To: Victor J. Dzau, President IOM (DC) , Ann Yaktine, Board, Board Director Food & Nutrition (DC - VA), Ralph Cicerone, President NAS (DC), Geraldine Kennedo, Food and Nutrition Board administrator, President Donald Trump, The United States ...

Dietary Fluoride and Modern Science

Demand a response to the April 27, 2015 letter regarding modern science and Dietary Reference Intakes for fluoride sent to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and cosigned by Erin Brockovich, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, Matthews & Associates of Houston TX and NYC, Dr. Dan Eyink, MD, Dr. Jean Nordin-Evans, DDS., and Dr. Stephanie Seneff, PhD.

Why is this important?

I am writing to demand a response from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Congress regarding the April 2015 letter to the IOM from Erin Brockovich and others that was cc’d to thirty members of Congress. It concerned the ‘dietary reference intake’ (DRI) of fluoride established in 1997. The DRI determination was based on the IOM Food and Nutrition Board’s faulty assumption that fluoride, which is neither a mineral or nutrient, was an element that provided a significant dental benefit and had no known adverse health effects up to 10 mgs. per day.

The weight of the evidence since 1997 summarized on page 16 of that letter confirms that even at very low doses:
- Fluoride is an enzyme poison and an endocrine disruptor
- Fluoride is a potent adjuvant… causing or worsening allergies
- Fluoride is a proliferative agent... causing or worsening inflammation
- Fluoride accumulates in bones and tissue... causing or worsening arthritis and other ailments
- Fluoride impacts thyroid hormones… resulting in both hypo and hyper disorders
- Fluoride interferes with glucose metabolism… a concern for diabetics
- Fluoride causes dental fluorosis… disproportionately by race and social economic status
- Fluoride is neurotoxic to fetuses, infants and young children… resulting in permanent deficits
- Fluoride is a burden to kidneys... resulting in increased fluoride retention and possible renal damage in those with kidney disease.

The 2015 Cochrane Review of fluoridation literature was published in June. Its findings are consistent with the 2000 York Review and earlier critiques referenced in the April letter. Cochrane oral health panelists found no evidence that fluoridation benefits the poor, no evidence of safety, and only low quality limited evidence of minimal reduction in cavities from poorly designed studies that they characterized as having “high risk of bias.” Cochrane voiced low confidence in this evidence of benefit. The Cochrane panel also confirmed the fact agreed to by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that fluoridation causes dental fluorosis in approximately half the population living in fluoridated communities, with about 12.5% finding the fluorosis to be ‘aesthetically displeasing.’

I am confident that an honest examination of 21st century science by the IOM and of the law by Congress, not colored by the machinations of biased agencies defending their reputations and advocacy groups who emphasize endorsements of policy rather than scientific evidence, will result in Congress and the Food and Nutrition Board of the IOM agreeing with 2006 National Research Council Fluoride in Drinking Water panelist, Dr. Robert Isaacson, who said, “The addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake.”

Congress, you have the power to instruct the IOM to respond to the April 27, 2015 letter (see attached link). The health and welfare of your constituents depend on it.