One of the most underutilized tools in dentistry is magnesium—it’s that important for preventing cavities, healing small ones, and reversing sensitivity. Today’s newsletter is brought to you by BIOptimizers, my all-time favorite magnesium. Try it today with code ASKTHEDENTIST—it’s been a game changer for my teeth, sleep and mood.
In late 2024, a federal judge delivered a landmark ruling: The EPA failed to protect the public from fluoride’s neurotoxic effects.
Judge Edward Chen—by the way, an Obama appointee—acknowledged what scientists have been warning for years: fluoride exposure, particularly in utero, is linked to lower IQ and long-term cognitive harm.
This should have been a turning point, a moment where fluoride finally left “tin foil hat” territory and became a mainstream public health concern.
Instead, the conversation took a bizarre turn.
Within months, RFK Jr. publicly took up the fluoride issue, and suddenly, the debate wasn’t about science anymore—it was about politics. The ruling didn’t change. The science didn’t change. The overwhelming evidence remained just as damning. But the moment a polarizing figure entered the picture, it became easier to dismiss the entire fluoride debate as a conspiracy rather than confront the facts.
I’ve practiced dentistry for 41 years, and I’ve been questioning fluoride the entire time. I’ve been called a quack. I’ve been dismissed. That was fine—I knew the science would catch up eventually.
But I never expected how much of a rollercoaster this fight would become.
The lawsuit that took fluoride to court wasn’t built on speculation—it was built on rock-solid studies, funded by the NIH, using rigorous methodology. We had research showing that prenatal fluoride exposure could lower IQ. We had meta-analyses linking fluoride to cognitive harm. We had years of toxicology reports confirming that fluoride doesn’t just strengthen enamel—it alters brain development.
So why, after decades of science and a federal court ruling, are we still debating this?
Because instead of letting science speak for itself, we let politics decide what’s worth paying attention to.
Before we go any further, let’s be clear on one thing: This debate isn’t about fluoride in toothpaste or topical treatments—it’s about fluoride in drinking water. Fluoride applied directly to teeth is a different conversation; the concern here is about fluoride that’s ingested, where it can accumulate in bones, the brain, and developing bodies. This is a key distinction because systemic ingestion of fluoride has vastly different effects than topical application.
How We Got Here:
Fluoridation was introduced in the mid-20th century based on flawed studies that claimed fluoride strengthened tooth enamel. These studies lacked proper control groups, ignored socioeconomic factors, and never investigated long-term health risks. Despite these shortcomings, by the 1960s, fluoridation had become the norm in most U.S. cities, promoted as a safe and effective way to reduce cavities—without rigorous scientific proof.
In short, fluoridation became public policy not because of robust, long-term research, but because of an assumption that a little bit of fluoride in water was harmless. Decades later, mounting evidence suggests that assumption was dangerously wrong.
Yet, over the past two decades, high-quality research has raised serious concerns:
- 2006: A National Research Council (NRC) review found fluoride exposure could harm the brain, thyroid, and bones.
- 2017: An NIH-funded study found prenatal fluoride exposure was linked to lower IQ in children (Environmental Health Perspectives).
- 2019: A JAMA Pediatrics study confirmed these findings, igniting pushback from public health officials—but standing up to peer review.
- 2021: The National Toxicology Program (NTP) classified fluoride as a presumed neurotoxin, reinforcing over 70 studies linking it to cognitive harm.
- 2024: Federal Judge Edward Chen ruled that the EPA failed to adequately assess fluoride’s risks, marking a turning point in the legal battle.
The case against fluoride isn’t speculation—it’s peer-reviewed science. Consider:
- Fluoride exposure in utero has been linked to a 3-5 point drop in IQ, comparable to lead exposure.
- Fluoride’s impact on IQ is comparable to lead—but while we’ve banned lead from paint and gasoline, we still add fluoride to drinking water.
- Fluoridated countries like the U.S. and Canada have similar or worse rates of tooth decay than non-fluoridated countries like Sweden and the Netherlands.
- A Harvard meta-analysis found that fluoride accumulates in the brain and alters neurodevelopment, with potential long-term consequences.
Yet, despite these findings, the CDC and EPA continue to insist that fluoridation is safe—without addressing the science.
The media’s playbook is predictable: when a controversial figure takes up an issue—even one backed by peer-reviewed science—the debate gets buried under accusations of “misinformation.”
- When RFK Jr. spoke out against fluoride, it became easier to dismiss the entire conversation as conspiracy rather than engage with the research.
- In today’s media landscape, truth is often judged not by evidence, but by who is saying it.
- Regulators like the EPA fought tooth and nail against the lawsuit that led to Judge Chen’s ruling, despite their legal obligation to protect public health.
- Public health institutions fear reputational damage—admitting fluoride is harmful would mean admitting decades of flawed guidance.
The result? Silence from major health agencies, despite a federal court ruling confirming the EPA’s failure to act on fluoride’s risks.
The fluoride debate is not just about dental health. It’s a test case for how public health institutions handle inconvenient science. When legitimate concerns are ignored or politicized, public skepticism grows—not just toward fluoride, but toward all public health recommendations.
The fluoride debate isn’t just about cavities—it’s about whether we value science over dogma. With mounting evidence of harm and a federal court ruling challenging decades of policy, it’s time for accountability.
If public health officials won’t admit their mistakes, then it’s up to the public to demand action—before another generation’s IQ becomes collateral damage.
P.S. Did you know that you can get my favorite magnesium with a 365-day money back guarantee? Try it HERE.