Login
Water Fluoridation Lawsuit Faces Setback, But the Fight Continues
On May 21, a federal appeals court set aside a lower court’s Sept. 24, 2024, ruling that water fluoridation “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children” and sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Edward Chen to issue another verdict, based only on older science. The ruling is a setback, but it’s not the end.
May 21 is the day that common sense took a leave of absence, courtesy of the Northern District of California Court of Appeals.
The court vacated (set aside) the District Court’s Sept. 24, 2024, ruling that water fluoridation “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children” and sent the case back to Judge Edward Chen to issue another verdict, based only on older science.
After a two-week trial in June 2020, Chen wanted to wait until the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the highest-level authority in the country, had completed its extensive review of fluoridation’s toxicity before ruling.
The final NTP report, after many delays, was published in August 2024, and Chen was able to consider it and other newer studies in his decision.
To most of us, this would be seen as due diligence. Chen would be making a momentous decision that would directly affect the health of nearly 200 million people. He wanted to make sure he had the latest, best science.
But in its head-scratching decision, the Court of Appeals ruled it judicial overreach, saying he didn’t have the authority to wait and consider the new studies. He must now make another ruling based only on the known science up to 2020.
Fortunately, one silver lining stands out in this legalistic cloud: The Court of Appeals did not question or refute the scientific findings of the District Court — and did not say fluoridation was safe.
Only the legal landscape has changed. The science has not. And neither has the threat to pregnant women, whose children are most vulnerable to IQ loss from fluoride.
There is no doubt the latest ruling is a setback. The plaintiffs have a number of legal options, but the resolution of the technicalities could easily take at least a few more years.
Of course, the American Dental Association (ADA) gleefully — and falsely — responded to the decision by saying it could “correct a fundamental misunderstanding and misapplication of the prevailing scientific literature on the safety of fluoride and community water fluoridation.”
So, in the face of these legal hurdles and ADA’s disinformation, what does this mean for those opposing fluoridation?
Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.
Following the 2020 lawsuit ruling, 89 communities have ended or voted against fluoridation, according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). On a higher level, Utah and Florida passed laws banning the practice statewide, huge steps forward.
But it hasn’t been a cakewalk. Almost no communities are starting fluoridation, but many have voted to keep it. In nearly every town that raises the issue, ADA affiliates tap local dentists to spout the usual false “safe and effective” mantra.
And too often, the media just accepts their word as gospel.
Put yourself in the place of a low-income pregnant woman living in a fluoridated town. You have to drink fluoridated water. You make your coffee, tea and orange juice with it. You boil pasta in it. You make soup with it. If you can even afford to go to a restaurant, it’s there. And you mix it with infant formula after your baby is born.
You can’t afford bottled water or an expensive filter that removes fluoride. You have no choice. You’re stuck. This goes beyond being unfair. Forcing an unwanted drug on you takes away your right to informed consent. It is unethical.
This scenario is played out every day for thousands of women all over the country, all while the medical/dental establishment says fluoridation is just what the doctor or dentist ordered, using the poor kids whose families don’t have dental care as poster children.
What a shame. What a sham.
Check out two one-minute videos below from depositions taken in the lawsuit. It’s important to note: Both interviewees are under oath.
In the first, Casey Hannan, former oral health director of the CDC, admits there is no benefit to the child from pregnant mothers ingesting fluoridated water.
In the second, Dr. Charlotte Lewis, spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatrics, said she’d give up 5 IQ points in 5-10% of the population to keep fluoridation. I sincerely hope that most — or all — people reading this would not similarly prioritize minimal (if any) cavity prevention over permanent brain damage.
If you live in a fluoridated city and want to stop fluoridation’s attack on the health of you, your family and your fellow citizens, FAN needs your help:
1. Fill out this form if you want to lead a group effort to remove fluoridation and join the nationwide movement. You don’t need to be an expert on the science. You DO need to have the desire and willingness to stand up for truth and justice.
2. Go here to learn more. IQ loss is just the tip of the iceberg — fluoridation is also linked to bone fractures, hypothyroidism, kidney damage, hypersensitivity and many other health risks.
3. Want to help but can’t be a volunteer leader? Donate to FAN. This is more than a much-needed donation. It’s an investment in the Davids who are standing up to the Goliaths and the millions in their bank accounts.
Fluoridation is a house of cards, and it will fall. But only if we do the pushing.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense.
Do you have a story you’d like to share with the CHD Community? Click here for details.
