December 24, 2024 

Dear Readers,

On this Christmas Eve, we’ve decided to “unwrap” the widely distributed articles dismissing the massive multi year effort by toxicologists at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) offered by fluoridation apologists such as the American Dental Association (ADA), American Fluoridation Society (AFS), and American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) with its program, the Campaign for Dental Health. 

The following is a critique highlighting key flaws and biases in those arguments focusing on the piece https://ilikemyteeth.org/troubled-government-report-finally-sees-the-light-of-day/:

1. Accuracy and Completeness –
   The article provides an incomplete account of the review process of the NTP report, highlighting its rejection in NASEM peer reviews and subsequent modifications before its release. It accurately notes the removal of the claim that fluoride is a "presumed cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans." However, it not only lacks detail regrading the complete review process, it lacks depth in exploring the implications of these changes on public health recommendations or policy.

2. Minimizing the Report’s Significance –
   The article attempts to downplay the NTP report by emphasizing revisions. However, it omits the broader context: the NTP consistently found associations between fluoride exposure and lower IQ, even if the specific hazard designation was softened. The focus on procedural hurdles distracts from the core finding that fluoride poses risks at higher exposure levels.

3. Bias and Selective Reporting –
   The article supports the safety of fluoride in water at recommended levels. However, it does not address the valid concerns or public health implications of the NTP report. Instead, the article focuses on the NTP's moderate confidence in associating high fluoride exposure (≥1.5 mg/L) with lower IQ but omits a thorough discussion of the evidence leading to this conclusion. It does not delve into the specifics of the studies reviewed or the methodologies used, which are crucial for understanding the basis of the NTP's confidence level.

4. Misleading Misinformation:
   The NASEM's role was to critique and suggest improvements, not to outright reject the work, as stated in the article. The article further attempts to preemptively discredit interpretations of the NTP report that differ from their narrative by suggesting that information might be "taken out of context.”  The selective omission of contradictory reviews or interpretations could skew the reader's perception of the scientific consensus. 

5. False Reassurance About U.S. Fluoride Levels –
   The piece asserts that the report's findings are irrelevant to U.S. water fluoridation because 0.7 mg/L is below the 1.5 mg/L threshold. This ignores the cumulative fluoride exposure from multiple sources (toothpaste, processed foods, tea, etc.), which can exceed this threshold, especially in vulnerable populations like children and pregnant women. It also conflates the concepts of concentration and dose, in that a person drinking three liters of water daily will receive a daily dose of 2.1 mg when the concentration is 0.7 ppm. The “uncertainty factor” (aka safety factor) for toxicant exposure is a factor of ten which allows for different exposures and and vulnerabilities in a diverse population.
   
   Moreover, benchmark dose analysis studies have identified a dose of below 0.3 mg/L to be sufficient to provoke a neurotoxic effect (Grandjean et al. 2023).  

6. Confounding Factors Overemphasis –
   While it's true that IQ can be influenced by numerous variables, the suggestion that confounders invalidate the fluoride-IQ link misrepresents scientific caution. High-quality studies control for these variables, and NTP's "moderate confidence" conclusion reflects rigorous evaluation. Dismissing fluoride's impact based on confounders is speculative and lacks evidence.

7. Appeal to Authority and Consensus –
   The article leans heavily on endorsements from public health organizations like the AAP. It quotes Charlotte W. Lewis, MD, MPH, FAAP to reassure about low levels of fluoride exposure but does not mention experts or studies that might have a different view, which suggests cherry-picking of supportive statements. However, historical precedent (e.g., leaded gasoline, smoking) shows that institutional consensus can lag behind emerging scientific evidence. The appeal to expert opinion ignores that the NTP report itself arises from extensive expert review.

8. Overstating Fluoride’s Dental Benefits –
   The article asserts that fluoride is essential for dental health, framing it as an equity measure. This oversimplifies the issue. Non-fluoridated regions with strong dental hygiene programs often report similar or better dental health outcomes. The disproportionate focus on fluoride as the sole preventive measure overlooks alternative, less controversial interventions like dietary changes and dental sealants.

