By the end of this month, Trump's officials will start their duties, and the notorious Robert F Kennedy – the central pillar of water fluoridation opposition in the US government – apparently will start his campaign against fluoride public water supplies. The situation is aggravated by a recently published paper by JAMA Pediatrics that analyzed the National Toxicology Program report from 2023, concluding a "moderate confidence" that high fluoride amounts (more than 1.5 milligrams) can negatively affect children's IQ.
Probably, the JAMA paper will become another argument in the RFK campaign in recent times. However, dental experts and practitioners often disagree with NTP research, considering its methods at least far from perfect.
Let's take a look at some clinician's feedback regarding this topic.
What's wrong with NTP research?
Steven Levy – a dentist at the University of Iowa – in his comments for Dentistry IQ, expressed disagreement with the NTP study and its conclusion because it does not consider recent research that found no connection between fluoride exposure and cognitive functions (in the context of adequate chemical consumption) – recently we reported about one of such studies.
Additionally, Bruce Lanphear – children's health researcher – noted that large (hazardous) amounts of fluoride consumption commonly might appear due to an exhaustive list of other factors besides fluorided water, such as food and drinks, toothpaste and mouthwashes, fruits, and seafood, and a lot of other substances that we have in our domestic lives. Thus, applying NTP conclusions as an argument for a public water fluoridation ban is premature – both experts suggest further research to develop proper evidence-based healthcare recommendations.
Still, it is unclear whether RFK has any actual healthcare professionals in his team. (clearly not, considering his solid anti-vax position)
Anyway, let's hope this initiative will not become another pitiful example of fluoride cancelation with terrible consequences for national health that we have already observed in the past.
