loverofh2o.bsky.social
56 posts
22 followers
7 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
Can you point me to a single randomized controlled trial (RCT) showing that poor U.S. children get more cavities when fluoride is removed from water? The studies I’ve looked at often have major flaws—none were RCTs. I know this is a common belief, but I haven’t seen solid evidence to back it.
comment in response to
post
Many countries without water fluoridation, like many parts of Canada and much of Europe, have lower tooth decay rates than the US. Dental health depends more on diet, access to care, and poverty than fluoride. Removing fluoride won’t worsen decay if these bigger issues are tackled.
comment in response to
post
Totally get that! Most of Canada doesn’t fluoridate their water like the US does, and their healthcare access is way better overall. Sounds like a smart vacation plan—better water, vaccines, and healthcare all in one trip! Where in Canada are you thinking of going?
comment in response to
post
Deposition testimony from #FluorideLawsuit reveals CDC is aware of & agrees w/ the US National Research Council’s finding that fluoride can cause permanent brain damage, including risks of Alzheimer’s & dementia. This is serious & must be part of the conversation.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A34...
comment in response to
post
Students for Science deserve credit for caring about public health—but defending fluoride without grappling with the latest evidence from NIH, NTP, and federal court rulings misses the mark. RFK Jr. aside, credible scientists—not snake oil—are the ones raising serious concerns now.
comment in response to
post
When federal judges, NIH-funded scientists, and the National Toxicology Program all raise red flags about fluoride’s impact on the developing brain, it’s time to re-evaluate—not double down. Defending public health means listening to all of the science, even when it challenges old beliefs.
comment in response to
post
We’re talking about fluoride because a federal judge, NIH-funded researchers, and the National Toxicology Program all found credible evidence of harm—especially to developing brains. That’s not misinformation. It’s science catching up with policy. Let’s follow the evidence, not the slogans.
comment in response to
post
More recent research—including a federal court ruling and NIH-funded studies—shows fluoride poses neurodevelopmental risks. Public health means updating policies with current science. Brush your teeth, don't swallow fluoride.
comment in response to
post
Absolutely—dental pain is real and serious. But fluoride isn’t a cure-all. Tooth decay remains the #1 chronic disease in the U.S. after 80 years of fluoridation. Let’s fight for real solutions: nutrition, access to care, education—not mass medicating through tap water.
comment in response to
post
That 25% stat is outdated and based on old studies before widespread toothpaste use. Modern high-quality research—including government-funded studies—shows prenatal fluoride harms developing brains. Time to rethink what “defending public health” really means.
comment in response to
post
I don’t think the U.S. has lower rates of tooth decay. In every low-income population, there’s an epidemic. Tooth decay is the #1 chronic disease in both adults and children, and nearly 50% of people over 30 have gum disease. Fluoridation clearly hasn’t solved this crisis.
comment in response to
post
I wonder what happened with this? France plans to classify sodium fluoride as an endocrine disruptor and reprotoxic to human health. Has there been any update or action taken on this important classification? criticalcatalyst.com/france-inten...
comment in response to
post
Most schools offer free dental programs, and free dental clinics happen several times a year if you look for them. Access is improving, even if universal dental care isn’t here yet. Notably, countries like Germany, Cuba, and Finland saw tooth decay decline after stopping water fluoridation.
comment in response to
post
The Choi et al. JAMA article is not science—it’s propaganda dressed up as a simulation model. It abandons real data, misrepresents references, redefines terms, and uses flawed assumptions to scare policymakers and the public.
It serves fluoride policy—not public health.
comment in response to
post
No increase in cavities was found 3 years after Kuopio, Finland, stopped water fluoridation. Compared to a similar town without fluoridation, cavity rates stayed the same or decreased up to 6 years after fluoridation ended.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11093019/
comment in response to
post
My IAOMT dentist doesn’t use fluoride in their practice. My 20-year-old kid just got their first cavity, but I haven’t had one in over 20 years—pretty much since I stopped using fluoride toothpaste. We also filter fluoride out of our water.
fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/p/nyscof-whe...
comment in response to
post
Fluoride studies often reflect exposure levels similar to or even below those in fluoridated water when considering total daily intake from all sources. Plus, vulnerable groups like pregnant women and kids absorb more and have less ability to detoxify, so even low doses can harm developing brains.
comment in response to
post
A 2019 Canadian study found that higher maternal fluoride levels during pregnancy were linked to lower IQ in children aged 3–4. The study area adds 0.6 mg/L of fluoride to the water. Authors suggest it may be necessary to reduce fluoride exposure during pregnancy. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31424532
comment in response to
post
A 2024 study of LA mother-child pairs found prenatal fluoride exposure linked to increased neurobehavioral issues at age 3. Findings suggest the need to limit fluoride during pregnancy. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38767917/
comment in response to
post
The paper used a simulation with outdated assumptions—like a 25% decay reduction no longer backed by modern science. It overstates benefits, downplays harm, and misleads the public and policymakers.
comment in response to
post
Doesn’t fluoride harm dogs?
