I personally don't think of this as fighting for (or against) anything. What's worth standing up for is honesty, integrity, and factual science. If anything, an educational campaign in those areas where fluoride is being eliminated from the drinking water would be about best practices for dental health, and saving money on preventable dental caries. In that you're speaking positively for what's true, and clearly identifying those removing fluoride from the drinking water as liars.
PS - Based on recent news, it seems that the leader in removing fluoride enjoys bathing in raw sewage, and encouraging children to do the same. I wonder if that constitutes child neglect?
"Unbiased" Science is most definitely biased as are their statements which are "blatantly false."
NO BENEFIT:
- Calgary study found MOST of the increase in decay was from BEFORE fluoridation ended and decay increased in both Calgary and Edmonton after Calgary ended it in baby teeth. Cavities actually decreased in permanent teeth of teens after cessation.
- Juneau did not have a control city and used Medicaid codes as proxies, but I understand there were more Medicaid doctors and an increase in reimbursement which make the study invalid
- The BEST case scenario for an economic benefit is $3 per person per year IF you assume a 25% reduction in cavities (which is not the current evidence) and ignore the costs of repairing dental fluorosis.
“Minimal correction reduced the savings to $3 per person per year (PPPY) for a best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis.” - Ko & Thiessen in “A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation” (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2015)
HARM:
The authors examine recent studies and reports in order to present a coherent and factual synthesis of scientific fact. They report on the impact of fluoride, even in very low doses, on thyroid hormones which is of particular concern during pregnancy. They also report that fluoride “is rapidly bound to the skeleton or excreted through the kidney” and “readily crosses the placenta, penetrates the blood–brain barrier, and accumulates in the cerebellum, motor cortex, and hippocampus.” The authors also note that dental fluorosis is a growing concern and that “WHO data from the 1970s onward show almost uniform rates of decline in caries prevalence in several developed countries, regardless of fluoridation of water supplies.” But the authors primary focus is the cognitive impact and the extensively reviewed high-quality NTP Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, as well as subsequent Benchmark Analysis. They conclude topical use with fluoridated toothpaste may be warranted, but the “risks outweigh the benefits” to consumers when it comes to consumption of fluoridated water. They recommend educating the public and healthcare professionals in order to safeguard the public, especially children and other vulnerable populations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40215136/
Till C, Grandjean P, Martinez-Mier EA, Hu H, Lanphear B. Health Risks and Benefits of Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and Infancy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2025 Apr;46(1):253-274
Maggie, this is a single opinion piece that you linked to. Oh and we're supposed to "follow the money" at all times, right??? This is directly from the link you provided:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
C.T. served as a consultant for the Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland, for which she received
an honorarium. She has also received travel support and honoraria for lectures related to fluoride
266 Till et al.
So ummmm, we should probably pass on this one, right?? What else ya got?
Fluoride, frequently found naturally in water, is not a nutrient but rather a potential contaminant, despite its perceived dental benefits. As Maggie mentions, studies, including the Cochrane Review, indicate these benefits may be exaggerated, and water fluoridation delivers fluoride imprecisely, posing risks to pregnant women, infants, and babies.
A more effective and safer approach is to eliminate fluoride from water and food sources, and maybe focus on providing fluoride toothpaste for those who need it, and even that can be debated.
I'm not so sure this substack should be called Unbiased... or am I wrong?
I see nothing in the Cochrane review that would suggest "exaggeration," "imprecision," nor risk to anyone. In fact, the author clearly states, "In the primary dentition, evidence remains uncertain whether SDF prevents new caries or progression of existing caries compared to placebo or no treatment, but it may offer benefit over placebo or no treatment in caries arrest. Compared to placebo or no treatment, SDF probably also helps prevent new root caries. However, the evidence is uncertain for other caries outcome measures in this dentition and in all caries outcomes for coronal surfaces of permanent dentition." Factually, the author was clear that "We were unable to establish whether one SDF treatment approach was better than another, or how SDF compared to other treatments, because of very low‐certainty evidence." Obviously, the remedy would be "additional well-conducted studies," not removal of fluoride from drinking water, which the author never suggests. Further, I would recommend the National Academy of Science's "Flouride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" which includes a lengthy chapter on "Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Fluoride." As Dr. Knight mentions below, I fully believe it is reasonable to ask and investigate how much of this argument is simply "misunderstanding of concentrations and where one finds fluoride."
