Introduction: The Toxin Hiding in Plain Sight

For over a century, the dental establishment has hidden a neurotoxic secret behind the deceptive label of “silver” fillings. These amalgams—consisting of approximately 50% elemental mercury—have been the industry standard despite the known risks of mercury vapor release. However, the long-standing wall of mercury-denialism is finally crumbling.

In July 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) delivered a landmark victory for public health, urging a total phase-out of mercury-containing fillings across State Medicaid programs. For those of us in the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT), this isn’t just news; it is the definitive collapse of the “amalgam safety” myth we have fought for decades. Federal policy is finally admitting what biological dentistry has always known: there is no “safe” level of mercury exposure in the human mouth.

The 2027 Precedent: If Tribal Nations Can Do It, Why Can’t the Rest of America?

The broader Medicaid system is actually trailing behind a powerful precedent set earlier this year. In February 2026, the Indian Health Service (IHS) committed to ending mercury use in its facilities by 2027. This move is a critical blow to the industry’s favorite excuse—that mercury-free composite restorations are “too expensive” for the poor. By prioritizing the health of tribal nations—some of our country’s most underserved populations—the IHS has proven that mercury-free dentistry is not a luxury; it is an equity requirement. If a federal agency can transition the infrastructure for tribal healthcare by 2027, there is no logistical or financial reason for State Medicaid programs to drag their feet. “This reflects growing environmental and health concerns regarding mercury exposure, along with global efforts to reduce the use of mercury-containing materials.”

Vulnerability is No Longer a “Debate”: The Admission of Bioaccumulation

Perhaps the most stunning aspect of the HHS notification is the explicit list of “elevated health risk” populations. The government has now officially named:

• Pregnant women and their developing babies.

• Women planning to become pregnant.

• Children under the age of six.

• Individuals with neurological diseases (e.g., MS, Alzheimer’s, or Parkinson’s).

• Individuals with impaired kidney function.

• Other vulnerable groups.

This is a tectonic shift in rhetoric. By naming neurological and kidney-impaired groups, the government has tacitly admitted that mercury does not stay “locked” in the tooth. This is a confession of mercury release and bioaccumulation . The catch-all “and other groups” further underscores the IAOMT’s position: if mercury is a neurotoxic threat to these systems, it is a risk to every human being harboring it.

The 2034 Global Clock vs. The American “MAHA” Agenda

While the international Minamata Convention on Mercury set a phase-out deadline of 2034 in November 2025, the current administration views that timeline as unacceptably slow. Under the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) directive, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is calling for decisive, immediate action. Kennedy has characterized mercury as “one of the world’s most toxic heavy metals,” signaling that the MAHA agenda is about more than just policy—it is about reforming “America’s food, health, and scientific systems.”

This implies a total rejection of the suppressed science that allowed amalgams to persist for so long. The U.S. is no longer content to wait for a 2034 global deadline while our citizens continue to be implanted with toxins; we are moving toward a standard of radical transparency today.

The Bureaucratic “Green Light”: A Field Guide for Activists

State Medicaid Directors have long used “red tape” as a shield for inaction. CMS has officially removed that shield. Technical instructions have been issued to shift focus away from mercury procedure codes ( D2140-D2161 ) and toward resin-based composite materials ( D2330-D2394 ). The most important takeaway for advocates is this: CMS clarified that states do not need a “state plan amendment” (SPA) to make this change.

This is the ultimate “green light.” It means the transition to mercury-free care can happen at the administrative level immediately . We now have a technical field guide to hold State Medicaid Directors accountable—there are no more bureaucratic excuses to continue poisoning low-income Americans with “yesterday’s materials.”

Taxpayer Accountability: Funding Health, Not Toxicity

The Trump Administration’s argument is as much about fiscal ethics as it is about biology. The era of using taxpayer dollars to subsidize outdated, toxic materials is ending. As CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz noted, the goal is a higher standard of care that actually works in the patient’s best interest.

A Healthier Mouth, A Healthier Nation

The shift to mercury-free dentistry is a fundamental win for the safety of our nation. As we move forward, the IAOMT remains committed to training all dentists in safe removal protocols to ensure that as amalgam placement is phased out, amalgam removal is handled with the safety precautions they deserve.

We have reached the beginning of the end for dental mercury. Now that the government admits mercury has no place in the mouths of our children, how long will it take for the rest of the dental industry to follow suit?

Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests (as detailed by Noel Fritsch in National File) and subsequent investigative reporting by Anita Vazquez Tibau, have reignited scrutiny of the Casa Pia trial, suggesting not only a failure of oversight, but a systemic breakdown in ethical safeguards for some of the most vulnerable participants in federally funded research.

This NIH-funded study stands as a documented case of profound ethical and regulatory failure and demands immediate, independent federal review, full transparency, and corrective action to protect public health and restore trust in human subjects research.

Vulnerable Children, Systemic Abuse, and Continued Exposure

The trial enrolled approximately 507 children, many of them wards of the state residing in the Casa Pia institutions in Lisbon, Portugal. These children—aged 8–12 at baseline—received mercury-containing dental amalgam fillings during critical periods of neurological and physiological development. At the same time, they endured an environment later documented for widespread sexual and physical abuse.

Federal regulations under 45 CFR Part 46, Subpart D impose heightened protections for children, particularly wards of the state. These include requirements for independent advocates, minimization of coercion or undue influence, and strict limits on research involving greater-than-minimal risk without direct benefit (§46.406–409). Evidence suggests these safeguards were inadequately applied or enforced, raising serious questions about informed assent, oversight, and the ethical justification for continuing the study amid the known risks of mercury and reported harm.

The study proceeded without interruption, exposing vulnerable participants to mercury while they faced additional trauma. This convergence of research exposure and institutional abuse represents a stark breakdown in the principles of the Belmont Report—respect for persons, beneficence, and justice.

Scientific Evidence of Harm: Beyond the Original Conclusions

The original trial reported no statistically significant average neurobehavioral differences between amalgam and composite groups. However, subsequent independent analyses of the same dataset revealed clear signals of harm, particularly in biologically plausible subgroups and specific biological systems:

• Renal toxicity: Woods et al. (2008) identified biomarkers of kidney tubular and glomerular stress correlated with mercury exposure from amalgam.

• Heme pathway disruption: Woods et al. (2009) documented altered urinary porphyrin profiles, consistent with mercury body burden, especially in younger children.

• Dose-dependent kidney effects: Re-analyses by Geier et al. (2012–2013) found statistically significant associations between cumulative amalgam exposure and markers of proximal tubular damage, including microalbuminuria and glutathione S-transferase alterations.

• Neurobehavioral and genetic susceptibility: Woods et al. (2014) reported cognitive and behavioral deficits linked to mercury in children with specific genetic polymorphisms (e.g., CPOX4 and BDNF variants), indicating that average null results masked harm in susceptible subgroups.

These re-analyses highlight limitations in the original study’s conclusions, including potential underemphasis of subgroup effects, dose-response relationships, and long-term implications. Clinically meaningful harm appears to have been present but not adequately highlighted in primary reporting.

Regulatory Reliance on Compromised Data

Despite these findings and the ethical red flags, U.S. agencies—including the NIH and FDA—have continued to cite the Casa Pia trial in policy statements and safety assessments supporting dental amalgam use in children. Attempts to publicize these concerns via press release were rejected by distribution services as “speculative,” even when grounded in FOIA records and peer-reviewed re-analyses.

This raises a fundamental question: Why does documented evidence of risk to vulnerable children continue to underpin public policy while calls for re-evaluation face institutional resistance?

Formal Petitions for Accountability

In response, a formal petition has been submitted to the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) requesting:

• An immediate for-cause compliance evaluation of the trial and associated IRBs.

• A formal determination of noncompliance with 45 CFR 46, Subpart D.

• Suspension of federal reliance on Casa Pia data in regulatory or policy decisions.

• Development and enforcement of Corrective and Preventive Action Plans (CAPAs).

• Coordinated remediation and support for surviving participants.

A parallel request for investigation has been filed with the HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), focusing on:

• NIH and IRB oversight failures.

• FDA’s ongoing use of the data.

• Adequacy of adverse event reporting and data integrity.

• Federal response (or lack thereof) to reports of abuse during the study.

A Broader Public Health Imperative

The Casa Pia trial is not an isolated historical event. Over 180 million Americans still carry mercury amalgam fillings, creating continuous low-level exposure. Safe, large-scale removal faces significant barriers, including limited numbers of clinicians trained in rigorous mercury-safe protocols, such as the IAOMT’s Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART).

The original participants—now adults—have never received systematic notification of potential long-term risks, comprehensive medical monitoring, or support for remediation. This ongoing omission violates basic ethical obligations to research subjects.

Advocates such as David Kennedy and Anita Vazquez Tibau, along with organizations like the IAOMT, continue to demand transparency, independent data re-evaluation, and justice.

Recommended Actions for Professionals and Advocates

Please share this article widely to help raise awareness of these important ethical and public health issues. Please consider emailing the Office of the Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to urge federal support, notification, monitoring, and remediation for the victims of the Casa Pia trial. Contact HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at secretary@hhs.gov or call the toll-free number 1-877-696-6775.

Additionally, contact your U.S. Representative and both U.S. Senators in just a few minutes.

Contact Your Representative

IAOMT members, dental professionals, researchers, and concerned citizens are urged to act:

1. Demand Federal Review — Submit formal inquiries to HHS, OHRP, NIH, FDA, and congressional oversight committees regarding continued reliance on Casa Pia data.

2. Support Independent Reassessment — Advocate for transparent, third-party re-analysis of the full dataset, with emphasis on subgroup effects, genetic susceptibility, and long-term outcomes.

3. Advance Safe Mercury Removal Standards — Promote and expand training in evidence-based, SMART-certified protocols for amalgam removal to minimize additional exposure.

4. Support Victim Remediation — Back coordinated efforts to provide:

   • Notification and informed risk disclosure to participants.

   • Long-term medical monitoring focused on renal, neurological, and immune systems.

   • Access to safe amalgam removal where clinically appropriate.

   • Consideration of evidence-based detoxification support and trauma-informed care.

5. Build Public Awareness — Share verified documentation, including FOIA records, peer-reviewed re-analyses, and regulatory filings, while encouraging open scientific discourse.

Conclusion: Time for Accountability

The Casa Pia trial embodies a dangerous convergence: ethical lapses in protecting the most vulnerable, potential scientific misrepresentation, and continued regulatory reliance on flawed data. Ignoring these issues perpetuates harm to the original victims and undermines trust in federal oversight of human subjects research and dental materials safety.

Evidence exists. The petitions are filed. The ethical and public health stakes are clear.

Read the records. Demand independent review. Support remediation for the victims. Share this widely.

About IAOMT

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a global network of dentists, physicians, and researchers dedicated to advancing safe, science-based dental care that promotes whole-body health.

Original Trial and Primary Publications

• DeRouen TA, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. (2006). Neurobehavioral effects of dental amalgam in children: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 295(15):1784–1792. (Main neurobehavioral outcomes report; found no significant average differences.)

• Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. (2007). Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. Journal of the American Dental Association, 138(6):775–783. (Restoration longevity and failure rates.)

Biomarker and Secondary Analyses from the Original Team

• Woods JS, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. (2008). Biomarkers of kidney integrity in children and adolescents with dental amalgam mercury exposure: findings from the Casa Pia children’s amalgam trial. Environmental Research, 108(3):393–399. (Urinary GST-alpha, GST-pi, and albumin as kidney damage markers.)

• Woods JS, Martin MD, Leroux BG, et al. (2009). Urinary porphyrin excretion in children with mercury amalgam treatment: findings from the Casa Pia Children’s Dental Amalgam Trial. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 72(14):891–896. (Porphyrin profiles as indicators of mercury effects on heme synthesis.)

• Lauterbach M, Martins IP, Castro-Caldas A, et al. (2008). Neurological outcomes in children with and without amalgam-related mercury exposure: seven years of longitudinal observations in a randomized trial. Journal of the American Dental Association, 139(2):138–145. (Neurological hard and soft signs.)

Additional supporting or design papers:

• DeRouen TA, et al. (2002). Issues in design and analysis of a randomized clinical trial to assess the safety of dental amalgam restorations in children. Controlled Clinical Trials.

• Evens CC, Martin MD, Woods JS, et al. (2001). Examination of dietary methylmercury exposure in the Casa Pia study. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A.

Genetic Susceptibility and Neurobehavioral Re-Analyses (Woods et al.)

• Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Echeverria D, et al. (2012). Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by a genetic polymorphism of coproporphyrinogen oxidase in children. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 34(5):513–521.

• Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Russo JE, et al. (2013). Modification of neurobehavioral effects of mercury by genetic polymorphisms of metallothionein in children. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 39:36–44.

• Woods JS, Heyer NJ, Russo JE, Martin MD, Farin FM (2014). Genetic polymorphisms affecting susceptibility to mercury neurotoxicity in children: summary findings from the Casa Pia Children’s Amalgam Clinical Trial. Neurotoxicology, 44:288–302. (Comprehensive summary of genetic modifiers, including CPOX4 and BDNF variants.)

