One of the vital underutilized instruments in dentistry is magnesium—it’s that essential for stopping cavities, therapeutic small ones, and reversing sensitivity. In the present day’s e-newsletter is delivered to you by BIOptimizers, my all-time favourite magnesium. Strive it right now with code ASKTHEDENTIST—it’s been a sport changer for my tooth, sleep and temper.
In late 2024, a federal choose delivered a landmark ruling: The EPA failed to guard the general public from fluoride’s neurotoxic results.
Choose Edward Chen—by the way in which, an Obama appointee—acknowledged what scientists have been warning for years: fluoride publicity, notably in utero, is linked to decrease IQ and long-term cognitive hurt.
This could have been a turning level, a second the place fluoride lastly left “tin foil hat” territory and have become a mainstream public well being concern.
As an alternative, the dialog took a weird flip.
Inside months, RFK Jr. publicly took up the fluoride concern, and out of the blue, the talk wasn’t about science anymore—it was about politics. The ruling didn’t change. The science didn’t change. The overwhelming proof remained simply as damning. However the second a polarizing determine entered the image, it turned simpler to dismiss the complete fluoride debate as a conspiracy relatively than confront the details.
I’ve practiced dentistry for 41 years, and I’ve been questioning fluoride the complete time. I’ve been known as a quack. I’ve been dismissed. That was nice—I knew the science would catch up ultimately.
However I by no means anticipated how a lot of a rollercoaster this combat would develop into.
The lawsuit that took fluoride to courtroom wasn’t constructed on hypothesis—it was constructed on rock-solid research, funded by the NIH, utilizing rigorous methodology. We had analysis exhibiting that prenatal fluoride publicity might decrease IQ. We had meta-analyses linking fluoride to cognitive hurt. We had years of toxicology experiences confirming that fluoride doesn’t simply strengthen enamel—it alters mind growth.
So why, after a long time of science and a federal courtroom ruling, are we nonetheless debating this?
As a result of as an alternative of letting science converse for itself, we let politics determine what’s value taking note of.
Earlier than we go any additional, let’s be clear on one factor: This debate isn’t about fluoride in toothpaste or topical remedies—it’s about fluoride in ingesting water. Fluoride utilized on to tooth is a distinct dialog; the priority right here is about fluoride that’s ingested, the place it will probably accumulate in bones, the mind, and growing our bodies. It is a key distinction as a result of systemic ingestion of fluoride has vastly totally different results than topical utility.
How We Obtained Right here:
Fluoridation was launched within the mid-Twentieth century based mostly on flawed research that claimed fluoride strengthened tooth enamel. These research lacked correct management teams, ignored socioeconomic components, and by no means investigated long-term well being dangers. Regardless of these shortcomings, by the Nineteen Sixties, fluoridation had develop into the norm in most U.S. cities, promoted as a protected and efficient solution to cut back cavities—with out rigorous scientific proof.
Briefly, fluoridation turned public coverage not due to sturdy, long-term analysis, however due to an assumption that a bit little bit of fluoride in water was innocent. A long time later, mounting proof means that assumption was dangerously flawed.
But, over the previous 20 years, high-quality analysis has raised severe considerations:
- 2006: A Nationwide Analysis Council (NRC) evaluate discovered fluoride publicity might hurt the mind, thyroid, and bones.
- 2017: An NIH-funded research discovered prenatal fluoride publicity was linked to decrease IQ in kids (Environmental Well being Views).
- 2019: A JAMA Pediatrics research confirmed these findings, igniting pushback from public well being officers—however standing as much as peer evaluate.
- 2021: The Nationwide Toxicology Program (NTP) labeled fluoride as a presumed neurotoxin, reinforcing over 70 research linking it to cognitive hurt.
- 2024: Federal Choose Edward Chen dominated that the EPA did not adequately assess fluoride’s dangers, marking a turning level within the authorized battle.
The case in opposition to fluoride isn’t hypothesis—it’s peer-reviewed science. Take into account:
- Fluoride publicity in utero has been linked to a 3-5 level drop in IQ, comparable to guide publicity.
- Fluoride’s impression on IQ is comparable to guide—however whereas we’ve banned lead from paint and gasoline, we nonetheless add fluoride to ingesting water.
- Fluoridated nations just like the U.S. and Canada have related or worse charges of tooth decay than non-fluoridated nations like Sweden and the Netherlands.
- A Harvard meta-analysis discovered that fluoride accumulates within the mind and alters neurodevelopment, with potential long-term penalties.
But, regardless of these findings, the CDC and EPA proceed to insist that fluoridation is protected—with out addressing the science.
The media’s playbook is predictable: when a controversial determine takes up a difficulty—even one backed by peer-reviewed science—the talk will get buried below accusations of “misinformation.”
- When RFK Jr. spoke out in opposition to fluoride, it turned simpler to dismiss the complete dialog as conspiracy relatively than have interaction with the analysis.
- In right now’s media panorama, fact is commonly judged not by proof, however by who’s saying it.
- Regulators just like the EPA fought tooth and nail in opposition to the lawsuit that led to Choose Chen’s ruling, regardless of their authorized obligation to guard public well being.
- Public well being establishments concern reputational injury—admitting fluoride is dangerous would imply admitting a long time of flawed steerage.
The consequence? Silence from main well being businesses, regardless of a federal courtroom ruling confirming the EPA’s failure to behave on fluoride’s dangers.
The fluoride debate isn’t just about dental well being. It’s a take a look at case for a way public well being establishments deal with inconvenient science. When legit considerations are ignored or politicized, public skepticism grows—not simply towards fluoride, however towards all public well being suggestions.
The fluoride debate isn’t nearly cavities—it’s about whether or not we worth science over dogma. With mounting proof of hurt and a federal courtroom ruling difficult a long time of coverage, it’s time for accountability.
If public well being officers received’t admit their errors, then it’s as much as the general public to demand motion—earlier than one other technology’s IQ turns into collateral injury.
P.S. Do you know which you can get my favourite magnesium with a 365-day a reimbursement assure? Strive it HERE.