My only comment is that your observations - which are substantial, sustainable, and would , I am sure, be joined by the physicians who read your blog - are pointless if you fail to address them with the publishing journal in the form of a letter. These authors have a sustained history of retraction, and the elder of the two literally lost his license to practice medicine. Now they are enjoined to further investigate for the HHS directly.
Excellent article. I was speaking today with a couple of former CDC physicians about how to best respond to protect public health during the current season of irrationality.
Protecting public health is going to require a lot of work. My personal experience has been to make inroads one skeptic at a time. If we can enlist a sufficient number of professionals to talk to the skeptics, we might make headway, but you can't just convince one: You have to talk to a bunch of them.
Agree. It will require engaging the majority of people to outvote the skeptics. As you may have experienced, strongly held beliefs are emotionally based, and "immune" to facts and logic.
My goodness! How sophisticated! It's all inaccurate statement of fact and illogical rhetoric, but it is well presented. #Gaslight
21st century evidence-based science has delivered robust findings that:
- Fluoridation, at best, prevents a fraction of a single cavity,. That "benefit" is proportionately 3% (or 25% of one cavity), which may not be real because of the poor quality and high bias of those studies.
- Fluoridation causes dental fluorosis in at least two teeth of the majority of youthful consumers, at least 10% of whom will choose costly cosmetic dentistry to repair the damage
- Even 'optimal' concentrations of fluoridation result in neurotoxicity when exposure is pre-natal, post-natal or during early childhood - more ADD/ADHD, lower IQ, compromised executive function, more sleep disorders, more behavioral problems, etc.
- Fluoridation can cause and does worsen thyroid & kidney disease, arthritis, eczema/psoriasis, gastrointestinal inflammation (IBS/IBD, Celiac, etc.)....
- Fluoride builds up in skeletons leading to fragility and disability in old age.
- Fluoridation was ruled an "unreasonable risk" by a US Federal Judge in 2024. The EPA was ordered to take action to mitigate/eliminate that risk.
If you don't know that fluoridation is an epic scam, please review this fascinating interview of BBC producer. Christopher Bryson who spent 10 years researching the topic for his groundbreaking book, "The Fluoride. Deception." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBZRb-73tLc
Better yet, read the book. Don't take the word of a mother of a fluoride injured daughter!! Fluoridation has nothing to do with dental health. The fact that Bryson's book didn't end fluoridation in 2006 is emblematic of the wall of protection around this egregious policy.
If fluoride really is toxic, what would be the motivation for putting it into water? No one's making money off it—dentists are needed LESS. That book summary mentions Erin Brockovich, but there it was clear what the corporation's motives were: they wanted to keep making their product without having to pay for cleanup. There's no product for fluoride—it's touted as a great additive because it's so cheap.
Thank you for your comment, Abigail. Fluoride has been a problem for industrialists since the 1800's. Bryson covers the history. The first environmental pollution lawsuits were aimed at steel manufacturers in Germany who were destroying forests and farms with their emissions, since fluoride is extracted during the process. Before it could be recaptured in emissions control it was a huge problem for big industry. Think Dupont, Alcoa, etc. There was also the problem of workers exposure. Hence the exhaustive research of Kaj Roholm of Copenhagen, who died young due to his fluoride exposure during his research. In fact scientist of the 1800's who studied fluoride were called "fluorine martyrs" from working with the poison. Fluoride is slightly less toxic than arsenic. Unfortunately we have been conditioned to not recoil at the word fluoride.
Industry organized to fend off dozens of lawsuits (listed by Bryson), and solve the fluoride problem. Bryson describes a trial in which a lawyer actually threw a tube of fluoride toothpaste in front of the jury! Those workers couldn't possibly harmed by fluoride...it's in toothpaste!
Skipping way ahead tn the era of recapturing toxic emissions, what to do with the waste? It normally goes in a landfill which is costly. So when it is sold to water companies it is a double win. I'm afraid there is a very cynical phrase I learned from the chief scientific engineer of Aqua Water Co., "dilution is the solution to pollution."
Much, much more if you are interested. Please consider getting the book...well worth it!
The April 7, 2025 Substack article titled "Fluoride Today, What Tomorrow?" by Unbiased Science uses classic tactics from the "Merchants of Doubt" playbook to mislead the public and undermine credible science on fluoride neurotoxicity. Let’s break down the misinformation point-by-point and replace spin with facts.
