Note: NZ is equally silent on this topic Kiwis. Up and down ‘Clean and Green’ folk are resisting the fascist installation of this so called ‘option’ into their water supplies. It really aint rocket science. If folk want fluoride they can add it themselves. Instead we are all forced to purchase expensive filters to get rid of the poison … that is if we can even find a filter that does this. (See our Fluoride pages at the main menu)… EWNZ

From Lies are unbekoming @ substack

Preface

In 2024, American researchers can sequence DNA from single cells, track neuron firing patterns in real time, and detect chemical signatures on distant exoplanets. The National Institutes of Health funds over 50,000 research grants annually, investigating everything from rare “genetic” disorders affecting dozens of people to the optimal spacing of highway rest stops. Yet in the seventy-nine years since America began adding fluoride to public water supplies, not one published study has examined whether this practice affects American children’s intelligence.

This absence becomes more peculiar when you consider the context. Researchers in Canada, just miles from our northern border, recently found that children exposed to fluoridated water during fetal development scored 4.5 IQ points lower than unexposed children. Mexican scientists documented similar deficits. Chinese researchers have published dozens of studies on fluoride and cognition. The 2024 National Toxicology Program review identified 72 human studies examining fluoride’s impact on intelligence—52 found harmful effects. None were conducted in the United States.

The silence isn’t accidental. It’s architectural.

What first caught my attention wasn’t the Canadian findings themselves but a footnote in the NTP review: “No studies evaluating IQ were conducted in the United States.” A simple statement of fact that raises profound questions. The country that pioneered water fluoridation, that exports this practice as public health gospel, has never checked whether it affects our children’s cognitive development. We’ve been running a population-wide “experiment” for nearly eight decades without measuring one of its most crucial potential outcomes.

This essay examines that structured absence and the shape of the silence itself. Why do certain questions become unaskable within scientific institutions? How does a research blind spot this large persist for this long? And what does this tell us about how public health orthodoxies protect themselves from empirical challenge?

The answer involves more than fluoride. It’s about how scientific communities develop collective blind spots, how research priorities get set by non-scientific forces, and how certain questions become professionally dangerous to ask. The absence of American IQ studies isn’t a gap in our knowledge—it’s a feature of how that knowledge gets produced.

Leave a comment

Share

Section 1: The Absent Evidence

Fifty-two studies found that fluoride exposure lowers children’s intelligence. Studies from China, India, Mexico, Canada, Iran, Egypt, and other nations have tested thousands of children, measuring their cognitive abilities against their fluoride exposure levels. The results follow a remarkably consistent pattern: higher fluoride, lower IQ.

The National Toxicology Program spent eight years reviewing this evidence. Their 2024 monograph runs 296 pages, examining studies dating back decades and including sophisticated recent research using individual-level biomarkers and prospective cohort designs. Their conclusion: “moderate confidence” that fluoride is associated with lower IQ in children. In the cautious language of systematic reviews, “moderate confidence” is significant—it means the available evidence indicates a real effect.

Here’s what makes the American absence extraordinary: we have ideal conditions for conducting such research. We have fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities side by side. We have sophisticated research infrastructure, from university laboratories to the Centers for Disease Control. We have detailed health records, standardized testing data, and the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey that already measures fluoride levels in Americans’ bodies. Everything needed for rigorous studies exists—except the studies themselves.

The recent North American research makes “foreign studies don’t apply here” arguments untenable. The MIREC study in Canada found that a 1 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride was associated with a 4.49-point decrease in boys’ IQ scores. The ELEMENT study in Mexico found nearly identical results. These weren’t ecological studies comparing different regions with potential confounding factors. They measured individual fluoride exposure using biomarkers, controlled for numerous variables including maternal education and socioeconomic status, and used standardized IQ tests administered by trained psychologists.