You seemed to have missed most of the plot here, OCM. Not so open or critical minded methinks. One of those is the SAME single opinion piece (by a paid speaker, no less) that Maggie posted above.
The other one says this verbatim:
"Our confidence in the evidence is limited because this review included studies in which communities were deliberately selected to have changes to fluoride levels in the water supply. Although a common study approach for this topic, it can mean that there are differences between communities that might affect the results. In addition, the findings in some studies were different from others, and some results included the possibility of benefit and no benefit."
Now... if you want to be open minded and think critically, please look up what has happened in areas where fluoridation was removed from water sources. Can't wait to see what you find!
COPY & PASTE: The Unbiased Podcast has described the herbicide glyphosate as "safe for use,"[27] declared the polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE in Teflon to be "non-toxic to humans"[28] called the Environmental Working Group Dirty Dozen list of produce with the most and least pesticide residues "a fear-based marketing ploy"[29] claim GMOs are "safe" "nutritious" and "beneficial to consumers, producers and the environment" [30] and call hydrogenated oil "a safe dietary fat."[31]
The Podcast recorded two episodes on organic food and farming in December 2022 and January 2023 where they discuss organic pesticides and claim they are more harmful than synthetic pesticides used in chemical farming, and that they are not subject to the same testing or regulations as synthetic ones. Some of the pesticides they highlight, like nicotine sulfate and rotenone, are not allowed to be used on USDA certified organic farms. The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticides allowed in the USDA National Organic Program.[32] [33][34]
Andrea C. Love has defended aspartame as "safe," said in an interview that she has "at least one diet soda a day," and the Podcast has posted on Instagram that "Aspartame does not pose a health risk to humans, cancer or otherwise, especially at levels we would consume." She and Steier have been openly critical of the International Agency for Research on Cancer's ranking of the chemical as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2023.[35][36][37]
Jessica B. Steier has made Unbiased Science Podcast a paid promotional partner with global food company Know MSG (Ajinomoto Group).[38]
Funding for the Podcast's nonprofit parent organization, Unbiased Science Institute has come through grants from The Moderna Charitable Foundation and CSL Seqirus.[25]
The Dunedin cohort study, one of the longest-running cohort studies in the world, should have put this nonsense to bed for good and all. Fluoride at the recommended level is not harmful.
The Broadbent study using the Dunedin cohort was a very low-quality that used postal codes to estimate exposure. Half of the kids in the small "unfluoridated" group were taking fluoride supplements since infancy.
I am not saying that the Dunedin cohort isn't a good cohort. I'm saying that Broadbent used/misused it. He was duplicitous and unethical. The NTP actually went out of its way to explain why the Broadbent study was poorly designed, highly biased and invalid. Read what I wrote above and check out the link I provided.
MORE
- Dunedin dentist, Jonathan Broadbent also used data from the Dunedin Longitudinal study for a NZ study on fluoridation and IQ in 2014. His study was harshly criticised by international experts because it did not determine the fundamental factor pertaining to the study: how much fluoride each child was consuming. Broadbent was later forced to admit that half of the children in the non-fluoridated area were taking fluoride tablets, thereby making it impossible to distinguish between the ‘fluoridated’ and ‘non-fluoridated’ groups. A total of 139 children were taking fluoride tablets. He also omitted 11 confounding factors, and didn’t determine the total exposure of the children’s mothers during pregnancy – a key factor according to leading research.
How much of this is a misunderstanding of concentrations and where one finds fluoride? It's not a rare chemical. For example, tea plants are considered hyperaccumulators of fluoride. There was a study out of Poland that found popular green teas in that country had significantly more fluoride (2-4 mg/L on average) than what is typically used in drinking water in the US (0.7 mg/L). Depending on the tea type and how it is made, a few cups of tea a day could put someone close to the daily recommended limit for fluoride. Well water can also vary considerably, and I think there are some areas with naturally high levels of fluoride beyond what they put in drinking water.
I personally don't think of this as fighting for (or against) anything. What's worth standing up for is honesty, integrity, and factual science. If anything, an educational campaign in those areas where fluoride is being eliminated from the drinking water would be about best practices for dental health, and saving money on preventable dental caries. In that you're speaking positively for what's true, and clearly identifying those removing fluoride from the drinking water as liars.
PS - Based on recent news, it seems that the leader in removing fluoride enjoys bathing in raw sewage, and encouraging children to do the same. I wonder if that constitutes child neglect?