1. Framing Critics as Conspiracy Theorists
"There's no secret agenda... I can't even get my soda reimbursed."
Rebuttal: This strawman tactic deflects attention away from the growing body of peer-reviewed science and serious regulatory concerns. No one needs to believe in a "cabal" to understand that entrenched interests often resist change—especially when it means admitting decades of public health guidance may be flawed. Tobacco, leaded gasoline, PFAS, and DDT all followed similar resistance patterns. Fluoride is no different.
2. Misrepresenting the NTP Report
"The NTP report... faced such serious criticism from the National Academies of Sciences..."
Rebuttal: A draft 2020 NTP Monograph concluded:
“Fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”
This was based on dozens of high-quality studies, many funded by the NIH, including Bashash 2017, Green 2019, Till 2020, and Riddell 2019 — all of which found harm at or below 0.7 mg/L, the level used in U.S. water fluoridation.
Although political pressure altered the language in later drafts, the NTP Board voted unanimously to release the monograph to the public.
3. Downplaying Neurotoxicity as "1 IQ Point"
"Effects so small (approximately 1 IQ point) that they fall within the standard error..."
Rebuttal: This is scientifically dishonest. A 1-point drop in IQ across a population leads to:
More children needing special education
Fewer gifted children
Lower lifetime earnings
Even small shifts in population IQ distributions have large public health implications, as emphasized by the EPA, WHO, and Bellinger 2007. This is not a minor effect.
4. Attacking the Geiers While Ignoring the Broader Science
"Ecological fallacy on steroids... indeterminate confidence intervals..."
Rebuttal: Even if the Geier paper has flaws (and many critiques may be valid), this does nothing to refute the core body of science showing fluoride harms developing brains. Green, Bashash, Till, Riddell, and dozens more were not written by the Geiers and have passed rigorous peer review. Cherry-picking one study to discredit an entire field is a classic misinformation tactic.
5. Pretending There’s Scientific Consensus on Fluoride Safety
"One of the single greatest public health achievements of the 20th century."
Rebuttal: That statement is outdated and based on decades-old dental data. Today's science is uncovering new risks. The NAS (2006), NTP (2023), EPA internal scientists, and multiple NIH-funded studies all point to neurodevelopmental harm.
We once called leaded gasoline and smoking "public health achievements." Science evolves, and when evidence of harm emerges, the precautionary principle demands we act.
Conclusion: Merchants of Doubt, Not Unbiased Science
The article from Unbiased Science is a polished but misleading attempt to manufacture doubt and discredit legitimate fluoride research. It uses sarcasm, cherry-picks weak rebuttals, and gaslights the public into believing that neurotoxicity concerns are fringe or conspiratorial.
In reality, the scientific tide has turned. Fluoride neurotoxicity is no longer speculative—it is evidence-based. And in 2024, a federal judge ruled that fluoridation **"presents an unreasonable risk to human health."
The real question isn’t "What tomorrow?" It’s how many more children will we harm before we change course?
Further Reading:
NTP 2023 Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity
Green et al., 2019 (JAMA Pediatrics)
Bashash et al., 2017 (Environmental Health Perspectives)
Till et al., 2020 (Environment International)
NRC 2006 Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water
Bellinger, 2007 (IQ impacts at the population level)
Very good points, a lot of times, these people with advanced degrees are too entrenched in their ivory tower and textbooks that they can't use common sense. We should know that deviation from nature is of course harmful.
Did ancestral humans use fluoride for their teeth? No they barely brushed their teeth and had excellent dental health.
For all the bashing-some of it deserved-of Big Pharma, maybe it's time to take a closer look at Big Anti-Pharma. Who is benefiting financially from pushing this type of agenda? Whether it's anti-vaxx, flat earth, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, etc., there are always people who have a vested interest in keeping these going. Follow the $.
Nobody benefits financially from those, they are facts you mention. There are no viruses, the earth is obviously a plane, 9/11 was obviously done by Israel.
The agenda behind pushing these is a desire for truth and transparency.
She claims "anti-science activists" while broad-stroking virtually anyone showing any evidence outside the mainstream (ie, her ontological concept of what is real) ...