9. Propagandizing –
   The piece heavily leans towards promoting the benefits of fluoride for dental health, which is not directly relevant to the neurodevelopmental findings. This reflects an agenda to maintain current public health policies rather than an objective analysis of the new data. The tactic of shifting focus from potential risks to benefits is a common tactic in propaganda used to distract the audience from unfavorable data.

10. Contradictory Messaging –
    The piece acknowledges that fluoride exposure above 1.5 mg/L correlates with lower IQ but simultaneously suggests that this shouldn't cause concern. The logic is inconsistent—if high fluoride levels harm neurodevelopment, precautionary measures (like reducing fluoride in all contexts) is prudent.

11. Cherry-Picking Data –
    It claims that "several recent reviews contradict NTP’s conclusions" without citing specifics or addressing the weight of evidence that supports fluoride's neurotoxicity. The omission of studies confirming fluoride's risks reflects selective reporting.

12. Focus on Causality Over Association –
    The insistence that the NTP report only shows associations, not causation, misleads readers. Epidemiological studies rarely prove causation outright but provide strong signals warranting precautionary action. Waiting for definitive causality risks continued exposure to harm.

In summary, this article, like other articles and statements promoted by fluoridation proponents, employs classic deflection tactics—appeals to authority, misdirection about fluoride exposure levels, omission of key information, and selective skepticism—to undermine the NTP’s findings without addressing the health risks fluoride poses.

Wishing you all a healthy fluoride-free New Year! 

Brenda Staudenmaier

Karen Favazza Spencer

August 8, 2024

Dear Readers,

In 2022, the Fluoride Subcommittee of the State College Borough Water Authority (SCBWA) in Pennsylvania published a report recommending the discontinuation of water fluoridation. This decision was based on a comprehensive study of factual and scientific evidence. The group of nine credentialed professionals unanimously supported this recommendation, although a tenth member resigned rather than end a practice that had been in effect since 1954. The subcommittee included nine "noteworthy references" in their May 19, 2022 report.

We believe the report titled, "Should we continue to fluoridate our water?" exemplifies due diligence and deliberate decision-making, serving as a model for other communities. However, we wish to clarify two points:

Minor Items of Fact:

1. Assumptions on Dental Decay Reduction: The subcommittee assumed, without evidence, that the reduction in dental decay in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities was due to fluoridated dental products. Evidence suggests that this reduction is part of a trend predating both fluoridation and fluoridated dental products, attributed to better nutrition, improved water infrastructure, and enhanced dental care, including dental sealants.

2. FDA's Role in Fluoride Recommendations: The subcommittee implied that the FDA recommends fluoride in bottled water. In reality, the FDA's role is to align bottled water regulations with the EPA standard. The EPA standard is influenced by Health & Human Services (HHS), which reportedly has an annual fluoridation promotion budget exceeding $100 million.

3. Omissions Regarding NRC Recommendations: The subcommittee omitted key points from the 2006 National Research Council (NRC) recommendation to the EPA that the fluoride Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of 4 ppm was unsafe and needed lowering. The NRC also indicated evidence of harm at lower exposures and noted the absence of safety evidence for susceptible subpopulations at any water concentration.

Major Evidence of Political Machination:

4. Pressure from Fluoridation Supporters: Subcommittee members reported undue pressure from fluoridation supporters, including national organizations, to adhere to the American Dental Association (ADA) and the CDC's Oral Health Division recommendations, rather than conducting their own study.

5. Local Pressure from Organized Professionals: Outside fluoridation advocates allegedly organized local dentists, hygienists, and doctors to exert pressure on the subcommittee, relying on their "expert opinion" and status rather than fulfilling the mandate to examine facts and present a valid argument.

And there you have it in a nutshell. When faced with the daunting task of making a decision that will impact every person of a community, fluoridationists seek to subvert the most diligent and qualified committees by inserting themselves into the process in order to influence the outcome. 

Consequently, we applaud the SCBWA and hold them up as a model for other communities seeking to answer the same question of “should we or shouldn’t we.”

