Some people like to read. Some people prefer selling books. Some people like to make a lot of noise and create drama based on opinions and slogans, and some people would rather do their homework and be sure of their facts before acting. Some of us find that our moral compass demands we take action. Unfortunately, that includes both the readers and the noise-makers.
Based on my research and personal experience in regards to the effects of fluoride, I decided to take action in 2014. It started with a simple letter to the editor of my local paper but resulted in my reading thousands of pages of scientific research and becoming part of a federal lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
After seven years of delays, eighteen days of expert scientific testimony, many depositions, scores of Freedom of Information Requests (FOIA), hundreds of scientific studies specific to the impact of pre- and post-natal fluoride exposure on IQ, and a whistleblower affidavit, Judge Edward M. Chen ruled in our favor on September 24, 2024.
He wrote, “Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level in the United States – presents an unreasonable risk of injury to health…” Judge Chen also wrote that there was an insufficient margin of safety between the hazard level and exposure levels.
However, this is where it gets a bit technical. Because of various reasons, the line in the sand used in most of the IQ studies was set at an individual fluoride dose exposure level of 1.5 mg/L and the “optimal concentration” for fluoride in the U.S. is currently 0.7 ppm. That means that if an adult with healthy kidneys consumed one liter of water, his fluoride dose would be 0.7 mg/l from that water.
However, a swallow more than the eight glasses of water doctors recommend we consume each day delivers a dose of 1.5 mg/L and when a person drinks three liters of water, or eats food prepared with that water such as rice, pasta, soup and commercially prepared foods, they can easily receive a fluoride dose of over 2 mg/L.
Diabetics and kidney patients routinely drink four or five liters of water a day. Children’s kidneys are less effective at excreting fluoride and so they receive higher individual doses despite the same consumption. Infants and children should not be getting an adult dose of anything because size matters.
In order to allow for this variation in exposure among a diverse population, multiple factors of ten are applied as a safety or uncertainty factor by the EPA when dealing with substances identified as hazardous. The lowest safety factor EPA currently imposes is thirty (30). Judge Chen ordered the EPA to take action to mitigate the fluoride hazard which per the EPA’s own witnesses involves determining and assigning an appropriate safety factor that would be protective of bottle-fed babies and the fetuses of pregnant women.
However, fluoridation apologists claim that since the current concentration in water is 0.7 ppm and the determination of developmental neurotoxicity (baby brain damage) is at 1.5 mg/L, then everyone is safe. They also misquote or cherry pick phrases about uncertainty in the ruling and point to questionable reports and marketing literature to mislead the public. This may be enough to convince the people who don’t read, but it gets worse.
There is a cartel of fluoridationist researchers who use simulated populations, out-dated input, faulty assumptions, various weights, fabricated data and narrow parameters to manufacture so-called studies that claim either a) fluoridation does not damage baby brains and 2) ending fluoridation would result in millions of additional cavities. They do this despite real-world evidence validated by multiple large reviews and studies by prestigious teams that any difference in cavities between those consuming fluoridated water and not is somewhere between a clinically insignificant fraction of a single cavity and imaginary. They do this to mislead those who do read, at least a little.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that there is little to no benefit from fluoridation and there are scores of human studies validating lower IQ and more learning disabilities such as ADD/ADHD among populations with “optimally fluoridated water,” including studies conducted on American and Canadian women and their children sponsored by the National Institute of Health (NIH), science has validated that long-term low-dose exposure to fluoride also damages thyroids, kidneys, guts and bones.
Not everyone is willing to read all this science, but enough of us have, including the National Academy of Science scholars who advised the EPA in its National Research Committee (NRC/NAS) 2006 report that not only was the EPA’s maximum contaminant goal level (MCLG) of 4 ppm for fluoride in drinking water harmful to consumers but there was no evidence of safety for susceptible sub-populations such as pregnant women and their fetuses, bottle-fed babies and young children, the elderly and anyone in fragile health who could be expected to suffer ill effects including gastrointestinal inflammation, thyroid disease, kidney disease and brittle bones from exposure to 2 ppm water. The NRC advised the EPA to take action.
EPA ignored the 2006 NRC recommendations. Judge Chen advised the EPA in 2024 that they had choices as to how to proceed under the law, but they could not ignore his ruling in federal court and not take action this time.
The EPA has not received administrative approval to appeal the 2024 ruling, but has been running out the clock with multiple extensions on filing for an appeal. The current deadline for EPA to either begin its process to establish a safe guideline or appeal is June 25th.
In the meantime, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) filed its intention this June to withdraw the fluoride supplements prescribed to children living in non-fluoridated communities from the market by Oct. 31. The FDA notice lists several reasons for this action.
First, the FDA never approved fluoride consumption as safe and effective. Second, the FDA acknowledges that the science validates that even those small controlled doses of fluoride inflame the gastrointestinal track of children, which in turn affects their immunity. Third, the FDA has no hesitation in stating that fluoride interferes with thyroid function which was a well known fact known even in the 1940s. That fact has been repeatedly verified in modern times. What thyroid doctors and patients also know is that having thyroid disease increases the risk of kidney disease and diabetes. We can connect the dots, can’t we?
Many fluoridationists are ignorant of fluoride science or history. They prefer the magic potion narrative to doing their science homework. Some of them really like making a lot of noise and creating drama. Apparently, it makes them feel virtuous.
Other fluoridationists are willfully blind to the science. Successful dental practices make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually selling fluoride treatments to their patients, and even more money repairing dental fluorosis. Dental fluorosis stains at least two teeth of approximately half of the American children per FDA surveys. Dental fluorosis disproportionately affects poor children and people of color. Dental confirmation bias doesn’t allow many, but not all, of them to consider the fact that the foundation of their business plan is at least partially based on a sinister mythology.
Finally, some fluoridationists are dishonest. I have seen some of the records from the FOIA requests and watched the filmed depositions of “experts” like Dr. Charlotte Lewis, MD who represented the position of the American Pediatrics Association (AAP). She said under oath that she was not a fluoride expert and had not looked at the studies documenting harm, but that she had seen evidence that fluoridation can prevent cavities. She also said, under oath, that even if she was convinced by science that routine fluoride exposure in the United States and Canada reduced the IQ of 10% of children by 5 IQ points, she’d still support fluoridation.
Thankfully, there are others who have read the science and disagree with the AAP pediatrician about “appropriate trade offs.” After reading the science, Florida Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD said fluoridation is “public health malpractice” and JAMA Pediatrics editor Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH said he would advise pregnant women to use bottled or filtered water.
And tonight, during their Tuesday, July 1 meeting at 6p.m., the Legislative Affair Committee of the Fitchburg City Council will consider “abolishing the use of fluoride treatments in the city’s public water supply.” I hope they are readers.
Karen Favazza Spencer is a retired analyst living in Leominster. She collaborates with dentists, doctors, lawyers and scientists on issues related to fluoride. She is also a member of Food & Water Watch identified as fluoride-poisoned in its lawsuit against the EPA.
Original article online at: https://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/2025/06/30/op-ed-researching-the-effects-of-fluoride-treatments-as-the-city-discusses-policy/