+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 4 8 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 145

Thread: The Fluoride Thread

  1. Link to Post #61
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Iodine Medicine
    Published on March 8, 2019
    by Dr, Mark Sircus
    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-m...371d87924f83a6
    "Doctors and their teachers at medical school have forgotten all about iodine and its importance in health and medicine. Their stubborness, arrogance and complete ignorance of iodine creates unimaginable pain and suffering that for many ends with death from cancer. If you want someone to die from cancer do not give them iodine. That means most oncologists have a death wish for their patients wanting to maximize the chances that their treatments will not work.

    I have learned a lot about iodine from Dr. David Brownstein, who recently wrote, “In medical school, I was taught that iodine deficiency was a thing of the past. It took me a short time into my holistic practice of medicine to realize that what I was taught about iodine was incorrect. In fact, I have been writing about iodine and its importance to health for nearly 15 years. When I started researching iodine in the late 1990s, I was shocked to discover that iodine deficiency was still occurring across the United States. When I began testing my patient’s iodine levels I found the vast majority—over 97%–were iodine deficient and most were severely iodine deficient.”

    He tells us that “Iodine deficiency epidemic was increasing because of our increasing exposures to toxic halides fluoride and bromide. These toxic elements competitively inhibit iodine in the body. Our water supply has been contaminated with fluoride and our food supply has been adulterated with bromine in the form of brominated flour and vegetable oils. Bromide is also found in many commonly used consumer items as a fire retardant.”

    Dr. Brownstein also reports about research from Texas Women’s University just released in 2019, an article titled, “A Review of Iodine Status of Women of Reproductive Age in the USA.” The report reads, “Despite the USA being considered iodine sufficient for the general population, the US dietary iodine intakes have decreased drastically since the 1970s, with iodine deficiency reemerging in vulnerable groups such as women of reproductive age. …a majority of the articles reviewed demonstrate emergent iodine deficiency in this population of women of reproductive age, indicating alarm for a public health concern needing immediate attention.”

    Iodine is one of the most important medicines that exists today, more important and certainly more basic to life than everything one can find in their pharmacy except for magnesium and bicarbonate. Iodine is essential for the life of every cell and in certain glands like the thyroid, breasts, ovaries and prostate glands iodine sufficiency is necessary to protect against cancer.

    Before doctors got swept away by the pharmaceutical companies and their sales people iodine was one of the most commonly prescribed medicines. Now in the age of antibiotic resistant infections, it is more important than ever to remember iodine because it kills viruses, bacteria and fungus cells that antiobitics no longer can.

    Healing with Hydrogen! You are just about to discover how brilliant, safe and effective modern medicine can be.
    GET STARTED
    The entire edifice of modern medicine is likely to collapse when antibiotcs become totally useless because then it will be impossible to walk into a hospital without literally taking your life in your hands. Doctors will no longer be able to protect their patients from infections unless they remember iodine and what they can do with it.

    If one wants to prepare against this eventuality that is actually now in progress stock up on iodine. I buy a liter at a time of Lugol’s and always recommend Nascent Iodine for iodine sensitive patients and children though after one cleans their thyroid and restores it to health I switch people to the less expensive Lugol’s.

    Breast cancer patients should always paint their breasts with iodine. Iodine can be taken at high dosages if enough selenium is used with it. When one gets a cold or flu one should use both iodine and selenium at high dosages if a safe selenium is used.

    For those who have not supplemented with iodine before it is my strong recommendation that they start at a low dose and slowly work higher because iodine will flush out the toxins from the thyroid gland and this can case a strong detoxification reaction.

    If you want to become an expert on iodine read the below links and if you have compassion for your doctors and want to rescue them from their iodine ignorance send them this newsletter.

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/sources-...ine-to-rescue/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-s...s-and-dosages/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/main-rea...ion-essential/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-t...tion-exposure/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-t...events-cancer/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-deficiency-symptoms/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-b...cer-treatment/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-s...-heart-health/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-s...-heart-health/

    https://drsircus.com/heavy-metals/io...ia-salt-truth/

    https://drsircus.com/cancer/thyroid-cancer-iodine/

    https://drsircus.com/iodine/pediatric-iodine/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  2. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    avid (8th March 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Franny (11th August 2019), Houman (9th March 2019), Hym (8th March 2019), justntime2learn (21st March 2019), mountain_jim (10th March 2019), ThePythonicCow (8th March 2019)

  3. Link to Post #62
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,580
    Thanks
    30,501
    Thanked 138,434 times in 21,489 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Quote Posted by onawah (here)
    Iodine Medicine
    Yes, to iodine!

    For those getting chlorine and/or fluorine in their water, along with bromine in their bread and many plastics and fabrics ... the need for iodine is even greater.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Houman (9th March 2019), justntime2learn (21st March 2019), onawah (8th March 2019)

  5. Link to Post #63
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Facebook just suspended Natural News for 7 days for posting this rather ho-hum fluoride infographic

    By Mike Adams on March 21, 2019
    Mike Adams — Natural News March 19, 2019


    The insanity of the tech giants’ censorship continues to expand by the day. With Twitter having permanently banned the Health Ranger account several weeks ago (@HealthRanger) after I criticized Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey for his involvement in a shady crypto scheme, Facebook has now decided to suspend Natural News for seven days for posting the educational fluoride infographic you see below.

    Entitled, “Fluoride… Did You Know?” the educational infographic presents fact-based historical information about fluoride, such as the fact that Crest toothpaste introduced fluoride into its products in 1955. Overall, it’s a rather ho-hum infographic and doesn’t even stand out as sensational in any way at all.

    Now, when Natural News attempts to post anything on Facebook, we are greeted with this message that claims we violated “Facebook community standards.” (Apparently, Facebook community standards don’t allow teaching people to avoid toxic chemicals such as fluoride.)


    Here’s the full infographic that earned the 7-day suspension from Facebook. As you view this, remind yourself that this is exactly the kind of information Facebook and the other tech giants have determined you are not allowed to see.

    The infographic that got Natural News banned. Click to enlarge

    As Facebook now demonstrates on a daily basis, we are all living in the era of techno-fascism. Next, the tech giants are going to start banning all posts about nutrition and anti-cancer foods. (Trust me, that’s coming any day now…)

    Watch my commentary video to understand more, and visit Brighteon.com* for even more uncensored videos that dare to tell the truth about everything:
    Learn more truth about fluoride and water contamination at Fluoride.news.
    * See this post (<---) and this thread: Who Owns the US Congress, Really?
    Last edited by Hervé; 21st March 2019 at 18:54.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (21st March 2019), Baby Steps (21st March 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Franny (6th September 2019), justntime2learn (21st March 2019), mountain_jim (22nd March 2019), onawah (23rd March 2019), RunningDeer (21st March 2019), ThePythonicCow (21st March 2019)

  7. Link to Post #64
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,580
    Thanks
    30,501
    Thanked 138,434 times in 21,489 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Quote Posted by Hervé (here)
    Facebook has now decided to suspend Natural News for seven days for posting the educational fluoride infographic you see below.
    Good grief.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    avid (21st March 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), East Sun (4th December 2019), Franny (21st December 2019), Hervé (21st March 2019), justntime2learn (21st March 2019), mountain_jim (22nd March 2019), onawah (23rd March 2019)

  9. Link to Post #65
    UK Avalon Member avid's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th March 2010
    Location
    NW UK
    Language
    English
    Posts
    2,884
    Thanks
    58,252
    Thanked 15,634 times in 2,653 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    But I shared everywhere..., as West Cumbria has been poisoned by this stuff for years, an immense amount of dementia, alzheimers, obesity, reliance on drugs, and a usually lovely place having behavioural problems. Despicable forcing of toxicity into a ‘locale’ long term, who are now really suffering obvious side-effects. Despite pleading with those who shall be nameless, it is still going on - even a new major water pipeline, and will we still be poisoned?
    The love you withhold is the pain that you carry
    and er..
    "Chariots of the Globs" (apols to Fat Freddy's Cat)

  10. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to avid For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Franny (21st December 2019), Hervé (21st March 2019), justntime2learn (21st March 2019), mountain_jim (22nd March 2019), onawah (23rd March 2019), ThePythonicCow (22nd March 2019)

  11. Link to Post #66
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Connecting the Dots — A Statement Opposing Fluoride
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    May 23, 2019
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=622560733
    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    Steven Gilbert, Ph.D., founder and director of the Institute of Neurotoxicology and Neurological Disorders (INND), works to bring awareness about the health effects of toxic substances, water fluoridation included
    In his “Connecting the Dots for Health” paper, he summarizes how connecting the dots between the science, history and ethics of water fluoridation clearly supports the action to discontinue water fluoridation in order to significantly reduce fluoride ingestion
    Fluoride has been proven harmful to the brain and may lower IQ in children; it’s also an endocrine-disrupting chemical linked to thyroid disorders and cancer
    Adding fluoride to U.S. drinking water is akin to drugging the majority of a population without its consent; about 95 percent of the world’s population drinks unfluoridated water
    More than 70% of U.S. water supplies have industrial-grade fluoride chemicals added under the guise of preventing tooth decay.1 The problem is that fluoride, a toxin, is linked to an increasing list of health damages, while the usefulness of ingesting it to prevent cavities is highly questionable.