Independent Re-Analyses by Geier et al. (Dose-Response Focus)

• Geier DA, Carmody T, Kern JK, King PG, Geier MR (2011). A significant relationship between mercury exposure from dental amalgams and urinary porphyrins: a further assessment of the Casa Pia children’s dental amalgam trial. Biometals, 24(2):215–224.

• Geier DA, Carmody T, Kern JK, King PG, Geier MR (2012). A dose-dependent relationship between mercury exposure from dental amalgams and urinary mercury levels: a further assessment of the Casa Pia Children’s Dental Amalgam Trial. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 31(1):11–17.

• Geier DA, Carmody T, Kern JK, King PG, Geier MR (2013). A significant dose-dependent relationship between mercury exposure from dental amalgams and kidney integrity biomarkers: a further assessment of the Casa Pia children’s dental amalgam trial. Human & Experimental Toxicology, 32(4):434–440.

Notes:

• The original trial randomized ~507 children (aged 8–12 at baseline) to amalgam or composite restorations and followed them for up to 7 years. Primary conclusions emphasized no significant average group differences in neurobehavioral outcomes, but secondary and re-analyses highlighted signals in subgroups, dose-response relationships, renal biomarkers, and genetic susceptibility.

The report, titled “State of the Science on Root Canal Treated Teeth (RCTT),” evaluates decades of research and highlights concerns about a substantial and growing body of research examining the relationship between chronic infection in root canal treated teeth and overall health. The review is based on a comprehensive literature search that included over 560 scientific references.

What is a root canal?

A root canal is a dental procedure used to treat an infected or damaged tooth. Dentists remove the inner tissue (often called the “nerve”), clean the inside of the tooth, and seal it to prevent further infection.

What the IAOMT review found

While root canals are widely considered routine and successful, the IAOMT’s review found that many RCTT may still harbor hidden infection. This type of infection often causes no pain or obvious symptoms, meaning patients may not realize it is present. Numerous review papers and epidemiological studies [that- take out this word] consistently show associations between chronic apical periodontitis (CAP), a common condition in RCTT and systemic diseases. While association does not prove causation, the sheer volume and consistency of findings across large populations strengthen concern about potential whole-body effects.

Why this matters for overall health

The report highlights a growing body of research suggesting that chronic dental infections may be connected to whole-body health. These include associations with:

• Heart disease

• Diabetes

• Autoimmune conditions

• Neurological disorders

• Pregnancy complications

Scientists believe this may occur because bacteria and inflammatory toxins from infected teeth can enter the bloodstream and affect other parts of the body.

Very limited evidence supporting long-term safety claims
The IAOMT review found very little high-quality evidence to support the claim that RCTT are universally “safe and effective” from a systemic health perspective.

While root canals may relieve pain and preserve teeth locally, the report notes that existing definitions of “success” in dentistry often focus only on symptoms or tooth retention—not on whether hidden infection persists or how it may affect the rest of the body.

Animal research shows consistent negative health effects
In addition to human studies, the IAOMT evaluated a large body of animal research designed to test cause-and-effect relationships.

According to the report, every animal study identified that used a model of chronic apical periodontitis (the condition commonly associated with RCTT) demonstrated harmful effects on systemic health markers.

These studies showed:

• Increased systemic inflammation

• Changes in cardiovascular function

• Worsening metabolic and diabetic markers

• Impacts on brain inflammation and neurological health

• Alterations in immune response and gut microbiome

Because animal studies allow for controlled experiments that cannot be ethically performed in humans, they provide important insight into biological plausibility.

A consistent pattern across research types
Taken together, the IAOMT concludes that:

• Human studies repeatedly show associations between CAP and systemic disease

• Animal studies consistently demonstrate biological plausibility

• There is minimal evidence contradicting these concerns

This convergence of evidence suggests that chronic infection associated with RCTT may play a role in systemic inflammation and disease, particularly in susceptible individuals.

Not a simple yes-or-no issue

The IAOMT emphasizes that this is not about labeling all root canals as “good” or “bad.” Instead, the organization calls for a more balanced and informed approach.

“Root canal treatment can relieve pain and save teeth,” the report notes. “However, evidence shows that in many cases, infection may persist and potentially impact systemic health.”

Call for better diagnostics and informed decisions

The IAOMT encourages:

• More advanced imaging (such as 3D scans) to detect hidden infections

• Greater awareness of individual health risks

• Open discussions between patients and dental professionals

• Consideration of alternatives, such as tooth extraction in certain cases

A shift toward whole-body dentistry

The IAOMT stresses that oral health should not be viewed in isolation.

About IAOMT

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a global network of dentists, physicians, and researchers dedicated to advancing safe, science-based dental care that promotes whole-body health.

This forward-thinking move protects vulnerable Native American and Alaska Native communities—particularly pregnant women, nursing mothers, children under six, and individuals with neurological or kidney conditions—from unnecessary mercury exposure.

The IHS phase out of mercury fillings aligns with the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which has announced an agreement to end the use of dental amalgam by 2034. This represents a historic milestone for protecting human health and the environment from mercury pollution.

Additionally, the IHS phase out aligns directly with the FDA’s explicit warnings for high-risk groups, the global mercury reduction goals of the Minamata Convention, and decades of rigorous scientific evidence documenting the bioaccumulative, neurotoxic risks of dental mercury vapor.

Dental amalgam fillings contain about 50% mercury and release mercury vapor continuously, even without chewing, brushing, grinding, or other stimulation. For many individuals, particularly those with multiple fillings, this ongoing release results in daily mercury vapor exposure that exceeds government safety thresholds, such as those established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

For years, the IAOMT has advocated for the complete elimination of dental amalgam—the predominant non-industrial source of mercury exposure—based on over 1,000 peer-reviewed studies showing unreasonable, direct, and substantial dangers to patients, dental staff (including fetuses and children). Our comprehensive position paper outlines clear protocols for a safe mercury amalgam removal technique (SMART) and promotes mercury-free, biocompatible dentistry as the ethical standard.

In stark contrast, the American Dental Association (ADA) responded to this landmark announcement with resistance rather than progress.

Their statement defends continued amalgam use based on “clinical judgment,” dismisses precautionary transitions to safer alternatives as “unwarranted,” and even suggests that replacing serviceable amalgam fillings solely to avoid mercury violates their own Code of Ethics.

This outdated stance prioritizes tradition and short-term cost over patient safety, environmental responsibility, and established scientific evidence of harm — which undermines public trust.

“The evidence is irrefutable—mercury amalgam fillings are a public health crisis, poisoning millions of Americans with unsafe levels of mercury,” said Dr. Douglas Green, President of the IAOMT. “We urgently call on the FDA to ban these harmful fillings in order to safeguard public health.”

The dental profession deserves better. Native communities and every patient deserve better. It’s time for the ADA to stop defending a toxic material that the rest of the world is phasing out and start following the lead of the IAOMT in the transition to mercury-free, mercury-safe dentistry.

The IHS is demonstrating true leadership by investing in training, infrastructure, and mercury-free materials to serve underserved populations equitably. The IAOMT stands ready to support this transition with evidence-based resources, safe removal training, and advocacy for broader adoption of mercury-free practices nationwide.

It’s time for organized dentistry to follow suit, stop defending a known neurotoxin, and prioritize prevention and “do no harm” for all patients.

IAOMT provides patients and dental professionals resources about biological dentistry as well as a directory of IAOMT biological dentists who are SMART certified.

Read more:

• IAOMT Position Paper on Dental Mercury Amalgam:
https://iaomt.org/iaomt-position-paper-dental-mercury-amalgam/

• IHS Official Announcement:
https://www.ihs.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2026-press-releases/indian-health-service-to-end-use-of-mercury-containing-dental-amalgam-by-2027

• FDA Guidance on High-Risk Populations:
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-recommendations-certain-high-risk-groups-regarding-mercury-containing-dental-amalgam

• ADA Indian Health Service to end dental amalgam use by 2027:
https://adanews.ada.org/ada-news/2026/february/indian-health-service-to-end-dental-amalgam-use-by-2027/

• IAOMT Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART):
https://iaomt.org/resources/safe-removal-amalgam-fillings/

#MercuryFreeDentistry #MercurySafeDentistry #BiologicalDentistry #IHSLeads #EndDentalMercury #IAOMT

Are you ready to explore how your dental care can transform your overall health? The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) invites you to the

livestream of our 2026 Spring Conference, March 12-14, 2026

This is your opportunity to learn from world-renowned experts in biological dentistry—without leaving your home! Plus, get $78 off your livestream tickets when you register for all 3 days. Don’t miss out on this chance to empower yourself with cutting-edge health knowledge!

Why Choose the IAOMT Conference?

The IAOMT is a global leader in biological dentistry, a science-based approach that connects oral health to whole-body wellness. Our mission is to educate professionals and the public about safe, biological dental practices that prioritize your health. By joining our livestream, you’ll gain insights from top experts, discover how dental care impacts chronic conditions, and connect with a community passionate about wellness.

Top 5 Reasons to Attend the IAOMT Spring 2026 Livestream

• Discover how dental health impacts chronic health conditions.

• Learn safe alternatives to mercury fillings, root canals, and fluoride treatments.

• Engage with global experts through live Q&A forums.

• Access exclusive recordings and materials post-conference.

• Save $78 with our 3-day livestream package!

This conference is perfect for health enthusiasts, patients seeking safer dental options, or anyone curious about the oral-systemic health connection. The livestream format makes it accessible worldwide, with no travel required!

What You’ll Learn from the Spring 2026 IAOMT Conference

The IAOMT Spring Conference features a dynamic lineup of presentations covering the latest in biological dentistry. Here’s what’s in store, based on the official agenda and presentation materials:

Thursday, March 12th: Fundamentals of Biological Dentistry

This session is ideal for newcomers and those seeking practical knowledge to improve their health. Kick off with an in-depth introduction to biological dentistry, covering the following topics…

• Mercury 101: The dangers of mercury & necessity for safe mercury dental filling removal

• Fluoride, its history and toxicity

• Biological Periodontics

• Sleep Dentistry

• Dental Implants

• The truth about Root Canals & Cavitations

• The amazing benefits of Ozone use in dentistry

Infused into each of these topics is the concept of using biocompatible materials, and the impact of oral health on systemic wellness.

Friday Scientific Symposium, March 13th.

• Scott Schroeder, DPM, MS, FACFAS
  Metal Allergies/Reactions: Evaluation of the Interaction Between Dental and Orthopedic Metals and Systemic Effects

• Clyde Roggenkamp, MA, DDS
  Dentinal Fluid Transport: An Innate Mechanism of Dental Caries Resistance

• Karl Anderson, DDS, MS, FIAOMT, NMD, IBDM, DICOI
  Neural Therapy: Another Tool for the Toolbox

Friday Surgery Session

• Shahram Ghanaati, MD, DMD, PhD
  Cavitations or Covered Socket Residuum? How to Detect, Treat, and Prevent Them

• Gregory Steiner, DDS, MS
  Clinical Outcomes of Graft Selection on Final Bone Quality

• Richard Miron, BMSC, MSc, PhD, DDS
  Optimization of Platelet-Rich Fibrin

Friday culminates in a Speakers Forum and interactive Q&A.

Saturday, March 14th: continues with

• Jerry Bouquot, DDS, MSD
  A 200,000,000-Year-Old Disease Producing Confusion in Modern Jaws: Osteonecrosis With and Without Cavitations, With and Without Pain, With and Without Radiographic Change

• Frank Shallenberger, MD
  Microplastics: A Hidden Epidemic

• Andy Wakefield, MD, BS

• Edward Calabrese, PhD
  Hormesis: Biomedical Implications

• Iris Bell, MD
  From Nanoparticles to Networks: How Homeopathic Remedies May Trigger Adaptive Healing in Oral Tissues Through Cell Signaling and Complex Systems Biology

• Mary Ellen Chalmers, DMD
  Frequency-Specific Microcurrent (FSM): A Novel Bioregulatory Modality for Dental Pain, Inflammation, and Tissue Healing

Saturday culminates in a Speakers Forum and interactive Q&A.

About our Speakers Forums for Live Broadcast.

Live broadcast attendees can submit questions during designated Q&A sessions, typically held at the end of each day. Questions are moderated and addressed by speakers in real-time, fostering interactive discussions. Live Broadcast attendees will gain access to the forum, speaker slides, and handouts.

Check the website for the latest schedule and participation details.

Why Livestream with IAOMT?

• The IAOMT 2026 Spring Conference livestream brings world-class education to you, wherever you are. Here’s why you should register for our livestream:

• Expert Knowledge: Learn from pioneers in oral and systemic health, who bring decades of expertise.

• Convenience: Watch live from home, with access to recordings for later viewing (check registration terms).

• Empowerment: Gain practical insights to make informed decisions about your dental care and its impact on your health.

• Community: Join a global audience of health-conscious individuals and professionals.

• Continued Learning: We will provide the links to the online videos after the conference is over. This will include access to all breakout sessions.

Limited-Time Offer:

Sign up for all 3 days and save $78 off livestream fees - Only $119 per day, or $279 for all 3 days.

