RFK Fluoride Outline
RFK Fluoride
Ashley Malin Flouride Notes
Fluoride NTP Monograph
Fluoride Media Dissection
Fluoride Video Script

Published:

Next Steps:

Fluoride History

Newburgh, initial news release, 1970
Rothbard writing in 1992
Pushed by Oscar Ewing under Truman, who hired Edward L. Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) to do a PR campaign pushing fluoridation.
Rothbard claims it was a huge aluminum manufacturer who first latched onto the PHS study on fluoride (seeing that naturally high fluoride levels reduce cavities). They had a scientist Cox initially propose tap water fluoridation.

The 2024 NTP Report

Why do they conclude this?
Screenshot 2024-11-28 at 7.15.24 PM.png

What are the two high quality cross-sectional studies?
Why are two studies considered too low?
What were the human mechanistic studies that were discarded? By whom? Can I interview them?

Final conclusion:
Screenshot 2024-11-29 at 5.38.33 PM.png

Countries which don't fluoridate water

The three countries in the world with the healthiest teeth [1], Denmark, Germany, and Finland, do not fluoridate their water.
Japan
Why do they have healthier teeth despite not fluoridating?

"In other countries, fluoride supplementation has been achieved by fluoridating food products such as salt or milk"

National Health and Medical Research Council Australia

The 2016 NHMRC Evidence Evaluation found 11 additional studies investigating the relationship between water fluoride levels and IQ.7, 9, 11, 149-156 Eight of these studies found that average IQ was lower in the areas that had higher levels of fluoride (all higher than current Australian levels) in their drinking water. Three studies found no difference in IQ between areas with different water fluoride levels. One study was a high quality prospective cohort study, with a low risk of bias.149 This study took account of known confounding factors including sex, socio-economic status, breastfeeding, childhood maltreatment, perinatal insults, birth weight and educational achievement. The fluoride levels in this study were similar to current Australian levels and the study was done in a country with similar socio-economic and healthcare system characteristics (New Zealand). This study found that there was no significant difference in IQ scores at ages 7-13 years and 38 years between those exposed to water fluoridation and those that are not.

"The same two studies on IQ were identified in the 2000 McDonagh review and the 2007 NHMRC review.146,147 Both studies found a decrease of IQ in children exposed to fluoride in water; however, they were of insufficient quality to allow definitive conclusions about any relationship between water fluoride levels and IQ to be determined. In one study the levels of fluoride were much higher (4 mg/L) than current Australian levels. The results of the other study were likely to have been confounded by iodine exposure.aj148 Neither of the studies took account of other confounders known to influence IQ such as parental education."

"One study was a high quality prospective cohort study, with a low risk of bias.149 This study took account of known confounding factors including sex, socio-economic status, breastfeeding, childhood maltreatment, perinatal insults, birth weight and educational achievement. The fluoride levels in this study were similar to current Australian levels and the study was done in a country with similar socio-economic and healthcare system characteristics (New Zealand). This study found that there was no significant difference in IQ scores at ages 7-13 years and 38 years between those exposed to water fluoridation and those that are not"

All studies included groups with water fluoride levels above current Australian levels. Only two studies adjusted for potential confounding, one of which showed no significant differences in the adjusted analysis145 and the other one remained confounded by exposure to arsenic.153

NHMRC: While some overseas studies suggested a possible link, these studies took place in countries where fluoride levels greatly exceed the levels seen in Australia and did not take into account factors such as parental education and the presence of arsenic in drinking water (1).

Arthritis:
There is no reliable evidence of an association between community water fluoridation as practised in Australia and skeletal fluorosis, osteoporosis or musculoskeletal pain

Thyroid:

also relies on this citation from 2017: Information Paper: Effects of water fluoridation on dental and other human health outcomes, report prepared by the Clinical Trials Centre at University of Sydney

Other Meta-Analyses

Have other country's governments done meta-analyses on fluoride safety?