    Steven Gilbert, Ph.D., founder and director of the Institute of Neurotoxicology and Neurological Disorders (INND), works to bring awareness about the health effects of toxic substances, water fluoridation included.

    In his "Connecting the Dots for Health" paper, he summarizes how connecting the dots between the science, history and ethics of water fluoridation clearly supports the action to discontinue water fluoridation in order to significantly reduce fluoride ingestion.2

    The History of Water Fluoridation
    If you've ever wondered how a neurotoxic chemical came to be added to U.S. water supplies, Gilbert states:3

    "The history of community water fluoridation is a reflection of the post WWII era of the 1950's when many thought chemicals in one form or another could solve almost any problem. Our gaze was focused on the beneficial properties of the chemicals, not on the potential hazards. A classic example is DDT, that in addition to being a potent pesticide, almost killed off predatory birds and more recently was found to be harmful to humans."

    In 1945, fluoride was given the green light by the U.S. government following the release of a large amount of hydrogen fluoride from DuPont's Deepwater, New Jersey, plant. A massive quantity of toxic hydrogen fluoride was produced as a byproduct of industry, and its disposal was an inconvenient and costly problem.

    To avert lawsuits, industry came up with the clever idea of revamping fluoride's image — they told people fluoride was good for their teeth and began adding it to public water supplies. Initially, fluoride waste from the aluminum industry is what went into drinking water.

    But by the late 1940s, they'd found a cheaper source — the phosphate industry, a byproduct of making fertilizer. According to a paper in Origins: Current Events in Historical Perspective, a production of The Ohio State University and Miami University departments of history:4

    "Many are surprised to learn that unlike the pharmaceutical grade fluoride in their toothpaste, the fluoride in their water is an untreated industrial waste product, one that contains trace elements of arsenic and lead.

    Without the phosphate industry's effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem."

    Gilbert also explains that the decision to fluoridate U.S. drinking water was based on two studies comparing cavity rates in a city with fluoridated water (Grand Rapids/Muskegon, Michigan) with those in one without (Newburgh/Kingston, New York).

    They were supposed to run for 10 years, but when some cavity reduction was seen in early reports, the U.S. Public Health Service approved water fluoridation after only five years — with no data on long-term toxicity.5

    Science Shows Fluoride Is Harmful to the Brain
    More than 300 studies have shown fluoride's toxic effects on the brain,6 including a 2006 National Research Council review that suggested fluoride exposure may be associated with brain damage, endocrine system disruption and bone cancer.7

    In 2012, Harvard researchers also revealed that children living in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas8 and suggested high fluoride exposure may have an adverse effect on children's neurodevelopment.

    A study of Mexican women and children also raised concern, showing that higher exposure to fluoride while in utero is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in childhood, both at the age of 4 and 6 to 12 years.9

    Each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women's fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children's scores on the General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities and the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI), respectively.

    Fluorosilicic acid, which is the fluoride chemical added to drinking water, may also be contaminated with additional harmful compounds, including lead and arsenic. Children, in particular, are at risk from ingesting fluoride, but they are exposed to the same levels in drinking water as adults. According to Gilbert:10

    "From the 1950s the PHS [Public Health Service] recommendation for the concentration of fluoridated water has been 1.0 mg/L (milligrams per liter or ppm) for most of the U.S., with a range of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L. In 2015, this recommendation was lowered to 0.7 mg/L to reduce the toxic side effects of fluoride ingestion while attempting to maintain its beneficial effects.

    For toxicological assessment, ingested doses are typically adjusted by body weight. Kids eat more, breathe more, and drink more than adults on a body weight basis so they will have higher fluoride doses than adults. Moreover, child organ systems such as the brain and bones are still developing, making them more vulnerable to the toxic effects of fluoride."

    More Ways Fluoride Harms Human Health
    In terms of overall toxicity, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) describes acute fluoride exposure as more toxic than lead but slightly less toxic than arsenic.11 In fact, fluoride is a common ingredient in pesticides used to kill rodents and insects. Chronically, exposure to low levels of fluoride is also harmful, not only to your brain but to your body as a whole.

    Fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting chemical, and studies have linked it to the rising prevalence of thyroid disease,12 which in turn can contribute to obesity, heart disease, depression and other health problems. Fluoride was once used to reduce thyroid function in people with hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid), and even low doses of 2 to 5 mg may be enough to affect thyroid function.13

    "This dose is well within the range (1.6 to 6.6 mg/day) of what individuals living in fluoridated communities are now estimated to receive on a regular basis," FAN notes.14 A 2012 study also found a link between fluoride exposure and osteosarcoma, a rare type of bone cancer.15 A 2006 study also found a link between fluoride exposure in drinking water during childhood and the incidence of osteosarcoma among men.16

    Such a link is biologically plausible, according to FAN, because bones are a principle site of fluoride accumulation, fluoride can be mutagenic at high enough concentrations and fluoride stimulates the proliferation of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells), which could increase the risk of malignancy.17

    Increasing Dental Fluorosis Points to Harm
    The majority of U.S. kids suffer from dental fluorosis, a discoloration and mottling of teeth caused by overexposure to fluoride in drinking water. While often brushed off as a cosmetic concern, this mottling is a sign of increased porosity of the enamel, and it's permanent. If the tooth-forming cells are being harmed by fluoride, it's likely that other cells in the body are too.

    Research has found impairment in cognitive abilities among children with fluorosis (even mild fluorosis) compared to children with no fluorosis, for example.18 Studies have also found that children with higher levels of fluorosis have increased rates of cavities19 — a finding that suggests more is definitely not better, even when it comes to protecting against cavities.

    According to Gilbert, "At a very mild or mild level, it causes white splotches or stripes on teeth. At moderate or severe levels, the mottling is more pronounced and can cause yellow or brown stains and pitting of the enamel, which can increase cavities."20

    According to the most recent data, the dental fluorosis rate in the U.S. is now a staggering 65 percent, with researchers stating, "The results of this study greatly increase the evidence base indicating that objectionable dental fluorosis has increased in the United States. Dental fluorosis is an undesirable side effect of too much fluoride ingestion during the early years of life."21

    Another study also revealed a more than 31% increase in the prevalence of dental fluorosis among 16- and 17-year-olds from 2011-2012 to 2001-2002. "The continued increase in fluorosis rates in the U.S. indicates that additional measures need to be implemented to reduce its prevalence," those researchers concluded.22

    Ethical Concerns: Fluoride Is a Drug
    The third piece of Gilbert's puzzle is ethics, and from this perspective adding fluoride to U.S. drinking water is akin to drugging the majority of a population without its consent. Gilbert notes:23

    "Physicians prescribe drugs on an individual's needs, ensuring that it's pharmaceutical grade (not contaminated) and requiring a specific dose for a specific length of time. They also must inform their patients of potential harmful side effects. However, the final decision on whether to take the drugs rests with the patient. With fluoridation, all these safety protocols are violated, taking away the individual's right of informed consent."

    People who are more vulnerable to fluoride's effects, such as infants, pregnant women or those with kidney disease and diabetes, have no way of avoiding this drug in their drinking water if they live in an area with fluoridated water.

    While it's possible to install a water filter, such as reverse osmosis, to remove fluoride from your drinking water, or obtain a separate source of drinking water, this puts low-income families, who may not be able to obtain these alternatives, at a disadvantage.

    Considering there are many studies showing fluoride's toxicity, the Precautionary Principle, which states that preventive measures should also be put in place to avoid exposure if there's evidence of a substance causing harm, should be put into place.

    "For these and other reasons, a growing number of public health professionals are recommending that fluoridation of drinking water be discontinued," Gilbert says, supporting his recommended action to "discontinue water fluoridation so that ingestion of fluoride is greatly reduced." This is the norm in most of the world, as about 95 percent of the world's population drinks unfluoridated water.24

    Finally, fluoride is not the answer to healthy teeth. A comprehensive oral care plan should include addressing your diet, reducing your net carb (total grams of carbohydrates minus your grams of fiber) intake and, if needed, taking nutritional supplements that support your oral health, such as vitamins C and K2, and coenzyme Q10.

    Regular brushing with fluoride-free toothpaste and flossing are also important, as are regular professional cleanings with a mercury-free biological dentist.