The Canadian study is particularly relevant because it included both fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities, used the same water fluoridation levels as the United States (0.7 mg/L), and studied a population demographically similar to Americans. When the study was published in JAMA Pediatrics in 2019, the editor took the unusual step of including an editor’s note about the extra scrutiny it received due to its potential impact on public health policy. The study withstood that scrutiny.

American health agencies haven’t ignored this research entirely. The NTP review itself represents years of work by American scientists. But they’re reviewing everyone else’s data. The systematic exclusion of American populations from fluoride-IQ research isn’t explicable by ordinary scientific priorities.

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences funds research on countless chemical exposures—air pollution, pesticides, heavy metals, flame retardants, phthalates. Many affect far fewer Americans than fluoridated water, which reaches over 200 million people. Major American universities conduct sophisticated studies on neurodevelopmental toxins. When they study fluoride, they analyze data from other countries. Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard co-authored the influential 2012 meta-analysis of Chinese fluoride studies. American researchers are clearly capable of this research—they just don’t conduct it on American children.

Section 2: The International Findings

The evidence from outside America’s borders tells a consistent story. Of the studies the NTP reviewed, the majority found inverse associations—higher fluoride exposure, lower intelligence scores. Not a single well-conducted study found that fluoride improved cognitive function.

The Chinese studies, which comprise the largest portion of this literature, have been dismissed by some as poor quality research from rural areas with industrial pollution. This criticism held more weight before recent high-quality studies from North America confirmed the same pattern. Many Chinese studies compared populations with different naturally occurring fluoride levels in drinking water, eliminating concerns about industrial contamination. A 2003 study by Xiang and colleagues tested 512 children, controlling for lead exposure and parental education. They found a clear dose-response relationship: each 1 mg/L increase in water fluoride corresponded to a 2.5-point decrease in IQ.

The Mexican ELEMENT study brought methodological rigor that should satisfy any skeptic. Researchers followed 299 mother-child pairs, measuring fluoride in maternal urine during pregnancy and in children’s urine at age 6-12. They tested children’s cognitive abilities using multiple validated instruments, including the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. The results showed that a 0.5 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride predicted a 2.5-point lower IQ in children.

What makes ELEMENT particularly compelling is its location. Mexico City doesn’t fluoridate its water, but fluoride occurs naturally in the groundwater and residents consume fluoridated salt. This creates a range of exposures similar to what Americans experience through water fluoridation plus dietary sources. The mothers’ urinary fluoride levels (0.90 mg/L average) were comparable to those found in pregnant women in fluoridated U.S. communities.

The Canadian MIREC study addressed one of the last refuges of skepticism—that perhaps these findings only applied to developing countries or populations with unusual fluoride sources. The Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals study followed 512 mother-child pairs through pregnancy and early childhood, measuring fluoride in maternal urine during pregnancy and testing children’s IQ at ages 3-4. Canada’s water fluoridation program is essentially identical to America’s. The same companies provide the same chemicals at the same concentrations to communities on both sides of the border.

MIREC’s results were striking not just for their magnitude but their sex-specific pattern. Boys appeared more vulnerable than girls to prenatal fluoride exposure. This aligns with known patterns of male vulnerability to various neurodevelopmental toxins and suggests a biological mechanism rather than confounding. The researchers measured fluoride in drinking water, maternal urine, and children’s urine, allowing them to examine different exposure windows and routes. If fluoride affects Canadian children’s intelligence, there’s no biological reason American children would be immune.

The consistency across diverse populations suggests something fundamental about fluoride’s biological activity. Whether the exposure comes from naturally high groundwater in China, fluoridated salt in Mexico, or treated municipal water in Canada, the association with reduced IQ persists. The effect sizes vary—from 2 to 7 IQ points depending on exposure levels and study design—but the direction remains constant.

The NTP review found adverse effects at water fluoride levels of 1.5 mg/L and above, with some studies suggesting effects at lower levels. The U.S. recommended level is 0.7 mg/L, but this considers only fluoride from water, not total exposure from all sources. When researchers measure total fluoride exposure using urinary biomarkers, many individuals in fluoridated communities exceed levels associated with cognitive effects in studies.

