Today’s the day that water fluoridation, a public health measure spanning more than 70 years, is on trial in San Francisco, California. Judge Edward Chen will be presiding over the presentation of scientific evidence related to the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure on the developing brain. There is an interesting but not a surprising history behind the lawsuit and the suppression of the science.
November 2016, several non profits (Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, Moms Against Fluoride and others) petitioned the EPA to ban fluoridation due to the chemical’s neurotoxicity. They used the law, The Toxic Substances Control Act to file this petition against the government. The EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case.
December 2017 Court denies the EPA’s motion to dismiss
February 2018 Court denies the EPA’s request to limit review to the administrative record that would allow important information from new scientific studies published since the case was originally filed.
June 2020 Judge Chen heard arguments from both sides and admitted that the plaintiffs presented ‘serious evidence’ that raises ‘serious questions’ about the safety of continuing water fluoridation. Judge Chen delayed the trial until completion of the NTP report and the benchmark dose analysis completed by the NIH.
Emails obtained via FOIA for this trial demonstrate that the CDC, the FDA, the NIDCR (National Institute for Dental and Craniofacial Research) were very alarmed by the results of the National Toxicology Program (NTP) report:
April 2022 Dr. Mary Wolf of the NTP sent an email to the above agencies announcing completion of the report and a summary of their findings. She announced that the report will be published May 18, 2022
April-May 2022 a flurry of emails between agencies demonstrate concern over this report being made public. The CDC was “proactively and pre-emptively taking action” because they want to continue to promote “safety and efficacy” at the levels we fluoridate in the US. They requested the NTP ‘adjust’ their findings.
May 2022 the NTP CONFIRMS their findings and NO REVISIONS are necessary.
June 2022 Assistant Secretary of Health Lavine stalled publishing the report and to this day the NTP report has not been officially completed and released.
Findings From NTP Report
Some 72 studies were considered and the vast majority demonstrated that with increased exposure to fluoride there were IQ deficits found in children. Consistency in direction of the association and accounting for a wide variety of covariates, “all served to rule out the possibility that there is a common factor other than fluoride exposure that can account for this outcome.”
Findings From Benchmark Dose Analysis
Increased urine fluoride levels in pregnant women were associated with ADHD symptoms in children.
A declaration entered as evidence in this case by Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former NTP director 2009-2019.
Complete silence can be heard from the American Dental Association and in my opinion, this is an abhorrent omission on their part in educating dentists and the public. Late last year, the ADA published an article touting the town of Brigham, UT for not taking fluoride out of their water when it came up on the ballot during November voting. Some quotes from the article:
“I’m not sure why it is even on the ballot,” wrote Sarah Yates of Brigham City. “Fluoridation of our water costs less than $100,000 annually, a drop in the bucket — forgive the pun — in our city budget. Water is something used by almost 100% of the population. There are people who drink only bottled water, but that isn’t the case for most low-income families with young children, who don’t buy something in a plastic bottle that they can get through their kitchen faucet.”
Lynette Schwinn, also of Brigham City, wrote, “At the age of 20 I lived where there was no fluoride in the water. I was told by an area dentist that by the age of 35 I would lose my teeth. I moved to Brigham City more than 50 years ago and due to fluoride in the water, I still have my teeth … So, I’m saying, keep the fluoride. I like my teeth.”
One letter to the editor against fluoride in the water appeared in the paper, but it was prefaced with an editor’s note: “This letter contains information that is inaccurate, disputed by experts and/or credible authorities, and/or commits errors of context/omission. Reader discretion is advised.”
…..The ADA recognizes the use of fluoride and community water fluoridation as safe and effective in preventing tooth decay for both children and adults. (emphasis added)
I would have loved to see the letter that was ‘inaccurate, disputed by experts’!
The history of suppression regarding fluoride’s potential harm to the public dates back to the 1940s when this was being considered as a public health measure. Evidence of harm to the bones, the kidneys, the thyroid, the joints and other organs has been documented through research but strategically prevented from being publicly available. I will try to cover this in a separate Substack to shed more light on why we may want to avoid it in our toothpaste and look to more natural remineralizing agents (hydroxyapatite).
Live stream of the trial is available to the public: HERE.
Loved the image at the end of the post!
Excellent summary. I hope you'll be posting updates on the trial. This is a long time coming!