Draw a map of the major "high-quality" studies to each meta analyses

This Canadian report threw out everything but 1 article... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551870/

Philippe Grandjean meta-analysis - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12940-019-0551-x

What separates a high quality and low quality study?

Useful for my own learning as well. This can be learned, maybe, from the NTP report.

"The Experts"

"Academic rigor, journalistic flair", "Clinical Associate Professor at Melbourne Dental School". The tone is so dismissive of all the glaring evidence.
Screenshot 2024-11-24 at 3.29.35 PM.png

Key Scientists, Researchers, and Gruops

Parents of Fluoride Poisoned Children

Chris Neurath - Fluoride Action Network

Paul Connett - founder of Fluoride Action Networ

The Senior Vice President of the EPA Headquarters Union discusses the dangers of fluoride in our drinking water.

Ashley Mailin at UF does research here. lots of studies.

International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology are also dentists and call for the removal of flouride from tap water.

Lamphlear

“Rates of tooth decay are absolutely a concern,” said Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University in Canada. “But science is evolving. There’s growing evidence suggesting that fluoride may not be as safe as previously thought.”

American Fluoridation Society

Global Problem: India

60 to 70 million people in India are getting too much fluoride. Many, many, terrible fluorosis cases. See here.

CDC and EPA guidelines and messaging

Does the CDC or EPA even mention non-fluorosis effects of fluoride?

EPA maximum contaminant level: 4mg/L (source, NTP monograph)
But countries like Iran are still following the WHO guideline of 1.5mg/L.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets maximum exposure level standards for drinking water quality. The current enforceable drinking water standard for fluoride, or the maximum contaminant level (MCL), is 4.0 mg/L. This level is the maximum amount of fluoride contamination (naturally occurring, not from water fluoridation) that is allowed in water from public water systems and is set to protect against increased risk of skeletal fluorosis, a condition characterized by pain and tenderness of the major joints. EPA also has a non-enforceable secondary drinking water standard of 2.0 mg/L of fluoride, which is recommended to protect children against the tooth discoloration and/or pitting that can be caused by severe dental fluorosis during the formative period prior to eruption of teeth. Although the secondary standard is not enforceable, EPA requires that public water systems notify the public if and when average fluoride levels exceed 2.0 mg/L (NRC 2006). The World Health Organization (WHO) set a safe water guideline of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride in drinking water (first established in 1984 and reaffirmed in 1993 and 2011), which is recommended to protect against increasing risk of dental and skeletal fluorosis (WHO 2017).

Why is the EPA guideline lower than the WHO?

US EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL) for fluoride has been gradually reduced over several decades from its original standard of 12,000 µg/L (1962) to the current standard of 4000 µg/L [8]. However, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality (GDWQ) level for fluoride is much lower at 1500 µg/L.

Idea of fluoride exposure vs. Guidelines

We developed 2006–2011 fluoride exposure estimates for 32,495 CWSs (serving a total of 180 million residents, Table 1) and N = 2,152 counties (Fig. 1). Of these CWSs, 15.4% (N = 4,992 serving a population of >20.5 million) had six-year average fluoride concentrations above the USPHS recommended level (700 μg/L); 4.5% (N = 1456, serving a population of >2.9 million) exceeded the WHO GDWQ (1500 μg/L); and 0.3% (N = 99, serving a population of >40,000) exceeded the US EPA MCL (4000 μg/L) (Table 1).
see: https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41370-023-00570-w/MediaObjects/41370_2023_570_Fig1_HTML.png?as=webp
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-023-00570-w

Different measurements from the NTP report:
As of April 2020, 1.08% of persons living in the United States (~3.5 million people) were served by community water systems (CWS) containing ≥1.1 mg/L naturally occurring fluoride. CWS supplying water with ≥1.5 mg/L naturally occurring fluoride served 0.59% of the U.S. population (~1.9 million people), and systems supplying water with ≥2 mg/L naturally occurring fluoride served 0.31% of the U.S. population (~1 million people) (CDC Division of Oral Health 2020).