The IAOMT Difference

The IAOMT is more than a biological dental / medical conference—we’re a movement dedicated to transforming dentistry for better health. Our benefits include:

• Science-Driven Practices: Promoting safe techniques like mercury-free, mercury-safe dentistry and biocompatible materials.

• Patient Advocacy: Empowering you with knowledge to choose dental care that supports your overall wellness.

• Education: Resources for professionals and the public alike.

Act Now: $78 Off Livestream Registration!

Don’t miss this chance to explore how biological dentistry can revolutionize your health. The IAOMT 2026 Spring Conference livestream offers a front-row seat to transformative knowledge, from mercury detox to the oral-systemic health connection.

Register for all 3 days to get $78 off your livestream tickets!

Visit the livestream registration page to secure your spot. Check out the full agenda for more details on this incredible lineup.

Join us to learn, connect, and take control of your health. Let’s shape a healthier future together at the IAOMT 2026 Spring Conference livestream!

Dental amalgam, a relic of a bygone era, has been used for over 150 years in U.S. dentistry to repair decayed teeth and contains 50% toxic elemental mercury, which is converted to inorganic mercury once inside the body.

Data from the CDC’s National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicates that roughly 104 million Americans have mercury amalgam dental fillings.

The study analyzed data from the CDC’s 2015–2016 NHANES survey, using blood mercury measurements from U.S. adults aged 18–70 to estimate exposures across 180 million Americans.

The study revealed that adults with amalgam fillings have significantly higher blood inorganic mercury levels than those without. The number of amalgam surfaces strongly correlates with increased mercury levels in blood, with an estimated 16 million adults exposed to daily mercury vapor doses exceeding the U.S. EPA’s safety limit.

The research also highlights blood as a key pathway for mercury vapor from dental fillings to accumulate in tissues and cells throughout the body, underscoring serious health risks, especially for vulnerable groups. Recent studies have linked amalgam mercury exposure to increased risks of asthma, arthritis, hearing loss, neurological disorders, and perinatal death.

In 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning that mercury vapor from dental amalgam fillings may pose risks for high-risk groups, including pregnant women and their fetuses, nursing mothers, children under six, individuals with mercury allergies, and those with neurological or kidney impairments, recommending these populations avoid amalgam fillings.

“The evidence is irrefutable—mercury amalgam fillings are a public health crisis, poisoning millions of Americans with unsafe levels of mercury,” said Dr. Douglas Green, President of the IAOMT. “We urgently call on the FDA to ban these harmful fillings in order to safeguard public health.”

Additionally, the study urges individuals with amalgams seeking to reduce blood mercury levels to consult with a healthcare practitioner trained and certified in a safe amalgam removal protocol. Removal of dental amalgam generates unsafe levels of mercury. In order to reduce mercury exposures, the IAOMT trains and certifies dentists in the Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART).

IAOMT provides patients and dental professionals resources about biological dentistry as well as a directory of IAOMT biological dentists who are SMART certified.

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) has pioneered the Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART) to ensure this process is conducted with the utmost care to minimize mercury exposure for patients, dental professionals, and the environment.

Here’s why safe removal is critical and how SMART is transforming dental care.

The Hidden Dangers of Mercury in Dental Amalgams

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can harm the brain, kidneys, liver, and other vital organs. Scientific research consistently shows that dental amalgam fillings release mercury vapor, which is absorbed into the body, particularly during activities like chewing, brushing, or clenching teeth. The removal process itself is especially hazardous, as drilling on amalgam fillings releases significant amounts of mercury vapor and fine particulate matter that can be inhaled or absorbed through the lungs, skin and gingiva. These particles can spread to the patient’s face, arms, and clothing, as well as to dental staff, creating a risk for everyone in the room. Particulate will deposit on fixtures in the room. Off gassing from this buildup creates a level of mercury present throughout the office.

The dangers are not theoretical. Studies have linked mercury exposure from the mercury released from dental amalgams to a range of health issues, including neurological disorders, immune system dysfunction, and kidney damage. Vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, breastfeeding mothers, and children, are at heightened risk, as mercury can cross the placenta and affect fetal development or accumulate in breast milk.

Dentists and dental staff are also at risk due to repeated occupational exposure, with research showing elevated mercury levels in their blood and urine.

Despite these risks, unsafe amalgam removal remains common in the vast majority of dental practices. Without proper precautions, the process releases toxic levels of mercury, exacerbating exposure for everyone involved. This is why the IAOMT developed the SMART protocol—a rigorous, science-based approach to mitigate these dangers.

The SMART Protocol: A Science-Driven Solution

The IAOMT’s Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART) is a comprehensive set of recommendations designed to minimize mercury exposure during amalgam removal. Developed based on decades of scientific research and clinical experience, SMART incorporates advanced engineering controls and protective measures that go beyond traditional methods like masks, suction, and water irrigation.

Here’s how it works:

Pre-Procedure Preparation:

• Patients are given a slurry of charcoal, chlorella, or a similar adsorbent to rinse and swallow before the procedure (unless contraindicated), helping to bind and eliminate any ingested mercury particles.

• Protective gowns and covers are used for the patient, dentist, and dental staff to prevent contamination from mercury particles that can escape suction devices.

• Environmental Controls: Dental operatories must have high-volume air filtration systems, such as at-source oral aerosol vacuums, to capture mercury vapor and amalgam particles.

• Whenever possible, windows are opened to reduce mercury concentration in the air.

• Safe Removal Techniques: A latex-free dental dam and saliva ejector are placed to isolate the tooth and reduce mercury exposure to the patient’s mouth.

• The amalgam is sectioned into large chunks using a small-diameter carbide drill to minimize vapor and particulate release.

• Copious water irrigation and high-speed evacuation systems are used to reduce heat and capture mercury discharges.

• After removal, the patient’s mouth is thoroughly flushed with water and rinsed with an adsorbent to further reduce residual mercury.

• Post-Procedure Safety: Dentists must comply with federal, state, and local regulations for the proper handling, cleaning, and disposal of mercury-contaminated materials, including clothing, equipment, and operatory surfaces.

• Dental staff are required to wear appropriate personal protective equipment when handling suction traps or other contaminated components.

Special Considerations: The IAOMT strongly advises against amalgam removal for pregnant or breastfeeding women, as well as for dental personnel in these conditions, to avoid potential harm to fetuses or infants.

These measures, backed by extensive scientific references, ensure that mercury exposure is kept to a minimum, protecting the health of patients, dental professionals, and the environment.

Why Safe Removal Matters

The need for safe mercury amalgam removal cannot be overstated. For patients, the benefits of safe removal extend beyond immediate health protection. Many choose to replace mercury fillings with biocompatible materials like composite resin or ceramics, which are not only safer but also more aesthetically pleasing. However, without proper precautions, the removal process can release levels of mercury exceeding safety limits, potentially causing a host of symptoms, particularly in sensitive individuals.

For dental professionals, adopting SMART is a matter of occupational safety. Chronic exposure to mercury vapor can lead to serious health consequences, including neurological and reproductive harm. By implementing SMART, dentists demonstrate a commitment to their own health, the well-being of their staff, and the trust of their patients.

Additionally, mercury is a persistent environmental pollutant that accumulates in water sources, wildlife, and the food chain, posing long-term risks to ecosystems. Improper disposal of amalgam waste can contribute to this contamination, making adherence to proper protocols essential for environmental stewardship.

The SMART Choice: A Call to Action

The IAOMT launched the SMART protocol in 2016, along with a certification program for dentists to ensure proper training and implementation. The IAOMT educates patients and professionals about the importance of safe amalgam removal and helps connect patients with SMART-certified dentists. The IAOMT even provides a SMART patient/dentist checklist for patients to make sure all aspects of safe removal are implemented. The SMART Checklist also helps patients and dentists establish expectations and understandings before the actual amalgam removal procedure.

This grassroots effort encourages open communication between patients and their dental providers to ensure all safety measures are in place before removal begins.

As consumer awareness grows, so does the demand for safer dental practices. Patients are increasingly seeking IAOMT-certified dentists who prioritize health and sustainability. By choosing a SMART-certified dentist, patients can rest assured that their amalgam removal will be performed with the highest standards of safety and care.

Looking Ahead

The continued use of mercury in dentistry is a public health concern that should have ended decades ago. While progress has been made—some countries have banned or restricted amalgam use—the reality is that millions of mercury fillings remain in place worldwide. As these fillings are removed, whether due to failure, patient preference, or health concerns, it is imperative that the process is conducted safely.

The IAOMT is committed to leading the charge for safer dentistry. Through education, research, and advocacy, we are empowering patients and professionals to make informed choices about mercury amalgam removal.

To protect your health from the hazards of mercury generated during amalgam removal, we urge patients to seek SMART-certified dentists. If you’d like to inform your current dentist of the dangers of mercury filling removal, please send them to this page on our website where we have many resources about dental mercury.

We encourage dental professionals to adopt these evidence-based protocols. Together, we can protect human health, safeguard the environment, and move toward a future of mercury-free dentistry.

For more information or to find a SMART-certified dentist near you, visit the IAOMT website.

Disclaimer:

The IAOMT is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing biological dentistry and educating the public about the risks of mercury in dental amalgams. Always consult with a qualified healthcare professional before making decisions about dental treatments.

This is your opportunity to learn from world-renowned experts in biological dentistry—without leaving your home! Plus, get $78 off your livestream tickets when you register for all 3 days. Don’t miss out on this chance to empower yourself with cutting-edge health knowledge!

Why Choose the IAOMT Conference?

The IAOMT is a global leader in biological dentistry, a science-based approach that connects oral health to whole-body wellness. Our mission is to educate professionals and the public about safe, biological dental practices that prioritize your health. By joining our livestream, you’ll gain insights from top experts, discover how dental care impacts chronic conditions, and connect with a community passionate about wellness.

Top 5 Reasons to Attend the IAOMT 2025 Livestream

• Discover how dental health impacts chronic conditions like Alzheimer’s and heart disease.

• Learn safe alternatives to mercury fillings, root canals, and fluoride treatments.

• Engage with global experts through live Q&A forums.

• Access exclusive recordings and materials post-conference.

• Save $78 with our 3-day livestream package!

This conference is perfect for health enthusiasts, patients seeking safer dental options, or anyone curious about the oral-systemic health connection. The livestream format makes it accessible worldwide, with no travel required!

What You’ll Learn at the 2025 IAOMT Conference

The IAOMT Annual Conference features a dynamic lineup of presentations covering the latest in biological dentistry. Here’s what’s in store, based on the official agenda and presentation materials:

• Thursday, September 4: Fundamentals of Biological Dentistry
  This session is ideal for newcomers and those seeking practical knowledge to improve their health. Kick off with an in-depth introduction to biological dentistry, covering the following topics…

  • Mercury 101: The dangers of mercury & necessity for safe mercury dental filling removal

  • Fluoride, its history and toxicity

  • Biological Periodontics

  • Sleep Dentistry

  • Dental Implants

  • The truth about Root Canals & Cavitations

  • The amazing benefits of Ozone use in dentistry

Infused into each of these topics is the concept of using biocompatible materials, and the impact of oral health on systemic wellness.

• Friday and Saturday Scientific Symposium, September 5th and 6th:

Dive into cutting-edge topics with experts like Ashley J. Malin, PhD, discussing fluoride exposure and nutrition's role in dental health, and Luis Garcia, MD, exploring biomagnetism's impact on the oral microbiome. Breakout sessions feature Matt Doherty on leadership, Lori Miller-Stevens on holistic practices, and Ted Herrmann on biocompatible solutions, culminating in a Speakers Forum for interactive Q&A.

Saturday, September 6th: Continue with Philip Mollica, DMD, on neural therapy, and Pierre Kory, MD, on innovative disease treatments. Highlights include David Geier’s study on fluoride exposure, Joshua Helman, MD, on Alzheimer’s prevention, and Devaki Lindsey Berkson on the oral-systemic connection, ending with a Speakers Forum and awards ceremony.

Speakers Forums

Live broadcast attendees can submit questions during designated Q&A sessions, typically held at the end of each day. Questions are moderated and addressed by speakers in real-time, fostering interactive discussions. Live Broadcast attendees will gain access to the forum, speaker slides, and handouts. Check the website for the latest schedule and participation details.

Why Livestream with IAOMT?

The IAOMT 2025 Annual Conference livestream brings world-class education to you, wherever you are. Here’s why you should register for our livestream:

• Expert Knowledge: Learn from pioneers in oral and systemic health, who bring decades of expertise.

• Convenience: Watch live from home, with access to recordings for later viewing (check registration terms).

• Empowerment: Gain practical insights to make informed decisions about your dental care and its impact on your health.

• Community: Join a global audience of health-conscious individuals and professionals.

• Continued Learning: We will provide the links to the online videos after the conference is over. This will include access to all breakout sessions.

• Limited-Time Offer: Sign up for all 3 days and save $78 off livestream fees - Only $119 per day, or $279 for all 3 days.

The IAOMT Difference

The IAOMT is more than a biological dental / medical conference—we’re a movement dedicated to transforming dentistry for better health. Our benefits include:

• Science-Driven Practices: Promoting safe techniques like mercury-free, mercury-safe dentistry and biocompatible materials.

