Hey there,
It feels like a lifetime ago…
But there was a time when I stood in my dental office…
And was a believer in the fluoride gospel.
I remember advising patient after patient to use fluoride…
In their toothpaste, in their water, you name it.
It was the cornerstone of dental health, or so I was taught.
Looking back…
I can hardly believe how fully I bought into it all.
It just shows how easily we can be led to believe things that are not in our best interests.
It wasn’t until a patient of mine challenged these convictions that the scales began to fall from my eyes.
I’ll admit, my initial reaction was skepticism.
How could something so universally recommended be bad?
Yet, as I did my own research…
What I found was alarming.
The science I uncovered painted a very different picture of fluoride…
Not as a benign cavity fighter…
But as a neurotoxin with far-reaching health implications.
Going from being a fluoride advocate to a fluoride skeptic wasn’t easy.
It shook the very foundations of my professional beliefs.
But it also awakened me to an important truth:
Questioning the status quo is not only our right.
It’s our responsibility.
It’s a reminder of how easily swayed we can be by the “expert opinions” and “established practices”…
Especially when they come wrapped in the guise of public health.
Now, there’s been a truly groundbreaking legal battle going on for some time now…
Which has the potential to redefine public health policy and the oversight of chemicals in our environment.
The ongoing fluoride water lawsuit has caught the nation’s attention these past two weeks…
Or at least it should have.
The case of Food & Water Watch Inc. v. EPA brings hope to those who have long questioned the safety of fluoride in our drinking water.
Let’s dive deeper into this pivotal moment in history.
A Case Like No Other
For 75 years, fluoride has been lauded as a dental health savior…
Credited with protecting millions of smiles across America.
But at what cost?
A federal judge in California, Judge Edward M. Chen…
Is now tasked with a decision that could dramatically shift the narrative.
The lawsuit challenges the EPA’s stance on fluoride…
And it’s propelled by research indicating that it might not be as good as once thought…
Especially to the developing brains of our children, as I mentioned many times in previous newsletters.
The Heart of the Dispute
This trial uncovers the imbalance of the public health benefits of fluoride against the potential neurological risks.
The plaintiffs argue that fluoride…
Known for its cavity-fighting prowess…
Also carries the risk of lowering children’s IQs.
They contend that the “vast majority” of 72 human studies…
Support an association between fluoride and reduced IQ…
Putting two million pregnant women and 400,000 formula-fed babies at risk.
The EPA’s Defense and the Science in Question
The EPA, on the defensive…
Maintains that the evidence falls short of proving fluoride’s neurotoxicity at the recommended concentration of 0.7 mg/L.
Yet, the trial isn’t just about fluoride’s risks or benefits in isolation.
It’s about how we assess and manage chemical risks in our society…
Especially when public health is at stake.
Judging Science Without Deference
This trial is unique because Judge Chen is conducting a de novo review…
Meaning he will assess the scientific evidence without giving deference to the EPA’s conclusions.
This puts a spotlight on the rigorous scrutiny and evaluation of scientific data in legal contexts…
Which can set a precedent for future regulatory actions.
The implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond fluoride.
It questions the very mechanisms we rely on to safeguard public health and the environment.
If Judge Chen finds fluoride to pose an unreasonable risk…
It could catalyze a reevaluation of how we manage chemicals and pollutants…
This puts an emphasis on the precautionary principle over the reactionary measures…
That have dominated all policy decisions until now.
A Reflection on Our Collective Responsibility
The harsh truth is…
The fallout from the ongoing use of fluoride in our water disproportionately affects our poorest communities…
Many of which are predominantly black and brown.
These are the neighborhoods less likely to have access to alternative water sources or the means to filter out fluoride.
They are the ones who bear the brunt of our collective oversight.
They are the ones suffering silently from decisions made far away in rooms they have no access to.
The environmental injustices persist…
Silently sanctioned by policies that overlook the most vulnerable among us.
If the fluoride debate teaches us anything…
It’s that our fight for cleaner, safer water isn’t just a matter of health.
It’s a matter of equity…
Of ensuring that every child…
Regardless of their zip code or the color of their skin…
Has the same shot at a healthy life.
That’s why I believe this is a call to action for every one of us who believes in fairness and justice.
It challenges us to look beyond our immediate circles…
And consider the broader impact of our actions and the policies we support.
This trial is still in progress…
And I just feel a bit hopeful, you know?
Call me an optimist, I don’t know…
It just kind of reminds us of our collective responsibility to question…
To demand transparency…
And to hold our institutions accountable.
This trial underscores the importance of making informed decisions…
Based on a clear understanding of scientific evidence…
Free from commercial or political biases.
Our Role in the Narrative
This historical trial is a catalyst for broader discussions about public health…
Environmental justice…
And the ethical considerations of mass medication without consent.
The fluoride lawsuit talks about our right to a safe environment…
Informed choice, and the health of future generations.
Looking Ahead with Hope and Vigilance
I pledge to keep you informed about the developments of this case and what it means for us all.
Together, we can stay informed, engaged…
And ready to advocate for a world where public health policies are shaped by unbiased science…
And the genuine welfare of humanity.
Catch you on the flip side,
Eric Thompson