The National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the National Institutes of Health, is pushing back against the unfounded criticisms of their systematic review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Fluoridation advocates, trying to defend the practice from the now overwhelming evidence of harm, have been attacking the NTP’s review.
In what appears to be a last gasp but all-out effort by dental organizations trying to save fluoridation, the fluoridationists have been “flooding the zone” with several false narratives, many directed against the landmark NTP review and its findings. The NTP’s landmark 7-year systematic identified over 70 studies, including 22 it rated as high quality, that overwhelmingly found reduced child IQ associated with fluoride. Furthermore, some of the high quality studies found IQ losses at fluoride exposure levels in the same range as experienced by people drinking artificially fluoridated water with 0.7 mg/L concentration of fluoride.
NTP authors have responded in a recent article published in the Annals of Global Health:
Addressing Critiques of the Evidence Linking Fluoride and Children’s IQ (Taylor et al 2025)
NTP Lead Author, Kyla Taylor
Fundraising Update
In the past 48 hours, we’ve raised $1,770 from 19 supporters in an effort to raise the necessary funds for our 2026 operating budget. This brings our current total to $46,746 from 348 supporters. Our current goal is $150,000 from 600 donors by midnight Pacific Time on December 31st. All donations, large and small, are crucial to us and are tax-deductible. A huge thank you to all who have supported our work and our website over the years!
How To Make A Tax-Deductible Donation
- You can make your donation online using either our new secure fundraising page: https://fluoridealert.networkforgood.com/projects/176427-everyday-giving
- You can also donate by check, payable and addressed to:
Fluoride Action Network
PO Box 85
North Sutton, NH 03260
Flurry of Flawed Fluoride-IQ Studies From Fans of Fluoridation
Fluoridation promoting dental researchers and sympathizers have also started producing a flurry of flawed studies claiming to find “no effect” of fluoride on child IQ.
The one persistent false narrative that the Taylor et al (2025) article only partially addresses is the claim that only studies with water fluoride concentrations of 1.5 mg/L or higher have found reduced IQ, and 1.5 mg/L is “so much higher” than the current recommended 0.7 mg/L for artificial fluoridation is completely safe and there is no scientific evidence that suggests otherwise. But nothing could be further from the truth. There are three reasons why this is demonstrably false:
1.) The NTP identified 12 high quality studies where the mean fluoride exposure is below 1.5 mg/L, and 9 of them found statistically significant reductions in IQ. (Watch my video presentation on neurotoxicity research)
2.) A concentration of 1.5 mg/L is not “so much higher” than 0.7 mg/L, even if one ignored all the high quality studies below 1.5 mg/L. The fluoridationists are confusing concentration with dose. For those people who drink twice as much water as the average (and there are millions of such people in the US), they will get the same dose from a concentration of 0.7 mg/L as will the average water consumer from a concentration of 1.5 mg/L.
3.) Furthermore, people vary in their sensitivity to any toxic agent. Some people will be 10x more sensitive than the average person. Therefore, these sensitive people when drinking water with a concentration of 0.15 mg/L will get the same adverse effects (lower IQ) as an average-sensitivity person drinking water with 1.5 mg/L. The difference between 1.5 mg/L and 0.7 mg/L provides insufficient safety margin than is required to protect the most sensitive individuals, or simply those who drink more water than the average.
The new article from NTP’s Taylor et al does address reason 1.) for why the fluoridationist’s are simply wrong with their primary defense claim that fluoridation at concentrations below 1.5 mg/L has no convincing evidence of reduced IQ. The article points out:
“Notably, among the best available evidence (i.e., the high-quality studies), inverse associations were observed when fluoride exposure was restricted to less than 1.5 mg/L as estimated by measurements in both urine and drinking water.”
The new article also comprehensively refutes twelve other criticisms that have been made of the NTP’s review and of the overall body of scientific evidence.
We expect the fluoridationists to ignore these refutations and continue with their campaign of false information in their attempt to save a policy they have promoted for over 80 years and are loath to admit is now likely doing more harm than good. However, for all those who wish to assess the risk of IQ impairment objectively, this new article from NTP is highly recommended. It has collected in one place succinct refutations of the criticisms that fluoridation defenders have made. It also emphasizes how NTP has followed the most rigorous and widely accepted methods for systematic reviews.
Not explicitly mentioned is the fact that rigorous systematic reviews are considered the highest level of evidence. This is especially important in light of the fluoridationists resorting to cherry-picking just a few selected studies that do not find an effect on IQ. The latest example is a study by Warren et al (2025), a study with limitations that would garner it only a “lower quality” rating from NTP’s rigorous rating method, yet falsely promoted in mainstream media as a study that overturns the collected evidence of over 70 studies, including over 20 of higher quality than it.
Thank you,
Chris Neurath
Research Director