• Patient Advocacy: Empowering you with knowledge to choose dental care that supports your overall wellness.

• Education: Resources for professionals and the public alike.

Act Now: $78 Off Livestream Registration!

Don’t miss this chance to explore how biological dentistry can revolutionize your health. The IAOMT 2025 Annual Conference livestream offers a front-row seat to transformative knowledge, from mercury detox to the oral-systemic health connection.

Register for all 3 days to get $78 off your livestream tickets! Visit the livestream registration page to secure your spot. Check out the full agenda for more details on this incredible lineup.

Join us to learn, connect, and take control of your health. Let’s shape a healthier future together at the IAOMT 2025 Annual Conference livestream!

Citing mercury’s status as a cumulative neurotoxin, which constitutes approximately 50% of amalgam fillings, the petition highlights the potential dangers to vulnerable populations and aligns with global efforts, such as the European Union’s ban on dental amalgam effective January 1, 2025, to eliminate this major source of mercury exposure in the U.S. population.

The Petition: A Demand for Accountability

The IAOMT’s petition for reconsideration is a direct challenge to the FDA’s failure to protect public health. For decades, the federal government has phased out the use of mercury in various products such as paint, antiseptics, nasal sprays, ear drops, medications, and most recently, vaccines (effective June 26, 2025). The FDA’s 2020 guidance specifically cautioned against using mercury fillings in susceptible groups due to potential health risks:

• Women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant

• Nursing mothers

• Children, particularly those under six years of age

• Individuals with neurological disorders, including multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, or Parkinson’s disease

• People with impaired kidney function

• Individuals with known heightened sensitivity to mercury or its components

Despite these recommendations, mercury amalgam fillings continue to be used in dental practices.

Based on the latest numbers, 85% of the U.S. population is at risk from mercury exposures attributed to amalgam fillings.

“It is time to complete the process and ban mercury fillings outright, aligning with global standards set by the European Union and numerous other countries, who have already banned amalgam fillings,” stated Dr. Jack Kall, Executive Chair of IAOMT. “The health risks associated with mercury fillings have prompted a global shift towards safer alternatives, and the United States should follow suit to protect public health.”

The IAOMT and DAMS INC also emphasize the importance of safe removal of existing mercury fillings through the Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique (SMART), which drastically minimizes exposure to mercury during the removal process. The SMART technique ensures the safety of patients, dental professionals, and the environment.

Visit the IAOMT website to learn more about biological dentistry and to read the entire petition for reconsideration to the FDA.

Allegations in the Lawsuits
The lawsuits allege that the defendants' marketing strategies are misleading and put children's health at risk. Key points of the lawsuits include:

Appealing Packaging: Products are designed with candy and fruit juice flavors, images, and cartoon characters to attract young children, potentially leading them to consume more than the recommended amount. These visual cues, combined with the sweet taste, make it more likely for children to ingest excessive amounts of fluoride, increasing the risk of toxicity.

Misleading Labeling: The complaints allege that the companies design their product labels with candy and fruit juice flavors, images, and cartoon characters to attract young children, frequently causing confusion and leading them to believe the products are intended for consumption as food. The labeling on children's fluoride toothpaste often obscures critical information, such as the potential risks of fluoride toxicity, and fails to clearly indicate the proper amount of toothpaste for young children. The labels frequently make claims like “extra safe for children,” which contradicts guidelines that suggest minimal fluoride use for toddlers.

Health Risks and Acute Toxicity: Ingesting too much fluoride can cause acute toxicity, leading to flu-like symptoms such as nausea, stomach upset, and vomiting — symptoms that parents may not immediately associate with fluoride ingestion. The lawsuits highlight that swallowing just one full strip of toothpaste can cause these effects in toddlers. In fact, a third of a tube of "kids" fluoride toothpaste contains enough fluoride to potentially harm or even kill a toddler. The same applies to more than half a bottle of sweet-tasting mouth rinses, such as Act, Firefly, or Hello. Each year, Poison Control receives between 10,000 and 15,000 calls due to excessive fluoride toothpaste consumption, most of which involve young children. Hundreds of these calls result in hospitalization, and there are also thousands of calls related to the ingestion of mouth rinse.

Deceptive Advertising: The imagery used in advertisements often shows a large amount of toothpaste on the toothbrush, which may lead parents to unknowingly over-apply the product for their children. These visual cues do not align with the recommended guidelines, where only a small "smear" or "pea-sized" amount should be used. This deceptive advertising could contribute to excessive fluoride ingestion, putting children at further risk.

These combined allegations point to a pattern of deceptive marketing practices, with the potential to harm young children by encouraging unsafe fluoride consumption.

IAOMT's Commitment to Safer Alternatives

In response to these lawsuits, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) reaffirms its commitment to promoting safer, non-toxic alternatives to fluoride in pediatric dentistry such as hydroxyapatite toothpaste (contains a natural crystalline substance that integrates into enamel making it more resistant to decay), occasional iodine swishes, and better home-care techniques. Additionally, the IAOMT advocates for informed consent in dental treatments, ensuring that parents are fully aware of the risks associated with fluoride-based products.

The Role of Informed Consent in Pediatric Dentistry

The IAOMT stresses the importance of providing parents with the information necessary to make informed decisions about their children's oral health. By supporting ongoing research, education, and public outreach, the IAOMT aims to protect children from the potential harm of fluoride exposure and encourages the use of safer, evidence-based alternatives.

Supporting Public Health through Education and Advocacy

The IAOMT continues to be a leading voice in the fight for safer dental practices. As the legal landscape surrounding fluoride products evolves, the IAOMT remains dedicated to educating the public and dental professionals about the risks of fluoride and the need for safer alternatives in children’s dental care.

To find an IAOMT biological dentist who does not use fluoride and for more information, visit IAOMT's Website.

This negligence by the ADA has led to significant consequences for public health, particularly among vulnerable populations, while also undermining the concept of informed consent. Moreover, by ignoring the precautionary principle—which advocates for preventive action in the face of potential harm—the ADA has failed to advocate for the protection of the public from risks that could have been minimized or avoided through a more cautious, informed approach.

The Federal Lawsuit and Ignored Evidence

In a landmark case that reached federal courts, research was presented challenging the safety of community water fluoridation, particularly its neurotoxic effects on developing brains. A wealth of studies, published in peer-reviewed journals from across the world, suggest that fluoride exposure from community water supplies, especially during critical periods of brain development, could have harmful consequences for children.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L — the level endorsed by the EPA — presents an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. The findings included evidence that exposure to fluoride added to the water can lead to lower IQ levels in children and other developmental issues.

The ruling did not outline the exact actions the EPA must take, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), once a court determines that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, the EPA is legally required to mitigate or eliminate that risk. Judge Chen cautioned: "What the EPA cannot do, given this Court's finding, is ignore the risk."

Despite the mounting evidence, the ADA remains resolute in its historical endorsement of water fluoridation, disregarding credible research. This stance is echoed by several prominent organizations closely linked to the ADA, including the American Association for Dental, Oral and Craniofacial Research (AADOCR), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the American Fluoridation Society (AFS), and most surprisingly, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), all of which continue to parrot the ADA’s talking points and promote fluoride as universally safe.

The ADA has responded to the court’s decision, saying the ruling: “Provides no scientific basis for the ADA to change its endorsement of community water fluoridation as safe and beneficial to oral health.”

The Precautionary Principle

However, given the emerging data on fluoride’s possible neurotoxic effects, particularly for infants, pregnant women, and individuals with kidney issues, these organizations' reluctance to adopt a precautionary stance contravenes public health principles. The precautionary principle suggests that credible evidence of potential harm, especially to vulnerable populations, warrants protective action, even without full scientific consensus. By ignoring this principle, these organizations risk prioritizing long-standing policy over evolving science signaling possible developmental risks.

Harm to Susceptible Populations

Research shows that certain groups are more vulnerable to fluoride's toxic effects:

• Infants and Young Children: Developing brains are especially susceptible to fluoride's neurotoxic effects. Studies have linked prenatal fluoride exposure to lower IQ scores in children, raising concerns about long-term cognitive development.

• Pregnant Women: Fluoride crosses the placenta, exposing developing fetuses directly, with potential risks to fetal brain development emphasized in the lawsuit.

• People with Kidney Disease: Those with impaired kidney function retain higher systemic fluoride levels, leading to adverse health effects, including bone and cognitive problems.

Despite well-documented risks to these vulnerable populations, the ADA refuses to alter its recommendations, posing both public health and ethical concerns.

Fluoride's Efficacy in Serious Question: The Cochrane Review

The 2024 Cochrane fluoride review critically evaluated studies on communities with and without fluoridated water supplies, finding insufficient evidence that fluoride prevents cavities in modern populations. Much of the research supporting community fluoridation is outdated or of poor quality, with studies showing cavity reduction primarily from older data. The review also indicates minimal benefit in today’s context, where dental care and oral hygiene products are widely accessible.

Linda J. Edgar, DDS., past president of the American Dental Association has stated."...community water fluoridation prevents at least 25% of tooth decay in children and adults throughout their lifespan." But according to the results of the Cochrane review, this estimate is wildly overblown compared to what is found in the scientific literature.

The large decline in fluoridation’s effectiveness over the past 50 years found in the Cochrane review is illustrated by two graphs created by FAN’s Science Director, Chris Neurath, from the report’s data. The first graph is for deciduous (baby) teeth, and the second for permanent teeth:

Figure 1. Studies plotted by year of publication, show that over the last 50 years, the effectiveness of fluoridated water appeared to decline substantially in baby teeth. Courtesy of Fluoride Action Network using data from the 2024 Cochrane Review.

Figure 2. Studies plotted by year of publication, show that over the last 50 years, the effectiveness of fluoridated water appeared to decline substantially in permanent teeth. Courtesy of Fluoride Action Network using data from the 2024 Cochrane Review.

Despite all this, the ADA continues to support fluoridation without acknowledging that fluoride's effectiveness is no longer as clear-cut as once believed. This stance undermines public confidence and raises questions about the ADA’s motives for maintaining an outdated, potentially harmful policy.

Informed Consent and Public Trust

Central to public health is the principle of informed consent, where people have the right to understand the risks and benefits of treatments. However, the ADA's unwavering endorsement of water fluoridation denies the public this right. Many Americans are unaware of fluoride’s potential harms, especially for vulnerable groups, and consume fluoridated water under the assumption that it is universally safe. This lack of transparency erodes public trust in the ADA and public health agencies.

The ADA's endorsement of fluoridation also removes the option for informed consent. Unlike voluntary treatments, community water fluoridation is imposed largely without consent, and avoiding fluoridated water entirely can be financially burdensome and logistically challenging.

Conclusion: Public health policies must evolve with science

The ADA’s steadfast support for water fluoridation, despite mounting evidence of harm and ineffectiveness, raises questions about the organization's commitment to science and public health. Ignoring credible research and the concerns of susceptible populations risks the health of vulnerable individuals and undermines public trust. The ADA has a responsibility to prioritize science and transparency, ensuring that all Americans, especially high-risk groups, are informed of the true benefits and risks of fluoridated water.

Rather than uphold outdated practices, public health policies must evolve with science. As a commitment to protecting public health and informed choice, the ADA and supporting organizations must embrace the precautionary principle, particularly when children, pregnant women, and other susceptible groups are at risk.

Until the ADA adopts a precautionary approach and evolves its policy positions to consider the scientific evidence, it will continue to jeopardize both public health and confidence in our healthcare systems. The IAOMT endorses banning water fluoridation so we can restore the publics’ trust and safeguard future generations' health.

Go to our website to find an IAOMT biological dentist who does not use fluoride.

The findings suggest that the initiation of CWF may lead to only a slight reduction in the number of decayed, missing, or filled teeth in children's primary dentition, equivalent to just one-quarter of a tooth. Moreover, the review points out the uncertainty in whether fluoridation has any significant effect on permanent teeth or dental surfaces.

Furthermore, the evidence from pre-1975 studies, which had demonstrated more substantial benefits, may no longer be applicable. The review found low-certainty evidence of a small increase in the proportion of children free of tooth decay, further underscoring the diminishing impact of fluoridation in today's context.

Importantly, the review found no strong evidence supporting fluoridation’s effectiveness in reducing dental disparities between people with varying incomes and/or living circumstances. Shockingly, the review highlighted a lack of high-quality research on the safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation.

In light of this new evidence, the IAOMT urges health authorities and policymakers to ban the use of CWF, emphasizing the need to explore alternative methods to improve oral health, particularly in light of the potential risks associated with water fluoridation.

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a global network of dentists, health professionals, and scientists committed to advancing the science of biological dentistry and ensuring the highest standards of safe dental practices and patient care.

For more information about fluoride or to find a fluoride free dentist, please visit www.iaomt.org

In a landmark case, Fluoride Action Network and other health advocacy groups successfully argued that fluoride levels currently promoted as “optimal” by the EPA and other government agencies pose a significant threat to public health, particularly to the cognitive development of children. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that fluoridation at 0.7 mg/L — the level endorsed by the EPA — presents an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children. This finding is based on robust scientific evidence, including a review by the US Government’s National Toxicology Program, which identified a clear link between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopmental harm.

