Criminality in Research

Garbage In: Garbage Out

A wealth of blog themes occurred to me this month. They all center around the commitment of narcissistic players to false narratives and the lack of integrity among scientists, politicians and journalists.

Topics like:

1. The explosive growth of government sponsored Propaganda under Pres. Joe Biden¹

2. The criminalization of free speech under Joe Biden²

3. The continued canceling of expert opinion in favor of industry narrative³

4. The resistance to the MAHA report ⁴

5. The continued slaughter of children by vaccines from pediatricians who dismiss parents’ concerns⁵

I finally decided to write about the God-awful “modeling” report that predicts millions of additional cavities in children and staggering dental bills if fluoridation policy ends in America. This report has been featured in essentially every major news outlet in the past day or so, unlike studies, reports and legal wins that validate fluoride-induced loss of IQ and damage to thyroid and other function that have been published in the past few years. ⁶

Obviously, this media sensationalism appeals to those intent on destroying RJK Jr.’s agenda to “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) by reducing poisons in our diet and environment.

The most basic problems with the pseudo-science fluoridation modeling report are:

1. It is a modeling study based on a “simulated population” using assumptions from a Canadian study that in itself is full of errors as well as being widely misinterpreted instead of actual real world data that is not consistent with the study they used. ⁷,⁸

2. The authors’ conflict of interests statement disclose they are accepting fees from several pro-fluoridation groups including the American Dental Association (ADA).

But the problems don’t end there.

1. The authors’ references include the 2024 Cochrane Report which in fact said there is little to no evidence of benefit. It appears the authors cherry picked data from earlier Cochrane Reports, as well as ignored modern reviews that found inconsequential reduction in decay which may not be meaningful and may not even be real and then mis-attributed it to the most recent report.⁹, ¹⁰

2. The authors ignored the cost of eliminating fluoridation-induced dental fluorosis. From a dentist: “Since 1 in 8 children have objectionable dental fluorosis in fluoridated areas, there will be 75,000,000/8 = 9,375,000 (not 200,000) FEWER cases of objectionable fluorosis. That is a HUGE money saver since fixing each case would run from $2000 to $20,000 to treat (or $18.75 BILLION to $187.5 BILLION).”

3. The authors engaged in blatant fear-mongering assuming cavities would be left untreated to the point of serious infection so as to gin up the cost. They also ignore that dentists can reverse new cavities with remineralization therapy.

4. Modeling and using poor quality studies is the only way to make a case for fluoridation preventing cavities. Even the CDC admitted in 1999 and 2001 that the primary/predominant effect is from topical use of fluoride and that there is little to no evidence of systemic benefit, not that it didn’t stop them from selling fluoridation as it was very profitable to do so.

   1. “Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children (1). These mechanisms include 1) inhibition of demineralization, 2) enhancement of remineralization, and 3) inhibition of bacterial activity in dental plaque.” ¹¹

   2. “The laboratory and epidemiologic research that has led to the better understanding of how fluoride prevents dental caries indicates that fluoride’s predominant effect is posteruptive and topical and that the effect depends on fluoride being in the right amount in the right place at the right time. Fluoride works primarily after teeth have erupted, especially when small amounts are maintained constantly in the mouth, specifically in dental plaque and saliva. Thus, adults also benefit from fluoride, rather than only children, as was previously assumed,” and “The concentration of fluoride in ductal saliva, as it is secreted from salivary glands, is low --- approximately 0.016 parts per million (ppm) in areas where drinking water is fluoridated and 0.006 ppm in nonfluoridated areas . This concentration of fluoride is not likely to affect cariogenic activity.”¹²

5. If you look closely at the report, you will notice a number of sloppy errors in grammar as well as in reporting, i.e. using a less than sign instead of a greater than sign in a table in the supplemental material. The authors also use questionable assumptions and “weights” to get the result they want. These are red flags that this is a manufactured report with an idealogical purpose, i.e. to advance a false narrative

6. Also in the supplemental material, when the fluoride dose is at or above 1.5 mg/L, there are more cavities. This is vitally important because people who drink 2 or more liters of water daily at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L get that dose, a fact that the study’s dental supporters are trying hard to suppress ¹³

7. Finally, the authors ignored the cost of other adverse health effects which include more thyroid, kidney, gut, neurological, autoimmune and inflammatory disease which fluoride in drinking water can cause and definitely worsen. ¹⁴

Fluoridationists are motivated by power, prestige and profit. They are slavishly loyal to the magic potion narrative. They will do whatever is necessary in order to “win” in support of their world-view and self-interests. They are liars and cheats. They are narcissists, psychopaths, and Machiavellians.

This “model” is only the latest of several studies designed to manipulate public opinion and public policy in order to benefit fluoridationist stakeholders. It won’t be the last.

Dance with the Devil: Love in the Age of Covid by Maggie Russo, Atmosphere Press. Feb. 27, 2022.

1. “How the US Government Built the Anti-Disinformation Field” by Andrew Lowenthal. Brownstone. May 2025.

