven.
The results of the study “may inform future comprehensive public health risk-benefit assessments of fluoride,” the authors concluded.
The firestorm over water fluoridation
JAMA Pediatrics published the meta-analysis amid a firestorm over water fluoridation.
Public health officials and the dental lobby have for decades insisted that water fluoridation is an unquestionable public good — one of the 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century. Officials have often dismissed as conspiracy theorists citizens and even top scientists who question the practice.
However, scientific understanding of fluoride evolved over the years to reveal fluoride’s toxic effects — including on children’s cognitive development — that were unknown or ignored when public health agencies began recommending communities add it to their water supplies nearly 70 years ago.
Current recommendations for safe water fluoridation consider only the risks of dental fluorosis, a tooth discoloration caused by overexposure to fluoride in childhood that affects about 23% of the U.S. population. No recommendations or restrictions exist on water fluoridation based on its potential neurocognitive effects.
Yet in 2024 alone, in addition to the NTP’s monograph concluding that higher levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water are consistently linked to lower IQ in children, a study published in JAMA Network Open in May found that children born to women exposed during pregnancy to fluoridated drinking water in Los Angeles were more likely to have neurobehavioral problems.
In September 2024, a federal judge ruled that the scientific evidence, including the NTP’s research, shows that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children and ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action.
The ruling concluded a historic lawsuit, which dragged on for over seven years, against the agency. The suit was brought by environmental and consumer advocacy organizations and individual parents and children seeking to end fluoridation.
Less than two weeks after the September 2024 ruling, Cochrane published an updated review concluding that adding fluoride to drinking water provides minimal, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.
Since then, many cities and towns across the U.S. have decided to end water fluoridation. Florida’s surgeon general advised governments to stop fluoridating their water, citing the neuropsychiatric risks — particularly for pregnant women and children.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., president-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said on social media that Trump would push to end water fluoridation on his first day in office.
Kennedy’s comments triggered a wave of articles in the mainstream press defending the practice, albeit with some commenters conceding that conventional wisdom on fluoride needs to be revisited.
HHS houses the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which makes recommendations about water fluoridation levels.
Two commentaries: the experts debate
Dr. Steven M. Levy, professor at the University of Iowa and member of the ADA’s National Fluoridation Advisory Committee, wrote a scathing response to today’s JAMA study, accusing the authors of selectively including research and doing analyses in a way that “raised substantial concerns about the validity and usefulness of the article.”
Levy criticized the authors for not discussing critiques made by reviewers or the changes made to earlier conclusions. Many of those critiques were driven in part by Levy and the ADA committee he serves on, through public and behind-the-scenes pressure revealed in documents plaintiffs obtained via Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests during the trial.
Levy cited a meta-analysis by Dr. Jayanth V. Kumar et al. nine times in his four-page response, using it as key evidence to discount the NTP’s findings. That analysis found no association between fluoride and lowered IQ at low fluoridation levels.
Kumar and Levy are colleagues on the ADA advisory committee. The study was co-authored with Dr. Susan Fisher-Owens, who receives funding from Colgate. The study intentionally omitted data that would counter the authors’ conclusions and intentionally sought to undermine the NTP’s report, according to emails obtained through public records requests.
“This commentary was an ADA hit job,” Michael Connett, the plaintiffs’ attorney in the fluoride trial, told The Defender. “I strongly suspect that Kumar was a ghost writer — one of the main authors — and Levy was the signatory, and that should have been disclosed.”
Connett’s FOIA requests uncovered the ADA’s lobbying influence.
By omitting Kumar’s name but citing his meta-analysis multiple times, Connett said, it appears that Levy is citing an independent expert. However, Levy and Kumar have been working together for years to try to undermine the NTP’s work, as court documents showed.
Levy concluded that despite “some evidence” of a “possible association” between IQ and high fluoride levels in water, current public health recommendations about fluoride, “should not be affected by the study findings.”
Dr. Bruce Lanphear, professor of Health Sciences at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada; Pamela Den Beston, DDS, Ph.D., professor of Orofacial Sciences at University of California San Francisco; and Christine Till, Ph.D., professor of clinical psychology at York University in Toronto, disagreed with Levy’s commentary.
The three, who have conducted major studies on fluoride’s toxicity, said the JAMA meta-analysis showed the need to reassess current fluoride recommendations.
Since water fluoridation began in the U.S. tooth decay has plummeted, they wrote. However, the same trend has occurred in countries that don’t fluoridate their water, possibly due to the use of fluoride toothpaste or strategies to reduce sugar intake — a strategy the U.S. has not pursued.
Research has since shown that fluoride’s ability to prevent cavities is based on topical application, not mineralization during tooth formation as previously thought.