The ruling did not outline the exact actions the EPA must take, but under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), once a court determines that a chemical presents an unreasonable risk, the EPA is legally required to mitigate or eliminate that risk. Judge Chen mentioned several regulatory options for addressing fluoridation, including the possibility of banning it. However, he cautioned: "What the EPA cannot do, given this Court's finding, is ignore the risk."

Despite overwhelming evidence, the EPA and other regulatory bodies such as the The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continue to ignore the risks, dismissing concerns raised by health professionals, researchers, and advocacy groups. For years, mothers and families have been told that fluoridated water is safe. The CDC even named community water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, without any acknowledgement of the known health risks of fluoride.

However, this court decision confirms what IAOMT and other health-conscious organizations have long asserted: fluoridation is not a harmless practice and poses real dangers to the most vulnerable among us — our children.

Fluoride is not only present in drinking water but also in processed foods, dental products, and other daily sources. Aggregate exposure is far higher than what is considered safe for children and pregnant women, a fact that government agencies such as the EPA and CDC have continuously ignored.

Research presented in the court case revealed that fluoride exposure, even at levels lower than 1.5 mg/L, is associated with a significant reduction in children’s IQ. The pooled analysis showed that for every 0.28 mg/L of fluoride in a pregnant mother’s urine, a one-point drop in her child’s IQ can be expected. With typical U.S. fluoride exposure levels often exceeding this threshold, the risks are clear — and action is long overdue.

Judge Chen stated "Even if the toxicologically determined hazard level of 0.28 mg/L were deemed insufficiently substantiated, evidence in the record still establishes with little doubt that fluoridated drinking water presents a risk of injury to health."

As an organization dedicated to biological dentistry and the science of safe dental practices, IAOMT will continue to advocate for fluoride-free water and raise awareness about the toxic effects of fluoride. The Academy also calls on local, state, and federal officials to end their support of fluoridation programs and ensure that public health policies reflect current scientific understanding by banning water fluoridation.

For the sake of our children, it is crucial that we ban water fluoridation and prioritize health over outdated, and now proven harmful, practices.

About IAOMT
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a global network of dentists, health professionals, and scientists dedicated to the safe and science-based practice of biological dentistry. The IAOMT supports research and education on the risks of toxic materials, including fluoride, in dental and healthcare practices.

The National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) recent report on fluoride neurotoxicity, provides compelling scientific evidence that fluoride exposure is consistently associated with lower IQ in children. This authoritative report validates longstanding concerns about the dangers of fluoride and highlights the necessity for immediate policy changes to protect public health according to The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT).

The NTP’s comprehensive analysis draws from a large body of scientific evidence, including numerous studies that have found a significant correlation between fluoride exposure and reduced cognitive function in children. The report emphasizes that the risk is particularly pronounced for babies whose developing brains are most vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects of fluoride.

Dr. Charles Cuprill, IAOMT President, stated, “The NTP report on the neurotoxicity of fluoride should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers and public health officials. For decades, the IAOMT has warned the public about the toxicity of fluoride, and the NTP’s findings underscore the urgent need to end the fluoridation of our public water supplies to protect public health, especially for our most vulnerable populations.”

Key Findings from the NTP Report:

• Consistent Association: The NTP report found that fluoride exposure is consistently associated with lower IQ scores in children. This finding is supported by multiple studies across different populations and geographic locations.

• Vulnerable Populations: The report highlights that pregnant women and young children are particularly susceptible to the harmful effects of fluoride, which can lead to irreversible damage to the developing brain.

• Dose-Response Relationship: The evidence suggests a dose-response relationship, where higher levels of fluoride exposure correspond to greater reductions in IQ, further strengthening the causal link between fluoride and cognitive impairment.

The report also noted that water is not the only source of fluoride exposure. “Additional exposures to fluoride from other sources would increase total fluoride exposure,” the report stated. “The moderate confidence conclusions may also be relevant to people living in optimally fluoridated areas of the United States, depending on the extent of their additional exposures to fluoride from sources other than drinking water.” This suggests that the cumulative effect of fluoride intake from multiple sources could have broader implications for public health in these communities.

A significant study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Malin et al., 2024) revealed alarming findings regarding the impact of fluoride exposure during pregnancy. Although this study was released too late to be included in the NTP report, it provides critical new evidence. The study found that in fluoridated Los Angeles, children born to mothers with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy had double the odds of developing several neurobehavioral problems compared to those whose mothers had lower exposures. The research was funded by both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

This latest study is particularly noteworthy as it marks the 10th consecutive NIH-funded study in humans to identify harmful effects of fluoride on children’s developing brains. These findings add to the mounting evidence, underscoring the urgent need to stop adding fluoride to water systems and stop its promotion in public health policies. The IAOMT also urges further research to explore the long-term effects of fluoride on brain development and overall health.

The IAOMT remains committed to advocating for evidence-based practices in oral health and toxicology. As new research emerges, the IAOMT will continue to provide guidance and support to ensure public health is safeguarded.

For more information about the NTP report and IAOMT’s stance on fluoride, please visit www.iaomt.org

Recent years have seen an increasing number of studies highlighting the neurotoxic effects of fluoride, particularly on children’s developing brains. Funded by the US governments’ National Institutes of Health (NIH), ten significant studies have explored these adverse effects, bringing attention to the precautionary principle in public health policy. This article delves into these findings, contrasts them with responses from the American Dental Association (ADA), and discusses the challenges in changing public health policies.

Key Findings from NIH-Funded Fluoride Studies:

• Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children in Mexico
  This study examined the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children aged 4 to 12. The results indicated a significant decrease in IQ scores among children with higher prenatal fluoride exposure​​.

• Fluoride Exposure and ADHD Symptoms
  Research conducted in Mexico City found a correlation between prenatal fluoride exposure and increased ADHD symptoms in children aged 6 to 12. This study underscored the behavioral impacts of fluoride exposure during critical developmental periods​​.

• Maternal Fluoride Exposure and IQ Scores in Canada
  A Canadian study linked maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy to lower IQ scores in offspring. This large-scale research provided compelling evidence of fluoride’s neurotoxicity​​.

• Fluoride from Infant Formula and Child IQ
  Another Canadian study found that infants fed formula mixed with fluoridated water had lower IQ scores compared to those fed formula mixed with non-fluoridated water, highlighting the risks associated with early-life fluoride exposure​​.

• Dietary Fluoride Intake and Neurodevelopment
  This prospective study investigated fluoride intake during pregnancy and its impact on toddlers’ neurodevelopment, revealing negative effects on cognitive functions and developmental milestones​​.

• Fluoride Exposure and Neurobehavioral Problems
  A study from the Keck School of Medicine of USC showed that higher fluoride levels during pregnancy were linked to increased neurobehavioral problems, such as emotional reactivity and anxiety, in children​​.

• Iodine Status and Fluoride Exposure
  Research highlighted how iodine status can modify the association between fluoride exposure and intelligence, particularly in boys. Adequate iodine intake during pregnancy may mitigate some of fluoride’s adverse effects​​.

• Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at 36 Months
  This study found that higher maternal urinary fluoride levels were associated with increased neurobehavioral issues in children at 36 months, emphasizing the critical window of prenatal exposure​​.

• Fluoride and Hypothyroidism
  A Canadian cohort study linked higher fluoride exposure to an increased risk of hypothyroidism in pregnant women, which in turn can affect fetal brain development and lead to cognitive deficits in children​​.

• Neurodevelopmental Risks from Environmental Contaminants
  The MADRES cohort study in Los Angeles identified that maternal fluoride exposure was associated with higher rates of clinically significant neurobehavioral problems in children, underscoring the need for targeted public health interventions​​.

By examining the motivations behind the IAOMT’s stance and contrasting it with the perspectives of those who may have different motivations to not acknowledge these harms, we gain insight into the complex landscape of oral health policies and the divergent viewpoints held within the field.

The IAOMT’s Commitment to Human Health:

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) holds a distinctive position among dental organizations concerning the use of biocompatible dental materials and harmful chemicals such as the use of mercury and fluoride in dentistry. The IAOMT advocates for the protection of human health by discouraging the use of substances, products, therapies and medical devices that have associated harms as published in the scientific literature.

The IAOMT takes a strong stand against the use of mercury and fluoride based on scientific evidence indicating adverse effects on human health. Our position is grounded in a belief that the precautionary principle should serve to guide us in shaping oral health practices, with a primary focus on the well-being of patients. 

The precautionary principle is a concept that emphasizes taking preventive action in the face of uncertain risks, even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence. It advocates for erring on the side of caution to protect public health and minimize potential harm. 

Using the precautionary principle as a guide, the IAOMT seeks to create a framework that prompts dental professionals to critically evaluate the substances and procedures used in oral health practices. We emphasize the importance of exploring alternative materials and methods that are less likely to pose health risks, thereby ensuring the long-term safety and well-being of patients.

By advocating for the elimination of water fluoridation and mercury-based dental fillings, the IAOMT aims to protect individuals from the known, well established risks associated with these substances. Our motivations are centered around the promotion of a safer and more holistic approach to oral health.

Criticism of ADA’s position on fluoride and their response to recent studies.

The American Dental Association (ADA) recently published an article titled “ADA Says Exploratory Study Should Not Change Public Health Recommendation,” which addresses the most recent study questioning the benefits of fluoridated water. While the ADA emphasizes the exploratory nature of the study and reaffirms its stance on fluoridation, it is crucial to examine this response critically, especially given the broader context of emerging scientific evidence and public health concerns.

The ADA has consistently supported the use of fluoride in public water systems, citing its benefits in preventing dental caries. However, this unwavering stance does a disservice to public health by downplaying a large body of scientific evidence indicating harm. 

Despite mounting evidence, the ADA argues that recent studies are not conclusive enough to change public health recommendations. This position neglects the precautionary principle and overlooks the growing body of research suggesting that the risks of fluoride exposure outweigh its dental benefits​​.

By dismissing these findings as merely “exploratory,” the ADA fails to acknowledge the potential neurodevelopmental risks posed to children. Their stance reflects an inherent bias towards maintaining the status quo, and side steps any scientific discourse. This approach also undermines public trust and hinders the adoption of more protective health measures based on emerging scientific evidence.

Reliance on Historical Consensus

The ADA’s argument heavily relies on historical consensus and endorsements from government entities like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). While historical consensus is valuable, it should not serve as a shield against new evidence. Scientific understanding evolves, and public health recommendations must adapt accordingly. The ADA’s reliance on past endorsements without sufficiently addressing current scientific debates suggests a reluctance to engage with new data critically.

Moreover, the assertion that fluoridation is a “safe, effective, and equitable” public health measure needs continuous re-evaluation in light of contemporary research. The historical context of fluoridation’s adoption in the mid-20th century differs significantly from today’s environment, where advanced research methodologies and a better understanding of chemical exposures necessitate re-assessment of long-standing practices.

Here is a video overview from Nutrition Facts.org giving a damning critique of medicine’s response to the changing science on #Fluoride safety.

The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) urgently highlights a concerning study, titled “Estimated mercury vapor exposure from amalgams among American pregnant women.” This study presents groundbreaking findings on the mercury vapor exposure from dental amalgams of pregnant women in the United States.

This comprehensive research, published in the journal of Human and Experimental Toxicology was based on data from the CDC’s 2015-2020 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), which analyzed mercury vapor exposure in approximately 1.67 million pregnant women.

Composite fillings are becoming the choice of many dentists and their patients, however 120 million Americans still have amalgam fillings. In this study, approximately 1 in 3 women were found to have 1 or more amalgam surfaces. In women with amalgam surfaces, the number of surfaces, correlated with significantly higher median daily urinary mercury excretion compared to women without amalgams. Notably, close to 30% of these women received daily mercury vapor doses from amalgams exceeding the safety limits set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In September 2020, the FDA updated its guidelines on dental amalgam fillings, emphasizing their risks for certain vulnerable groups. They particularly noted the risk of fetal exposure during pregnancy, advising against amalgam fillings for women from fetal stage to menopause. The FDA also advised that children, individuals with neurological diseases like multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, or Parkinson’s, those with impaired kidney function, and anyone with a known sensitivity to mercury or amalgam components, should avoid these fillings.

The IAOMT asserts that FDA's current position on amalgams is woefully inadequate. Our organization advocates for the discontinuation of mercury amalgam fillings. We also emphasize the need for safer dental practices regarding the removal of mercury dental fillings. To address this safety concern, The IAOMT has created the Safe Mercury Amalgam Removal Technique, also known as SMART.

Resources for dental professionals and patients regarding the negative health effects of mercury amalgam dental fillings as well as a directory of IAOMT biological dentists certified in the safe mercury amalgam removal technique (SMART) can be found at IAOMT.org

About IAOMT:
The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) is a global organization dedicated to promoting safe and biocompatible dental practices. Comprising leading dentists, scientists, and allied professionals, IAOMT provides evidence-based education, research, and advocacy to improve the oral health and overall well-being of patients worldwide.