This pair has a history of false claims, and numerous retractions. Thank you for putting this together. I'd not seen their "report" but now I have to find it, read it and critique it. This was a great way to spent the last few minutes of your flight.
I live in a small village in Wisconsin near Madison. Our village board- made up of 7 people very hurriedly and quietly passed a resolution to remove fluoride from our water. They did not put it up for a vote to the residents. They had deaf ears to mine and other pleas at the next village board meeting. We have 2 conspiracy theorists on the board and they managed to sway two others with scientific illiteracy to vote with them. It makes me sick!!
You’re complaining because you didn’t get to vote to keep it in; what about all the people who don’t want it but never got to vote to keep it out? Pot and kettle?
Not going to dignify your pathologically distorted reality by listing the multiple volumes of peer reviewed and published science confirming your errors in thinking.
I will read the numerous studies in the link you shared- I am, after all, educated in the sciences, and I’m sure I will learn something new. My main complaint was that we, as a community were not allowed a say in this change- as so many decisions- especially for women lately (actually for all time) have been made without our consent or even knowledge. But you have turned it into something nasty and condescending as the anonymity of social media has given people the permission to do. You are an extremely unpleasant person from what I can gather and I feel sorry for you. Please discontinue this conversation
Hi Nina, I can appreciate how challenging this can be. Sometimes circumstances are such that we are presented with an uncomfortable choice: Take action to reverse this resolution (which might involve replacing the village board members) or live with the consequences. In some ways, replacing lies and bigotry in science is remarkably similar to the civil rights movement. In this case, the lies and bigotry has facts and honesty as it's focus. It's important to keep in mind MLK's saying: Hatred does not drive out hatred, only Love drives out hatred.
My only comment is that your observations - which are substantial, sustainable, and would , I am sure, be joined by the physicians who read your blog - are pointless if you fail to address them with the publishing journal in the form of a letter. These authors have a sustained history of retraction, and the elder of the two literally lost his license to practice medicine. Now they are enjoined to further investigate for the HHS directly.
Working on it!
I would be happy to join
Excellent article. I was speaking today with a couple of former CDC physicians about how to best respond to protect public health during the current season of irrationality.
Protecting public health is going to require a lot of work. My personal experience has been to make inroads one skeptic at a time. If we can enlist a sufficient number of professionals to talk to the skeptics, we might make headway, but you can't just convince one: You have to talk to a bunch of them.
Agree. It will require engaging the majority of people to outvote the skeptics. As you may have experienced, strongly held beliefs are emotionally based, and "immune" to facts and logic.
My goodness! How sophisticated! It's all inaccurate statement of fact and illogical rhetoric, but it is well presented. #Gaslight
21st century evidence-based science has delivered robust findings that:
- Fluoridation, at best, prevents a fraction of a single cavity,. That "benefit" is proportionately 3% (or 25% of one cavity), which may not be real because of the poor quality and high bias of those studies.
- Fluoridation causes dental fluorosis in at least two teeth of the majority of youthful consumers, at least 10% of whom will choose costly cosmetic dentistry to repair the damage
- Even 'optimal' concentrations of fluoridation result in neurotoxicity when exposure is pre-natal, post-natal or during early childhood - more ADD/ADHD, lower IQ, compromised executive function, more sleep disorders, more behavioral problems, etc.
- Fluoridation can cause and does worsen thyroid & kidney disease, arthritis, eczema/psoriasis, gastrointestinal inflammation (IBS/IBD, Celiac, etc.)....
- Fluoride builds up in skeletons leading to fragility and disability in old age.
- Fluoridation was ruled an "unreasonable risk" by a US Federal Judge in 2024. The EPA was ordered to take action to mitigate/eliminate that risk.
See: FluorideLawsuit.com for verification of above.
If you don't know that fluoridation is an epic scam, please review this fascinating interview of BBC producer. Christopher Bryson who spent 10 years researching the topic for his groundbreaking book, "The Fluoride. Deception." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBZRb-73tLc
Better yet, read the book. Don't take the word of a mother of a fluoride injured daughter!! Fluoridation has nothing to do with dental health. The fact that Bryson's book didn't end fluoridation in 2006 is emblematic of the wall of protection around this egregious policy.
