On March 15th the National Toxicology Program (NTP) report reviewing fluoride neurotoxicity was finally made public under an agreement reached in an ongoing lawsuit brought against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
The long delayed lawsuit that began in 2017 revealed government attempts to limit the evidence available to be reviewed in court.
Internal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by plaintiff attorney Michael Connett indicated the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary Rachel Levine and the National Institute of Health’s director Lawrence A. Tabak intervened to stop the release of the most recent study on fluoride’s toxicity in May 2022.
According to FAN only one historical example exists of an NTP report being blocked from release, a report on the carcinogenicity of asbestos-contaminated talc. Talc industry groups conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign, including enlisting friendly congresspeople to intervene.
FAN was able to force yesterday’s release of the NTP report by using leverage from the ongoing lawsuit against the EPA.
The report was issued in two parts, a monograph, and a meta-analysis. It included comments from external peer-reviewers and internal HHS departments, along with NTP’s responses.
FAN reported the meta-analysis found that 52 of 55 studies found lower IQ with higher fluoride exposures, demonstrating remarkable consistency. Notably, 19 studies of the studies included were rated to be higher quality and 18 of these linked fluoride exposure with lower IQ. The meta-analysis could not detect any safe exposure, including at levels common from drinking artificially fluoridated water.
In a recent press release, FAN says that fluoridation defenders have falsely claimed draft versions of the report had been “rejected” by a National Academies committee. In fact, the committee recommended that NTP clarify their methods and reasoning for reaching their conclusions because the issue was considered so contentious.