Fluoride crosses the placenta and blood-brain barrier. It accumulates in brain tissue. Animal studies document altered neurotransmitter levels, increased oxidative stress, and structural changes in brain regions crucial for learning and memory. The biological plausibility strengthens these epidemiological findings.

Section 3: The American Silence

The absence of American fluoride-IQ studies doesn’t result from oversight or incompetence. It emerges from a complex interplay of institutional, economic, and political forces that make such research professionally hazardous and practically difficult.

Start with the timeline. The U.S. Public Health Service endorsed water fluoridation in 1950, before the first controlled trials were complete. This premature endorsement created institutional momentum that became self-reinforcing. By the time questions about cognitive effects emerged, thousands of communities had fluoridated their water, dental organizations had staked their credibility on the practice, and opposition to fluoridation had been successfully branded as anti-science conspiracy thinking.

The dental establishment plays a central role in maintaining this research void. The American Dental Association, which generates significant revenue from its Seal of Acceptance program for fluoride-containing products, has long promoted fluoridation as one of the “ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.” Questioning fluoride’s safety challenges not just a policy but a professional identity built over seven decades.

Federal agencies face their own constraints. The CDC’s Oral Health Division promotes water fluoridation. The same agency that would normally investigate potential adverse effects has an institutional commitment to the intervention. This conflict of interest isn’t hidden—it’s structural. Research funding reveals clear priorities. The National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research had a 2023 budget of $516 million with numerous studies on fluoride’s dental mechanisms but none on cognitive effects.

Individual researchers face powerful disincentives. Dr. Phyllis Mullenix discovered this in the 1990s when her research on fluoride’s neurotoxicity in rats led to her dismissal from the Forsyth Dental Center. Those who question fluoridation risk being labeled anti-fluoridationists, grouped with conspiracy theorists, and potentially damaging their careers.

The immediate threat of litigation creates a formidable barrier. Any researcher proposing to study fluoride’s cognitive effects must consider the legal ramifications. If their study finds harm, they could be subpoenaed in lawsuits against water utilities and municipalities. Their methodology would be scrutinized by armies of lawyers. Their personal communications could become public record. The prospect deters even well-intentioned scientists from entering this minefield.

Grant reviewers and journal editors operate within this same framework. A research proposal to study fluoride’s cognitive effects in American children would face skeptical review. Why study something already deemed safe? Even if funded and conducted, publishing such research would prove challenging. Journal editors, aware of the political implications, would subject it to extraordinary scrutiny.

The precautionary principle, typically applied to environmental chemicals, inverts when it comes to fluoride. Usually, we demand proof of safety before widespread exposure. With fluoride, we demand proof of harm before questioning the exposure. This reversed burden of proof makes sense only when you understand fluoridation as public health orthodoxy rather than scientific hypothesis.

The absence becomes self-justifying. Health agencies cite the lack of American studies showing harm as evidence of safety. But they don’t fund such studies. When pressed about international findings, they emphasize differences between American and foreign populations, different fluoride sources, or methodological limitations. The solution—conducting rigorous American studies—remains unmentioned.

Section 4: The Cost of Not Knowing

Every day, approximately 200 million Americans drink fluoridated water. If international findings apply here—and there’s no biological reason they wouldn’t—we’re accepting a population-wide IQ reduction of 2 to 5 points. The implications ripple through every aspect of society.

A 5-point IQ reduction shifts the entire bell curve leftward. The number of people with intellectual disabilities (IQ below 70) increases by 57%. The number of gifted individuals (IQ above 130) decreases by 43%. These aren’t abstract statistics—they represent real children who struggle in school, adults who can’t reach their potential, innovations that don’t happen.

