Freedom Over Fluoride: Miami-Dade’s Fight for Medical Choice
Help to Uphold the Vote for Medical Freedom
On April 1, 2025, the Miami-Dade County Commission took a stand: an 8–2 vote to stop adding fluoride to the county’s drinking water, a practice since 1958. Hundreds of residents had spoken out, demanding the right to decide what goes into their bodies. The bipartisan coalition, led by Commissioner Roberto Gonzalez, called it a win for personal freedom, arguing that “forced mass medication is an outdated concept.” The decision was set to take effect within 30 days, impacting 2.8 million people served by the county’s water system.
But on April 11, Mayor Daniella Levine Cava vetoed the measure, calling the vote “rushed” and citing “clear science” that fluoridation prevents cavities, especially for low-income families. Flanked by dentists and medical experts, she warned of “long-term health consequences” if fluoride is removed. Now, the fight heads to a critical override vote on May 6, where Commissioners need a two-thirds majority—likely nine votes if all 13 are present, or eight if one seat is vacant—to uphold the original decision.
This isn’t just about fluoride. It’s about who makes health choices for Miami-Dade’s residents: you or the government. The Freedom Over Fluoride campaign is rallying residents to urge Commissioners to override the veto and protect medical autonomy. Here’s why this matters—and how you can act now.
The Miami-Dade Vote: A Stand for Freedom
The April 1 vote responded to growing concerns about fluoridation. Commissioner Gonzalez, the legislation’s sponsor, framed it as choice: “If you don’t want to consume this, you don’t have to.” Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo, present at the meeting, cited studies suggesting fluoride’s potential harms, like risks to children’s neurodevelopment. Supporters, including most public commenters, called fluoridation “forced medication.” The 8–2 vote showed bipartisan support, with only Commissioners Eileen Higgins and Raquel Regalado dissenting, the latter citing an unbalanced process. Three Commissioners—Keon Hardemon, Micky Steinberg, and Marleine Bastien—were absent.
The decision aligned Miami-Dade with a broader movement. Since November 2024, at least 14 Florida cities, including Lakeland and Palm Bay, have voted to remove fluoride, affecting nearly 1 million residents. Utah became the first state to ban fluoridation in March 2025, and Florida’s Legislature is considering a statewide ban. Critics like Ladapo and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s health secretary, argue fluoride’s risks outweigh benefits, citing a 2025 review linking high fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children. See a list of studies at the bottom of this post.
The Veto: A Clash of Science and Choice
Mayor Levine Cava’s veto, announced with experts like Dr. Beatriz Terry of the Florida Dental Association, emphasized fluoridation’s benefits. “Fluoride strengthens enamel, preventing decay,” Terry said, a view backed by the CDC, which calls fluoridation a top public health achievement. Levine Cava stressed equity, noting low-income families, often without dental care or fluoride toothpaste, benefit most. She criticized the Commission’s process, as a March 11 hearing featured only anti-fluoride voices, including Ladapo, with no pro-fluoridation experts.
Yet, the science isn’t settled. While the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics endorse low-level fluoridation (0.6–0.8 ppm in Miami-Dade, below the EPA’s 4 ppm limit), critics highlight studies suggesting risks, like a January 2025 review on cognitive effects in children. These often involve higher fluoride levels, but they fuel skepticism, especially post-COVID when trust in mandates eroded. Governor Ron DeSantis, backing removal, called it rejecting “forced medication.”
Why Override the Veto?
The veto challenges the will of Miami-Dade’s residents and Commissioners. The 8–2 vote reflected public demand, yet the Mayor’s action risks overriding both. Here’s why the Commission must act on May 6:
Honor the People’s Voice: Hundreds of residents spoke, and the vote honored their call for choice. An override ensures their voices prevail.
Protect Medical Autonomy: Forcing fluoride removes consent. As Gonzalez said, residents should decide whether to ingest a substance “usually prescribed by a doctor.”
Address Uncertainty: Fluoridation has benefits, but emerging studies raise concerns. When science is debated, consent trumps mandates.
Lead the Way: As Florida’s largest county, Miami-Dade can join 14 other cities and shape state policy for health freedom.
The override vote is tight. With Commissioner Kevin Cabrera likely resigning as Trump’s ambassador to Panama, eight votes may suffice if 12 Commissioners attend. The original eight supporters could secure it, but every voice counts to keep them resolute.
Even if fluoride’s advocates have valid points, it is easily accessible elsewhere, like toothpaste, which is more targeted than water. Advocates must address the ethical issue: should the government mandate a medical intervention, even if “safe,” without consent? The debate is as much about choice as science.