Introduction

In the field of dentistry and oral health, understanding various dental conditions and their implications for systemic health is crucial for providing optimal care to patients. One such condition that has gained attention in recent years is "jawbone cavitations." The International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) published a position paper in 2014 shedding light on this topic.

Jawbone cavitations, often referred to as "cavitations" or "ischemic osteonecrosis," are areas of dead or necrotic bone in the jawbone. They are typically found in the jawbone where a tooth extraction, especially wisdom teeth, or oral surgery has taken place. These areas may not heal properly and can become a breeding ground for bacteria and toxins, having great potential for contributing to chronic health issues.

Recently, the IAOMT has released an updated position paper on Human Jawbone Cavitations, providing a thorough analysis and insights into this complex medical-dental condition. The paper is a collaborative effort of renowned experts in the field, aiming to shed light on the diagnosis, risk factors, systemic implications, and treatment modalities associated with jawbone cavitations.

Drawing upon detailed histological observations, the IAOMT has recommended a name that aligns more closely with the scientific and medical aspects of the condition known as Jawbone Osteonecrosis. This proposed name is "Chronic Ischemic Medullary Disease of the Jawbone" or CIMDJ. By adopting this terminology, we aim to provide a more precise and accurate representation of the underlying pathological processes and characteristics associated with this condition.

In this article, we explore the history, diagnosis, risk factors, systemic and clinical implications, treatment modalities, and conclusions related to jawbone osteonecrosis. We also delve into the evolving considerations for diagnostic purposes, such as thermography and acupuncture meridian assessment. Additionally, we will highlight alternative treatment strategies and provide an overview of the IAOMT survey results on the resolution of systemic symptoms following cavitation surgery.

History

Throughout its history, what we are referring to as CIMDJ has been referred to by a multitude of names and acronyms that are listed in Table 1 and are briefly discussed below.

Jawbone cavitations have been diagnosed, treated, and researched since the 1860s. Over the years, various names and acronyms have been used to describe this condition, including neuralgia-inducing cavitational osteonecrosis (NICO) and chronic fibrosing osteomyelitis (CFO).

Research on jawbone cavitations seemed to come to a halt until the 1970s when others began researching the topic and publishing information regarding it in modern oral pathology textbooks. Since 2010, Dr. Johann Lechner, the most widely published author and researcher on jawbone cavitational lesions, and others have been researching the relationship of these lesions to cytokine production, especially the inflammatory cytokine RANTES (also known as CCL5).

Diagnosis

The use of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) radiographs (CAT scan) has become increasingly common in diagnosing jawbone cavitations. CBCT radiographs have contributed to the identification of these cavitations, which were previously overlooked.  These cavitations are often not detected on standard 2D radiographic films. CBCT provides a 3D view of the lesion, allowing for better identification of the size, extent, and contents of the cavity. Recently developed software that is specifically integrated with different types of CBCT devices allows for a standardized assessment of bone density which helps the dentist verify the presence of any cavitations in the jawbone.

Ultrasound devices, such as CaviTAU™®, have also been developed for detecting low bone density areas suggestive of jawbone cavitations. Developed in Germany, this device is currently unavailable in the U.S. but is under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Biomarkers, such as cytokines, have been investigated as diagnostic tools for jawbone osteonecrosis.

Because of the inflammatory nature of jawbone cavitations, researchers have investigated the possible relationship between select cytokines and the disease. Additionally, the use of ultrasound, biomarkers, and histological examination are discussed as evolving considerations for diagnostic purposes.

Risk Factors

The development of jawbone cavitations can be attributed to various risk factors, including external influences such as environmental factors and internal influences such as poor immune function. Genetic predisposition may also play a role in the development of jawbone osteonecrosis. Hypercoagulation, or excessive production of blood clots, has been identified as a common risk factor for jawbone cavitations. An important consideration when diagnosing and treating jawbone cavitations is whether the individual is taking antidepressants, specifically selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). SSRIs have been associated with reduced bone mass density and increased fracture rates. The SSRI Fluoxetine (Prozac—which contains fluoride) directly inhibits osteoblast differentiation and mineralization.

Systemic and Clinical Implications

Jawbone cavitations have been associated with a wide range of systemic and clinical implications. The most unique and groundbreaking realization that have come to light since the IAOMT 2014 position paper is the improvement or resolution of seemingly unrelated chronic inflammatory conditions following cavitation treatment. Whether systemic illnesses are of an autoimmune nature or inflammation occurring otherwise, significant improvements have been reported. Examples of conditions that have remitted following treatment include chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, brain fog, arthritis, and localized jaw pain, among others. The presence of cytokines generated in the necrotic lesions of cavitations can contribute to the development and progression of chronic inflammatory diseases. Research has shown that the treatment of cavitations can lead to improvements in quality of life and a reduction in symptoms associated with systemic illnesses.

Treatment Modalities

Surgical therapy is often recommended for the treatment of jawbone cavitations. This involves excising the affected non-vital bone, thoroughly cleaning out the lesion, and promoting the regrowth of normal, vital bone. Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) grafts and other adjunctive therapies may be used to enhance healing.

Preconditioning may also contribute to successful treatment outcomes. This involves creating a tissue environment conducive to healing by supplying the body with adequate levels of appropriate nutrients that improve the biological terrain by optimizing homeostasis in the body. Ideally, the reduction of any toxic load on the body such as fluoride and/or mercury from dental amalgam fillings should be completed before treatment of jawbone cavitations. As mentioned above, if the individual is taking selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as Fluoxetine (Prozac—which contains fluoride) bone health can be altered.

Alternative treatment strategies, such as homeopathy, electrical stimulation, red light therapy such as photobiomodulation and laser, medical grade oxygen/ozone, hyperbaric oxygen, anticoagulation modalities, Sanum remedies, nutrition and nutraceuticals, infra-red sauna, intravenous ozone therapy, energy treatments, and others are also being explored but require further research to determine their efficacy.

IAOMT Survey Results

The first survey was conducted to learn more about what types of conditions resolve and how close to surgery remission occurs (see Appendix 1 in full paper). Respondents rated the level of improvement (mild, moderate or significant) and noted whether improvement occurred rapidly (0-2 months) or took longer (> 2 months).  Localized jaw pain, brain fog, arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome and other autoimmune disorders were the most common conditions reported and most symptoms remitted in less than two months. Additionally, respondents were queried on whether they typically performed surgery on individual sites (almost half), multiple unilateral sites (less than a quarter), or all sites in one surgery (about one/third).

The second survey was to gather information regarding what trends and treatments are developing toward a ‘standard of care’ (see Appendix 2 in full paper). To briefly summarize the results, most respondents are offered surgical treatment, which involves soft tissue reflection, surgical access of the cavitation site, and various methods of physically ‘cleaning out’ and disinfecting the affected site. Most respondents do not biopsy the lesions stating a variety of reasons including cost, inability to obtain viable tissue samples, difficulty in finding a pathology lab, or certainty of the status of the disease.  After cleaning, most respondents use ozone water/gas to disinfect and promote healing.  PRF (platelet-rich fibrin) and PRP (platelet-rich plasma) are also commonly used. A wide range of medicaments, nutraceuticals, and/or blood products are used to promote healing of the lesion prior to closing the soft tissue incision. Most respondents do not use antibiotics pre-operatively, during surgery or post-operatively. Many respondents use Vitamins C and/or utilize low level laser therapy post operatively for healing purposes.

Conclusions

Jawbone osteonecrosis, or chronic ischemic medullary disease of the jawbone (CIMDJ), is a complex condition that requires thorough diagnosis and treatment. CBCT and other imaging techniques have greatly improved the identification and understanding of jawbone cavitations. The link between jawbone cavitations and systemic illnesses highlights the importance of recognizing and treating these lesions. Surgical therapy remains the favored treatment modality, but alternative approaches are being explored. Further research is needed to establish standardized protocols and determine the long-term outcomes of different treatment strategies.

For more detailed information about Chronic Ischemic Medullary Disease of the jawbone please read our full position paper entitled, “IAOMT Position Paper on Human Jawbone Cavitations”.

In recent years, ozone therapy in the dental office setting has emerged as a very exciting addition for dental professionals to use in disinfection and healing of teeth, gums, and bones.

Ozone is three atoms of oxygen bound together as O3 (three oxygen atoms). In nature, it is created when oxygen interacts with UV radiation from the sun, lightning, or our body’s immune system. Medical ozone/oxygen (MOZO) used in dental procedures is artificially created by passing medical-grade oxygen through a high-energy electrical field of a medically tested device that creates reproducible levels of ozone at specific doses.

The gas produced is a combination of oxygen and ozone, usually on the order of over 99% oxygen and less than 1% ozone. The resulting combined oxygen/ozone gas can be collected in a syringe for direct use, bubbled through water to make a powerful, non-toxic irrigant, or bubbled through various oils such as olive oil to greatly enhance the shelf-life activity of ozone and a dependable commercial product. The reliability of medical ozone devices to produce these pure, precise, small amounts have been verified by third-party and/or government laboratory testing.

HOW DOES OXYGEN/OZONE THERAPY WORK?

Oxygen/ozone, when introduced into a living system, creates what is called a “transient oxidative burst.” The infective microorganisms have no natural defense against this reaction, and, as a result, are overstressed and die. Thus, oxygen/ozone disinfects the area treated, both safely and effectively.

This “oxidative burst” also induces a multitude of natural biochemical and physiologic reactions. These reactions include better blood flow, enhanced immune response, and a more rapid healing response. Ozone is able to penetrate and oxidize bacterial biofilms better than almost anything, which makes it uniquely useful for treating the pathogenic biofilms of periodontal disease.

HOW CAN OXYGEN/OZONE HELP IN MY DENTAL CARE?

Staying within the accepted standard of care, with proper application, oxygen/ozone can enhance the outcome in all aspects of dentistry. For example, periodontal disease is characterized by a biofilm associated, chronic inflammation of the gum and bone accompanied with an overgrowth of pathogens leading to an infection. By utilizing the different application forms of oxygen/ozone such as ozonated water, ozonated oils, and placing oxygen/ozone gas directly into the infected gum pockets, periodontal disease can be mitigated without the use of pharmaceutical drugs and associated side effects.

Tooth decay or caries, which is really a “tooth infection,” can be arrested almost immediately upon proper exposure to oxygen/ozone therapy. This procedure is especially useful when treating children, as minimal to no drilling of the tooth is necessary. Depending on the amount of tooth damage from the decay there may be a need to remove the softened material and place a filling.

One of the most complex and perplexing problems in dentistry today is infection control. The oral cavity is a sea of microorganisms ideally living in balance with the entire human body. Under certain conditions pathogenic or “disease-causing” microorganisms can become the dominant life forms, thus creating what we call infection. These pathogenic microorganisms live together in what is called a biofilm.

This biofilm supports a mixed type of infection made up of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and even parasites. The difficulty is that each of these “disease-causing” types needs a different drug to eliminate its dominance. What if we had an agent that could treat and eliminate the infection and, in addition, support the surrounding healthy tissue without toxic side effects? We do now with oxygen/ozone therapy for dentistry.

An adjuvant treatment method for jawbone cavitations is ozone therapy. Oxygen/ozone gas is injected in a dose-controlled manner into identified lesions and can be a profound disinfectant. Many of the anaerobic waste products of microbial metabolism are themselves pro-thrombotic and tend to perpetuate the bone ischemia problem common in cavitations. Ozone can also provoke a number of healing mechanisms that result in the generation of new circulation.

Another area of concern in dentistry is the field of Endodontics which is interested in infected root canals in teeth. As part of root canal treatment, the inflamed, infected, or necrotic pulp must be removed with special instruments followed by rigorous irrigation of the space once inhabited by the pulp. Compared to traditional irrigants such as bleach, oxygen/ozone therapy has a greater potential of more thoroughly disinfecting the inside of the tooth, even into the smallest canals and tubules and thus provides a high level of disinfection which is an essential goal for this controversial treatment (see photo).

If used and applied properly, ozonated water, oxygen/ozone gas, and oils have proven to be very safe. As with all medical procedures, only your healthcare provider can determine if this procedure is right for you.

Click the following link if you’d like to find an IAOMT integrative biological dentist who uses ozone near you!

This IAOMT presentation on ozone by Griffin Cole, DDS, NMD, MIAOMT is considered essential for both dentists & other dental staff members who want to understand more about the benefits of ozone use in biological dentistry.

Further reading.