If fluoride really is toxic, what would be the motivation for putting it into water? No one's making money off it—dentists are needed LESS. That book summary mentions Erin Brockovich, but there it was clear what the corporation's motives were: they wanted to keep making their product without having to pay for cleanup. There's no product for fluoride—it's touted as a great additive because it's so cheap.
Thank you for your comment, Abigail. Fluoride has been a problem for industrialists since the 1800's. Bryson covers the history. The first environmental pollution lawsuits were aimed at steel manufacturers in Germany who were destroying forests and farms with their emissions, since fluoride is extracted during the process. Before it could be recaptured in emissions control it was a huge problem for big industry. Think Dupont, Alcoa, etc. There was also the problem of workers exposure. Hence the exhaustive research of Kaj Roholm of Copenhagen, who died young due to his fluoride exposure during his research. In fact scientist of the 1800's who studied fluoride were called "fluorine martyrs" from working with the poison. Fluoride is slightly less toxic than arsenic. Unfortunately we have been conditioned to not recoil at the word fluoride.
Industry organized to fend off dozens of lawsuits (listed by Bryson), and solve the fluoride problem. Bryson describes a trial in which a lawyer actually threw a tube of fluoride toothpaste in front of the jury! Those workers couldn't possibly harmed by fluoride...it's in toothpaste!
Skipping way ahead tn the era of recapturing toxic emissions, what to do with the waste? It normally goes in a landfill which is costly. So when it is sold to water companies it is a double win. I'm afraid there is a very cynical phrase I learned from the chief scientific engineer of Aqua Water Co., "dilution is the solution to pollution."
Much, much more if you are interested. Please consider getting the book...well worth it!
The April 7, 2025 Substack article titled "Fluoride Today, What Tomorrow?" by Unbiased Science uses classic tactics from the "Merchants of Doubt" playbook to mislead the public and undermine credible science on fluoride neurotoxicity. Let’s break down the misinformation point-by-point and replace spin with facts.
1. Framing Critics as Conspiracy Theorists
"There's no secret agenda... I can't even get my soda reimbursed."
Rebuttal: This strawman tactic deflects attention away from the growing body of peer-reviewed science and serious regulatory concerns. No one needs to believe in a "cabal" to understand that entrenched interests often resist change—especially when it means admitting decades of public health guidance may be flawed. Tobacco, leaded gasoline, PFAS, and DDT all followed similar resistance patterns. Fluoride is no different.
2. Misrepresenting the NTP Report
"The NTP report... faced such serious criticism from the National Academies of Sciences..."
Rebuttal: A draft 2020 NTP Monograph concluded:
“Fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”
This was based on dozens of high-quality studies, many funded by the NIH, including Bashash 2017, Green 2019, Till 2020, and Riddell 2019 — all of which found harm at or below 0.7 mg/L, the level used in U.S. water fluoridation.
Although political pressure altered the language in later drafts, the NTP Board voted unanimously to release the monograph to the public.
3. Downplaying Neurotoxicity as "1 IQ Point"
"Effects so small (approximately 1 IQ point) that they fall within the standard error..."
Rebuttal: This is scientifically dishonest. A 1-point drop in IQ across a population leads to:
More children needing special education
Fewer gifted children
Lower lifetime earnings
Even small shifts in population IQ distributions have large public health implications, as emphasized by the EPA, WHO, and Bellinger 2007. This is not a minor effect.
4. Attacking the Geiers While Ignoring the Broader Science
"Ecological fallacy on steroids... indeterminate confidence intervals..."
Rebuttal: Even if the Geier paper has flaws (and many critiques may be valid), this does nothing to refute the core body of science showing fluoride harms developing brains. Green, Bashash, Till, Riddell, and dozens more were not written by the Geiers and have passed rigorous peer review. Cherry-picking one study to discredit an entire field is a classic misinformation tactic.
5. Pretending There’s Scientific Consensus on Fluoride Safety
"One of the single greatest public health achievements of the 20th century."
Rebuttal: That statement is outdated and based on decades-old dental data. Today's science is uncovering new risks. The NAS (2006), NTP (2023), EPA internal scientists, and multiple NIH-funded studies all point to neurodevelopmental harm.
We once called leaded gasoline and smoking "public health achievements." Science evolves, and when evidence of harm emerges, the precautionary principle demands we act.
