Probably the most underutilized instruments in dentistry is magnesium—it’s that necessary for stopping cavities, therapeutic small ones, and reversing sensitivity. Immediately’s publication is delivered to you by BIOptimizers, my all-time favourite magnesium. Attempt it right this moment with code ASKTHEDENTIST—it’s been a recreation changer for my enamel, sleep and temper.

In late 2024, a federal decide delivered a landmark ruling: The EPA failed to guard the general public from fluoride’s neurotoxic results.

Decide Edward Chen—by the best way, an Obama appointee—acknowledged what scientists have been warning for years: fluoride publicity, notably in utero, is linked to decrease IQ and long-term cognitive hurt.

This could have been a turning level, a second the place fluoride lastly left “tin foil hat” territory and have become a mainstream public well being concern.

As an alternative, the dialog took a weird flip.

Inside months, RFK Jr. publicly took up the fluoride problem, and out of the blue, the controversy wasn’t about science anymore—it was about politics. The ruling didn’t change. The science didn’t change. The overwhelming proof remained simply as damning. However the second a polarizing determine entered the image, it grew to become simpler to dismiss all the fluoride debate as a conspiracy somewhat than confront the details.

I’ve practiced dentistry for 41 years, and I’ve been questioning fluoride all the time. I’ve been known as a quack. I’ve been dismissed. That was high-quality—I knew the science would catch up finally.

However I by no means anticipated how a lot of a rollercoaster this combat would turn into.

The lawsuit that took fluoride to courtroom wasn’t constructed on hypothesis—it was constructed on rock-solid research, funded by the NIH, utilizing rigorous methodology. We had analysis displaying that prenatal fluoride publicity may decrease IQ. We had meta-analyses linking fluoride to cognitive hurt. We had years of toxicology experiences confirming that fluoride doesn’t simply strengthen enamel—it alters mind growth.

So why, after many years of science and a federal courtroom ruling, are we nonetheless debating this?
As a result of as an alternative of letting science communicate for itself, we let politics resolve what’s value taking note of.

Earlier than we go any additional, let’s be clear on one factor: This debate isn’t about fluoride in toothpaste or topical therapies—it’s about fluoride in consuming water. Fluoride utilized on to enamel is a unique dialog; the priority right here is about fluoride that’s ingested, the place it may well accumulate in bones, the mind, and growing our bodies. This can be a key distinction as a result of systemic ingestion of fluoride has vastly completely different results than topical utility.

How We Obtained Right here:

Fluoridation was launched within the mid-Twentieth century based mostly on flawed research that claimed fluoride strengthened tooth enamel. These research lacked correct management teams, ignored socioeconomic elements, and by no means investigated long-term well being dangers. Regardless of these shortcomings, by the Sixties, fluoridation had turn into the norm in most U.S. cities, promoted as a protected and efficient solution to cut back cavities—with out rigorous scientific proof.

In brief, fluoridation grew to become public coverage not due to strong, long-term analysis, however due to an assumption that a bit little bit of fluoride in water was innocent. Many years later, mounting proof means that assumption was dangerously flawed.

But, over the previous 20 years, high-quality analysis has raised severe considerations:

• 2006: A Nationwide Analysis Council (NRC) overview discovered fluoride publicity may hurt the mind, thyroid, and bones.
• 2017: An NIH-funded examine discovered prenatal fluoride publicity was linked to decrease IQ in youngsters (Environmental Well being Views).
• 2019: A JAMA Pediatrics examine confirmed these findings, igniting pushback from public well being officers—however standing as much as peer overview.
• 2021: The Nationwide Toxicology Program (NTP) categorized fluoride as a presumed neurotoxin, reinforcing over 70 research linking it to cognitive hurt.
• 2024: Federal Decide Edward Chen dominated that the EPA didn’t adequately assess fluoride’s dangers, marking a turning level within the authorized battle.

The case towards fluoride isn’t hypothesis—it’s peer-reviewed science. Contemplate:

• Fluoride publicity in utero has been linked to a 3-5 level drop in IQ, comparable to guide publicity.
• Fluoride’s influence on IQ is comparable to guide—however whereas we’ve banned lead from paint and gasoline, we nonetheless add fluoride to consuming water.
• Fluoridated nations just like the U.S. and Canada have comparable or worse charges of tooth decay than non-fluoridated nations like Sweden and the Netherlands.
• A Harvard meta-analysis discovered that fluoride accumulates within the mind and alters neurodevelopment, with potential long-term penalties.

But, regardless of these findings, the CDC and EPA proceed to insist that fluoridation is protected—with out addressing the science.

The media’s playbook is predictable: when a controversial determine takes up a problem—even one backed by peer-reviewed science—the controversy will get buried beneath accusations of “misinformation.”

• When RFK Jr. spoke out towards fluoride, it grew to become simpler to dismiss all the dialog as conspiracy somewhat than interact with the analysis.
• In right this moment’s media panorama, fact is commonly judged not by proof, however by who’s saying it.
• Regulators just like the EPA fought tooth and nail towards the lawsuit that led to Decide Chen’s ruling, regardless of their authorized obligation to guard public well being.
• Public well being establishments concern reputational injury—admitting fluoride is dangerous would imply admitting many years of flawed steerage.

The outcome? Silence from main well being companies, regardless of a federal courtroom ruling confirming the EPA’s failure to behave on fluoride’s dangers.

The fluoride debate isn’t just about dental well being. It’s a take a look at case for the way public well being establishments deal with inconvenient science. When authentic considerations are ignored or politicized, public skepticism grows—not simply towards fluoride, however towards all public well being suggestions.

The fluoride debate isn’t nearly cavities—it’s about whether or not we worth science over dogma. With mounting proof of hurt and a federal courtroom ruling difficult many years of coverage, it’s time for accountability.

If public well being officers received’t admit their errors, then it’s as much as the general public to demand motion—earlier than one other technology’s IQ turns into collateral injury.

P.S. Do you know that you may get my favourite magnesium with a 365-day a reimbursement assure? Attempt it HERE.