    On May 19 to 26, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

    Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride—up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

    The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

    TOGETHER, LET'S HELP FAN GET TO THE FINISH LINE
    This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

    So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the eighth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  12. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Franny (11th August 2019), mountain_jim (28th May 2019), Satori (23rd May 2019), ThePythonicCow (23rd May 2019)

  13. Link to Post #67
    Moderator (on Sabbatical) Cara's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th February 2014
    Location
    Dubai, United Arab Emirates
    Language
    English
    Posts
    1,431
    Thanks
    9,850
    Thanked 7,481 times in 1,331 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Press release from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.

    Quote Fluoride may diminish kidney and liver function in adolescents, study suggests
    Mount Sinai Health System

    New York, NY (August 08, 2019) - Fluoride exposure may lead to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents, according to a study published by Mount Sinai researchers in Environment International in August.

    The study examined the relationship between fluoride levels in drinking water and blood with kidney and liver health among adolescents participating in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, a group of studies that assess health and nutritional well-being in the United States. The findings showed that exposure to fluoride may contribute to complex changes in kidney and liver function among youth in the United States, where 74 percent of public water systems add fluoride for dental health benefits. Fluoridated water is the main source of fluoride exposure in the U.S.. The findings also suggest that adolescents with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride in their bodies.

    While fluoride exposure in animals and adults has been associated with kidney and liver toxicity, this study examined potential effects of chronic low-level exposure among youth. This is important to study because a child's body excretes only 45 percent of fluoride in urine via the kidneys, while an adult's body clears it at a rate of 60 percent, and the kidneys accumulate more fluoride than any other organ in the body.

    "While the dental benefits of fluoride are widely established, recent concerns have been raised regarding the appropriateness of its widespread addition to drinking water or salt in North America," said the study's first author Ashley J. Malin, PhD, postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. "This study's findings suggest that there may be potential kidney and liver health concerns to consider when evaluating fluoride use and appropriate levels in public health interventions. Prospective studies are needed to examine the impact of chronic low-level fluoride exposure on kidney and liver function in the U.S. population."

    The study analyzed fluoride measured in blood samples of 1,983 adolescents and the fluoride content of the tap water in the homes of 1,742 adolescents. Although the tap water fluoride concentrations were generally low, there are several mechanisms by which even low levels of fluoride exposure may contribute to kidney or liver dysfunction.

    This study's findings, combined with previous studies of childhood exposure to higher fluoride levels, show there is a dose-dependent relationship between fluoride and indicators of kidney and liver function. The findings, if confirmed in other studies, suggest it may be important to consider children's kidney and liver function in drafting public health guidelines and recommendations.

    Potential health side effects include renal system damage, liver damage, thyroid dysfunction, bone and tooth disease, and impaired protein metabolism.

    Study co-authors included Corina Lesseur, MD, PhD, Stefanie A. Busgang, MPH, Paul Curtin, PhD, Robert O. Wright, MD, MPH, and Alison P. Sanders, PhD. This study was supported in part by funding from the Mount Sinai Children's Center Foundation and grants from the National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R00ES027508, R01ES014930, R01ES013744, R24ES028522, P30ES023515).
    From: https://www.mountsinai.org/about/new...study-suggests
    *I have loved the stars too dearly to be fearful of the night*

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Cara For This Post:

    avid (11th August 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Franny (21st December 2019), mountain_jim (13th August 2019)

  15. Link to Post #68
    United States On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    23rd July 2019
    Posts
    274
    Thanks
    591
    Thanked 1,671 times in 266 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    From: lightonconspiracies.com

    Research Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

    Source: Mercola

    By: Doctor Joseph Mercola
    September 3, 2019



    STORY AT-A-GLANCE

    *A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ

    *A 1 milligram per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.49-point decrease in IQ among boys only, while a 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score in both genders between ages 3 and 4

    *The findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre (SMC), two well-known front groups for the chemical industry

    *There are at least 60 other studies showing fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ. There are also more than 2,000 other studies detailing other health effects

    *Research published in 2017 found that, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. They also found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ

  16. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to RogueEllis For This Post:

    avid (6th September 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Franny (6th September 2019), Hervé (29th September 2019), mountain_jim (29th September 2019)

  17. Link to Post #69
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Study Shows Massive IQ Decrease in Males with Fluoride: JAMA Pediatrics Journal Editors Stunned

    By jameslyonsweiler in aluminum, autism, Cures
    September 24, 2019 759 Words

    In reference to a study, entitled “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offsprings in Canada”[1], published in JAMA Pediatrics, the journal editors were stunned by a finding that fluoridated water exposure in mothers during pregnancy reduces the IQ of their sons.

    The study found that in boys, a 1 mg/L increase in the maternal urine fluoride concentration led to a 5-point decrease in boys’ IQs.

    Dimitri Christakis and Frederick Rivara of JAMA Pediatrics, in a podcast, compare the findings as overturning decades-old presumptions of safety of fluoridated water.
    Christakis: “Before they were anti vaxxers, there were sort of anti fluoriders. Right. And like the traditional teaching, when I was going through residency and early in my early professional career was that there was fluoride is completely safe. All these people that are trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened for children’s dental health. And we just need to push back and get it into every water system.”

    Christakis: “In fact, before there were anti-vaxxers, there were, sort-of, anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency was that fluoride was completely safe, all these people that are trying to take it out of the water are nuts, it’s the best thing that ever happened…”

    Christakis: “So when I first saw this title, my initial reaction was ‘What the hell?'”
    Rivara had referenced the title of the study as “shocking” and later said, when discussing biological plausibility, citing animal models,
    Christakis: “Even in the animal models, weirdly enough… the effect is seen in male than female rats, I don’t know to think about that… There have been other observational studies that have shown this, and there have been animal models as well, showed that fluoride was a neurotoxin, which, again, was totally news to me, I thought it was ‘junk science’…

    Rivara: “That’d be like antivaxxers saying ‘Fluoride is bad for your brains, so let’s not do it.’ You know, that same kind of thing.”
    The editors discussed how surprised they were to learn that only 3% of cities in Europe fluoridate their water.

    The philosopher Karl Popper called this shock-reaction “Surprise”, and held that the more unlikely a robust result from a critical test appears to be, the higher the degree of corroboration that should be afforded the unlikely.

    The comparison in this discussion to anti-vaxxers is ironic, given that fluoride and aluminum have known synergistic neurotoxicity[2], just like mercury and aluminum have known synergistic neurotoxicity[3].

    The obvious question is: when will a major pediatrics journal have this level of healthy cognitive disequilibrium about vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, and vaccines and autoimmunity?

    These editors’ reactions to this news about fluoride was the precise reaction I had upon reading all of the studies for my book on autism – the studies I had no idea about, the ones that were “totally news to me”. The animal model studies showing plausibility of vaccination and autism (e.g., chronic microglial activation), the observational studies that DID find association (e.g., Gallagher and Goodman), and, of course the studies I could not read because they were never conducted, diswarranting the generalization that “Vaccines Do Not Cause Autism”. I agree 100% with Christakis when he said that “Science is an iterative process”.

    It is very good to see an opening of the eyes and minds explicitly represented by this podcast. It is also good to see that that “those crazy Xr’s” model of science is dying. Christakis is going to recommend bottled or filtered water. His colleague correctly points out that bottled water is not affordable for all families.

    Perhaps we really should rethink the wisdom of fluoridation given the apparent effects on autism rates [4] and lifelong effects on dementia as well[5]. Science is, after all, for asking questions.

    Here’s the podcast file: JAMA Editors Shocked.mp3

    I thank Bruce Lanphear for sending the studies and the podcast file along. He’s working on a new book, which I think is on the effect of low-dose toxicity and synergism among toxins that we think, or thought, were safe.


    References and Full “Shocking” Pubmed Searches
    [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30788699

    [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...um+synergistic

    [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ry+synergistic

    [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31527457

    [5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30868981

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  18. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    avid (29th September 2019), Bill Ryan (29th September 2019), Franny (29th September 2019), mountain_jim (29th September 2019), onawah (22nd October 2019)

  19. Link to Post #70
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Fluoridated Water May Soon Be Outlawed
    Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    October 22, 2019
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=734431915

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    In 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban water fluoridation in U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
    Under the TSCA, the EPA evaluates risks from new and existing chemicals and is supposed to act to address any “unreasonable risks” such chemicals may pose to human health and the environment
    The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting the consumer advocacy group and partners to file a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial
    Since then, a number of victories have occurred that are moving us closer to the goal of getting fluoride out of U.S. drinking water
    In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request by the EPA to delay the lawsuit’s upcoming trial date of February 3, 2020, instead maintaining the trial timeline
    In 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

    Under the TSCA, the EPA evaluates risks from new and existing chemicals and is supposed to act to address any “unreasonable risks” such chemicals may pose to human health and the environment.1

    However, the EPA has maintained that because fluoride supposedly prevents cavities — a “benefit” that’s been disproven — it justifies adding the chemical to water, even though scientific research shows it poses significant risks.2

    The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting the consumer advocacy group and partners to file a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Since then, a number of victories have occurred that are moving us closer to the goal of getting fluoride out of U.S. drinking water.