(( This number (>1.5mg) is 1 million lower than the above study! ))

Regions of the United States where CWS and private wells contain natural fluoride concentrations of more than 1.5 mg/L serve over 2.9 million U.S. residents (Hefferon et al. 2024). The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that 172,000 U.S. residents are served by domestic wells that exceed EPA’s enforceable standard of 4.0 mg/L fluoride in drinking water, and 522,000 are served by domestic wells that exceed EPA’s non-enforceable standard of 2.0 mg/L fluoride in drinking water (USGS 2020).

Why is there so much fluoride in these well waters?

tea contains 1-6mg.
Does tea contain more fluoride because of where it grows, or because fluoridated water?
Does China fluoridate their water?

How much fluoride exposure would we be getting naturally? Like if we just drank natural water 200 years ago?

Form of fluoride

Fluoride is a natural mineral, but is it the same form of fluoride that is in our tap water? Does this matter?

Naturally occuring fluoride is calcium fluoride.

Fluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) is the most commonly used additive for water fluoridation in the United States.[43|43] It is an inexpensive liquid by-product of phosphate fertilizer manufacture.

Elevated naturally occurring fluoride levels in groundwater (>1.5 mg/L) are prevalent globally in areas including central Australia, eastern Brazil, sub-Saharan Africa, the southern Arabian Peninsula, south and east Asia, and western North America (Podgorski and Berg 2022). - NTP report
Could it be that high levels of naturally occurring fluoride do not have the same toxicity?

Existing Harm

How many children have spots on their teeth from excess fluoride? What is done to help them?
How many are exposed to over
From the Anne Nigra study:
We developed 2006–2011 fluoride exposure estimates for 32,495 CWSs (serving a total of 180 million residents, Table 1) and N = 2,152 counties (Fig. 1). Of these CWSs, 15.4% (N = 4,992 serving a population of >20.5 million) had six-year average fluoride concentrations above the USPHS recommended level (700 μg/L); 4.5% (N = 1456, serving a population of >2.9 million) exceeded the WHO GDWQ (1500 μg/L); and 0.3% (N = 99, serving a population of >40,000) exceeded the US EPA MCL (4000 μg/L) (Table 1).

So at least 2.9 million Americans are getting fluoride above the WHO guideline. This is a level which the (conservative? idk yet) NTP report says, with moderate confidence, is associated with lower IQ in children.

Action steps: Find out if you are in one of these counties, and how to remove the fluoride from your water.

Current Events & News

Florida Surgeon General advises against tap water flouridation - NBC 11/23/2024

Resources

Main Studies: Fluoride Helps Teeth

Alberta, Canada - what happened after stopping fluoride?

Israel sees increased dental carries: https://ijhpr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13584-024-00637-5

To investigate: - Cochrane Library review on whether stopping fluoridation leads to more dental carries

Main Studies: Fluoride's Harms

IQ

Pineal Gland

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6017004/

Thyroid

Arthritis

Multi-generational effects

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12011-011-9137-3

Against Interviews

Patterns

Claiming the intervention solved the problem when the problem was already going down.
This is the same pattern as vaccines, according to-- what was that speech! about how vaccines are not as effective as they thought? maybe i can ask chatGPT

Innocent until proven guilty should not apply to population-wide medical interventions.

Other than severe fluorosis, NRC did not find sufficient evidence of negative health effects at fluoride levels below 4 mg/L; however, it concluded that the consistency of the results of IQ deficits in children exposed to fluoride at 2.5 to 4 mg/L in drinking water from a few epidemiological studies of Chinese populations appeared significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.

If they had evidence of the safety of fluoride under .7mg/L, this would make sense. But if they didn't, how can you continuing the intervention and just calling politely, (to no one in particular ?), for more evidence?

Did any government body actually study fluoride after this? Or was it left to individual researchers? Was there funding for fluoride research after the NRC review?

