If you go to any search engine and search “water fluoridation” you will invariably be met with results that are decidedly pro-fluoridation with statements like “fluoride prevents tooth decay” or “fluoride prevents tooth loss in 40%-70% of adults”. You will have to scroll through several pages of search results, something most people do not bother with, to find any dissenting voices on water fluoridation. If you are really feeling frisky, next time you are hanging out with your friends or colleagues, bring up the topic and see how long it takes for the phrase “conspiracy theory” or “the science is settled” to come up in relation to it. Most likely the more educated your friends or colleagues are, the higher the probability those phrases will be used and the topic will quickly become a third rail. This is the result of a carefully managed information aka propaganda campaign waged by government agencies, dental associations, and the media that has been ongoing for 78 years.

Despite the fact that dissent regarding the benefits of water fluoridation has been dismissed and ridiculed constantly, there have been principled researchers who have sought the truth, some unencumbered by institutional censorship, and some who had their institutions proactively destroy their careers for speaking out. Their findings and subsequent persecution show the story of water fluoridation serves as a cautionary tale, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing scientific evidence over external pressures to safeguard public health.

After almost 80 years the tide against water fluoridation may finally be changing, as I type these words a landmark trial is happening in San Francisco, California. It is the result of 8 years of litigation by the Fluoride Action Network, an activist organization that has been warning the public about the dangers of fluoride since May 2004. It is an official project of the American Environmental Health Studies Project (AEHSP). In 2016 the U.S. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a plaintiff’s petition under the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water. The petitioners maintain that it should be removed due to its overall neurotoxicity, something the EPA denies is that case but as we will soon see, does not align with the most up-to-date science.

The Government Tells On Itself

The National Toxicology Program (NTP), a research arm of U.S. regulatory agencies under the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), has found itself in the midst of controversy once again, following the court-ordered release of its report on fluoride’s neurotoxic effects.

In May 2022 the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) revealed that the Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistant Administrator had previously blocked the report from public disclosure.

The released documents include a table of contents, comments from external peer-reviewers, internal HHS departments’ observations, and NTP’s responses.

Capital & Main, a California non-profit publication that has been following the case had this to say about the suppression of the report:

“The report was also set to play a key role in an ongoing lawsuit, filed by government accountability nonprofit Food & Water Watch, to get the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate water fluoridation because of fluoride’s possible neurotoxic harm. More than two years ago, the judge put the case on hold in expectation of the NTP report’s public release.

Before the NTP could release the report, however, “They were blocked,” said Linda Birnbaum, NTP director until 2019. According to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) records obtained by the plaintiffs and shared with Capital & Main, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) held back the release of the report after criticism of its findings from health and dental organizations that advocate for community water fluoridation. Those groups challenged the report’s scientific validity and expressed concern that it could jeopardize water fluoridation, which they said could especially impact the dental health of low income communities.”

The NTP’s systematic review, which spanned six years, found that 52 of 55 studies reported decreases in child IQ associated with increased fluoride exposure, reflecting a remarkable 95 percent consistency. The meta-analysis, which combines data from all relevant studies for a more comprehensive and unbiased perspective, found a consistent negative correlation between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ. The report puts the magnitude of harm into context, explaining that a five-point decrease in a population’s IQ could nearly double the number of individuals classified as intellectually disabled.

The NTP acknowledged that some people may be more susceptible to fluoride exposure than others, potentially losing 10, 15, 20, or more IQ points, leading to significant negative consequences throughout their lives. The report’s main conclusion was accepted by all five independent peer-reviewers, who praised the work as “state-of-the-art.”

It was made clear in multiple responses to reviewers that they found evidence of lower child IQ associated with fluoride exposure in areas with fluoridated water at 0.7 mg/L. They emphasized that their assessment considered fluoride exposure from all sources, including water, certain foods, dental products, pharmaceuticals, and others.