    Most recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request by the EPA to delay the lawsuit’s upcoming trial date of February 3, 2020, instead maintaining the trial timeline. According to FAN:3

    “Not only does the victory keep the EPA from increasing the cost of the lawsuit by adding more evidence to examine and another expert witness to depose at the last minute, it also adds to the momentum our legal team has gained from four previous legal victories.”

    Fifth Victory Moves Water Fluoridation Ban Closer to Reality
    The court’s ruling denying the EPA’s request to delay the trial is the fifth victory in the TSCA lawsuit. Four notable victories have already occurred, beginning in December 2017, when a court denied the EPA’s initial motion to dismiss the case.

    A second victory occurred just weeks later when the EPA attempted to block FAN from obtaining internal EPA documents and using new research on fluoride’s toxicity in the trial. Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign director, explained:

    “Two and a half weeks later, on February 7, 2018, we won a second major legal victory. This time, the EPA tried to put up another roadblock by limiting the scope of discovery. In other words, EPA worked to prohibit our attorneys from obtaining internal EPA documents, and to prohibit our experts from relying upon recently published studies.

    … Had the EPA prevailed we would have been prohibited from including any new fluoride neurotoxicity study published after our petition was submitted in November 2016, including the landmark U.S. government-funded 12-year study by Bashash et al. published in September 2017.”

    The court again denied the EPA’s motion, which meant the 12-year study could be used in the case. “This study is critical in demonstrating that fluoride is neurotoxic and has no place in the public water supply,” Cooper added. The study in question showed that higher exposure to fluoride while in utero is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in childhood, both at the age of 4 and 6-to-12 years.4

    The study involved 299 pairs of women and their babies. Mexico does not fluoridate their drinking water, but the study participants were exposed to fluoride via fluoridated salt and varying levels of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water.

    While previous studies have used measurements of fluoride levels in drinking water to estimate a population’s exposure, the featured study used urine samples — in both the mothers and their children — to determine fluoride exposure.

    The researchers then compared fluoride levels with each child’s intelligence, assessed using the General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities at age 4 and again between the ages of 6 and 12 years using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI).5

    While the children’s fluoride levels at ages 4 and 6-to-12 were not associated with their intelligence, the study found that exposure that occurs prenatally was linked to lower intelligence scores. In fact, women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence.

    Specifically, each 0.5 milligram per liter increase in pregnant women’s fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children’s GCI and WASI scores, respectively.

    Third and Fourth Victories Leading to Landmark Trial
    After the EPA lost its request to block FAN attorneys from obtaining internal documents or using pertinent new research in the trial, the agency then objected to sharing internal documents or allowing employees to be deposed about EPA’s fluoride safety standards. In October 2018, a court again ruled against the EPA, stating that this internal information had to be shared.6

    “The EPA’s documents and correspondence relating to the specified studies are relevant to the ultimate issue the Court must decide — whether the ingestion of fluoride in drinking water causes neurotoxic harm,” the ruling stated.7

    In the fourth victory, which occurred in April 2019, the court ordered the EPA to produce additional documents and scientists for deposition.8 With the fifth victory denying the EPA’s attempt to delay the trial for 65 days, the lawsuit is scheduled to begin as originally scheduled on February 3, 2020.

    In November 2019, the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) draft review of fluoride’s neurodevelopmental effects on humans is set to be released, and the EPA had attempted to use this as reason to delay the trial, but the judge disagreed. FAN’s attorneys, in a brief response to the EPA’s request for delay, stated:9

    “EPA has been aware of the NTP’s … monograph for the entirety of this litigation. EPA is not only a member of NTP’s Executive Committee but provided comments to the NTP about the review prior to the review’s commencement in late 2016. At no point, however, during the 2+ years of this litigation has EPA expressed any concern that the NTP review could affect the scheduling of this case.”

    The NTP’s research report on the effects of fluoride on learning and memory in animals was released in July 2016, and found a low to moderate level of evidence suggesting exposure to fluoride at concentrations higher than 0.7 parts per million (ppm) may have adverse effects on learning and memory.

    The exposure level of 0.7 ppm is the recommended level for water fluoridation in the U.S., and the review found “very few studies assessed learning and memory effects” in animals at exposure levels near 0.7 ppm.10 However, as noted by FAN’s Cooper:

    “ … [I]t is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm — which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride.

    For example, it is well-known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans. Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals to tease out effects.”

    Don’t Sacrifice Your Brain for Your Teeth
    A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children's IQ.11 As reported by FAN:12

    "They found that a 1 mg per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers' urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls. When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women's fluid intake, they found lower IQs in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders."

    The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date. Anticipating the controversy the findings would generate among public health agencies, fluoride proponents and the media, extra data checks were undertaken prior to publishing. FAN noted:13

    “Making the publication of this study even more impactful is that it is accompanied by an editor’s note, a podcast featuring the journal’s editors, and an editorial from world-renowned neurotoxicity expert Dr. David Bellinger. This reaction by the JAMA editors shows just how important the study is, as most studies in their journal don’t receive this treatment.

    For the first time in his career, the editor of Pediatrics included an editorial note, knowing fluoridation proponents would attack the study without justification. He noted the study’s rigor, triple-checking of the data, and definitive nature of the evidence.”

    More than 300 studies have shown fluoride’s toxic effects on the brain,14 including a 2006 National Research Council review that suggested fluoride exposure may be associated with brain damage, endocrine system disruption and bone cancer.15

    In 2012, Harvard researchers also revealed that children living in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas16 and suggested high fluoride exposure may have an adverse effect on children’s neurodevelopment.

    Drinking fluoridated water, which poses risks to your brain and overall health when ingested, makes little sense, especially since any benefits it provides to your teeth occur from topical exposure. When you drink fluoridated water, 99% of the fluoride goes down the drain and into the environment.17

    If you want fluoride for your teeth, use fluoridated toothpaste — don’t drink fluoridated water, trading your brain health for your teeth. That being said, I don’t recommend fluoridated toothpaste either, as there are ways to keep your teeth healthy that don’t involve neurotoxic agents like fluoride.

    How to Keep Your Teeth Healthy — Without Fluoride
    Fluoride is not the answer to healthy teeth. A comprehensive oral care plan should include addressing your diet, reducing your net carb (total grams of carbohydrates minus your grams of fiber) intake and, if needed, taking nutritional supplements that support your oral health, such as vitamins C and K2, and coenzyme Q10.

    Regular brushing (with fluoride-free toothpaste) and flossing is also important, as are regular professional cleanings with a mercury-free biological dentist.

    Considering there are many studies showing fluoride’s toxicity, the Precautionary Principle, which states that preventive measures should also be put in place to avoid exposure if there’s evidence of a substance causing harm, should be put into place — and the EPA should take action to remove this toxic chemical from drinking water.

    Let’s hope that come February 2020, FAN and partners get their sixth victory in the form of fluoridated water finally being outlawed.

    Help End the Practice of Fluoridation
    There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

    Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride—up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

    The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

    Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

    Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
    I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

    Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter and Instagram, and sign up for campaign alerts.
    10 Facts About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
    50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
    Moms2B Avoid Fluoride: Help spread the word to expecting parents to avoid fluoride during pregnancy due to potential harm to the fetus.
    Health Effects Database: FAN's database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride's effects on human health.
    Together, Let's Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve
    In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  20. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd October 2019), Franny (21st November 2019), Hervé (22nd October 2019), mountain_jim (23rd October 2019)

  21. Link to Post #71
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    NEW STUDY: FLUORIDATION LOWERS IQ OF FORMULA-FED BABIES
    11/20/19
    http://fluoridealert.org/news/new-st...7-ee40800a01b3

    "NEW YORK, Nov. 20, 2019 /PRNewswire/ — A study published this week found a large decrease in the IQ of children who had been fed infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water, compared to formula-fed children living in unfluoridated areas. The study by a research team based at York University, Toronto, followed a large cohort of Canadian mother-child pairs through age 3-4 years and found an average drop of over 4 IQ points for children in fluoridated areas, reports Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

    This is the fifth recent study finding neurotoxic harm from early life exposure to fluoride, from two research groups funded with $4 million from the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

    This study comes on the heels of a comprehensive review of all existing human and animal studies of fluoride neurotoxicity. The review, by the National Toxicology Program of NIEHS, identified 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, but did not include the two most recent studies from the York University group (Till 2019; Riddell 2019).