The economic implications are staggering. Economists estimate that a 1-point IQ increase corresponds to roughly 2% higher lifetime earnings. A 5-point decrease means 10% lower earnings across an entire population. For a median household, that’s $6,000 less per year, $240,000 over a working lifetime. Aggregated across millions of affected individuals, the economic loss reaches hundreds of billions annually.

Educational systems bear immediate costs. Children with lower IQs require more educational support, more remedial instruction, more special education services. School districts in fluoridated communities might be spending millions on special education services that could be prevented by addressing a single environmental exposure.

The competitive implications extend internationally. China, which has extensively studied fluoride’s cognitive effects, has been reducing fluoride exposure in affected regions. European countries that rejected fluoridation decades ago may have been protecting their populations’ cognitive capacity while Americans accepted gradual impairment. In a knowledge economy, even small differences in population-level cognitive ability translate to significant competitive advantages.

Environmental justice adds another dimension. Low-income families can’t afford bottled water or sophisticated filtration systems. They depend on tap water for drinking and formula preparation. If that water contains fluoride at levels that impair cognition, poverty becomes self-perpetuating through biological mechanisms.

The prenatal window of vulnerability identified in recent studies raises particular concerns. Pregnant women receive no guidance about fluoride consumption. Women conscientiously avoiding alcohol and limiting caffeine unknowingly expose their developing babies to a potential neurotoxin through ordinary tap water consumption.

The uncertainty itself carries costs. Parents who learn about international fluoride studies face an impossible choice: accept potential cognitive risks or spend thousands on bottled water and filtration. The absence of American research leaves everyone guessing.

Like fluoride, lead was once considered beneficial at low doses. Like fluoride, lead’s neurotoxicity was dismissed until evidence became overwhelming. The difference is we eventually studied lead’s effects on American children. The research led to action that prevented millions of cases of cognitive impairment. Without American studies, we’re making population-level decisions based on assumptions rather than evidence.

Section 5: Breaking the Silence

The path forward doesn’t require abandoning water fluoridation tomorrow. It requires something more radical: actually studying its effects on American children. The research design isn’t complicated. The funding, compared to other public health initiatives, would be modest. The primary obstacle is will.

A comprehensive American study would follow pregnant women and their children in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. Researchers would measure fluoride exposure through multiple pathways—water, dietary sources, dental products. They would assess children’s cognitive development using validated instruments at multiple ages. They would control for confounding factors like socioeconomic status, parental education, and other environmental exposures. The MIREC and ELEMENT studies provide proven templates.

The National Children’s Study, despite its cancellation, demonstrated that large-scale longitudinal research on environmental influences is feasible in the United States. Its planned methodology could be adapted for a focused fluoride investigation. For a fraction of what was spent planning that study, we could definitively answer whether fluoride affects American children’s cognitive development.

Independent funding would be essential. Neither dental organizations nor anti-fluoridation groups should control the research. A consortium of foundations concerned with children’s health and environmental justice could provide neutral support. The study design should be transparent, pre-registered, and subject to external oversight. The results, whatever they show, should be published without interference.

Congress could mandate such research through the reauthorization of environmental health programs. The NIH could designate fluoride as a priority for neurodevelopmental research. The EPA, which regulates fluoride as a contaminant, could require cognitive assessments as part of its regulatory review. Multiple pathways exist if institutional will emerges.

The research should examine not just whether fluoride affects IQ but which populations are most vulnerable. Do certain genetic variants increase susceptibility? Are there critical windows of exposure? What levels, if any, are genuinely safe for neurodevelopment? These aren’t anti-fluoridation questions—they’re basic public health inquiries that should have been answered decades ago.

Beyond individual studies, we need institutional reform. The separation between dental and public health agencies on fluoride research must end. Environmental health researchers should have the freedom to study fluoride like any other chemical exposure without political consequences. Journal editors should evaluate fluoride research based on methodology, not politics.