Regarding the relevance of the review to water fluoridation programs, the NTP stated, “We have no basis on which to state that our findings are not relevant to some children or pregnant people in the United States.” They also mentioned that several high-quality studies showed lower IQs in children from optimally fluoridated areas (0.7 mg/L).

When asked if their meta-analysis identified a safe exposure threshold below which no IQ loss would occur, the NTP responded that they found “no obvious threshold” for either total fluoride exposure or water fluoride exposure. Their analysis indicated a steep drop in IQ of about 7 points as water fluoride concentration increased from 0.0 to 1.5 mg/L.

The EPA maintains that water fluoridation is a benefit to those communities in which it is used despite the clear evidence that this is not the case.

This illustrates an ongoing inter-agency conflict where politics takes precedence over scientific evidence. This dynamic has played out again and again over the years. In fact, the question of water fluoridation and its potential harm within the agency goes back decades.

Politics Before Science

In 1990, a toxicologist called Dr. William L. Marcus found himself at the heart of the ongoing inter-agency conflict.

Dr. Marcus, who was an 18-year veteran at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), wrote internal memos suggesting that fluoride may cause cancer in humans. His supervisor in the Office of Drinking Water, Margaret Stasikowski, ordered him to stop his notes and subsequently fired him in May 1992.

The research found a dose-dependent increase in rare liver cancer and a small but statistically significant dose-related increase in osteosarcomas in male rats. However, a government review panel reclassified liver cancer as a non-cancer and downgraded one of the osteosarcomas, leading to the classification of “equivocal evidence of cancer.”

The EPA accused Marcus of a slew of indiscretions. These included using agency information for private gain, being improperly absent from work, and engaging in outside employment posing a conflict of interest. These charges resulted from an investigation by the EPA Inspector General (IG) following complaints by a large chemical company, Velsicol Chemical Corp., in April 1988.

This series of events is what reportedly led to his firing in 1992, something Marcus vehemently denied. With no real recourse, the doctor filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor.

Then, in a groundbreaking decision, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary Robert Reich ordered the EPA to reinstate Marcus.

The DOL found the EPA guilty of falsifying employment records, discrimination, and retaliation against an employee whistleblower and granted Marcus the largest compensatory damage award ever upheld under federal environmental employee protection statutes.

This landmark ruling was the first to extend the whistleblower protections of federal environmental statutes to EPA employees, according to Stephen M. Kohn, chairperson of the National Whistleblower Center and Marcus’ attorney. The precedent set by this case applies to all federal employees and marks the most significant case to date for an environmental whistleblower within the EPA.

Both the Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and Reich found many of the charges against Marcus to be “unsubstantiated” and based on apparently falsified time records and other testimony.

Reich stated: “I agree with the ALJ that this rationale is pretextual and that the true reason for the discharge was retaliation.” Both Reich and the ALJ concluded that Marcus was fired for publicly criticizing and opposing the EPA’s policy on fluoride in drinking water.

In addition to reinstatement to his former or comparable position, Reich ordered the EPA to offer Marcus the same compensation, terms, conditions, and privileges of his previous employment.

Reflecting on the impact of the case, Marcus said, “My family suffered mightily. How can the public be protected when people charged with that mission are afraid that telling an unpopular truth results in their firing?”

But this wasn’t the first and it certainly wouldn’t wouldn’t be the last time a scientist came under fire for attempting to expose fluoride. In fact, it would only take a few years before another researcher was on the chopping block.

The Mullenix Affair

Dr. Phyllis Mullenix, a neurotoxicologist, studied the neurological effects of fluoride in the 1990s. Not dissimilar to Marcus, she ran into similar roadblocks when trying to further her research.

Mullenix revealed shocking insights about her research and in light of the information, she was removed from her position at the Forsyth Dental Center.

Mullenix’s research focused on the effects of fluoride on the central nervous system, specifically its impact on the behavior of rats. Her findings, which suggested that fluoride could have an impact on the brain, were met with resistance by her colleagues and superiors at Forsyth.