He was very much at home in the sewage!
"Unbiased" Science is most definitely biased as are their statements which are "blatantly false."
NO BENEFIT:
- Calgary study found MOST of the increase in decay was from BEFORE fluoridation ended and decay increased in both Calgary and Edmonton after Calgary ended it in baby teeth. Cavities actually decreased in permanent teeth of teens after cessation.
- Juneau did not have a control city and used Medicaid codes as proxies, but I understand there were more Medicaid doctors and an increase in reimbursement which make the study invalid
- The BEST case scenario for an economic benefit is $3 per person per year IF you assume a 25% reduction in cavities (which is not the current evidence) and ignore the costs of repairing dental fluorosis.
“Minimal correction reduced the savings to $3 per person per year (PPPY) for a best-case scenario, but this savings is eliminated by the estimated cost of treating dental fluorosis.” - Ko & Thiessen in “A critique of recent economic evaluations of community water fluoridation” (International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2015)
HARM:
The authors examine recent studies and reports in order to present a coherent and factual synthesis of scientific fact. They report on the impact of fluoride, even in very low doses, on thyroid hormones which is of particular concern during pregnancy. They also report that fluoride “is rapidly bound to the skeleton or excreted through the kidney” and “readily crosses the placenta, penetrates the blood–brain barrier, and accumulates in the cerebellum, motor cortex, and hippocampus.” The authors also note that dental fluorosis is a growing concern and that “WHO data from the 1970s onward show almost uniform rates of decline in caries prevalence in several developed countries, regardless of fluoridation of water supplies.” But the authors primary focus is the cognitive impact and the extensively reviewed high-quality NTP Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, as well as subsequent Benchmark Analysis. They conclude topical use with fluoridated toothpaste may be warranted, but the “risks outweigh the benefits” to consumers when it comes to consumption of fluoridated water. They recommend educating the public and healthcare professionals in order to safeguard the public, especially children and other vulnerable populations. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40215136/
Till C, Grandjean P, Martinez-Mier EA, Hu H, Lanphear B. Health Risks and Benefits of Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and Infancy. Annu Rev Public Health. 2025 Apr;46(1):253-274
Maggie, this is a single opinion piece that you linked to. Oh and we're supposed to "follow the money" at all times, right??? This is directly from the link you provided:
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
C.T. served as a consultant for the Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland, for which she received
an honorarium. She has also received travel support and honoraria for lectures related to fluoride
266 Till et al.
So ummmm, we should probably pass on this one, right?? What else ya got?
Fluoride, frequently found naturally in water, is not a nutrient but rather a potential contaminant, despite its perceived dental benefits. As Maggie mentions, studies, including the Cochrane Review, indicate these benefits may be exaggerated, and water fluoridation delivers fluoride imprecisely, posing risks to pregnant women, infants, and babies.
A more effective and safer approach is to eliminate fluoride from water and food sources, and maybe focus on providing fluoride toothpaste for those who need it, and even that can be debated.
I'm not so sure this substack should be called Unbiased... or am I wrong?
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub3/full
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40215136/
I see nothing in the Cochrane review that would suggest "exaggeration," "imprecision," nor risk to anyone. In fact, the author clearly states, "In the primary dentition, evidence remains uncertain whether SDF prevents new caries or progression of existing caries compared to placebo or no treatment, but it may offer benefit over placebo or no treatment in caries arrest. Compared to placebo or no treatment, SDF probably also helps prevent new root caries. However, the evidence is uncertain for other caries outcome measures in this dentition and in all caries outcomes for coronal surfaces of permanent dentition." Factually, the author was clear that "We were unable to establish whether one SDF treatment approach was better than another, or how SDF compared to other treatments, because of very low‐certainty evidence." Obviously, the remedy would be "additional well-conducted studies," not removal of fluoride from drinking water, which the author never suggests. Further, I would recommend the National Academy of Science's "Flouride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards" which includes a lengthy chapter on "Reproductive and Developmental Effects of Fluoride." As Dr. Knight mentions below, I fully believe it is reasonable to ask and investigate how much of this argument is simply "misunderstanding of concentrations and where one finds fluoride."
here's some more research on this subject if you want to remain open-minded and thinking critically: https://techingitapart.substack.com/p/the-fluoride-fight-was-never-about
You seemed to have missed most of the plot here, OCM. Not so open or critical minded methinks. One of those is the SAME single opinion piece (by a paid speaker, no less) that Maggie posted above.