    Based on the large number, quality, and consistency of the studies, it concluded fluoride was a “presumed” neurotoxin. The draft review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, but these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. The size of the effect has been likened to that from lead by experts in the field.

    The authors of the newest paper note that fluoride’s dental benefits come almost exclusively from topical contact once teeth have erupted into the mouth. They conclude:

    “In the absence of any benefit from fluoride consumption in the first six months, it is prudent to limit fluoride exposure by using non-fluoridated water or water with lower fluoride content as a formula diluent.”

    Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director added, “Fluoride levels in mothers’ milk are very low (less than 0.01 ppm). Thus, breastfeeding protects the infant from fluoride. This study shows formula made with fluoridated water at 0.7 ppm removes that protection with harmful consequences to the infant’s developing brain. Research consistently shows that fluoride is a threat to both the fetal and infant brain. Unfortunately, low-income mothers cannot always afford non-fluoridated water. These children are also the least able to afford loss of IQ. The only practical and ethical solution is to stop adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water.”

    *Original link for Press Release online at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...=eml_cleartime "

    UPDATE:
    "Yesterday we sent out a bulletin and press release with the incorrect study hyperlinked in the first paragraph. We apologize for this error and have corrected the link. Thank you for your continued support and understanding as we work around the clock to provide the latest in fluoride news, science, and campaign alerts.

    The Fluoride Action Network has published the press release below. Please send our corrected PR Newswire version of the release to your local decision makers and the news editors of the media outlets in your community, large and small (newspaper, radio, TV, online).

    NEW STUDY: FLUORIDATION LOWERS IQ
    OF FORMULA-FED BABIES
    A study published this week found a large decrease in the IQ of children who had been fed infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water, compared to formula-fed children living in unfluoridated areas. The study by a research team based at York University, Toronto, followed a large cohort of Canadian mother-child pairs through age 3-4 years and found an average drop of over 4 IQ points for children in fluoridated areas, reports Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

    This is the fifth recent study finding neurotoxic harm from early life exposure to fluoride, from two research groups funded with $4 million from the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

    This study comes on the heels of a comprehensive review of all existing human and animal studies of fluoride neurotoxicity. The review, by the National Toxicology Program of NIEHS, identified 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, but did not include the two most recent studies from the York University group (Till 2019; Riddell 2019).

    Based on the large number, quality, and consistency of the studies, it concluded fluoride was a “presumed” neurotoxin. The draft review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, but these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. The size of the effect has been likened to that from lead by experts in the field.

    The authors of the newest paper note that fluoride’s dental benefits come almost exclusively from topical contact once teeth have erupted into the mouth. They conclude:

    “In the absence of any benefit from fluoride consumption in the first six months, it is prudent to limit fluoride exposure by using non-fluoridated water or water with lower fluoride content as a formula diluent.”

    Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director added, “Fluoride levels in mothers’ milk are very low (less than 0.01 ppm). Thus, breastfeeding protects the infant from fluoride. This study shows formula made with fluoridated water at 0.7 ppm removes that protection with harmful consequences to the infant’s developing brain. Research consistently shows that fluoride is a threat to both the fetal and infant brain. Unfortunately, low-income mothers cannot always afford non-fluoridated water. These children are also the least able to afford loss of IQ. The only practical and ethical solution is to stop adding fluoridation chemicals to drinking water.” "
    Last edited by onawah; 22nd November 2019 at 19:53.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Alecs (21st November 2019), Franny (21st November 2019), JRS (21st November 2019), mountain_jim (21st November 2019)

  23. Link to Post #72
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review
    Philippe Grandjean
    Environmental Health volume 18, Article number: 110 (2019)
    https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/...940-019-0551-x

    (Long scientific paper which I won't copy here, but the Conclusions are brief, though telling):

    Conclusions
    "Previous assessment of neurotoxicity risks associated with elevated fluoride intake relied on cross-sectional and ecological epidemiology studies and findings from experimental studies of elevated exposures. The evidence base has greatly expanded in recent years, with 14 cross-sectional studies since 2012, and now also three prospective studies of high quality and documentation of individual exposure levels. Thus, there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development. Even the most informative epidemiological studies involve some uncertainties, but imprecision of the exposure assessment most likely results in an underestimation of the risk [86]. Thus, the evidence available today may not quite reflect the true extent of the fluoride toxicity. Given that developmental neurotoxicity is considered to cause permanent adverse effects [69], the next generation’s brain health presents a crucial issue in the risk-benefit assessment for fluoride exposure."
    Last edited by onawah; 21st December 2019 at 19:07.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Franny (21st December 2019)

  25. Link to Post #73
    Croatia Administrator Franny's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd January 2011
    Location
    Island Time
    Posts
    3,133
    Thanks
    53,112
    Thanked 14,316 times in 2,099 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Back in 1997 or 1998 I went to a Christmas Faire with a friend. There was entertainment, food and drink, music and booths selling handcrafted gifts and giving out informational brochures.

    Two still stand out. One had information on the dangers and history of microwave use, the other was about the dangers and history of fluoride. I searched for more information, stopped using fluoride toothpaste and never bought a microwave oven.

    It's interesting how long the information on both products has been available to the public and yet, both are still in use and so few do any open minded research though it's becoming more of the public are becoming ore aware of it.

    People who I have spoken to in the past on either subject would become annoyed, even hysterically angry about any negative information on these products. It was one of the early lessons in cognitive dissonance without knowing the term yet!

    The tide seems to be turning with fluoride, fortunately, although the damage it created remains.
    A million galaxies are a little foam on that shoreless sea. ~ Rumi

  26. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Franny For This Post:

    ariel70 (22nd December 2019), Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020), mountain_jim (23rd December 2019), onawah (21st December 2019), Pam (27th February 2020), Sunny-side-up (28th February 2020), toppy (17th June 2020)

  27. Link to Post #74
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    EPA VS FLUORIDE’S NEUROTOXICITY GOING TO TRIAL IN APRIL 2020
    Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin |
    January 17, 2020
    http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_1-17-20/

    "We are going to trial in April. This will be the first time that any citizen group will go to trial under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA -pronounced like the opera Tosca!). TSCA was passed in 1976 by the U.S. Congress and is administered by the Environmental Protection agency (EPA).

    The official name of the lawsuit is: Food and Water Watch et al v. EPA. As most of you know, Michael Connett, JD, is the lead attorney who has directed this incredible effort from the beginning. He works with the law firm Waters Kraus & Paul in Los Angeles.

    On December 30, the Court released an Order Denying Motions for Summary Judgment. This means that our case will go forward. Trial is scheduled to begin on April 20 and will run for two weeks. Read this good article for a broader perspective: Judge Again Rejects EPA’s Motion To End Landmark TSCA Citizen Suit by Maria Hegstad of Inside EPA.

    The Background:

    PLAINTIFFS: On November 22, 2016, a coalition of non-profit groups (Fluoride Action Network, Food & Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation, and others including individuals) submitted a Citizens’ Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA, requesting a ban on the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water in order “to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride.”

    DEFENDANTS: On February 27, 2017, the Environmental Protection Agency denied the petition “primarily because EPA concluded that the petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

    THE LAWSUIT: After EPA denied the Petition, the plaintiffs filed this lawsuit seeking judicial review of EPA’s determination with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. On December 17, 2017, the court issued an Order denying EPA’s Motion to Dismiss. The court noted,

    “The purpose of citizen petitions is to ensure the EPA does not overlook unreasonable risks to health or the environment.” It cited a 1990 case, Env. Def. Fund v. Reilly, “Citizen participation is broadly permitted [under the TSCA] to ensure that bureaucratic lethargy does not prevent the appropriate administration of this vital authority.”

    The Court stated,

    The EPA’s interpretation [to dismiss the case] would undermine the purpose of Section 21 by permitting it to deny even a petition that successfully identifies an unreasonable risk of harm to health or to the environment … That a known unreasonable risk could be ignored by the EPA is contrary to the TSCA’s very purpose as well as the statute’s express command that the EPA “shall” promulgate regulations when “an” unreasonable risk is found.

    The Court cited Rollins Env. Servs. (FS), Inc. v. St. James Parish, 775 F.2d 627, 632 (5th Cir. 1985):

    The overall purpose of the Toxic Substances Control Act was to set in place a comprehensive, national scheme to protect humans and the environment from the dangers of toxic substances.

    There have been over one hundred hours of depositions from experts for both sides, and multiple motions by the Defendants, Plaintiffs, and the Court – see the timeline. Approximately $400,000 has been raised to fund this lawsuit from the supporters of the Fluoride Action Network. All in all, it has been an incredible effort on all fronts, with everyone helping as much as they could.