Despite the enormous interest in her work, which prompted a teleconference presentation and widespread attention, Mullenix was denied funding to continue her research.

In an interview with Paul Connett, Director of the Fluoride Action Network at the time, Mullenix shared the story of her dismissal from Forsyth.

She claimed that the institution cited insufficient funding for her research and the fact that her projects were not “dentally related” as reasons for her termination. Furthermore, they expressed disinterest in studying the safety of fluoride, stating that it wasn’t “their idea of science”.

After Mullenix’s departure from Forsyth, she revealed that several of her former colleagues received large grants from the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR). Interestingly, some of the funding went to individuals who had been critical of her fluoride research.

Mullenix’s connection to two key figures in the history of fluoride research, Harold Hodge and Jack Hein has also come to light.

Hein, the former director of the Forsyth Dental Center and a consultant for Colgate was responsible for the introduction of fluoride in toothpaste. Hodge, one of the founders of the Society of Toxicology (SOT), was the chief pharmacologist of the Manhattan Project and conducted extensive studies on the toxicology of fluorides.

Years after Hodge’s death, investigative reporters Joel Griffiths and Cliff Honicker presented Mullenix with declassified documents that revealed Hodge’s knowledge of fluoride’s effects on the central nervous system. Hodge had requested funding for animal studies on the subject, but the project was abruptly halted.

Mullenix, unaware of Hodge’s prior knowledge, was shocked by this revelation.

Despite working closely with Hodge for years and developing a cutting-edge computer pattern recognition system to study fluoride, she was never informed of his prior research or the potential neurological effects of fluoride.

Mullenix was interviewed by author Christopher Bryson for his book “The Fluoride Deception”. In the interview, she recounts a story about how she met with former Washington State aluminum plant workers whose health had been destroyed due to their fluoride exposure:

“These men are between thirty and fifty years old and have replaced knees and shoulders; they have leukemias, thyroid problems, and soft tissue diseases. I’ve never seen such a bunch of young pathetic people with such health problems. I just don’t see the outrage. They are just putting them out as old men, and bringing in younger men, over and over again,” she said. “Fluoride has impacted the work span of many of our workers, and this is in aluminum factories, petroleum companies, brick, tanneries, steel, glass, plastics, and fluorinated plastics manufacturers. I think that it has had a big impact on our industries that we are not recognizing.”

The connections between Mullenix’s research, Hodge’s existing insight, and the sudden termination of her employment at Forsyth raise questions about the motives and actions of those involved in fluoride research. This historical context is relevant as the NTP’s latest report on fluoride’s neurotoxicity faces similar challenges in the form of efforts to minimize its importance.

In 2016, the aforementioned Citizen’s Petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requested that the EPA prohibit fluoridation chemicals from entering drinking water due to fluoride’s neurotoxicity at levels used in community fluoridation programs.

The NIEHS, under the leadership of Linda Birnbaum from 2009 to 2019, funded several landmark studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, which revealed that fetuses and formula-fed infants are most vulnerable to fluoride’s neurotoxic effects.

High levels of fluoride in pregnant women’s urine were found to significantly impact the IQ or neurodevelopment of their offspring, with such levels being found in both fluoridated and naturally high-fluoride areas.

In 2020 Birnbaum wrote an op-ed for Environmental Health News along with scientist Bruce Lanphear and Professor Christine Till that discussed the revelations in the NTP report:

“The NTP’s conclusion was strengthened by a synthesis of high-quality studies showing that children who were exposed to higher amounts of fluoride during early brain development scored about 3 to 7 points lower on their IQ tests. 

Their conclusion is consequential; about 75 percent of Americans on community water systems have fluoride in their tap water. Water is the main source of fluoride for people who live in communities with water fluoridation. 

When do we know enough to revise long-held beliefs? We are reminded of the discovery of neurotoxic effects of lead that led to the successful banning of lead in gasoline and paint. Despite early warnings of lead toxicity, regulatory actions to reduce childhood lead exposures were not taken until decades of research had elapsed and millions more children were poisoned.”