The other one says this verbatim:
"Our confidence in the evidence is limited because this review included studies in which communities were deliberately selected to have changes to fluoride levels in the water supply. Although a common study approach for this topic, it can mean that there are differences between communities that might affect the results. In addition, the findings in some studies were different from others, and some results included the possibility of benefit and no benefit."
Now... if you want to be open minded and think critically, please look up what has happened in areas where fluoridation was removed from water sources. Can't wait to see what you find!
COPY & PASTE: The Unbiased Podcast has described the herbicide glyphosate as "safe for use,"[27] declared the polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE in Teflon to be "non-toxic to humans"[28] called the Environmental Working Group Dirty Dozen list of produce with the most and least pesticide residues "a fear-based marketing ploy"[29] claim GMOs are "safe" "nutritious" and "beneficial to consumers, producers and the environment" [30] and call hydrogenated oil "a safe dietary fat."[31]
The Podcast recorded two episodes on organic food and farming in December 2022 and January 2023 where they discuss organic pesticides and claim they are more harmful than synthetic pesticides used in chemical farming, and that they are not subject to the same testing or regulations as synthetic ones. Some of the pesticides they highlight, like nicotine sulfate and rotenone, are not allowed to be used on USDA certified organic farms. The United States Environmental Protection Agency regulates pesticides allowed in the USDA National Organic Program.[32] [33][34]
Andrea C. Love has defended aspartame as "safe," said in an interview that she has "at least one diet soda a day," and the Podcast has posted on Instagram that "Aspartame does not pose a health risk to humans, cancer or otherwise, especially at levels we would consume." She and Steier have been openly critical of the International Agency for Research on Cancer's ranking of the chemical as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" in 2023.[35][36][37]
Jessica B. Steier has made Unbiased Science Podcast a paid promotional partner with global food company Know MSG (Ajinomoto Group).[38]
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Unbiased_Science_Podcast#:~:text=The%20Unbiased%20Science
Funding for the Podcast's nonprofit parent organization, Unbiased Science Institute has come through grants from The Moderna Charitable Foundation and CSL Seqirus.[25]
(BOTH FUNDERS MAKE VACCINES)
The Dunedin cohort study, one of the longest-running cohort studies in the world, should have put this nonsense to bed for good and all. Fluoride at the recommended level is not harmful.
The Broadbent study using the Dunedin cohort was a very low-quality that used postal codes to estimate exposure. Half of the kids in the small "unfluoridated" group were taking fluoride supplements since infancy.
https://www.fluorideresearch.org/494Pt1/files/FJ2016_v49_n4Pt1_p379-400_sfs.pdf
Pure nonsense. The children had been enrolled from infancy and tracked closely. The study is highly regarded internationally.
I am not saying that the Dunedin cohort isn't a good cohort. I'm saying that Broadbent used/misused it. He was duplicitous and unethical. The NTP actually went out of its way to explain why the Broadbent study was poorly designed, highly biased and invalid. Read what I wrote above and check out the link I provided.
MORE
- Dunedin dentist, Jonathan Broadbent also used data from the Dunedin Longitudinal study for a NZ study on fluoridation and IQ in 2014. His study was harshly criticised by international experts because it did not determine the fundamental factor pertaining to the study: how much fluoride each child was consuming. Broadbent was later forced to admit that half of the children in the non-fluoridated area were taking fluoride tablets, thereby making it impossible to distinguish between the ‘fluoridated’ and ‘non-fluoridated’ groups. A total of 139 children were taking fluoride tablets. He also omitted 11 confounding factors, and didn’t determine the total exposure of the children’s mothers during pregnancy – a key factor according to leading research.
How much of this is a misunderstanding of concentrations and where one finds fluoride? It's not a rare chemical. For example, tea plants are considered hyperaccumulators of fluoride. There was a study out of Poland that found popular green teas in that country had significantly more fluoride (2-4 mg/L on average) than what is typically used in drinking water in the US (0.7 mg/L). Depending on the tea type and how it is made, a few cups of tea a day could put someone close to the daily recommended limit for fluoride. Well water can also vary considerably, and I think there are some areas with naturally high levels of fluoride beyond what they put in drinking water.
Absolute crap full of half truth s & lies. It's amazing there are still people out there like this. Notice no name no credibility no nothing!