Isn’t that part of the reason raisins are dangerous for them—because of fluoride-based pesticides used on grapes?
comment in response to
post
Highly recommend reading Fluoridation: Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials by Phillip R. N. Sutton.
A critical look at the foundational studies behind water fluoridation.
📘 archive.org/details/fluo...
comment in response to
post
Why are we only now doing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) on fluoride to see if it reduces tooth decay? And why aren't participants allowed to mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water due to the risk of overexposure?https://www.theassemblync.com/health/fluoride-health-water-kinston-unc/
comment in response to
post
Did you catch this new publication earlier this week? It states: “…it may be prudent to consider recommendations that minimize prenatal and infant fluoride exposure.” That’s a major shift.
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10....
comment in response to
post
Published a few days ago: Fluoride, Teeth, and Developing Brains: Dental Health in Tension With Environmental Health, Millions Affected
"...it may be prudent to consider recommendations that minimize prenatal and infant fluoride exposure."
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10....
comment in response to
post
East German scientists report, “following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz (formerly Karl-Marx-Stadt) and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed,” according to Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11014515/
comment in response to
post
Seven years after fluoridation ended in LaSalud, Cuba, cavities remained low in 6 to 9 year olds, decreased in 10 to 11 year-olds, significantly decreased in 12 to 13 year olds, while caries-free children increased dramatically, reports Caries Research. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10601780/
comment in response to
post
“No increase in caries (cavities) was found in Kuopio (Finland) 3 years after the discontinuation of water fluoridation." pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11093019/
comment in response to
post
Portland, Oregon — one of America’s most progressive cities — has long opposed water fluoridation. So why have some Democrats forgotten that? Judge Chen, an Obama appointee, ruled fluoridation poses an “unreasonable risk.”
www.cand.uscourts.gov/wp-content/u...
comment in response to
post
Finland didn't see any decay go up when they stopped adding fluoride. Why all the fear-mongering about cavities when fluoride’s been in the water for 80 years? Tooth decay is still the #1 chronic disease in the U.S. — even with widespread fluoridation. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11093019/
comment in response to
post
Even Cuba's decay declined when they stopped adding fluoride. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10601780/
comment in response to
post
Remember when Germany stopped adding fluoride and their decay declined? pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11014515/
comment in response to
post
That's weird. My dentist doesn't even have fluoride in their practice. Many are switching to hydroxyapatite. Have you read this publication from a few days ago?
ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10....
comment in response to
post
After being on the market for many decades, why not just do the safety and effectiveness studies and apply for approval if they are so great and beneficial? www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/th...
comment in response to
post
If it’s so safe, why are they doing the first RCT after 80 years? They won’t even allow infant formula mixed with fluoridated water to avoid overexposure.
www.theassemblync.com/health/fluor...
comment in response to
post
"Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States –presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health " www.courtlistener.com/docket/62013...
comment in response to
post
If fluoride’s “proven,” why are they doing the first RCT now after 80 yrs of dumping fertilizer waste in water? And why does the RCT ban mixing infant formula with fluoridated tap water to avoid overexposure? 🤔 www.theassemblync.com/health/fluor...
comment in response to
post
Funny how fluoride promoters love to shout 'fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral!' — yet somehow forget to mention they're dumping hydrofluosilicic acid, a toxic byproduct of the phosphate fertilizer industry, into our water.
comment in response to
post
Would love to read your critique of Kumar's study. fluoridealert.org/content/cali...
comment in response to
post
Yes! The reason is explained in the Fluoride Deception book. www.democracynow.org/2004/6/17/th...
comment in response to
post
Lindsay McLaren, PhD, found no sudden spike in cavities after Calgary ended fluoridation—only a gradual increase over a decade (2004–2014), starting before fluoride stopped in 2011.
Media misreported the study, exaggerating the results to push fear.
comment in response to
post
This isn’t the first study linking fluoride and brain harm, but now even JAMA is publishing on it.
jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...
comment in response to
post
Finland ditched water fluoridation, watched cavities decline, and now has better teeth than the U.S. Meanwhile, we’re still clinging to 1950s public health myths like fluoride is some magical cure-all.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11093019/