Act Now: Make Your Voice Heard
The May 6 override vote is Miami-Dade’s chance to affirm that health choices belong to individuals. The Freedom Over Fluoride campaign needs you to act now to ensure Commissioners override the veto. Here’s how:
Email Your Commissioner: Use the button below to send a pre-written email in under two minutes. Customize it to reflect your voice.
Urge the commission to uphold the 8–2 vote.
Spread the Word: Share this article on social media with #FreedomOverFluoride and #OverrideTheVeto. Tag friends to amplify our voice.
Stay Informed: Follow updates by subscribing to this Substack.
Time is critical. With the vote less than three weeks away, Commissioners need to hear from you to resist pressure from fluoridation advocates. As one X post said, “It’s time for the state to follow suit” in prioritizing choice.
A Bigger Picture
Miami-Dade’s fluoride fight reflects a national shift. From Utah’s ban to RFK Jr.’s push to end fluoridation, the debate signals a demand for bodily autonomy. Post-COVID, skepticism of public health mandates has grown. Whether you view fluoride as a health win or an overreach, the question is: who decides what’s in your water?
For Miami-Dade, the answer is its residents. The April 1 vote empowered individuals. On May 6, Commissioners can finish the job. Join Freedom Over Fluoride and demand the Miami-Dade Commission override the veto. Your email could make the difference.
Thank you for reading. If you value health choice, subscribe for updates and share this post to rally Miami-Dade’s residents. Let’s uphold the vote for medical freedom!
Links to Studies Showing Potential Dangers of Fluoride
This NTP monograph, published January 5, 2025, concludes with moderate confidence that higher fluoride exposure (>1.5 mg/L in drinking water) is associated with lower IQ in children, based on epidemiological studies from countries like Canada, China, India, and Mexico. It notes that an association does not prove causation and calls for more research at lower exposure levels (e.g., 0.7 mg/L). A related meta-analysis, published in JAMA Pediatrics (January 6, 2025), found a statistically significant link between higher fluoride and lower IQ across 74 studies, though many were rated low quality. Critics argue the studies’ relevance to U.S. fluoridation levels is limited, but the findings influenced a federal court ruling on EPA regulations.
Harvard Meta-Analysis on Fluoride and Children’s Cognitive Development (July 2012)
Published in Environmental Health Perspectives by researchers from Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, this meta-analysis of 27 studies (mostly from China) found strong indications that high fluoride levels in drinking water may adversely affect children’s cognitive development, with an average IQ reduction of about 7 points in high-fluoride areas.
USC Study on Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Childhood Neurobehavioral Problems (May 2024)
Published in JAMA Network Open, this study from the Keck School of Medicine at USC examined 229 mother-child pairs in Los Angeles. It found that a 0.68 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy was associated with nearly double the risk of children showing neurobehavioral problems (e.g., emotional reactivity, anxiety, autism-related symptoms) at age three. Conducted in a fluoridated region, it suggests risks at levels typical of U.S. water fluoridation.
Canadian MIREC Study on Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and IQ (2019, referenced in 2020 article)
This study, part of the Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Contaminants (MIREC) cohort, found that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women in Canadian cities (40% fluoridated) was associated with a 3–5 point lower IQ in their children aged 3–4, particularly in boys. Published in JAMA Pediatrics (2019) and discussed in a 2020 Pediatric Research article, it faced criticism for methodological issues but is one of four high-quality studies linking prenatal fluoride to neurodevelopmental effects.
Systematic Review and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis on Fluoride and IQ (March 2023)
Published in Environmental Research, this review of 33 studies found a mean IQ decrease of 4.68 points comparing highest to lowest fluoride exposure, with a linear IQ decline above 1 mg/L in drinking water. The association was stronger in studies with high risk of bias, and the only low-risk study showed no effect. Residual confounding could not be ruled out, highlighting the need for better-designed studies.
National Research Council (NRC) Report on Fluoride (2006)
This NRC report evaluated fluoride’s effects and found that high exposure (e.g., 4 ppm) can cause severe dental fluorosis, weaken bones, and increase fracture risk. It also noted preliminary evidence of potential cognitive effects based on Chinese studies (deemed not directly relevant to the U.S.) and recommended further research on intelligence and neurotoxicity.
Critical Evaluation of Fluoride Neurotoxicity (May 2020)
Published in Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, this review analyzed human, animal, and in vitro studies. It found 21 of 23 epidemiological studies since 2012 reported an association between high fluoride exposure and reduced intelligence, though animal studies showed inconsistent results due to quality issues. The margin of exposure between no-observed-adverse-effect levels in animals and human intake suggests safety at typical doses, but epidemiological data raise concerns.