Over the last few years the only "new evidence” promoted by fluoridation opponents has consisted of:

Additional Fluoridation Resources

1. False claims alleging that recent studies ‘prove’ CWF lowers IQ and causes other neurological damage. According to Fluoride Action Network (FAN) director, Paul Connett, “You only have to read four studies to realize that deliberately adding fluoride to drinking water unnecessarily endangers children’s brains.”
   There are significant problems with Connett’s interpretation of the four studies:
   • Ken Perrott examines each of the four studies mentioned by Connett and also provides excellent and comprehensive evaluations of other studies promoted by FOs. An online debate between Ken Perrott and Paul Connett (pdf copy).
   • A sample of the expert criticism immediately directed at probably the most prominent of the studies – the 2019 Green, et al. IQ/fluoridation study.
   • A demonstration of the tangled web of relationships among the authors, reviewers, editors and commenters of the four studies and at least 17 others promoted by FOs.

2. False claims that the National Toxicology Program (NTP) Monograph on the Systematic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects ‘proves’ CWF is a neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.  (review initiated, p.3, in response to a nomination from the Fluoride Action Network [FAN])
   This is important because FAN and other anti-fluoridation groups immediately promoted the conclusions of an, un-reviewed draft as proof CWF was harmful – for example a press release from FAN, “NTP Study: ‘Fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans’”.  FAN requested, “The Fluoride Action Network has published the press release below. Please email the PR Newswire version of our release to your local decision makers and the news editors of the media outlets in your community, large and small (newspaper, radio, TV, online).“ even though each page of the NTP draft begins, “This DRAFT Monograph is distributed solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review and does not represent and should not be construed to represent any NTP determination or policy.”
   Timeline:
   • In 2015 FAN nominated fluoride for review by NTP and NTP accepted.  The NTP committee systematically reviewed all the available evidence of fluoride neurotoxicity up through August 2019.  The review process identified 149 published human neurotoxicity studies, and 339 animal experiment studies deemed relevant.  "Fluoride Action Network website (http://fluoridealert.org/) were manually searched for additional relevant publications." (p.8 2019 draft); "Many of the studies (n = 49) included in the entire human body of evidence were initially published in a foreign language (mainly Chinese) and translated by the Fluoride Action Network." (p.28 2019 draft)
   • On 10/22/2019 the initial draft NTP Monograph was published and received immediate criticism for numerous and obvious problems like presenting a Conclusion “that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard” on p. 2 and 9 other times with no context of exposure level. I even submitted a criticism. The first Monograph draft was sent for review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
   • In March, 2020 the NASEM released its NTP Monograph Review which stated, “More important, as noted above, this discussion gives a false impression that NTP conducted a formal dose–response assessment. NTP should be clear that the monograph cannot be used to assess what concentrations of fluoride are safe. … Given the issues raised by the committee regarding the analysis of various aspects of some studies and the analysis, summary, and presentation of the data in the monograph, the committee does not find that NTP has adequately supported its conclusion.” (summary) The NASEM committee sent the draft monograph back for to the NTP for revision. Comments, AFS, CFDH, DoDH, COHN, ADEA
   • On 9/16/2020 a revised draft of the draft NTP Monograph was published, and it included an important change to the Conclusion: “When focusing on findings from studies with exposures in ranges typically found in drinking water in the United States (0.7 mg/L for optimally fluoridated community water systems) that can be evaluated for dose response, effects on cognitive neurodevelopment are inconsistent, and therefore unclear.” (p. 2) ADA comments
   • In February, 2021 the NASEM released its review of the second revision of the draft NTP Monograph and stated, “Even though the evidence provided appears to show consistent indications of an association between exposure to high fluoride concentrations and cognitive deficits in children, the monograph falls short of providing a clear and convincing argument that supports its assessment. It also needs to emphasize that much of the evidence presented comes from studies that involve relatively high fluoride concentrations and that the monograph cannot be used to draw conclusions regarding low fluoride exposure concentrations (less than 1.5 mg/L), including those typically associated with drinking water fluoridation.” (p.14) Comments, AFS, NASEM
   • The revised draft of the NTP draft monograph has been sent back for yet another revision. In the opinion of most experts there are still significant limitations to the NTP review – and regardless of the next draft’s conclusions, the current evidence DOES NOT PROVE or confirm even a small association between drinking optimally fluoridated water and lowered IQ any neurological damage.
   • This is how the scientific process works. A scientific consensus (the expert, majority conclusions on any scientific topic) is constantly challenged and modified by relevant experts when legitimate studies provide sufficient evidence – not by activists promoting their propaganda directly to news media, those responsible for making public health decisions or courts of law. 
     A good summary of problems with the NTP review:  https://openparachute.wordpress.com/tag/ntp/
3. False claims that the ongoing Citizens Petition to the EPA (initiated by FAN and others) in 2016, denied by the EPA in 2017 and eventually winding up as a lawsuit in the California US District Court) ‘proves’ fluoridation is illegal. The judge is not a trained scientist or health care provider and this trial is not a scientific review or judgment of evidence. Even if the judge rules in favor of FAN’s suit that will not mean the scientific consensus has changed – it will only mean that the strategies of FOs have again been successful.