flouride dangers for the pineal gland

The Controversial Case of Fluoride


Have we drank the Kool-Aid on Fluoride?

In February of 2022, I received a water bill from the City of Edina.  On the bill was written something like, “The water wholesaler may be adding fluoride to the water supply starting on…”  I immediately called the city office to discuss the details.  The lady who answered mentioned I should contact the water wholesaler, so I did.  When speaking with the general manager at the wholesaler, he stated that a dentist in one of the many districts that Clarence Canon Wholesale Water Commission (CCWWC) covers noticed the addition of fluoride is not part of the water system.  She then worked to figure out how to get a grant to help pay to add fluoride to the system.  He stated there would be a vote on May 11, 2022, to determine whether fluoride would be allowed to be added by the member systems.  At that time, he thought most board members would vote yes.  Probably because the dentist and a representative from the “Department of Health and Senior Services Office of Dental Health and Community Water Fluoridation and Dental Sealant Coordinator ” told them how important and needed it was.  After this phone conversation, I was determined to do my part to stop it.

The CCWWC

The CCWWC provides drinking water to 23 member systems that cover 14 counties with over 74,000 individuals.  Fluoride had previously been a part of the CCWWC system until 2011, when a board member suggested “the Commission discontinue fluoridating the water until controversy is resolved.  After some discussion, a motion was made… to discontinue fluoridating the water until the controversy is resolved.”  There was a second to the motion.  The motion passed with 12-aye and 1-nay. (CCWWC Meeting Minutes from May 11, 2011).  The system has not had fluoride since. 

Getting to Work

When I discovered this new vote was happening, I called several people I knew would be against adding fluoride to the system.  We put our heads together and got to work.  We got schedules of the district’s water meetings, attended as many as we could, and let our voices be heard.  We contacted all the district offices by phone and email and discussed the opposing side of the issue.  They told us that the doctor and the lady from the state had given them paperwork to look through stating the positives of fluoride and how important it is, especially for the underserved.  We found a copy of the information provided to the water offices; it was about 60 pages long and never mentioned that fluoride may have adverse health effects or that there is controversy surrounding it.  Some of the water offices were thankful for our call and happy to review the research we provided.  Some already shared our views on fluoride, and some were just mad we were getting involved.  I contacted our state senator, who helped us with the government department side of the issue.  We even spoke with a local pharmacist and some Health Department workers, and we found many of them were against water fluoridation.  I posted on Facebook sharing my perspective on fluoride, which got met with many responses, good, bad, and ugly.  It stirred up a frenzy and got a lot of people involved, including phone calls to the districts.  On May 11, I and several other people attended the CCWWC meeting for the vote.  The general manager of the CCWWC said it was the biggest meeting they had ever had, with more of the districts showing up than ever before.  If I recall, all but one district was in attendance.  When It came time for the vote, it tied, so it failed.

Neurotoxin Nightmare, Brains or Teeth?

You may be wondering why I would want to stop such a thing; after all, fluoride is good for your teeth, right?  Several years earlier, I had gone down a long path of research on fluoride.  Honestly, I can’t remember why; something sparked my interest.  I worked at a dentist’s office many years ago, so I knew the drill on fluoride and thought it was an essential part of dental health, so we had always used fluoride in our home.  While researching, I found many studies, articles, opinions, videos, and papers showing the vast adverse health effects, including 196 studies addressing the neurotoxic effects of fluoride, 61 human studies, 115 animal studies, 17 cell studies, and three systemic reviews.  Twenty-three studies report reduced IQ in areas with fluoride levels currently considered safe by the EPA.  The revelation that fluoride is considered a neurotoxin by many scientists was the most surprising thing I discovered.  I was shocked that fluoride was even controversial; I had no idea!  Dr. Paul Connett, a biochemist, states, “Fluoride research on neurotoxicity is following the same trajectory as the research on leads neurotoxicity as far as early life is concerned there is virtually no safe level of exposure.”  After these findings, I eliminated the use of fluoride for my family.  

Fluoride on Trial

When going back to research to be prepared for all the water meetings, I discovered an ongoing federal court case on fluoride.  The trial is the first to be tried under the TSCA or Toxic Substance Control Act of 1976.  The plaintiffs are the Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation, and many individuals, with the defendant being the EPA.  It has been an ongoing trial for seven years.  The final phase of the federal lawsuit is scheduled for January 29, 2024.  If this case proves anything at all, it demonstrates the resolve of the scientists, doctors, dentists, and expert witnesses who, without a doubt, believe fluoride is a neurotoxin and community water fluoridation needs to be stopped.  If you are curious about the case, visit fluoridealert.org for updates.  

“It’s Not Controversial”

Exposure to Fluoride happens in many different ways, including water, prescription drugs, food, soil, pesticides, toothpaste, dental products, and perfluorinated compounds.  Fluoride exposure is believed to be linked to reduced IQ, Alzheimer’s, cancers, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, dental fluorosis, thyroid disorders, bone diseases, and the list goes on.  Besides the adverse health effects, fluoride in community water brings many issues.  Another is the medical freedom issue.  Shouldn’t we have the freedom to decide what is being put in our water to “treat” us for disease?  Fluoride is not a nutrient; the FDA has defined fluoride as a drug when used to prevent disease (FDA letter to Congress, Dec 21, 2000).   Fluoride is the only chemical added to our water to treat the person for disease, not to treat the water.  All other chemicals get added to treat the water and make it safe to drink.  To be quite frank, the amount of articles, videos, documentaries, published studies, and papers you can find on the good and the bad of fluoride is overwhelming.  The idea that anyone can take an unbiased look and make a critical determination is complex.  I have found you either end up being a zealot for fluoride or a staunch critic.  The only in-between view is of those who haven’t taken the time to care.  As you can probably tell, I have taken the staunch critic side of the argument.  In my opinion, if there is even a question, the default should be informed consent.

The bottom line is that fluoride is, without a doubt, controversial!

Katy Said It!

katy luttrull

Katy Luttrull lives near Lewistown, Missouri. She’s a business owner, farmer’s wife, a mom, and she writes the column “Katy Said It” for The Lewis County Scoop. Join us every week as Katy shares her thoughts, experiences, and opinion on important local topics and issues that directly or indirectly affect all of us here in Lewis County.


DISCLAIMER: The articles published on The Lewis County Scoop (www.LewisCountyScoop.com) website are opinion pieces (Op-eds) and represent the personal views and opinions of the individual columnists. These views do not necessarily reflect the positions, strategies, or opinions of The Lewis County Scoop. Read Full disclaimer here


The articles published on The Lewis County Scoop (www.LewisCountyScoop.com) website are opinion pieces (Op-eds) and represent the personal views and opinions of the individual columnists. These views do not necessarily reflect the positions, strategies, or opinions of The Lewis County Scoop or its legal entity, Lewis County Scoop, LLC. Read Full disclaimer here