Fluoride, IQ, and a Landmark Ruling

Fluoride, IQ, and a Landmark Ruling: What Just Happened in U.S. Courts

On April 17th, 2023, I posted a Reel titled “Fluoride Dumbing Down Your Kids.”
Instagram immediately slapped it with a warning claiming the information “could mislead people.”
All I did was present peer-reviewed evidence showing that fluoridated water is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.

Well… fast-forward to last week, and a federal judge effectively confirmed the very concerns that Instagram tried to silence.

A Major Turning Point: The Court Agrees There’s Risk

A federal ruling has now stated that fluoridation of water at 0.7 mg/L—the currently accepted “optimal” level—poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.
This is not fringe science anymore.
It’s a legal finding.

Judge Edward Chen didn’t go as far as declaring, “Fluoride causes lower IQ,” but he did something arguably more powerful:

He acknowledged that the risk is real, the current policies are not protective, and regulators failed to follow their own rules.

Seven Years, One Massive Review, and a Damning Conclusion

The ruling took seven years to emerge. Why so long?
Because Judge Chen wanted to wait for the results of the National Toxicology Program’s six-year systematic review on fluoride’s impact on neurodevelopment.

That review concluded what many parents, scientists, and health advocates have been warning for years:
Fluoride exposure is linked to cognitive harm.

Where the EPA Went Wrong

The EPA has a default safety rule:

There must be a 10-fold margin between the lowest proven harmful level and the level the public is exposed to.

For fluoride, 4 mg/L has been treated as the lowest level where harm appears.

By their own rule, exposure should then be limited to 0.4 mg/L.

But the CDC’s recommended level?
0.7 mg/L—nearly double.

Judge Chen ordered the EPA to initiate rulemaking based on this fact. In other words, policy now has to catch up with the science.

Will This End Water Fluoridation in the U.S.?

Possibly.
But not automatically.

Here’s the key detail:

• The court’s findings are authoritative, but

• Not binding on local water suppliers.

Cities and municipalities make their own decisions.
Some will take the ruling seriously. Others will ignore it until forced.

So the real question now is: How will your local water provider respond?

What You Can Do Right Now

If you don’t want fluoride in your drinking water—especially if you’re pregnant or have young children—your options are clear:

• Reverse osmosis

• Distillation

• Ion exchange systems

Standard carbon filters do not remove fluoride.

A Personal Note

I’m not against fluoride as a concept.
I’m not against individual supplementation.
That is a personal choice.

What I am against is mass medication without individual consent, especially when new evidence shows potential harm to children’s developing brains.

No one should be forced to ingest a neurological agent through their tap water.

Where We Go From Here

This ruling is a major moment. It validates concerns that were dismissed for decades. It confirms risks that parents felt instinctively. And it exposes a long-standing gap between public health policy and actual evidence.

Fluoride in drinking water is no longer a settled issue.
It is now a national debate with legal teeth behind it.

For more details and excerpts from the ruling, check my show notes.

And yes—Instagram flagged the Reel back in April 2023.
But today, a federal court validated the core warning at the heart of that video.

Sometimes the truth takes time to catch up.