    In December 2017, the EPA petitioned the court to Limit Review to the Administrative Record . This meant that no new studies would be allowed into the case. The studies would be limited to those contained in the Nov 22, 2016, Petition.

    On January 15, 2018, the Court issued an Order Denying Defendant’s (EPA) motion to limit review. The Court ruled:

    The EPA moves for a protective order limiting the scope of review in this litigation to the administrative record1, a request that would effectively foreclose Plaintiffs from introducing any evidence in this litigation that was not attached to their administrative petition. The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose, and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.

    Because of this ruling, many new studies were introduced into the case, including 14 new IQ studies. These IQ studies reported an association of fluoride exposure and reduced IQ in children: Aravind 2016, Jin 2017, Valdez Jimenez 2017, Bashash 2017, Razdan 2017, Yu 2018, Pang 2018, Mustafa 2018, Induswe 2018, El Sehmawy 2018, Cui 2018, Wang 2019, Till 2019, and Green 2019. There are now 64 fluoride-IQ studies reporting a lowering of IQ, and 8 studies that found no effect.

    During this same time period, three Mother-Offspring fluoride studies, funded by U.S. government agencies, were published. After 75 years of fluoridation in the U.S. and Canada, these studies represent the first time that either country investigated fluoride’s effect on the fetus. They did this by testing the urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women (Bashash 2017, Till 2019, Green 2019) and performing cognitive tests with the offspring. The Till and Green studies reported significant IQ loss at fluoride levels found in women in fluoridated communities in Canada, while the Bashash study, performed in Mexico City, reported similar urinary fluoride levels. There have been 7 Mother-Offspring studies.

    Here’s a little on the run up to the trial

    November 15: A pre-trial hearing. Read more about this hearing: Federal Judge Asked to Let Fluoride-in-Water Case Go to Trial (1) published by Bloomberg News.

    December 19: We submitted 425 Proposed Findings of Fact.

    December 19: EPA submitted 31 Undisputed Facts; 2 Disputed Facts; and 6 Legal Disputed Issues, in a Joint Pretrial Conference Statement.

    Thank you for your continued support of our lawsuit and FAN’s efforts to end fluoridation throughout the world."

    Sincerely,

    Ellen Connett
    Managing Director
    Fluoride Action Network

    See all FAN bulletins online:
    http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  28. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), Houman (22nd January 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020), mountain_jim (22nd January 2020), Pam (27th February 2020), Sunny-side-up (28th February 2020)

  29. Link to Post #75
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    More Studies Show Fluoride Affects Brain and Disrupts Sleep
    Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    January 23, 2020
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a..._rid=796241882

    "STORY AT-A-GLANCE
    More than 400 animal and human studies show fluoride is a neurotoxic substance, and many have found harm at, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American pregnant women and children receive
    A 1 mg-per-day increase in the fluoride a mother gets from drinking water may lower the IQ of her child by 3.7 points
    Infants fed baby formula made with fluoridated water have lower IQs than those fed formula made with unfluoridated water. An increase of 0.5 mg/L of fluoride corresponds with a 4.4 point lower IQ score at age 3 to 4
    Fluoride may have an adverse impact on sleep by preferentially accumulating in the pineal gland, thereby inhibiting the production of melatonin

    While water fluoridation was never adopted or has been eliminated in many areas around the world, including most of western Europe,1 many U.S. water systems2 still add fluoride chemicals such as fluorosilicic acid3 (also known as hydrofluorosilicic acid) to their municipal water supplies.

    As detailed in Christopher Bryson’s book, “The Fluoride Deception,”4 water fluoridation as a public health measure (ostensibly to improve dental health) was invented by brilliant schemers who needed a way to get rid of toxic industrial waste.

    They duped politicians with fraudulent science and endorsements, and sold them on a “public health” idea in which humans are essentially used to filter this poison through their bodies, while the vast majority simply goes down the drain.

    Since the inception of water fluoridation in 1945, fluorosilicic acid suppliers have been making hundreds of millions of dollars each year5 selling a hazardous industrial waste for use as a water additive rather than having to pay for toxic waste disposal.

    “Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,6 a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University, notes:

    “Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”

    Fluoride Is a Neurotoxic Endocrine Disruptor
    We now know fluoride — which serves no essential biological function7 — actually acts as an endocrine disruptor.8 Exposure has been linked to thyroid disease,9 which in turn can contribute to obesity, heart disease, depression and other health problems.

    More disturbingly, fluoride has been identified as a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and contributes to rising rates of attention-deficit hyperactive disorder10 and lowered IQ in children.11

    In all, there are more than 400 animal and human studies showing fluoride is a neurotoxic substance.12 Many of these studies have found harm at, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American pregnant women and children receive.

    Government-Funded Research Confirms Fluoride Lowers IQ
    One of the most recent studies highlighting these dangers was a U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study published in the August 19, 2019, issue of JAMA Pediatrics,13 which found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ.

    The research, led by a Canadian team of researchers at York University in Ontario, looked at 512 mother-child pairs living in six Canadian cities. Fluoride levels were measured through urine samples collected during pregnancy.

    They also estimated the women’s fluoride consumption based on the level of fluoride in the local water supply and how much water and tea each woman drank. The children’s IQ scores were then assessed between the ages of 3 and 4. As reported by Fluoride Action Network (FAN):14

    “They found that a 1 mg per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls.

    When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women’s fluid intake, they found lower IQ’s in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders.”

    The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date.

    Its import is also demonstrated by the fact that it’s accompanied by an editor’s note15 explaining the journal’s decision to publish the study, and a podcast16 featuring the chief editors of JAMA Pediatrics and JAMA Network Open, in which they discuss the study.

    An additional editorial17 by David Bellinger, Ph.D., a world-renowned neurotoxicity expert, also points out that “The hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration.” Few studies ever receive all of this added treatment.

    Advertisement
    Click here to find out why 5G wireless is NOT harmless
    Fluoride Exposure From Infant Formula Lowers IQ
    In October 2019, a Canadian study18 concluded that infants fed baby formula made with fluoridated water have lower IQs than those fed formula made with unfluoridated water. As explained by the authors:

    “Consumption of infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated water can lead to excessive intake of fluoride in infants. We examined the association between water fluoride concentration and intellectual ability (IQ) among preschool children who lived in fluoridated or non-fluoridated cities in Canada and were either formula-fed or breastfed during the first six months after birth.”

    Results revealed an increase of 0.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter (mg/L), which was the difference between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated regions, corresponded with a 4.4 point lower IQ score at age 3 to 4.

    Not surprisingly, the researchers urge parents to avoid fluoridated water when reconstituting infant formula.

    Fluoride Exposure Affects Sleep Patterns
    Other recent fluoride research has discovered it can have an adverse impact on sleep. The study,19,20 published in the Environmental Health journal in 2019, found that chronic low-level fluoride exposure altered the sleep patterns of adolescents aged 16 to 19.

    The hypothesis used to explain this effect is that fluoride is known to preferentially accumulate in the pineal gland, which might inhibit or alter the production of melatonin, the hormone that regulates sleep and wakefulness.

    The study used data from the 2015-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) that included plasma fluoride and water fluoride measurements. None of the included individuals were prescribed medication for sleep disorders.

    Each 0.52 mg/L increase in water fluoride was associated with a 197% higher odds21 of symptoms suggestive of sleep apnea, as well as a 24-minute later bedtime and 26-minute later waking time. According to the authors:22

    “Fluoride exposure may contribute to changes in sleep cycle regulation and sleep behaviors among older adolescents in the U.S. …

    The high accumulation of fluoride in pineal gland hydroxyapatite (among those chronically exposed) points to a plausible mechanism by which fluoride may influence sleep patterns. In adults, pineal gland fluoride concentrations have been shown to strongly correlate with degree of pineal gland calcification.

    Interestingly, greater degree of pineal calcification among older adolescents and/or adults is associated with decreased melatonin production, lower REM sleep percentage, decreased total sleep time, poorer sleep efficiency, greater sleep disturbances and greater daytime tiredness.

    While there are no existing human studies on fluoride exposure and melatonin production or sleep behaviors, findings from a doctoral dissertation demonstrated that gerbils fed a high fluoride diet had lower nighttime melatonin production than those fed a low fluoride diet. Moreover, their melatonin production was lower than normal for their developmental stage …

    It is possible that excess fluoride exposure may contribute to increased pineal gland calcification and subsequent decreases in nighttime melatonin production that contribute to sleep disturbances. Additional animal and prospective human studies are needed to explore this hypothesis.”

    Purify Your Water and Avoid Fluoride
    Water is the only beverage you cannot live without. Unfortunately, pure water is hard to come by these days, as water pollution, inadequate water treatment and the addition of fluoride render most municipal water supplies untrustworthy.

