Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

[heelslegup]

General Jack Ripper approves of what RFKJr wants to do re fluoridation. His precious bodily fluids are now safe from Communist conspiracy,
Next up: Trump and RFK Jr. take down the polio vaccine

 

[gtyellowjacket]

New report out. It's basically the analysis of the report that the NIH put out last year. Basically says there is some pretty good evidence that higher levels of fluoridation can lower IQ.

They note that the studies at the recommended levels of fluoridation are inconclusive and that double the levels are pretty confidently a problem. They also worry that water at the recommended fluoridation levels added to other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwash and certain foods could put vulnerable people like pregnant women at risk. If I had to guess, the EPA will recommend not fluoridating municipal water before the end of Trump's term.

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/09/nx-s1-5252874/fluoride-drinking-water-iq-analysis-safe

 

[OGtruthhurts]

ive always blamed the fluoride

 

[nycfan]

New report out. It's basically the analysis of the report that the NIH put out last year. Basically says there is some pretty good evidence that higher levels of fluoridation can lower IQ.

They note that the studies at the recommended levels of fluoridation are inconclusive and that double the levels are pretty confidently a problem. They also worry that water at the recommended fluoridation levels added to other sources such as toothpaste, mouthwash and certain foods could put vulnerable people like pregnant women at risk. If I had to guess, the EPA will recommend not fluoridating municipal water before the end of Trump's term.

https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/01/09/nx-s1-5252874/fluoride-drinking-water-iq-analysis-safe

“… Monday's analysis digs deeper into the data behind these conclusions. It looks at a few dozen foreign studies that other researchers have conducted, mostly in China and India, and finds an association between high levels of fluoride and a small decrease in children's IQ.

… The analysis is controversial. The paper was published alongside two editorials in JAMA Pediatrics. One, by Steven Levy, a public health dentist at the University of Iowa, questioned the analysis's methods and disagreed with its conclusions. The other, by a trio of children's health researchers, supported its findings.

Using this analysis — which is inconclusive at levels of fluoridation below 1.5 mg/L — to inform the debate over low levels of fluoride in drinking water feels like a stretch to fluoridation supporters like Levy.

"The major problem is that the science is not as strong as it's presented by these authors," he says. For instance, the study authors write in the paper's abstract that fluoride exposure seems linked (in certain studies) with lower IQ at levels even below 1.5 mg/L, but Levy notes that the data they provide aren't conclusive.

… He points out that some of the more recent fluoride studies, which he thinks are better designed, found no negative effect on IQ, and he thinks they should have been given more weight in the recent analysis.

To others, the analysis published this week makes a strong enough case out of imperfect evidence for action. "What the study does, or should do, is shift the burden of proof," says Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a children's health researcher at Simon Fraser University, who co-authored the other editorial, which supported the paper's findings. "The people who are proposing fluoridation need to now prove it's safe. …”

——

From the cited NPR story. I have no objections to this data being used to prod further dedicated, high quality US research on the matter, but given the known value of fluoridation of water, no recommendations should be based on such a review of existing Indian and Chinese studies.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

“… Monday's analysis digs deeper into the data behind these conclusions. It looks at a few dozen foreign studies that other researchers have conducted, mostly in China and India, and finds an association between high levels of fluoride and a small decrease in children's IQ.

… The analysis is controversial. The paper was published alongside two editorials in JAMA Pediatrics. One, by Steven Levy, a public health dentist at the University of Iowa, questioned the analysis's methods and disagreed with its conclusions. The other, by a trio of children's health researchers, supported its findings.

Using this analysis — which is inconclusive at levels of fluoridation below 1.5 mg/L — to inform the debate over low levels of fluoride in drinking water feels like a stretch to fluoridation supporters like Levy.

"The major problem is that the science is not as strong as it's presented by these authors," he says. For instance, the study authors write in the paper's abstract that fluoride exposure seems linked (in certain studies) with lower IQ at levels even below 1.5 mg/L, but Levy notes that the data they provide aren't conclusive.

… He points out that some of the more recent fluoride studies, which he thinks are better designed, found no negative effect on IQ, and he thinks they should have been given more weight in the recent analysis.

To others, the analysis published this week makes a strong enough case out of imperfect evidence for action. "What the study does, or should do, is shift the burden of proof," says Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a children's health researcher at Simon Fraser University, who co-authored the other editorial, which supported the paper's findings. "The people who are proposing fluoridation need to now prove it's safe. …”

——

From the cited NPR story. I have no objections to this data being used to prod further dedicated, high quality US research on the matter, but given the known value of fluoridation of water, no recommendations should be based on such a review of existing Indian and Chinese studies.

There was a Canadian study in there as well. And the India and China studies were all peer-reviewed most led by US scientists. One was published in Nature, one was an NIH study led by some Harvard guys. I wouldn't dismiss it just based on the location of the subjects. The science is good and high levels of fluoride are very probably an issue.