If you are interested in more information about ozone’s use in dentistry, these selected articles will provide a firm foundation of introductory knowledge:

Ali M., Mollica P., Harris R. Of Metalicized Mouths, Mycotoxicosis, and Oxygen. Townsend Letter, 2006 6 73-76
https://www.townsendletter.com/

AlMogbel AA, Albarrak MI, AlNumair SF. Ozone Therapy in the Management and Prevention of Caries. Cureus. 2023 Apr 12;15(4):e37510. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37510 https://assets.cureus.com/uploads/review_article/pdf/141403/20230512-8203-fhzeib.pdf

Baysan A. Lynch E. Effects of ozone on the oral microbiota and clinical severity of primary root caries. Am I Dent. 2004 17: 56-6o https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15241911/

Bocci V. Oxygen/Ozone therapy. A critical evaluation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002: 1-440
https://scirp.org/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=1619940

Bocci V. Ozone A new medical drug. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands 2004: 1-295  https://www.academia.edu/13091557/OZONE_A_New_Medical_Drug_OZONE_A_New_Medical_Drug

Ferreira Jr LH Jr, Mendonsa Jr KD Jr, Chaves de Souza J, Soares Dos Reis DC, do Carmo Faleiros Veloso Guedes C, de Souza Castro Filice L, Bruzadelli Macedo S. Bisphosphonate-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw. Soares Rocha F. Minerva Dent Oral Sci. 2021 Feb;70(1):49-57. doi: 10.23736/S0026-4970.20.04306-X. Epub 2020 Sep 22 .PMID: 32960522 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32960522/

Iliadis D, Millar BJ. Ozone and its use in periodontal treatment. Open Journal of Stomatology. 2013; 3(2): ID:32069 https://www.scirp.org/html/12-1460225_32069.htm

Kumar A, Bhagawati S, Tyagi P, Kumar P. Current interpretations and scientific rationale of the ozone usage in dentistry: A systematic review of literature. Eur J Gen Dent 2014;3:175-80 https://www.thieme-connect.com/products/ejournals/pdf/10.4103/2278-9626.141658.pdf

Masato N., Kitamura C. et al. Antimicrobial Effect of Ozonated Water on Bacteria Invading Dentinal Tubules. I Endod. 2004,30(11 )778-781 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15505509/

Mohammadi Z, Shalavi S, Soltani MK, Asgary S. A review of the properties and applications of ozone in endodontics: an update. Iranian Endodontic Journal. 2013;8(2):40 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662033/

Nagayoshi M, Kitamura C, Fukuizumi T, Nishihara T, Terashita M. Antimicrobial effect of ozonated water on bacteria invading dentinal tubules. Journal of Endodontics. 2004 Nov 1;30(11):778-81 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15505509/

Nagayoshi M., Fukuizumi T., et al. Efficacy of ozone on survival and permeability of oral microorganism. Oral Microbiology an Immunology, 2004 19 240-246 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15209994/

Nardi GM, Cesarano F, Papa G, Chiavistelli L, Ardan R, Jedlinski M, Mazur M, Grassi R, Grassi FR. Evaluation of salivary matrix metalloproteinase (MMP-8) in periodontal patients undergoing non-surgical periodontal therapy and mouthwash based on ozonated olive oil: a randomized clinical trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020 Jan;17(18):6619 https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/18/6619

Pattanaik B, Jetwa D, Pattanaik S, Manglekar S, Naitam DN, Dani A. Ozone therapy in dentistry: a literature review. Journal of Interdisciplinary Dentistry. 2011 Jul 1;1(2):87 https://jidonline.com/article.asp?issn=2229-5194;year=2011;volume=1;issue=2;spage=87;epage=92;aulast=Pattanaik

Saini R. Ozone therapy in dentistry: A strategic review. Journal of Natural Science, Biology, and Medicine. 2011 Jul;2(2):151 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3276005/

Suh Y, Patel S, Kaitlyn R, Gandhi J, Joshi G, Smith NL, Khan SA. Clinical utility of ozone therapy in dental and oral medicine. Med Gas Res. 2019 Jul Sep;9(3):163-167. doi:10.4103/2045-9912.266997. PMID: 31552882 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31552882/

Thorp KE, Thorp JA. Ozone Preconditioning: Waking up the dragon. G Med Sci. 2021; 2(3): 010-039 https://www.thegms.co/internalmedicine/intmed-rw-21051402.pdf

Tiwari S, Avinash A, Katiyar S, Iyer AA, Jain S. Dental applications of ozone therapy: A review of literature. The Saudi Journal for Dental Research. 2017 Jan 1;8(1-2):105-11 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352003516300260

Tonon, C, Panariello, B, Spolidorlo, D, Gossweiler, A, Duarte, S. Anti-biofilm effect of ozonized physiological saline solution on peri-implant-related biofilm J Periodontal. 2020;1 -12 DOI: 10.1002/JPER. 20-0333 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33231303/

Tricarico G, Orlandin JR, Rocchetti V, Ambrosio CE, Travagli V. A critical evaluation of the use of ozone and its derivatives in dentistry. European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences. 2020 Jan 1;24:9071-93 https://www.europeanreview.org/article/22854

Veneri F, Bardellini E, Amadori F, Conti G, Majorana Efficacy of ozonized water for the treatment of erosive oral lichen planus: a randomized controlled study. A.Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2020 Sep 1;25(5):e675-e682. doi : 10.4317 /medoral.23693.PMID: 32683383 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7473429/

Despite over a month of intense back and forth with multiple explanations and revisions to the video to address these concerns, Hulu has still not approved the 30-second PSA. UPDATE 06/20/2023: One day after posting this article, we uploaded yet another version of PSA to Hulu and we got an automated response that the ad was approved. It will now play on Hulu from 6/21 - 7/02, unless a human intervenes and cancels our ad, in which case… no take backs!

In a separate instance, YouTube has removed more than a dozen videos featuring speaker presentations from the IAOMT's YouTube channel, citing a violation of their Community Guidelines. Faced with this censorship, the IAOMT decided to back up its entire video library on the streaming video website Rumble.

These experiences have prompted us to write this article titled "Censorship of Valid Scientific Findings: Hindering Informed Health Decisions."   

Censorship

In the pursuit of public health, it is crucial to have open and transparent scientific discourse that allows for the exploration of diverse viewpoints and findings. However, when valid scientific research, which challenges prevailing public health policies, is suppressed or censored, it creates an environment where individuals are deprived of the information necessary to make informed decisions about their health.

Censorship of scientific findings limits our collective understanding of the world and impedes the development of new ideas and solutions to pressing societal challenges. By engaging in open scientific debate and discussions, society can collectively challenge existing paradigms and drive scientific progress forward.

This article delves into the concerning issue of censorship, highlighting how it impedes the dissemination of vital scientific knowledge and the adverse consequences it can have on public health decisions. Using the example of water fluoridation, we will examine how vested interests and unwavering protection of the status quo can impede the adoption of new science that challenges established public health initiatives.

The Importance of Informed Decision-Making

Informed decision-making lies at the heart of individual autonomy and personal health choices. People rely on accurate information to evaluate potential risks and benefits and make choices that align with their values and well-being. Access to diverse scientific findings is essential for this process, enabling individuals to weigh the evidence, question prevailing narratives, and adopt informed approaches.

Science and Public Health Policies

Science serves as a gradual process of learning and understanding, often surpassing the pace at which public health policies are updated. As new scientific findings emerge, they will challenge existing policies, revealing the need for adjustments to protect public well-being.

However, changes in public health policies require widespread awareness and informed consensus. When individuals are educated about the latest scientific evidence, they can advocate for policy modifications, thereby influencing personal health choices and fostering a society that aligns with current scientific knowledge for the benefit of all.

Censorship and its Implications

Unfortunately, the censorship of scientific findings that challenge established public health policies restricts the flow of knowledge and undermines the principles of informed decision-making.

Valid scientific research, which is contrary to prevailing narratives, can face obstacles in publication, funding, and dissemination. This censorship not only deprives the public of information but also stunts scientific progress by inhibiting robust scientific debate.

The Role of Vested Interests

In some cases, organizations or individuals are financially tied to specific public health initiatives, which have been found to have adverse health outcomes. As a result, their livelihoods depend on promoting these initiatives, creating a conflict of interest that obstructs the acceptance of new scientific evidence.

The Fluoridation Example

Water fluoridation serves as a pertinent example of how censorship and vested interests can hinder the adoption of new scientific knowledge. For decades, water fluoridation has been promoted to the public as a safe and effective public health initiative to prevent dental caries.

However, over the last decade, many studies from around the world have found a multitude of adverse health effects, such as neurotoxicity, from ingesting fluoride.

Pressure to uphold the status quo

Despite the emergence of valid scientific research supporting concerns about the adverse health effects of water fluoridation, proponents in public health are pressured to uphold the status quo and ignore new evidence that contradicts established narratives.

Professional backlash, reputational damage, loss of credibility

Many individuals and organizations have invested significant time and effort in supporting and advocating for water fluoridation as an effective preventive measure against dental caries.

As a result, their credibility and professional standing become intertwined with the success and continuation of these initiatives. Challenging the prevailing narrative and accepting new evidence that questions the safety or efficacy of fluoridation can be seen as a betrayal of their previous work, potentially damaging their professional reputation and credibility.

Additionally, organizations that have actively promoted water fluoridation may face challenges in embracing new scientific findings due to concerns about the impact on their funding, operations, and public image. Any indication that the initiative may have adverse health outcomes could lead to public scrutiny, loss of trust, and even legal ramifications.

Influences on Politics and Fluoridation Policy

The influence of vested interests plays a significant role in shaping the politics of public health, which can further contribute to the reluctance to embrace new scientific findings. Public health initiatives are not immune to the pressures exerted by powerful stakeholders who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, even in the face of contradictory evidence.

The American Dental Association possesses significant resources, lobbying power, and access to decision-makers, enabling them to help shape and influence public oral health policies that align with their interests, such as the promotion of water fluoridation.

The influence of traditional dental organizations can manifest in various ways, including campaign donations, political lobbying, sponsorship of research studies, and funding of advocacy groups. All of which can permeate the decision-making process and impede the acceptance of new scientific findings that challenge established practices or require regulatory changes.

Vested interests and industry influence can also extend to individuals within governmental bodies and regulatory agencies responsible for shaping public health policies. Revolving door dynamics, where individuals move between industry and government positions, can create situations where regulatory decisions are influenced by personal connections or potential future employment opportunities in the private sector. These dynamics can further perpetuate the resistance to embracing new scientific evidence that may disrupt existing policies.

Furthermore, industry-funded research and the selective use of scientific evidence can skew public health narratives and shape policy debates. The influence of industry-funded research can introduce biases, conflicts of interest, and methodological limitations, which leads to the cherry-picking of evidence that supports predetermined outcomes.

Such practices creates an imbalance in the scientific discourse, making it challenging for alternative viewpoints or contradictory findings to gain attention or acceptance.

The Way Forward

To ensure the public's access to accurate information and enable informed decision-making, it is vital to address the issue of censorship. This can be achieved through:

1. Fostering an environment of open scientific discourse: Encouraging scientific transparency and allowing dissenting opinions promotes robust scientific debate and encourages the exploration of different perspectives.

2. The scientific community, professional organizations, and policymakers need to promote a culture that values evidence-based decision-making over maintaining the status quo.

3. Transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence, funding allocation for independent research, and protections against conflicts of interest can help mitigate the pressures faced by proponents of public health initiatives when confronted with new scientific findings.

4. Independent research and funding: Allocating resources to independent research and funding agencies, free from industry influence, can help mitigate conflicts of interest and ensure the pursuit of unbiased science.

5. Promoting science literacy: Empowering individuals with the skills to critically evaluate scientific information enables them to make informed decisions and question prevailing narratives.

6. Prohibiting Censorship: Organizations and individuals should work towards prioritizing the open exchange of ideas and promoting the importance of evidence-based decision-making while challenging attempts to suppress scientific information.

Conclusion

The censorship of valid scientific findings that challenge existing public health policies undermines individuals' ability to make informed decisions about their health. The example of water fluoridation highlights how entrenched public health policies protected by biased individuals, organizations and vested interests can obstruct the acceptance of new scientific knowledge.

Through collective efforts, we can ensure that scientific knowledge remains unrestricted, enabling us to embrace a future built on the principles of transparency, intellectual curiosity, and unrestricted access to information.

To overcome these challenges, it is crucial to foster an environment of open scientific discourse, support independent research, promote science literacy, make evidence-based decisions and protest against organizations and individuals who practice censoring scientific information from the public’s view.

Only then can we ensure that individuals have access to the most current and reliable scientific findings, allowing them to make informed choices that align with their personal health needs and values.

For those interested, here is our back and forth communication with Hulu, which inspired this article. Watch our PSA that Hulu thinks does not have relevance to the general public.

IAOMT

Dear Hulu, The ad our non profit submitted was rejected. I double checked the technical specs and all looks good, so that leaves me to believe it is based upon content.

Hulu stated in the rejection email "The Ad does not adhere to Hulu's Technical Specifications and Advertising Policies. Please review the guidelines and re-submit with a different Ad. Not all claims were substantiated."

HULU

Thank you for contacting us about your ad. I've escalated your ad for additional review with the details you provided below, and will followup once I have more details to share.

HULU

We have escalated your ad and will need a few updates for it to be approved. Please find our feedback below:

At a minimum this creative requires a "Paid for" disclosure.

This is less of a substantiation issue than an issue of potentially interfering with the doctor/patient relationship. In addition, we would ask the sponsor about the objective of this communication and its relevance to the public.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Thanks for getting back to me. I might need a little help deciphering what they are asking and what they want me to do. Please let me know what they mean by "paid for" disclosure. We are already disclosing who we are (and we are paying for the ad). Do I need to put any particular text on screen?