The CDC and ADA regularly cite data showing fluoridated water reduced cavities by 25%. However, the authors said that data is based on low-quality studies mostly conducted before fluoridated toothpaste became widely available. They pointed to the updated Cochrane review, which found little to no benefit from water fluoridation.
In their own research, Lanphear et al. found levels of urinary fluoride higher than 1.5 mg/L among pregnant women in Canada who drank fluoridated water.
Advocates for water fluoridation argue the practice is necessary to protect low-income children who may not have regular access to dental care. However, they wrote, those children are at higher risk for exposure to other neurotoxicants like lead as well, therefore water fluoridation may pose an even greater risk to them.
Given that NTP’s analysis showed fluoride’s negative effects may be associated with cognitive function, they concluded, “It is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to reassess the risks and benefits of fluoride, particularly for pregnant women and infants.”
The EPA has until the end of the month to file an appeal contesting the federal judge’s order that the agency make new rules regulating water fluoridation based on the risk it poses to children’s neurodevelopment.
“NTPs findings highlight the need for the EPA to move quickly in taking regulatory action to protect the public from the risk posed by fluoridation,” Connett said.
Thank you as this is a subject I have been arguing with my grown children for quite some time. Our wonderful dentist who has signs all over his dental office about using fluoride prescribed my grown children, when they were finally over 18 years of age, a prescription toothpaste with EXTRA fluoride in it for their "sensitive teeth" . WTH???? I had already wanted to have "the conversation" with the dentist about fluoride but chickened out. My dentist was already complaining he wasn't getting compensated enough by our insurance so I guess he got an extra little kick back from his prescription of extra fluoride toothpaste. This dentist is local and I didn't want to ruin the relationship. So with my youngest under 18 years in the dental chair I shouted NO FLUORIDE treatment for him! No Fluoride!!! So I didn't really have a conversation with them but everyone in the building knew how I felt about fluoride.
Since my grown adult children still were living with me, I threw out their extra fluoride toothpaste. They got angry at me and got the toothpaste replaced. I bought them books about fluoride and left it on their bed to read which they mostly ignored.
I also paid my two younger kids money to just sit and listen to a phone call. There is a number on toothpaste box for poison control. I told my kids that is odd. Why oh why is there a number on a box of toothpaste for poison control. So for fun I call the number and put it on speaker so they can hear it as I am paying them to listen. I ask who answers why would there be a poison control number on the box of toothpaste. They explain it is the fluoride in it. I said what..?? The fluoride in it? Are you saying fluoride is poisonous? They say yes. But it is in the toothpaste? Why would they put poison in our toothpaste. I don't understand. They then say it is only poisonous if you swallow the whole tube at once, but small amounts of it is okay. What?? We got to be careful not to swallow too much fluoride in our toothpaste when we brush? That's crazy. We put toothpaste with fluoride in our mouth. Then I say, oh my gosh. Fluoride is in our drinking water too I heard. This is nuts. I don't want fluoride any where near us. They then say well just don't swallow too much toothpaste when you brush and spit it out. I then get noticeably upset with the conversation allowing my kids to see. I have done this a couple of times now in front of other people to the point I was worried they would recognize my voice. LOL
Fluoride messes with the endocrine system, thyroid. It also cause issues with bone density which I worry about my youngest. Of course lowers the IQ which I have to wonder if they do that on the IQ on purpose to get people not to protest the evil we are all subject too. I heard they give fluoride to prisoners to make them more docile.
Fluoride eats through cement. Since there is bad bacteria on your teeth, the fluoride eats through the bad bacteria on your teeth but then of course it eats through your teeth too. If you get a chance ask your dentist what a "fluoride bomb" is. Using fluoride for healthy teeth is like burning your house down to kill a spider. Sure the spider is gone but the house is gone too.
Fluoride studies is an example of how you can get a research study to say anything if you pay the Researcher enough to say it. They'll figure out a way to make the study show what you want. Just gonna cost you a little extra money on the side to do the "research".
It's not exactly true that it doesn't cost municipalities very much to add fluoride to the water supply. In a small community near me, Port Angeles Washington, they did not add fluoride to the water supply. About 5 years ago, it appeared on the ballot. Delta Dental offered to put up the money to build the facility to add the fluoride to the water to the tune of multi-millions, to be paid back to the foundation. How odd, wouldn't you agree, that the largest dental foundation in the US would pay to build out this facility when the outcome (at the time) was thought to prevent cavities?? It was so suspicious to me at the time that I wondered who funds Delta Dental? Certainly dentists aren't in the business of spending millions all over the US to drive dentists out of business??