I think the real questions are:

-is there a safe level in municipal water and what is it?

-if there isn't a safe level, does the good outweigh the bad?

- if there isn't a safe level, are there safer ways to get fluoride into the population.

But I think folks that are rejecting the science because RFK JR is bringing it up or because we've ridiculed these fluoride folks for a while, is not a great way to set policy.

 

[finesse]

it's not so much about Junior as it is that the anti-fluoridation movement has been pushed by a right wing fringe since the 1950s. There's a hell of a lot more to it than one person.

Not saying to deny the science but more verify the science. There are some long time things connected to this and probably more money and influence among the antis than we know.

 

[nycfan]

There was a Canadian study in there as well. And the India and China studies were all peer-reviewed most led by US scientists. One was published in Nature, one was an NIH study led by some Harvard guys. I wouldn't dismiss it just based on the location of the subjects. The science is good and high levels of fluoride are very probably an issue.

I think the real questions are:

-is there a safe level in municipal water and what is it?

-if there isn't a safe level, does the good outweigh the bad?

- if there isn't a safe level, are there safer ways to get fluoride into the population.

But I think folks that are rejecting the science because RFK JR is bringing it up or because we've ridiculed these fluoride folks for a while, is not a great way to set policy.

Having one Canadian survey in a review of over 50 studies isn't all that reassuring (and would be curious to see what that study found on a stand-alone basis based on the critique by the dental heath guy). In any event, I don't think we are at "rejecting the science" here -- we're at the science about possible harms in uncertain amounts is far from conclusive and the data on the benefits is pretty compelling.

I do think the fact that absolute kooks have opposed fluoridation for patently absurd reasons for decades (like it will turn you Communist) makes it harder to take seriously politicians who have seized on the topic of late. And I have a hard time taking RFK Jr. seriously on anything because he is a heroin addict who has demonstrated repeatedly that he promotes junk science and conspiracy theories.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

If I had to guess, the EPA will recommend not fluoridating municipal water before the end of Trump's term.

So far, this statement is the only one "rejecting the science". None of the science provided so far has supported this action.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

So far, this statement is the only one "rejecting the science". None of the science provided so far has supported this action.

That's very much incorrect. 50 studies?

 

[finesse]

That's very much incorrect. 50 studies?

Out of how many? 50 out of a 100 or 50 out of 5000?

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Having one Canadian survey in a review of over 50 studies isn't all that reassuring (and would be curious to see what that study found on a stand-alone basis based on the critique by the dental heath guy). In any event, I don't think we are at "rejecting the science" here -- we're at the science about possible harms in uncertain amounts is far from conclusive and the data on the benefits is pretty compelling.

I do think the fact that absolute kooks have opposed fluoridation for patently absurd reasons for decades (like it will turn you Communist) makes it harder to take seriously politicians who have seized on the topic of late. And I have a hard time taking RFK Jr. seriously on anything because he is a heroin addict who has demonstrated repeatedly that he promotes junk science and conspiracy theories.

The dentist is pointing out that removing fluoride could harm children's mental health. That's absolutely correct, especially if we don't look at other sources of fluoride that might be safer.

But the dentist isn't making any comment on the studies that point to a lower IQ. To me that very well might be more of a problem than cavities.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

That's very much incorrect. 50 studies?

Quote from the comms director of the organization that created the original 300-page report that the article you linked is analyzing:

"There were not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children's IQ," Christine Flowers, director of the Office of Communication at the National Institutes of Health, wrote in an email.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Quote from the comms director of the organization that created the original 300-page report that the article you linked is analyzing:

"There were not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children's IQ," Christine Flowers, director of the Office of Communication at the National Institutes of Health, wrote in an email.

Yes. That is correct. There are continuing studies now And it's possible that we will have something conclusive by the end of Trump's term.

But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer, but don't have enough studies from one pack a day smokers to determine if that causes cancer. Smoke'em if you got 'em.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

Yes. That is correct. There are continuing studies now And it's possible that we will have something conclusive by the end of Trump's term.

But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer, but don't have enough studies from one pack a day smokers to determine if that causes cancer. Smoke'em if you got 'em.

Holy bad analogy batman. Fluoride in water is carcinogenic now? Please show me the science that fluoride impacts the body like tobacco smoke.

Just take your L and move on. I was correct in stating nothing in that report supports the EPA recommending we remove fluoride from drinking water.

 

[finesse]

Yes. That is correct. There are continuing studies now And it's possible that we will have something conclusive by the end of Trump's term.

But I don't think anyone is going to say we we have studies from two pack a day smokers that show a marked increase in cancer, but don't have enough studies from one pack a day smokers to determine if that causes cancer. Smoke'em if you got 'em.

That's wretched comparison even before a cost/benefit analysis of the two.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Holy bad analogy batman. Flouride in water is carcinogenic now? Please show me the science that flouride impacts the body like tobacco smoke.

