Yes, Dr Exley makes an interesting argument but he does so at the expense of confusing the issues, and in his fervor to point the finger at aluminum I think he goes too far. In a nutshell, his argument is that fluoride doesn't "directly" cause adverse health effects. He says aluminum is the real culprit. Even if you accept that argument (I don't know whether he's right), that doesn't exonerate fluoride (though a reader could get that incorrect impression, as I did initially). Indeed, even Dr Exley agrees that it is the presence of fluoride that enables aluminum to wreak havoc. According to Dr Exley, fluoride "binds aluminium in the acidic environment of the human stomach and prevents aluminium from forming insoluble hydroxides as it passes through the gut. This means that fluoride increases the absorption of aluminium across the human gut." No matter how you look at it, fluoride is toxic -- either directly for reasons advanced by Mary Holland, Children's Health Defense, and the plaintiffs in the San Francisco litigation or indirectly by binding aluminum as argued by Dr Exley.
For those interested, some excellent summaries on the subject of aluminofluoride compounds AlF(x) have been published by Profs. Anna Strunecka and Jiri Patocka in Prague.
Al may potentiate the effects of fluoride manyfold, but is not necessary for fluoride-induced toxicity. Berrylium may also form similar complexes with F- [BeF(x)].
All fluoride compounds, organic or inorganic, have been shown to influence thyroid hormone metabolism, thus affecting all cellular functions.
I studied environmental science as a requirement during my studies at the University of California Irvine. As a student I was taught the dangers of fluoride, which was a huge contradiction because fluoride was purposely put into our water system for our health. I was happy I grew up on well water.
Thank you for the article. Unfortunately, there are many problems with the NTP review, as has been pointed out in a letter we sent to NTP head Richard Woychik in May, 2023. A most important confounder was not addressed.
That's a very interesting and informative letter. It seems fluoride has many possible modes of action for causing toxicity.
There may be an important "typo" in the letter (or maybe I misunderstand the point). Instead of "... failure to consider iodine sufficiency across the exposure groups would have led to studies being rated as having a “probably high risk of bias ...”, should the letter say "… properly considering iodine sufficiency across the exposure groups would have led to studies being rated as having a "probably high risk of bias … .”?
We are referring to the wording of the original protocol which stated that:
"Failure to consider the distribution of the key covariates across the exposure groups will result in a 'probably high RoB' or 'definitely high RoB', depending on the likelihood of those factors affecting the results of the final analyses."
The NTP failed to address the issue of iodine status, and changed the protocol in response when NASEM pointed it out.
Loved the image at the end of the post!
It is one of the best memes I have found.
Excellent summary. I hope you'll be posting updates on the trial. This is a long time coming!
I plan to do so!!
Great work, there is no reason to add fluoride to water, this is an interesting take as well,
https://drchristopherexley.substack.com/p/fluoridation-fluoridation-fluoridation
This is an amazing article! Thank you for sharing.
Yes, Dr Exley makes an interesting argument but he does so at the expense of confusing the issues, and in his fervor to point the finger at aluminum I think he goes too far. In a nutshell, his argument is that fluoride doesn't "directly" cause adverse health effects. He says aluminum is the real culprit. Even if you accept that argument (I don't know whether he's right), that doesn't exonerate fluoride (though a reader could get that incorrect impression, as I did initially). Indeed, even Dr Exley agrees that it is the presence of fluoride that enables aluminum to wreak havoc. According to Dr Exley, fluoride "binds aluminium in the acidic environment of the human stomach and prevents aluminium from forming insoluble hydroxides as it passes through the gut. This means that fluoride increases the absorption of aluminium across the human gut." No matter how you look at it, fluoride is toxic -- either directly for reasons advanced by Mary Holland, Children's Health Defense, and the plaintiffs in the San Francisco litigation or indirectly by binding aluminum as argued by Dr Exley.
For those interested, some excellent summaries on the subject of aluminofluoride compounds AlF(x) have been published by Profs. Anna Strunecka and Jiri Patocka in Prague.
See: https://www.biomed.cas.cz/physiolres/pdf/51/51_557.pdf
Al may potentiate the effects of fluoride manyfold, but is not necessary for fluoride-induced toxicity. Berrylium may also form similar complexes with F- [BeF(x)].
All fluoride compounds, organic or inorganic, have been shown to influence thyroid hormone metabolism, thus affecting all cellular functions.
I enjoyed your 3-part interview with Robyn Chuter. Thanks for taking the time to do it.
Thank you for taking the time to watch. I hope the information we discussed will be useful as you make decisions about your dental health.
I studied environmental science as a requirement during my studies at the University of California Irvine. As a student I was taught the dangers of fluoride, which was a huge contradiction because fluoride was purposely put into our water system for our health. I was happy I grew up on well water.
Great information on this toxic poison!
General Jack T. Ripper was right after all.
Thank you for the article. Unfortunately, there are many problems with the NTP review, as has been pointed out in a letter we sent to NTP head Richard Woychik in May, 2023. A most important confounder was not addressed.
https://pfpc.substack.com/p/pfpc-letter-to-richard-woychik-director
That's a very interesting and informative letter. It seems fluoride has many possible modes of action for causing toxicity.
There may be an important "typo" in the letter (or maybe I misunderstand the point). Instead of "... failure to consider iodine sufficiency across the exposure groups would have led to studies being rated as having a “probably high risk of bias ...”, should the letter say "… properly considering iodine sufficiency across the exposure groups would have led to studies being rated as having a "probably high risk of bias … .”?
Sent from my iPhone
Thank you for your response.
I see your point.
We are referring to the wording of the original protocol which stated that:
"Failure to consider the distribution of the key covariates across the exposure groups will result in a 'probably high RoB' or 'definitely high RoB', depending on the likelihood of those factors affecting the results of the final analyses."
The NTP failed to address the issue of iodine status, and changed the protocol in response when NASEM pointed it out.