The broader lesson extends beyond fluoride. When public health interventions become orthodoxies, when questioning them becomes professionally dangerous, science stops functioning. The absence of American fluoride-IQ studies represents a failure of scientific culture as much as specific institutions. Recovering that culture means creating space for uncomfortable questions, even about practices we’ve long considered beneficial.

Other countries provide models. The European Food Safety Authority conducts ongoing reviews of fluoride exposure and safety. Several nations have implemented biomonitoring programs that track population-level fluoride exposure. These approaches treat fluoride as a chemical requiring continued vigilance rather than a solved problem requiring only promotion.

The cognitive stakes demand urgency. Every year without American studies means another cohort of children potentially exposed during critical developmental windows. If international findings apply here, we’re accepting preventable cognitive impairment on a massive scale. If they don’t apply, we should have evidence showing why American biology differs from Canadian or Mexican biology.

The scientific method offers a way forward: form hypotheses, test them rigorously, follow the evidence. The hypothesis that water fluoridation at current levels doesn’t affect American children’s cognitive development is eminently testable. The fact that we haven’t tested it after 79 years reveals more about our institutions than our science.

Yet even if we had the perfect study design, independent funding, and institutional support, one question remains: Why would institutions that benefit from the current arrangement ever allow such research to proceed? The answer requires examining not just the barriers to research, but who profits from maintaining them.

Section 6: The Unasked Question

The lead industry knew for decades that their product damaged children’s brains. Internal documents from the 1950s show company scientists discussing cognitive impairment while their executives funded studies designed to obscure these effects. Government agencies, dependent on industry information and reluctant to challenge a major economic sector, avoided asking obvious questions until the evidence became undeniable. By then, millions of children had been exposed.

The fluoride situation follows a disturbingly similar pattern, with one crucial difference: instead of industry adding a neurotoxin for profit, government adds it for public health. This reversal doesn’t eliminate the structural dynamics that perpetuate potentially harmful exposures. It intensifies them.

Consider what the Canadian and Mexican studies mean if their findings apply to American populations. A 4-point IQ reduction shifts millions of people from one cognitive category to another. The person who might have become an engineer becomes a technician. The potential teacher becomes a clerk. The would-be entrepreneur becomes a lifetime employee. These aren’t dramatic impairments—affected individuals still function, work, vote, consume. But multiply these subtle shifts across 200 million people and you’ve transformed a society.

Modern governance depends on extraordinary complexity that favors those who design systems over those who navigate them. Tax codes run thousands of pages. Financial regulations require advanced degrees to understand. Healthcare policies bewilder even educated consumers. A population with reduced analytical capacity struggles to challenge these structures, not through conspiracy but through cognitive load. The complexity becomes its own protection against reform.

The economic implications align troublingly well with institutional needs. Researchers have documented that lower IQ correlates with increased impulse purchasing, higher debt accumulation, and reduced savings rates. A 2019 Federal Reserve study found that a 1-point IQ decrease corresponds to roughly 2% more credit card debt. Scale that across a population and you have billions in additional consumer spending, financed through debt that generates massive profits for financial institutions.

Political scientists have observed similar patterns in civic engagement. Lower cognitive capacity correlates with decreased political participation, increased reliance on partisan cues over policy analysis, and greater susceptibility to emotional manipulation. These aren’t moral failings—they’re predictable outcomes of reduced processing power applied to complex decisions.

Every institution needs some highly capable individuals to design and manage systems, but too many critical thinkers create friction. A workforce where most people can follow procedures but fewer can evaluate them might be economically optimal from a management perspective. Nobody plans this distribution, but policies that slightly reduce population-wide cognitive capacity create it naturally.

The information ecosystem reveals another alignment of interests. Social media companies have perfected algorithms that exploit cognitive limitations—shortened attention spans, emotional reasoning, confirmation bias. These manipulations work better on people with reduced analytical capacity. Educational institutions face their own perverse incentives. Schools receive additional funding for special needs students requiring remediation but not for gifted programs that challenge high performers.