    To ensure purity, you really need to filter your own tap water. For guidance on selecting a suitable water filtration system for your home or apartment, see “How to Properly Filter Your Water.”

    Water filtration is particularly important if your water is fluoridated and you are combating chronic disease (especially thyroid disease), have young children or are using your tap water to reconstitute infant formula.

    Keep in mind that fluoride is very difficult to get out of the water once added. When shopping for a filtration system, make sure it’s specifically rated to filter out fluoride.

    According to the Water Quality Association23 and others,24 filters capable of removing fluoride include reverse osmosis, deionizers and activated alumina adsorption media such as Berkey filters. Distillation, while not a form of filtration, will also remove fluoride. Carbon filters such as PUR and Brita will not filter out fluoride, and neither will water softeners.

    Help End the Practice of Fluoridation
    There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

    Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride—up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

    The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

    Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

    Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More
    I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

    Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter and Instagram, and sign up for campaign alerts.
    10 Facts About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
    50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
    Moms2B Avoid Fluoride: Help spread the word to expecting parents to avoid fluoride during pregnancy due to potential harm to the fetus.
    Health Effects Database: FAN's database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride's effects on human health.
    Together, Let's Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve
    In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  30. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020), mountain_jim (24th January 2020), Pam (27th February 2020), Sunny-side-up (28th February 2020)

  31. Link to Post #76
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    The ADA’s Bizarre Celebration
    Fluoride Action Network
    1/25/20
    http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_1-25-20/
    "The American Dental Association (ADA) is celebrating the 75th year of water fluoridation. This public health experiment began in Grand Rapids, Michigan on January 25th, 1945. According to Paul Connett, PhD, Director of the Fluoride Action Network, “The fact that this practice has continued for 75 years is reason to lament not celebrate and in this bulletin we explain why.”

    The ADA ignores both the ethics and poor science of fluoridation

    Zealous promoters of Fluoridation (like the ADA) not only continue to ignore the ethical arguments but also ignore the very solid scientific evidence (including US government funded studies) that show that fluoride can damage the fetus and the infant. Instead of carefully analyzing these studies the ADA and its allies continue to repeat the mantra that water fluoridation is “safe and effective.”

    Fluoridation is the biggest public health failure of the Twentieth Century

    Politics and public relations, not science keeps fluoridation alive. Fluoridation proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), spend millions on advertising and public relations to sell us fluoridation using half-truths, talking points and diversions. Dentists at the CDC claim that fluoridation is ‘one of the top public health achievements of the twentieth century,’ in reality it is one of greatest public health failures (some would say betrayals) of the twentieth century.

    Fluoridation is unethical

    The Fluoride Action Network and others have shown that the practice of adding fluoridation chemicals to the public’s drinking water is not safe for all residents, harming vulnerable subpopulations while also taking money away from more effective, safe, and less controversial oral health strategies. Unlike all other water treatment processes, fluoridation does not treat the water itself, but the person consuming it. It deprives the individual of his or her right to informed consent to treatment. It is delivered to everyone regardless of age, health, or nutritional status, without individual oversight by a doctor and without control of dose since people drink different amounts of water.

    The highest doses of fluoride are going to the fetus and going to bottle-fed babies.

    Dental fluorosis reaching epidemic proportions

    According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), over 41% of adolescents in the U.S. now have visible signs of overexposure to fluoride, called dental fluorosis. Fluorosis is permanently damaged tooth enamel (white spots or pitted and stained enamel) caused by excessive fluoride intake during childhood, and appears to be an indicator of wider systemic damage. Fluoridated water is the primary source of fluoride for these individuals.

    Damage to the brain

    The Fluoride Action Network provides a large health database showing that fluoride can damage virtually all tissues in the body. All tissues are important but the most important organ to protect during fetal and infant development is the brain. Damage occurring to this organ during these early stages of life are permanent and cannot be undone later in life. A large body of government-funded research now indicates that fluoride is neurotoxic and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Experts in the field have likened the size of the effect to that from lead.

    This includes over 200 animal studies showing that prolonged exposure to varying levels of fluoride can damage the brain, 64 human studies linking moderately high fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence, 3 human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development, and 7 Mother-Offspring studies linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy to reduced IQ in offspring.

    The recent draft systematic review by the National Toxicology Program of human studies of fluoride's neurotoxicity concluded that fluoride was a “presumed” neurotoxin based on the large number, quality, and consistency of brain studies.

    A 2006 report by the National Research Council called fluoride an endocrine disruptor, and a number of recent studies indicate that exposure to fluoridated water lowers thyroid function, particularly in women. Recent studies have also linked fluoridated water to kidney and liver impairment, as well as sleep apnea for adolescents.

    Fluoridation is not necessary

    The CDC Oral Health Division has acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits is primarily topical (CDC, 1999), not systemic, meaning there is no reason to swallow it. There is also no shortage of fluoride already available in many inexpensive over the counter and prescribed forms.

    Fluoridation is one of the most widely rejected health interventions in the world.

    Over 95% of the world’s population is fluoridation-free. WHO data indicates no difference in tooth decay in 12-year-olds between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries. Despite 7 decades of fluoridation reaching a record number of Americans, official reports indicate that a tooth decay crisis exists in the U.S.

    The risks associated with fluoridation clearly outweigh the benefits.

    To ignore the significant potential harm and continue fluoridation would be a huge disservice to our children, especially when there are more effective programs to reduce dental inequities that communities can choose to implement, such as school sealant and education programs, increases to Medicaid reimbursement rates, and expansion of the use of mid-level dental providers.

    Fluoridation is a waste of money

    Fluoridation is a waste of money on many fronts. CDC’s PR claim that, for each $1 invested in fluoridation $38 is saved in dental costs, has been shown to be false by independent scientists. The analysis from the CDC Oral Health Division ignored the costs of treating dental fluorosis and the costs of other harm. The loss of IQ points leads to a HUGE loss in earning ability and over a large population amounts to a loss of billions of dollars.

    Continued promotion will cause an ever-increasing loss of the public’s trust in the agencies that are meant to protect them.

    Continuing this practice in the absence of sound science – and investing millions of dollars in PR to cover up that fact – will further erode the public’s trust in public health programs. Right now the only thing being protected is a failed policy and the reputation of those who refuse to accept that this program has been a massive failure both ethically and scientifically.

    Sincerely,

    Stuart Cooper
    Campaign Director
    Fluoride Action Network "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  32. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020), Pam (26th January 2020), Sunny-side-up (28th February 2020)

  33. Link to Post #77
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    FLUORIDATION USELESS AND ESPECIALLY HARMFUL TO POOR CHILDREN, RESEARCH SHOWS
    http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluori...esearch-shows/
    Source: Press Release: Fluoride Action Network | February 10th, 2020 NEW YORK, Feb. 10, 2020 /PRNewswire/ —

    "According to Healthy People 2020, America’s poorest children suffer high tooth decay rates, double that of non-poor children. Seventy-five years of water fluoridation failed to narrow oral health disparities between haves and have nots. Cavities are linked to poverty, malnutrition and inability to get dental care; not to fluoride deficiency. Further, malnutrition, more prevalent in low-income families, is linked to more fluoride-induced tooth damage (dental fluorosis), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

    Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director says, “In honor of Children’s Dental Health Month, everyone reading this must contact their local and state legislators. Tell them to stop funding and/or implementing fluoridation. A large body of evidence shows fluoride is neurotoxic. We shouldn’t sacrifice children’s mental health to continue a failed dental health program.”

    Healthy People 2020, a project of the Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, reports: 66% of 6-9 year-olds and 60% of 13-15 year-olds from the lowest income families experienced tooth decay compared to 33% of non-poor. The uninsured or publicly-insured suffer more from untreated decay because most dentists shun them.

    Connett says, “Most dentists prefer to treat the water rather than the teeth of low-income folks.”

    Current research (e.g. Irigoyen-Camacho 2015; Kajale 2015; Whitford 1990) supports a 1952 Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) study linking poor nutrition, especially calcium intake, to increased prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis – factors also linked to cavities.

    Fluoridation began with the discovery that people consuming water naturally high in fluoride had discolored teeth with less cavities. Over-zealous dentists urged supplementation of “fluoride deficient” water supplies to equalize decay rates across America without safety studies. Instead, they spread dental fluorosis. Today over 70% of community drinking water supplies are fluoridated. Yet, tooth decay is now a national crisis along with dental fluorosis – which has skyrocketed.

    We need safer ways to protect children’s teeth, such as the Childsmile program in Scotland. A healthy diet, good oral hygiene, and access to dental care are prerequisites for healthy teeth. Consuming a fluoride-free diet doesn’t cause tooth decay.