“A wise man makes his own decisions. An ignorant man follows public opinion.” -  Chinese Proverb

Karen & Brenda

August 2, 2024

Emerging evidence suggests a concerning link between fluoridated water and neurobehavioral issues in children. Stories are being collected about children who have removed fluoridated water from their lives and seen a dramatic reduction in their wild behaviors. One mother, Audrey Adams, observed a dramatic reduction in her autistic son's disruptive behaviors within days of removing fluoridated tap water from his diet. Later, eliminating fluoride from his showers alleviated his morning headaches.

As plaintiffs suing the US EPA over the neurotoxicity of fluoride in public drinking water, we're alarmed by recent findings. Experts have published studies showing fluoride exposure during pregnancy and infancy can lower IQ and increase ADHD rates. The NTP’s systematic review found no safe level of fluoride exposure. Although this publication has been blocked from release, it was subpoenaed in the case by Judge Edward Chen and made available as a draft.

Recent high-quality research funded by the National Institutes of Health and published in JAMA revealed that children of Californian mothers with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy had nearly double the odds of neurobehavioral problems. These included emotional reactivity, anxiety, depression, somatic symptoms, and autism-related symptoms.

Given these findings, we urge immediate action to protect our children's neurological health. We call on local water authorities to suspend fluoridation practices until further research can guarantee its safety. We also encourage parents to educate themselves about fluoride exposure and consider using fluoride-free water for their families, especially during pregnancy and early childhood.

Brenda Staudenmaier

August 19, 2023 

Dear Readers, 

Motivated by a personal health crisis, I began my deep dive into the world of fluoride science and fluoridation policy in the summer of 2014. As an analyst, I was adept at doing that type of work and found the government websites like PubMed (database of published biomedical science curated by the National Institute of Health) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to be wonderful assets. However, what I found on those websites, as well as the websites of the American Dental Association (ADA),  World Health Organization (WHO) and  other stakeholders in fluoridation was anything but wonderful. 

Initially, like most of fluoridation opponents, I was only interested in ending the practice in my own small city based on the evidence that even low concentrations of fluoride in water considered ‘optimal’ by proponents causes serious harm to the bodies, brains and bones of a significant portion of  consumers resulting in everything from arthritis to ulcerative colitis, From my reading, I estimate at least 15% of us receive a slew of medical misdiagnoses of what in reality is fluoride poisoning affecting us from womb to tomb. Moreover, I agree with Dr. Hans Moolenburgh that the chronic exposure to fluoride in water will “hasten health calamities” for all of us.  

Again, like most fluoridation opponents, I believed simply getting a group of credentialed people together to present a rational document that was easily accessible and supported by scientific citations to those in positions of power would begin the process of righting that wrong. How naive I was. 

Like fluoridation opponents in previous decades, I found that regardless of their altruistic mission statements, power structures from Main Street to the ABC Agencies of Washington defend their policies despite being presented with the proof that they are poisoning people and the planet - and that ordinary people will be whipped into a frenzy by paid public relations experts and other shills in order to defend fluoridation by attacking long-time neighbors and friends rather than actually do a modicum of science homework or consider the ethical violation of medical consent and bodily autonomy that fluoridation policy poses for those of us with medical reason to avoid this poison. 

Since 2015, I’ve authored multiple well-referenced petitions to those in positions of power, including to the CDC, National Academies of Science (NASEM), governors (through the National Governors’ Association), American Thyroid Association (ATA), politicians, etc. I’ve even had some very interesting and eye-opening responses. 

I met Brenda Staudenmaier in 2017. Her personal story is similar to mine. We each have written the CDC individually. In January 2022 we began a joint effort to bring the CDC to task. Per our correspondence on this website, we got their attention, but the CDC’s disingenuous and overtly manipulative non-responsive replies to us leaves no doubt that its leadership, like leadership in many organizations, is only interested in protecting its power, prestige and profitability. CDC turns a blind eye to scientific facts, ethical considerations, and justice. 

Brenda and I will not be giving up. We hope that the material made public on this website helps others of good conscience fight the good fight in their own ways, or at least take measures to protect their own health from this specific and insidious poison that the CDC champions.