As a non profit in the dental sector we raise awareness about issues that concern dentistry and our patients.

In the video we state

• the government division

• the report the division released

• only the findings of the report (no opinion, conjecture or recommendations)

• go to our site for more information

We are not recommending any treatments, so I disagree that we are stating anything in a way that would interfere with a doctor patient relationship as we are solely reporting on the findings of the National Toxicology Program report on Fluoride Neurotoxicity.

Onscreen we list our our speaker Dr. Griffin Cole and the name of our Academy. Dr. Cole is past president of the academy, a current member and spokesperson on the IAOMT.

With this info, please help guide me as to what to do to get our video approved

HULU
As we continue to process the nature of the messaging of this creative, we still have some outstanding questions and comments:

1)    Due the non-profit organizational ad, this creative will need a paid for sponsorship identification: “Paid for by…” or “Sponsored by…”

A text disclosure on the end card is sufficient.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Not a problem, consider it done. Can you please show me where I missed this requirement in your terms of service?

HULU

2)    Please provide more specific information about the intended outcome and expectations of this messaging.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Intended Outcome = That our paid public service announcement ad raises awareness of the key findings of the National Toxicology Programs report on Fluoride Neurotoxicity.

Expectations = The public will have a more balanced view of the science surrounding fluorides impact on the brain due to new scientific findings in 52 studies analyzed and reviewed by the National Toxicology Program

HULU

3)    Are there behavioral issues relevant to the findings referenced within the creative?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

That would be conjecture as we are only mentioning the key findings of the report.

HULU

4)    To the extent that the messaging in this creative could suggest changes in health habits, please address the initial question we raised as to the potential impact on doctor-patient relationships and individual health maintenance.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

We are not aware of any instances where raising awareness of scientific findings impact the doctor patient relationship. We do not suggest any health habit changes what-so-ever, thus there is no interference and no impact on the doctor-patient relationship.  The video does not contain any recommendations, thus questions about potential impact on individual health maintenance is outside the scope of what we discuss in the video.

As a potential solution to your concern, we are open to putting text on the end card to address your concern. Potential wording could state "If you have any questions, please consult your dentist"

I look forward to hearing from you

HULU

Subject to responses to our questions/comments below in red and the receipt of a revised creative with the requested sponsorship super and the super, "If you have any questions, please consult your dentist," we look forward to reviewing a revised creative.

1.) This general advertising principal is applicable to all advertising for organizations as nonprofits, particularly in creative presenting as public service announcements, to ensure proper sponsorship identification.

2.) Thank you for this additional information. Even with this information, the context of this ad leaves us wondering what the viewer is supposed to do with this awareness?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Science serves as a gradual process of learning and understanding, often surpassing the pace at which public health policies are updated. As new scientific findings emerge, they may challenge existing policies, revealing the need for adjustments to protect public well-being. However, changes in public health policies require widespread awareness and informed consensus. When individuals are educated about the latest scientific evidence can they advocate for policy modifications, thereby influencing personal health choices and fostering a society that aligns with current scientific knowledge for the benefit of all.

From our about webpage: "We are a non-profit organization and have been dedicated to our mission of protecting public health and the environment since we were founded in 1984. The IAOMT accomplishes our mission by funding and promoting relevant research, accumulating and disseminating scientific information, investigating and promoting non-invasive scientifically valid therapies, and educating medical and dental professionals, policy makers, and the general public."

When editing our PSA ad for Hulu, we choose to leave it up to the viewer, what to do with the PSA information as that seemed to be a straightforward approach to only supply the key facts, which presents a more neutral, less biased position.

HULU

What seems to be lacking in this creative is information on how viewers should process the information provided here. The scientific information, though measurable, seems to require additional clarity as to its everyday applicability to the lives and health habits of individuals.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

You really seem to want us to tell people what to do with the information instead of letting them choose to act on the information in what-ever way they deem appropriate.

To provide additional clarity, we can include in the video the guidance our doctors and dentist members provide as text... "Prevent cavities without fluoride. Floss and brush your teeth daily, eat a healthy diet that includes plenty of vegetables, good fats and ample protein and of course reduce sugar consumption."

Alternatively we can lead into the text with video footage of our spokesperson stating the following "To Prevent cavities without the risks of Fluoride nothing beats good oral hygiene." The rest would be listed onscreen (time constraints).

If adding either of those suggestions for clarity would address your concern, please consider it done.

HULU

Are there additional relevant caveats that could be added to this creative that would render the messaging and awareness more relevant to viewers?

3.) Please follow up comments in #2.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Please see above, for our suggestion of what we could include in the video.

HULU

Why is the report called a "draft?" Can the advertiser provide a copy of the report for our review?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

The report, titled the “NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review”

has been an ongoing source of controversy due to its findings and delays in its release. It is also a pivotal piece of evidence in the ongoing lawsuit brought against the EPA by the Fluoride Action Network.

Through the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), Plaintiffs obtained email communications between the NTP and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) regarding the NTP monograph. These emails confirm that the NTP considered the May 2022 monograph to be the NTP’s final report. (pg 4).

A court order has led to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) releasing a finalized systematic review of fluoride's neurotoxicity that was blocked by government officials and concealed from the public since May 2022. Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show government agencies that promote fluoridation, allied with dental interests, have tried to water down the report. When the NTP held firm, these agencies got HHS Assistant Administrator Rachel Levine to block its release.

The NTP’s 6-year Systematic Review has undergone an unprecedented peer-review process with five separate review processes done since 2019. The review consists of a monograph and a meta-analysis. A monograph is a specialized piece of in-depth scientific writing on a focused area.

The meta-analysis reported that 52 of 55 studies consistently found that people had lower IQ when exposed to higher levels of fluoride. Asked whether its meta-analysis had identified any safe dose of fluoride, NTP responded that they found "no obvious threshold" for total fluoride exposure or water fluoride exposure. NTP cited their report's graph showing a steep drop in IQ of about 7 points over a fluoride range from 0.2 to 1.5 mg/L.

At its May 4, 2023, public meeting, the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) voted unanimously to accept the BSC Working Group’s systematic review of the report

NTP director Richard Woychik, PH.D. is now ultimately responsible for deciding on the final publication. He said in his closing remarks that he will be working with the members of the working group and the NTP authors to make the revisions and try to get the report to publication as quickly as possible, hopefully in the next several weeks.

HULU

The claims and representations in this ad are clinical in nature

IAOMT RESPONSE:

If Hulu S&P are using the word "clinical" as commonly defined "relating to the observation and treatment of actual patients rather than theoretical or laboratory studies", Then we believe Hulu's S&P is inaccurately representing the claims made in our PSA as our "claims and representations" are not clinical in nature. Our ad presents statements of facts about the scientific findings (as outlined above) of the United States governments' National Toxicology Program report on fluoride neurotoxicity.

HULU

Therefore, as part of our review we continue to request information on how the findings of the report as portrayed in this creative are applicable to members of the audience.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

"Applicable" is defined as relevant or appropriate. As we have stated previously, we are raising awareness about an issue that is relevant and appropriate to the general public.

Making informed and educated decisions relies heavily on having access to complete and accurate information. The statements made in our ad are accurate as based upon new scientific findings by our government.

HULU

We are not intending to tell the advertiser what to write in its ads or what to tell the viewer to do.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

We appreciate that. We are simply trying to offer solutions so as to move forward with this process.

In addition to thoughtfully answering your questions, we have added "paid for by" to our video and as we previously outlined, we are offering to provide additional clarity

we can include in the video the guidance our doctors and dentist members provide as text... "Prevent cavities without fluoride. Floss and brush your teeth daily, eat a healthy diet that includes plenty of vegetables, good fats and ample protein and of course reduce sugar consumption."

Alternatively we can lead into the text with video footage of our spokesperson stating the following "To Prevent cavities without the risks of Fluoride nothing beats good oral hygiene." The rest (above text) would be listed on screen (due to time constraints).

Please indicate if doing either of these suggestions would address your concern, and we'll be happy to implement the changes.

HULU

The notes below reference thresholds of fluoride reported. As we continue to understand the relevance of this report to our viewers, could you please provide more specific information about where the testing was conducted, on what population, and the amount of fluoride an average viewer consumes (or is exposed to) versus the amounts tested and reported?

IAOMT RESPONSE:

I am requesting the names of those on the Hulu S&P that are responding to our ad request and the name of their immediate manager.

Please share with me the credentials of the person requesting this information about the specifics of the fluoride studies as I would hazard to guess that in comparison to the team at the US government's National Toxicology Program you have no experience in trying to double guess their findings.

Now, if you want to understand their findings all you have to do is read the report, which we have already sent you. All the information Hulu requested is within the NTP's report itself, which indicates those at Hulu requesting this information are not scientifically savy enough to read the report to get the information they are requesting directly from the report itself.

Hulu S&P is abusing their position by continually requesting a different set of questions to be answered before approving our fact based ad and I am requesting to have direct communications with your manager as we have thoroughly answered the extended series of questions you have posed to us and changed our ad based upon your recommendations.

HULU

Regarding the ad IAOMT FLUORIDE PSA HULU 30SEC V2, we would like to clarify that we are not questioning the study, but we are determining the consumer relevance of the important information communicated in the ad.

IAOMT RESPONSE:

Hulu posed several questions about the government study, which seemed to indicate you were questioning the merits of the studies evaluated by the government. These questions indicated you had not read the study, which you requested and I provided.

Additionally, Hulu has asked several times, over the last month of questioning, specifically about the relevance to the general public, which I've answered each time, apparently not to the liking of Hulu. This leads me to believe that whomever is in charge of approving the ad is holding it up by continually requesting the same subjective information over and over, with the result being a prolonged approval process that borders on harassment.

Here is your answer on relevance

It is relevant for the general public to be aware of different perspectives and ongoing research concerning fluoride and its potential effects. By being informed, individuals can engage in critical thinking and make well-rounded decisions based on available evidence. Open dialogue and access to accurate information allow people to consider various viewpoints and evaluate the credibility of scientific studies, which in this case have been thoroughly analyzed by the National Toxicology Program, which is under Health and Human Services of the United States government.

Here is the new version of the IAOMT’s PSA with the changes recommended by Hulu.

UPDATE 06/19/2023: still no word from Hulu whether they will air our PSA.

UPDATE 06/20/2023: One day after posting this article, we uploaded yet another version of PSA to Hulu and we got an automated response that the ad was approved. It will now play on Hulu from 6/21 - 7/02, unless a human intervenes and cancels our ad, in which case… no take backs! We have updated our subtitle to reflect this new information: “Youtube censors the dissemination of scientific information, while Hulu needlessly prolongs the process.”

History of Water Fluoridation Health Claims

In 1945, the United States public health service division of dental public health produced a video extolling the virtues of water fluoridation. It stated: "Dentists in many cities are helping to bring the benefits of fluoridation to children. Now our children can have better health through fluoridated water."

But after 78 years of being told that fluoride in our water supply is a health benefit for us, science has proven that is not true. Unfortunately, it’s the opposite - fluoride in our water supply actually causes neurological damage.

The National Toxicology Program

The National Toxicology Program (NTP), a division of Health and Human Services, recently released a draft report: “State of Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects: A Systematic Review”.

Their report, which analyzed 52 peer reviewed studies from around the world, found that ingesting fluoride was linked to brain impairment in babies. The studies also found attention deficit disorders and lower IQ’s in infants born to mothers who drank fluoridated water during pregnancy and in babies fed formulas mixed with fluoridated tap water.

False Claims About Fluoride Studies

Although pro-fluoridationists have tried to downplay this report, even going so far as to erroneously claim that all the studies have been “debunked”, the NTP has stated that they only reviewed high quality studies that carried out precise scientific methodologies with controls and accounted for all variables.

According to the Fluoride Action Network, the lead plaintiff currently involved in a landmark fluoridation court case against the EPA, the NTP document is the most peer-reviewed and scientifically scrutinized NTP report in history.

NTP Fluoride Report Blocked by HHS

Internal CDC emails discovered through Freedom Of Information Act requests by the Fluoride Action Network indicated that the publication of the final NTP report was blocked due to interference from the Assistant Health Secretary, Rachel Levine.

One email from the CDC’s Oral Health Director from June 3rd, 2022 stated, “ASH Levine has put the report on hold until further notice.”

It's disappointing that the release of this report, is being blocked by HHS and other government agencies who promote water fluoridation, and was only released after a court issued subpoena.

The release of this report and its findings are a huge win for the health of all individuals unnecessarily exposed to fluoride and those who advocate against the dangerous practice of water fluoridation as it puts us one step closer to ending the use of forced medication in our drinking water.

Prevent Cavities Without the Risks of Fluoride

And for those wondering if they can prevent cavities without the risks of fluoride, don't forget, nothing beats good oral hygiene – floss and brush your teeth daily for at least two minutes, eat a healthy diet that includes plenty of vegetables, good fats and ample protein and of course reduce your sugar consumption.

Visit the IAOMT website to find a biological dentist near you that doesn't use fluoride. For more information about fluoride facts go to IAOMT.org