Conclusion: Merchants of Doubt, Not Unbiased Science
The article from Unbiased Science is a polished but misleading attempt to manufacture doubt and discredit legitimate fluoride research. It uses sarcasm, cherry-picks weak rebuttals, and gaslights the public into believing that neurotoxicity concerns are fringe or conspiratorial.
In reality, the scientific tide has turned. Fluoride neurotoxicity is no longer speculative—it is evidence-based. And in 2024, a federal judge ruled that fluoridation **"presents an unreasonable risk to human health."
The real question isn’t "What tomorrow?" It’s how many more children will we harm before we change course?
Further Reading:
NTP 2023 Monograph on Fluoride Neurotoxicity
Green et al., 2019 (JAMA Pediatrics)
Bashash et al., 2017 (Environmental Health Perspectives)
Till et al., 2020 (Environment International)
NRC 2006 Review of Fluoride in Drinking Water
Bellinger, 2007 (IQ impacts at the population level)
Very good points, a lot of times, these people with advanced degrees are too entrenched in their ivory tower and textbooks that they can't use common sense. We should know that deviation from nature is of course harmful.
Did ancestral humans use fluoride for their teeth? No they barely brushed their teeth and had excellent dental health.
I wonder why ...
For all the bashing-some of it deserved-of Big Pharma, maybe it's time to take a closer look at Big Anti-Pharma. Who is benefiting financially from pushing this type of agenda? Whether it's anti-vaxx, flat earth, 9-11 conspiracy theorists, etc., there are always people who have a vested interest in keeping these going. Follow the $.
Nobody benefits financially from those, they are facts you mention. There are no viruses, the earth is obviously a plane, 9/11 was obviously done by Israel.
The agenda behind pushing these is a desire for truth and transparency.
If the earth is a plane (flat disc), where are the elephants? I think we should be told.
Holding the anti-science establishment to the same standards! Yessss!!!! Great idea! Excellent article 👏
Keep up the great work, Jess and team!
Thank you for sharing fact-based articles. So greatly appreciated in these dark times.
She claims "anti-science activists" while broad-stroking virtually anyone showing any evidence outside the mainstream (ie, her ontological concept of what is real) ...
Jess, stay strong with integrity!!
Thanks so much. Lets spread the word.
https://drcolinbannon.substack.com/p/americas-march-to-medievalism
This pair has a history of false claims, and numerous retractions. Thank you for putting this together. I'd not seen their "report" but now I have to find it, read it and critique it. This was a great way to spent the last few minutes of your flight.
Your statement criticizing a study: "That's like saying everyone who lives in Seattle drinks the same amount of coffee."
This is hilarious. Fluoridation promoters base their "science" on the premise that everyone who lives in Seattle drinks the same amount of water.
I live in a small village in Wisconsin near Madison. Our village board- made up of 7 people very hurriedly and quietly passed a resolution to remove fluoride from our water. They did not put it up for a vote to the residents. They had deaf ears to mine and other pleas at the next village board meeting. We have 2 conspiracy theorists on the board and they managed to sway two others with scientific illiteracy to vote with them. It makes me sick!!
You’re complaining because you didn’t get to vote to keep it in; what about all the people who don’t want it but never got to vote to keep it out? Pot and kettle?
Go buy bottled water if you’re a conspiracy nut or don’t believe/understand scientific evidence
Not going to dignify your pathologically distorted reality by listing the multiple volumes of peer reviewed and published science confirming your errors in thinking.
Because you can’t?
Here’s a very recent report by experts.
https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science
Start with this. You may learn something.
I will read the numerous studies in the link you shared- I am, after all, educated in the sciences, and I’m sure I will learn something new. My main complaint was that we, as a community were not allowed a say in this change- as so many decisions- especially for women lately (actually for all time) have been made without our consent or even knowledge. But you have turned it into something nasty and condescending as the anonymity of social media has given people the permission to do. You are an extremely unpleasant person from what I can gather and I feel sorry for you. Please discontinue this conversation
Hi Nina, I can appreciate how challenging this can be. Sometimes circumstances are such that we are presented with an uncomfortable choice: Take action to reverse this resolution (which might involve replacing the village board members) or live with the consequences. In some ways, replacing lies and bigotry in science is remarkably similar to the civil rights movement. In this case, the lies and bigotry has facts and honesty as it's focus. It's important to keep in mind MLK's saying: Hatred does not drive out hatred, only Love drives out hatred.