Just take your L and move on. I was correct in stating nothing in that report supports the EPA recommending we remove flouride from drinking water.

Who said fluoride is carcinogenic? The studies show fluoride at high levels affects IQ. That's it. Cancer from cigarettes and lower IQ from fluoride are both health concerns.

If you want, you can change it to over 50 studies showed that lead in gasoline that is twice what some American refiners put in our gasoline causes lowers IQ but we don't have data on lead at current levels. I don't think anyone is going to say let's keep the lead in the gasoline at our current levels until we know for sure.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

Who said fluoride is carcinogenic? The studies show fluoride at high levels affects IQ. That's it. Cancer from cigarettes and lower IQ from fluoride are both health concerns.

If you want, you can change it to over 50 studies showed that lead in gasoline that is twice what some American refiners put in our gasoline causes lowers IQ but we don't have data on lead at current levels. I don't think anyone is going to say let's keep the lead in the gasoline at our current levels until we know for sure.

You're making an unsupported inference over and over. No matter how hard you want to believe or how many times you repeat it research that suggests with "moderate confidence" that 1.5+mg/L of fluoride in water may impact IQ in children DOES NOT SUPPORT the notion that 0.7mg/L of fluoride in water is harmful.

Did you know water ingested at sufficiently high levels is toxic to humans. Does that mean water at half those levels is also toxic? No.

You have to demonstrate that low levels of fluoride in water are harmful - not just point to research that shows its harmful at much high levels. Do you understand that? That's how medical science works. You don't make public health recommendations based on unsupported inferences. You have to demonstrate your claim especially when you're dealing with something that has decades of proven positive benefits to public health.

 

[Milk and Cookies]

I used to lead a team at a Fortune 100 company that created thought leadership reports for our clients. So that required me to provide oversight and input to the research and analytics teams who would design, conduct and analyze primary research in the field that would inform our reports. Evaluating raw data is a very precise exercise that requires incredible levels of rigor. Every tom dick and harry thinks they can come in, look at a data table and start spouting off so-whats. That is not how effective data analysis works. Even after years of working with that data I knew that every conclusion we drew needed to be triple checked with the data engineers to make sure we were not misconstruing the conclusions. It gave me a lot of respect for the people who do that work. And it gave me a healthy dose of caution for leaping to presumed conclusions on flimsy data. I see a lot of that in this topic when those same 50 international studies with conflicting standards, scope, subjects, objectives are regurgitated again and again into some frankenstein conclusion that our water standards are unsafe. Its really bad science.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

You're making an unsupported inference over and over. No matter how hard you want to believe or how many times you repeat it research that suggests with "moderate confidence" that 1.5+mg/L of flouride in water may impact IQ in children DOES NOT SUPPORT the notion that 0.7mg/L of flouride in water is harmful.

Did you know water ingested at sufficiently high levels is toxic to humans. Does that mean water at half those levels is also toxic? No.

You have to demonstrate that low levels of flouride in water are harmful - not just point to research that shows its harmful at much high levels. Do you understand that? That's how medical science works. You don't make public health recommendations based on unsupported inferences. You have to demonstrate your claim especially when you're dealing with something that has decades of proven positive benefits to public health.

It's not that much higher. There are some municipalities in the United States that do fluorinate at that level, and when you add other sources, there are kids getting that known unsafe level.

I would turn it around. With the evidence that we have today, there is at least some chance that fluoridating water at our levels currently might cause a drop in IQ. Let's stop the possible harmful chemical , and let's do the studies to determine the safe level, and the most effective ways to get fluoride in the population at that level.

This isn't some crazy thing. Most of Europe, Japan, Israel has stopped fluoridating their water or never did it in the first place. I'm not sure why Americans are so attached to it when the science is there that it's a risk and there are other ways to get it.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

I used to lead a team at a Fortune 100 company that created thought leadership reports for our clients. So that required me to provide oversight and input to the research and analytics teams who would design, conduct and analyze primary research in the field that would inform our reports. Evaluating raw data is a very precise exercise that requires incredible levels of rigor. Every tom dick and harry thinks they can come in, look at a data table and start spouting off so-whats. That is not how effective data analysis works. Even after years of working with that data I knew that every conclusion we drew needed to be triple checked with the data engineers to make sure we were not misconstruing the conclusions. It gave me a lot of respect for the people who do that work. And it gave me a healthy dose of caution for leaping to presumed conclusions on flimsy data. I see a lot of that in this topic when those same 50 international studies with conflicting standards, scope, subjects, objectives are regurgitated again and again into some frankenstein conclusion that our water standards are unsafe. Its really bad science.

So now your Fortune 100 experience trumps jama, NIH, Harvard School of public health? I think I'll trust them on this one before I start listening to the guy that made thought leadership reports at general motors.