2. “‘Domestic Violent Extremists’: Biden Targeted COVID Vaccine Critics, New Documents Show” by Michael Nevradakis. May 27, 2025.

3. “A Cancelled Keynote Lecture for Cardiothoracic Surgeons” by Peter Gotzsche. Brownstone. May 30, 2025.

4. “The MAHA Report” White House. May 2025.

5. “‘Double Tragedy’: Twins’ Deaths Likely Caused by Vaccines, Not Parents” by Suzanne Burdick. The Defender. May 2025.

6. Annotated Bibliography: https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science

Database on F-Toxicity: https://greenmedinfo.com/disease/fluoride-toxicity

IAOMT Fluoride Facts: https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts/

7. Neurath C, Beck JS, Limeback H, et al. (2017) Limitations of fluoridation effectiveness studies: Lessons from Alberta, Canada. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.

8. REAL WORLD CESSATION EXPERIENCE

- 2001 Canada: Study with 6k school kids. Decay “decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community” http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11153562

- 2000 Cuba: Dramatic caries decline & increase in “no caries.” Only exposure to fluoride for low income kids, twice a month fluoride rinses in school http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10601780

- 2000 East Germany: “In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed. This trend corresponded to the national caries decline and appeared to be a new population-wide phenomenon.” http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11014515

- 1998 Finland: Even fluoride treatments at dental offices had “decreased sharply” - and still no increased decay after 3 years. http://www.NCBI.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9758426

9

1. The Cochrane Review (2024) reported about a 4% reduction in dental caries for children which is much less than previously claimed, while the dental damage from dental fluorosis was verified. The Cochrane Review did not find a single study on adults which fit their criteria and allowed that there might be no benefit from fluoridation schemes.

2. The LOTUS study (2024) in England with 6.5 million reported about between 2 and 3% reduction in dental cavities and no reduction in lost teeth or social inequities, i.e. no benefit to the poor. They wrote the effect “may not be meaningful” on an individual level.

3. The CATFISH study (2023) in the UK looked at the water fluoridation data and found increasingly small potential for a benefit concluded with the question, "Do we still need to provide these services, and can the resources be better used elsewhere?”

4. A US NHANES study (2018) found reduction in cavities was clinically inconsequential at the individual level, the fraction of a single cavity. Yet like most pro-fluoridation authors, these authors argued the reduction was statistically significant.

10. A footnote to eTable4 in the Supplement to JAMA correctly cites the Cochrane 2024 review and calculates the relative percent reduction (not the absolute percent reduction), of 7.5%. This value is based on contemporary studies instead of the 50-year old studies that are the basis for the Cochrane 2015 estimate.

Since 7.5% is 1/3rd of 25%, that would mean all their estimates of costs and number of carious teeth are overstated by 300%.

But it’s worse than that, because the Cochrane 2024 findings are based on studies where the average follow-up period is 7.5 years while the JAMA paper is based on 5 years. So, the correct estimate of fluoridation benefit over 5 years time, based on Cochrane 2024 findings, is a reduction of only 5%. Comparing that to the incorrect claim of 25% reduction and you can see Choi 2025 has overstated the benefit by 500%!

Furthermore, the Cochrane 2024 review also reported the 95% Confidence Interval for effectiveness, and it was so wide that it included an increase in caries from fluoridation. That also means the estimate of 5% reduction in caries is not statistically significant and that is why Cochrane 2024 concluded that the effect "equates to a difference in dmft of approximately one-quarter of a tooth in favour of CWF; this effect estimate includes the possibility of benefit and no benefit.”

11. Achievements in Public Health, 1900-1999: Fluoridation of Drinking Water to Prevent Dental Caries. CDC MMWR . October 22, 1999 /48(41);933-940

12. Recommendations for Using Fluoride to Prevent and Control Dental Caries in the United States. CDC MMWR . August 17, 2001 / 50(RR14);1-42

13. In the 2023 NTP report authors made comments in their Documents Provided to the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) and BSC Working Group to correct misinformation stating, "...Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas in Canada, but the individual exposure information in those studies, as documented by repeated urinary measurements, suggests widely varying total fluoride exposure from drinking water combined with exposures from other sources. For example, many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.” - in in Documents Provided to the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) and BSC Working Group , NTP reply to HHS comment re NTP Report p. 352 (March 15, 2023)

14. Till C, Grandjean P, Martinez-Mier EA, Hu H, Lanphear B. (2025) Health Risks and Benefits of Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and Infancy. Annual Review of Public Health

Taylor KW, Eftim SE, Sibrizzi CA, Blain RB, Magnuson K, Hartman PA, Rooney AA, Bucher JR. (2025) Fluoride Exposure and Children's IQ Scores: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA Pediatrics

Karim Chubin. (2025). Water Fluoridation Reconsidered: Minimal Benefits, Mounting Risks, and Ethical Dilemmas. The American Journal of Medical Sciences and Pharmaceutical Research,