🦷 A Federal Choose Sounded the Alarm on Fluoride—Then Politics Drowned It Out

One of the underutilized instruments in dentistry is magnesium—it’s that essential for stopping cavities, therapeutic small ones, and reversing sensitivity. At this time’s e-newsletter is delivered to you by BIOptimizers, my all-time favourite magnesium. Strive it at the moment with code ASKTHEDENTIST—it’s been a recreation changer for my tooth, sleep and temper.

In late 2024, a federal decide 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 a substitute, the dialog took a weird flip.

Inside months, RFK Jr. publicly took up the fluoride subject, and all of the sudden, the controversy 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 grew to become simpler to dismiss the complete fluoride debate as a conspiracy slightly than confront the details.

I’ve practiced dentistry for 41 years, and I’ve been questioning fluoride the complete time. I’ve been referred to as a quack. I’ve been dismissed. That was advantageous—I knew the science would catch up ultimately.

However I by no means anticipated how a lot of a rollercoaster this struggle 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 displaying that prenatal fluoride publicity might decrease IQ. We had meta-analyses linking fluoride to cognitive hurt. We had years of toxicology reviews confirming that fluoride doesn’t simply strengthen enamel—it alters mind improvement.

So why, after many years of science and a federal courtroom ruling, are we nonetheless debating this?
As a result of as a substitute of letting science communicate for itself, we let politics determine what’s price being attentive to.

Earlier than we go any additional, let’s be clear on one factor: This debate isn’t about fluoride in toothpaste or topical therapies—it’s about fluoride in consuming water. Fluoride utilized on to tooth is a special dialog; the priority right here is about fluoride that’s ingested, the place it may accumulate in bones, the mind, and creating our bodies. This can be a key distinction as a result of systemic ingestion of fluoride has vastly totally different results than topical utility.

How We Bought 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 technique to scale back cavities—with out rigorous scientific proof.

Briefly, fluoridation grew to become public coverage not due to strong, long-term analysis, however due to an assumption that a little bit little bit of fluoride in water was innocent. Many years later, mounting proof means that assumption was dangerously mistaken.

But, over the previous 20 years, high-quality analysis has raised critical considerations:

• 2006: A Nationwide Analysis Council (NRC) evaluation 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 youngsters (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 evaluation.
• 2021: The Nationwide Toxicology Program (NTP) categorised fluoride as a presumed neurotoxin, reinforcing over 70 research linking it to cognitive hurt.
• 2024: Federal Choose Edward Chen dominated that the EPA didn’t adequately assess fluoride’s dangers, marking a turning level within the authorized battle.

The case towards fluoride isn’t hypothesis—it’s peer-reviewed science. Think about:

• Fluoride publicity in utero has been linked to a 3-5 level drop in IQ, comparable to guide publicity.
• Fluoride’s influence on IQ is comparable to guide—however whereas we’ve banned lead from paint and gasoline, we nonetheless add fluoride to consuming water.
• Fluoridated nations just like the U.S. and Canada have comparable 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 controversy will get buried below accusations of “misinformation.”

• When RFK Jr. spoke out towards fluoride, it grew to become simpler to dismiss the complete dialog as conspiracy slightly than interact with the analysis.
• In at the moment’s media panorama, reality is usually judged not by proof, however by who’s saying it.
• Regulators just like the EPA fought tooth and nail towards 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 many years of flawed steering.

The consequence? Silence from main well being companies, regardless of a federal courtroom ruling confirming the EPA’s failure to behave on fluoride’s dangers.

The fluoride debate is not only 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 many years 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.