Federal agencies demonstrate through their behavior what they actually prioritize. The EPA regulates thousands of chemicals, often based on limited evidence of potential harm. Yet fluoride, added deliberately to water supplies, receives special deference. Research funding reveals priorities more honestly than policy statements. The NIH funds thousands of studies on environmental neurotoxins but none on fluoride’s cognitive effects in Americans.

Here’s where the liability dynamic becomes systemic rather than merely financial. The fear of lawsuits doesn’t just deter individual researchers—it shapes entire institutional cultures. Water utilities don’t merely avoid funding cognitive research; they develop organizational blindness to the question. Municipal lawyers don’t just defend against lawsuits; they advise against any action that might acknowledge uncertainty. Insurance companies don’t just calculate risks; they create incentive structures that reward ignorance over investigation.

This dynamic—where ignorance protects against liability—perverts normal scientific incentives. In most fields, researchers compete to make discoveries. With fluoride, institutional survival depends on not discovering. The potential damages from millions of children with documented IQ loss could reach hundreds of billions. Under these circumstances, not knowing becomes an institutional imperative, embedded in hiring practices, research priorities, and organizational culture.

None of this requires conscious conspiracy. Each actor pursues their institutional interests within a system that happens to reward cognitive impairment. The banker profits from impulsive borrowers. The bureaucrat benefits from compliant citizens. The educator receives funding for remedial programs. Nobody has to coordinate because the incentives align naturally.

The self-concealing nature of cognitive impairment makes this particularly insidious. A population with reduced analytical capacity is less able to recognize and articulate that reduction. They can’t identify patterns they can’t perceive. They can’t question complexities they can’t grasp. The system becomes self-perpetuating, not through suppression but through incapacity.

The historical parallel with lead is instructive but incomplete. With lead, once the cognitive effects became undeniable, society mobilized to remove it. With fluoride, the cognitive effects documented internationally trigger no similar response. The difference might be that lead exposure was largely corporate-driven while fluoride exposure is government-driven. Admitting error becomes exponentially harder when the error is official policy rather than corporate malfeasance.

The absence of American fluoride-IQ studies isn’t a mystery—it’s a choice. A choice made by institutions that prioritize orthodoxy over inquiry, by researchers who value careers over questions, by agencies that confuse promotion with protection. The international evidence demands American verification or refutation. The stakes demand immediate action. The silence has lasted long enough.

Seventy-nine years into this experiment, it’s time to check the results.

References

Bashash, M., Thomas, D., Hu, H., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Sanchez, B. M., Basu, N., … & Téllez-Rojo, M. M. (2017). Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children at 4 and 6–12 years of age in Mexico. Environmental Health Perspectives, 125(9), 097017.

Bassin, E. B., Wypij, D., Davis, R. B., & Mittleman, M. A. (2006). Age-specific fluoride exposure in drinking water and osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes & Control, 17(4), 421-428.

Choi, A. L., Sun, G., Zhang, Y., & Grandjean, P. (2012). Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Environmental Health Perspectives, 120(10), 1362-1368.

Green, R., Lanphear, B., Hornung, R., Flora, D., Martinez-Mier, E. A., Neufeld, R., … & Till, C. (2019). Association between maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy and IQ scores in offspring in Canada. JAMA Pediatrics, 173(10), 940-948.

National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in drinking water: A scientific review of EPA’s standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Toxicology Program. (2024). NTP monograph on the state of the science concerning fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment and cognition: A systematic review. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program. NTP Monograph 08.

Xiang, Q., Liang, Y., Chen, L., Wang, C., Chen, B., Chen, X., & Zhou, M. (2003). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride, 36(2), 84-94.

Yu, X., Chen, J., Li, Y., Liu, H., Hou, C., Zeng, Q., … & Wang, A. (2018). Threshold effects of moderately excessive fluoride exposure on children’s health: A potential association between dental fluorosis and loss of excellent intelligence. Environment International, 118, 116-124.

SOURCE