Furthermore, a benchmark dose analysis published in June 2021 with Till as a co-author, found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L was enough to lower IQ by one point. This level is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities. The ongoing controversy surrounding the NTP’s report on fluoride’s neurotoxicity raises questions about the agency’s ability to maintain its reputation in the face of conflicting inter-agency interests and challenges to its scientific findings.

I reached out to chemist and researcher Dr. Geoffrey Norman Pain who has been conducting self-funded research on fluoride to gain some further insight on the issue.

Dr. Pain was born in Melbourne, Australia, where he began his academic journey.

After completing his undergraduate degree, he pursued a PhD at Monash University, one of Australia’s leading institutions. Following the successful completion of his doctorate, Pain embarked on a series of postdoctoral research positions, starting with a circuit in Bristol, UK.

The next stop on his academic journey was the prestigious University of Cambridge, where he had the opportunity to work with former Royal Society of Chemistry President Lord Lewis. 

Pain’s research then took him back to Australia, where he held a position at the University of Adelaide before returning to Monash University.

During his time at Monash, he caught the attention of Telstra, a leading Australian telecommunications company, who headhunted him for a high-profile project. After a successful stint at Telstra, he continued to expand his horizons with a postdoctoral position at the University of Western Australia (UWA).

An opportunity soon arose for him to work on a special project with NEC Corporation in Japan, which further cemented his reputation as a leading expert in his field. Since then, Pain has held various positions, including serving as an advisor to government entities on various matters.

I asked how he became interested in this rather obscure subject, “In my second-year biochemistry lab, my tutor saw me approaching the water tap when we were preparing a rat liver enzyme assay on a freshly beheaded animal. The tutor stopped me and said I had to use distilled water because fluoride would ruin the experiment”.

Once he had established his bone fide in the scientific community he started a project called “Exposing Corruption in the Fluoridation Industry” with three other researchers. You can find it on Research Gate, it has over 40 articles, technical reports, and presentations on the harms caused by fluoridation.

I asked why he considers fluoride dangerous to which he responded, “Fluoride attacks every cell type in your body and is recognized by WHO as a low-dose endocrine disruptor and considered by WHO Africa to be a top 10 poison risk”.

He pulls no punches in his 2015 research paper entitled “Fluoride is a bio-accumulative, endocrine disrupting, neurotoxin carcinogen – not a nutrient”

“Fluoride is a bio-accumulative toxin that our bodies attempt to eject through the kidneys, hair, skin, and nails. Fluoride is a member of the so-called “bone-seeking” poisons due to its ability to displace hydroxyl groups in the Hydroxyapatite that forms the mineral content of our bones.

Fluoride is readily absorbed directly through the oral tissues.”

“In the stomach, a large proportion of Fluoride is converted to the extremely hazardous, tissue necrotizing, Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) molecule, a gas at body temperature. HF then readily migrates through the airways, stomach, and intestines to wreak havoc throughout the body [Sauerheber 2013].”

The story of fluoride bears an all too familiar pattern of Public Health Institutions succumbing to industry pressure and putting every human being at risk at the altar of so-called “safety” and “progress”. One can only hope that the trial currently ongoing in San Francisco, California will result in the judge rejecting the practice of water fluoridation as a prophylactic against cavities. A practice that goes against all conceptions of informed consent. For almost 80 years almost every state in the union has placed a neurotoxic chemical into the drinking water of the population. This is despite the mounting evidence that it can cause serious harm to those who ingest it, especially in the most vulnerable among us, pregnant women and their infants. You would think that a trial of such consequence would be of interest to the national media but there have only been two journalistic outlets covering it since it began, Children’s Health Defense and The Last American Vagabond. If you are inclined to read further on this subject, I encourage you to read journalist Derrick Broze’s ongoing coverage of the trial and his articles on TLAV and his site, The Conscious Resistance Network. In the meantime, filter your tap water and help spread the word that after 78 years it is time to reject the use of fluoridation. I’ll leave you with some 10 facts to arm yourself with courtesy of The Fluoride Action Network and the following video I posted on ? that should be shocking to anyone who thinks our regulatory agencies have our best interest in mind. As they say “Follow the science”.