Money trail, lobbying

https://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_12-21-14/

Why is Dr. Johnny Johnson so passionate about fluoride? https://fluoridealert.org/content/foia-emails-expose-fluoridation-promoters/

https://fluoridealert.org/key-topics/fluoride-controversy/

Highly flawed pro-fluoridation studies cited by 'real scientists'

Juneau, Alaska study
"Our second email is from fluoridation promoter and Assistant Professor at the University of Alaska, Dr. Jennifer Meyer. She was the lead author of a highly flawed 2018 study (Meyer et al., 2018) that claimed that fluoridation cessation in Juneau, Alaska increased medicaid spending on adolescent dental decay. Though her study mentioned but didn’t account for the fact that during the study period Alaska substantially increased medicaid reimbursements for oral health procedures–something that is known to significantly increase medicaid spending and increase the scope of procedures used. You’ll see from the email below that she isn’t an unbiased researcher."

This is acutally wild:
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/malin-1024x335.png
before even analyzing the study, ALREADY prepared to shane the author and editors.
Whole page of bullshit tactics: https://fluoridealert.org/content/foia-emails-expose-fluoridation-promoters/

Email Corruption

May 11 2022

of course CDC is concerned if it's bad science.

"NIEHS is preparing to rollout findings that fluoride is bad for the environment, contradicting NIDCR and NICHD recommendations for fluoride in the water for tooth health."
"We do need to prepare a strong and focused reaction to the findings in this NTP report and be prepared in advance " - Rena N. D'Souza

To Investigate

Could fluoride replacing hydroxyapatite bonds cause hydroxl radicals in the teeth, bones, and pineal gland?

canadian examples rebuttals

data: africa has less cavities than the US and Europe - is this because of measurement?

https://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries01/

The CDC keeps claiming fluoridated water is one of the greatest health achievements. And yet if you look at the data, dental carries went down in the same rate in all EU countries.
Screenshot 2024-11-21 at 11.46.52 AM.png

Big Picture

Systems / Ecological effects

Flouride hypersensitivity, vulnerable populations

“the significant decrease in the number of other skin rashes leaves room for speculation, seeming to favor the view that a small segment of the population may have some kind of intolerance to fluoride. This group of people should be studied further. The most frequently reported symptoms that disappeared from the time of actual to known discontinuation of fluoridation seemed to be itching and dryness of the skin.” SOURCE: Lamberg M, et al. (1997). Symptoms experienced during periods of actual and supposed water fluoridation. Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology 25(4):291-5.

Disgusting media presence for flouride action network

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Connett

Paul Connett is a prominent water fluoridation critic,[1][2][3] executive director of the Binghamton, New York based Fluoride Action Network (FAN),[4][5] one of the largest organizations opposing water fluoridation worldwide.[6][7][8] Critics have stated that The Fluoride Action Network is funded, at least in part, by Joseph Mercola, who has been identified by the Centre for Countering Digital Hate as a leading purveyor of COVID-19 disinformation. FAN executive director Stuart Cooper has stated, "Mercola is among thousands of donors and his money accounts for a single-digit percentage of FAN's contributions".[9][10]
In 2004, Connett published the paper 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation in Medical Veritas,[20][21][22] a pseudoscientific journal described by QuackWatch as "fundamentally flawed".

The cornets is the founder of the Flooride action network, which is the main body that's pushing for defloridation and fluoid research in the United States. It is doubtless there that they are soon to be proved right as more and more judges and scientists are more and more honest judges and scientists are coming around are beginning to say these the same things that they've been saying for the last 20 years. 
But if you look at their Wikipedia page, all it says is that quack watch quack watch says it's pseudoscientific, and they're funded by Merkola, who's bad because he's a digital terrorist spreading COVID disinformation This is this this this truly this discuss me actually Here we have the self-satisfied debunkers who think they are somehow helping the world by parroting things that they have not fully researched and do not fully underst have not fully researched by parroting things they have not fully researched. They think they are somehow protecting society. that it is a false righteousness that is doing much more harm than good. False righteousness that is doing much more for falsehood than for truth.