Fluoride Today, What Tomorrow? The Methodical Dismantling of Public Health

While We Search for Shadowy Cabals of Scientists, Real Damage Is Being Done in Plain Sight

I am always surprised by how people claim that there is some big medical scientific conspiracy. This evil network of scientists and doctors working in tandem for profit - strung along by big pharma (the puppeteers). The medical establishment capital M. Scary stuff. While I can't pretend to know every whisper whispered behind the scenes -- I have held a lot of different roles and titles for a lot of different organizations. I have collaborated and worked with countless scientists, clinicians, industry etc-- never once have I caught whiff of nefarious activity. This isn't the America of the 1960s where Philip Morris advertised that doctors recommended their cigarettes. We have grown leaps and bounds in the last few decades in terms of scientific breakthroughs but also in terms of transparency. This is a good thing. I'm writing this while on a business trip and I can promise you that there's no secret agenda that I'm getting paid to contribute to. Heck, I'd be surprised if I can get my soda reimbursed. We don't go into public health for the big bucks, I promise you.

With only 30 minutes left on my flight here, I was finally able to connect to wifi. I texted with our babysitter to make sure the kids were picked up and all was fine (they were and it was)-- only to see the headlines... RFK Jr. recommends that CDC stop recommending fluoride in water.

Hmmm.

Just days ago, there was a paper published by the Geiers (Jr and Sr) about fluoride in water. The timing is striking, to say the least.

The Geiers...ah yes that name sounds familiar. David Geier was just selected to run the CDC's studies on autism and vaccines (for the thousandth time...)

A LOT of mistrust in science is fueled by this idea that there's some deep state science entity in the background. I would challenge those people to hold the anti-science establishment to the same standards. They have shown us time and time again that there is an agenda, it is very profitable, and they run like clockwork.

The Fluoride Study: A Case Study in Flawed Methodology

So what about that fluoride study by the Geiers? Well, in the 20 min I had wifi on the flight (after using the other 10 to text my sitter) I rattled off at least a dozen glaring flaws. Just as we've done with so many of the other hot takes on fluoride-- one of the single greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.

Let me walk you through some of the most egregious methodological failures in this recent paper:

1. Ecological fallacy on steroids: The study infers individual fluoride exposure based solely on county-level water fluoridation percentages rather than measuring actual individual consumption. They don't even attempt to measure individual fluoride intake or biomarkers - just county residence. That's like saying everyone who lives in Seattle drinks the same amount of coffee.

2. Cherry-picking time periods to manufacture associations: They use different birth cohorts for cases vs. controls, creating a temporal bias that coincides with changes in diagnostic practices and awareness of autism. This is Stats 101 stuff that would get flagged in any intro epidemiology course.

3. Statistical fabrication: They report impossible statistical values like "indeterminate" confidence intervals - a clear red flag that data manipulation is happening. That's not just sloppy science; it's mathematically impossible.

4. Multiple testing without correction: They ran multiple analyses at different time points (first month, first two months, first six months) creating opportunities to find significant associations purely by chance. This is p-hacking 101.

5. Inappropriate controls for confounding: While they adjusted for some factors, they completely missed major confounders like healthcare access patterns and diagnostic practices across counties - which we know heavily influence neurodevelopmental diagnosis rates.

6. Self-citation circular logic: They establish "biological plausibility" by citing their own previously retracted or widely criticized papers, creating a closed loop of self-reference that no legitimate peer review would accept.

In plain English? The Geiers built a research house of cards designed to collapse under any real scientific scrutiny - but they're betting most policymakers won't bother looking at the foundation. It's research designed to produce headlines, not scientific understanding.

The NTP Report: Not What They Claim

As for that National Toxicology Program report being used to justify these policy changes? It's fundamentally flawed too. The report faced such serious criticism from the National Academies of Sciences that earlier drafts were rejected outright for failing to "survive scientific scrutiny." Even the final version:

• Focused on fluoride levels more than DOUBLE the amount used in U.S. community water systems

• Relied primarily on studies from regions with naturally high fluoride levels not comparable to U.S. water fluoridation

• Failed to adequately address confounding variables

• Applied inconsistent risk-of-bias criteria

• Included studies that the authors themselves classified as "high risk of bias"

• Found effects so small (approximately 1 IQ point) that they fall within the standard error of measurement for most IQ tests

And critically, the report explicitly stated there was "insufficient data to determine if the low fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L currently recommended for U.S. community water supplies has a negative effect on children's IQ."

A Familiar Pattern

What we're witnessing isn't novel scientific discovery. It's the same old playbook from the anti-science figureheads du jour. The Geiers are just the tip of the iceberg - one example of the numerous organizations and individuals who've built careers on manufacturing doubt about established science.

This latest push against fluoride bears all the hallmarks we've seen before - poor methodology, exaggerated risks, and strategic timing to influence policy rather than advance science. The cycle is predictable: publish a methodologically flawed paper, generate alarming headlines, get appointed to positions of influence, and use that platform to dismantle evidence-based public health measures.

And now we'll watch all that crumble... a program that prevents at least 25% of tooth decay in children and adults, with every $1 spent saving approximately $20 in dental procedures. The impact is most pronounced in lower-income communities where access to regular dental care may be limited. But who cares about health equity when you've got a political agenda, right?

The real conspiracy isn't among public health officials working to prevent disease - it's among those who systematically undermine evidence-based health policy for personal or ideological gain. While we're busy looking for shadowy cabals of scientists plotting world domination, we're missing the very real, very well-funded network of anti-science actors who are dismantling public health protections one by one.

Stay vigilant, stay skeptical of methodological flaws, and most importantly….

Stay curious,

Unbiased Science

P.S. Want to support our work? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our content with your friends. While all our articles are always completely free to read (and always will be), paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on public health topics. Thank you for considering it!