10 Facts About Fluoride You Should Know

1. Most Developed Countries DO NOT Fluoridate Their Water

“In Western Europe, 97% of the population has water without a single drop of fluoride added to it fluoridation proponents will sometimes say this is because Europe adds fluoride to its salt. Only five nations in Western Europe, however, have any fluoridated salt. The vast majority do not.”

2. Fluoridated Countries DO NOT Have Less Tooth Decay Than Non-Fluoridated Countries

“Today, according to data from the World Health Organization, there is no discernible difference in tooth decay between the minority of developed countries that fluoridate water, and the majority that do not.”

3. Fluoride Affects Many Tissues In The Body Besides The Teeth

“In 2006, Doull’s committee at the NAS published an exhaustive 500-page review of fluoride’s toxicity. The report concludes that fluoride is an “endocrine disruptor” and can affect many things in the body, including the bones, the brain, the thyroid gland, the pineal gland, and even blood sugar levels.”

4. Fluoridation IS NOT a “Natural Process”

“The main fluoride chemical (fluorosilicic acid) that is added to water is not what most people would call a naturally occurring compound. It is a corrosive acid captured in the air pollution control devices of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”

5. 40% Of American Teenagers Show Visible Signs Of Fluoride Over-Exposure

According to a recent national survey by the CDC, about 40% of American teenagers have a condition called dental fluorosis.18 Fluorosis is a defect of tooth enamel caused by fluoride’s interference with the tooth-forming cells. The condition shows as cloudy spots and streaks and, in more severe cases, brown stains and tooth erosion.”

6. For Infants, Fluoridated Water Provides NO BENEFITS, ONLY RISKS

“Today, the Institute of Medicine recommends that babies consume a minuscule

10 micrograms of fluoride per day.28 This is roughly the equivalent of what babies ingest from breast milk, which contains virtually no fluoride. Infants who consume formula made with fluoridated tap water consume up to 700 to 1,200 micrograms of fluoride or about 100 times more than the recommended amount. According to the CDC, these early spikes of fluoride exposure during infancy provide no known advantage to teeth.”

7. Fluoride Supplements Have Never  Been Approved By The FDA

“The FDA has never approved fluoride supplements for the prevention of tooth decay.38 In fact, the only fluoride supplements the FDA has reviewed, have been rejected.”

8. Fluoride Is The Only Medicine Added To Public Water

“Fluoride is the only chemical added to water that doesn’t actually treat the water. Chlorine, for example, is added to kill bacteria so that we can drink the water without getting sick. Fluoride, by contrast, is added to prevent a disease (tooth decay) that is not caused by drinking water. With other medicines, it is the patient, not the doctor, who has the right to decide which drug to take. Fluoridation denies people this right.”

9. Swallowing Fluoride Provides Little Benefit To Teeth

“When water fluoridation first began back in the 1940s, the medical profession believed fluoride needed to be ingested to be most effective in preventing cavities. This was why fluoride was added to water and pills because these are things that people swallow. Today, however, it is now widely recognized that fluoride’s main benefit does not actually come from ingestion, it comes from fluoride’s topical contact with teeth, a fact that even the CDC has now acknowledged.”

10. Disadvantaged Communities Are The Most Disadvantaged By Fluoride

“The conditions that make people more vulnerable to fluoride toxicity are more prevalent in poor communities than affluent ones (e.g., nutrient deficiencies, infant formula consumption, kidney disease, and diabetes).48 This likely explains why African American and Mexican American children suffer significantly higher rates of dental fluorosis.”

Original article online at: https://www.wrongspeakpublishing.com/p/fluoride-has-its-day-in-court