    Lack of access to dental care is fueling a dental health crisis. Pew Charitable Trusts in 2012, reported that preventable dental conditions made up more than 830,000 emergency room visits in 2009 – up from 16% in 2006. JADA reported 101 deaths from the consequences of untreated tooth decay.

    *Original News Release online at PRNewsWire at https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...=eml_cleartime "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  34. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020), Pam (11th February 2020), Sunny-side-up (28th February 2020)

  35. Link to Post #78
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Dr. Paul Connett on the Historic Trial That Could End Water Fluoridation
    Premiered Feb 24, 2020
    The Conscious Resistance

    "Journalist Derrick Broze interview Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network regarding the upcoming trial between FAN and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This trial could spell the end of the practice of water fluoridation."

    www.fluoridealert.org
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  36. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), East Sun (27th February 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020)

  37. Link to Post #79
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    What’s in Children’s Drinking Water? Far Too Often, Something Neurotoxic
    By the Children’s Health Defense Team
    FEBRUARY 27, 2020
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...ng-neurotoxic/

    "Hollywood seems to love a good David versus corporate Goliath tale, and the stories it brings to the silver screen not infrequently revolve around real-life contamination of community water. Twenty years ago, the film Erin Brockovich called attention to a cancer-causing chemical dumped in a California community by Pacific Gas & Electric, while the recent film Dark Waters focuses on DuPont’s contamination of a West Virginia town’s water with the chemical PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). Outside of Tinseltown, occurrences such as the 2014 lead debacle in Flint, Michigan—and especially its dramatic impact on children’s cognition and behavior—have helped ensure that water-quality-related incidents continue to get occasional media attention.

    PFOA belongs to a wider family of chemicals called PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). The scientific evidence clearly indicates that drinking water contaminants such as PFAS, lead and many others—as well as the fluoride that, incredibly, is intentionally added to drinking water—are not doing anyone any good. However, these exposures are of particular concern for children. This is because growing children drink more water than adults (per pound of body weight) and are exquisitely vulnerable to adverse developmental effects. As the Environmental Working Group (EWG) points out, “A baby fed exclusively powdered formula mixed with tap water drinks the most water for its small size of any age group”; in this scenario, tap water may represent up to 85% of a formula-fed baby’s diet.

    Water systems in many of the nation’s largest cities routinely violate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) safety standards for drinking water. This observation was confirmed in a comprehensive EWG review of reports collected from close to 50,000 water companies and utilities nationwide (2010-2015), which found over 250 tap water contaminants and identified studies linking many of these chemicals to cancer; brain and nervous system damage; fetal toxicity; impaired fertility; and hormone disruption. EWG concluded that millions of American children are exposed to unsafe levels of contaminants in municipal water supplies (with an unknown number of children exposed via unmonitored private wells)—and in this context, even “a passing grade from the federal government” means little.

    … the chemicals’ extremely durable and water-soluble properties have facilitated widespread PFAS infiltration of community water supplies and private wells around the world, even in the most remote areas.
    Pervasive PFAS
    PFAS, extensively used in manufacturing and consumer products, are one of the more well-documented and worrisome drinking water contaminants. Environmental groups have dubbed PFAS “forever chemicals” because they resist degradation and build up in the blood and organs. Although other routes of exposure (such as food, house dust and indoor air) are also significant, the chemicals’ “extremely durable” and water-soluble properties have facilitated widespread PFAS infiltration of community water supplies and private wells around the world, even in the most remote areas. In the U.S., PFAS levels in tap water have increased significantly since the late 1980s.

    Research shows that virtually everyone on the planet now harbors PFAS in their bloodstream. One nationally representative U.S. study detected the compounds in the blood of 99% of American adults and adolescents age 12 and up. Although some countries have banned or begun to phase out certain PFAS compounds, the chemicals’ propensity to bioaccumulate—and the continued or increased use of other PFAS compounds—means that the PFAS body burden remains high.

    For children, the implications of PFAS exposure are profound, with a wide range of potential effects that may begin in utero and continue into adulthood. Possible adverse outcomes include:

    Lower birth weight and birth size
    Lower IQ and increased risk for learning disorders
    Effects on levels of sex hormones and insulin-like growth factor 1, both of which play a critical role in growth and sexual maturation
    Increased risk of overweight and obesity
    Dysregulated glucose metabolism
    Increased risk and severity of liver disease
    Lower bone mineral density
    [A] USA Today analysis of EPA data found that the agency had detected lead levels in excess of EPA standards in almost 2,000 community water systems from all 50 states, with over a third displaying levels more than double the EPA’s action level limit …
    Lingering Lead
    Lead is another persistent substance that lingers without breaking down. Although the U.S. banned lead-based paints in the late 1970s and leaded gasoline in the mid-1990s, lead components of water delivery systems continue to constitute an environmental and health disaster. Government toxicologists describe lead as a “systemic toxicant affecting virtually every organ system,” and especially the developing brain. There is no safe threshold for lead exposure.

    In 2016, a USA Today analysis of EPA data found that the agency had detected lead levels in excess of EPA standards in almost 2,000 community water systems from all 50 states, with over a third displaying levels “more than double the EPA’s action level limit” and many rivaling or exceeding the alarming levels detected in Flint, Michigan. Some of the highest lead levels were at schools and day care centers—in one elementary school, the “stunning” level of lead in the water met the EPA’s threshold for hazardous waste. Moreover, drinking water contamination with brain-damaging lead had often persisted for months or years without redress, and almost one in ten water systems had never notified the public.

    Among its many dangerous properties, lead can pass through the blood-brain barrier and cause damage to various regions of the brain linked to neurologic disorders. In the aftermath of the lead poisoning of Flint’s water supply, the city observed a decline in reading proficiency in exposed children, and the proportion of students qualifying for special education services nearly doubled. A veteran teacher in the Flint school system stated, “We have a school district where all that’s left are damaged kids who are being exposed to other damaged kids, and it’s causing more damage,” while a Flint superintendent reported that the schools “were bracing for an ‘evolving, educational emergency.’” Even more concerning, a Reuters analysis later showed that Flint is far from being one of the nation’s most dangerous “lead hotspots”; Reuters found “nearly 3,000 areas with recently recorded lead poisoning rates at least double those in Flint during the peak of that city’s contamination crisis,” with blood lead levels at least four times higher than Flint’s in more than a third of those communities.

    This CDC-endorsed practice has persisted for decades despite an avalanche of evidence that the chemical—an industrial waste product—is lowering IQ and that fluoride produces neurodevelopmental toxicity comparable to the effects of lead.
    Flagrantly unjustifiable fluoride
    Fluoride stands apart from other water contaminants in that water systems add it to drinking water on purpose. More Americans drink fluoridated water than in all other countries combined. This CDC-endorsed practice has persisted for decades despite an avalanche of evidence that the chemical—an industrial waste product—is lowering IQ and that fluoride produces neurodevelopmental toxicity “comparable to the effects of lead.” In addition to effects on cognition, studies have linked fluoride to behavioral symptoms of inattention and diagnosed attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as well as to numerous health risks, including an increased risk of bone cancer.

    The authors of studies highlighting fluoride’s effects on IQ are particularly concerned about the developmental impact of systemic fluoride ingestion and advise pregnant women not to drink fluoridated water. The 2017 book, Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix, cites hundreds of studies linking fluoride to premature birth (pointing out that rates of premature birth are “unusually high” in the U.S.) as well as preeclampsia, impaired neurological development and autism. The ostensible rationale for U.S. water fluoridation—prevention of tooth decay—does not hold up to scrutiny, because tooth decay rates have been steadily declining in countries that have never practiced water fluoridation.

    …mere compliance with national drinking water standards is far from a guarantee that contaminant levels are safe, especially for children.
    Chemicals in combination
    In light of the growing awareness that chemicals can exert greater effects in combination with other chemicals—a principle known as synergy—the EWG’s finding that U.S. tap water contains at least 250 contaminants is hardly reassuring. Studies suggest, for example, that chemicals not found to be cancer-causing on their own “might act together to promote the process of carcinogenesis.” Although scientists still tend to study one chemical at a time, there are calls to “elucidate and define combinatory actions,” with an entire scientific journal now dedicated to considering “different dose and effect levels, . . . optimal combination ratios or sequences and the prevention of potential adverse events.”

    In addition, EWG researchers are calling for “a shift towards aggregate and cumulative assessment of chemical contaminants,” particularly for drinking water. Applying a “cumulative cancer risk framework” to drinking water data, they reported in 2019 that the national attributable cancer risk due to tap water contaminants was two orders of magnitude higher than the benchmark risk level used by the EPA and other regulatory agencies. Stated another way, for the 86% of the U.S. population served by community water systems, tap water contaminants accounted for a cumulative lifetime risk “equivalent to 4 lifetime cancer cases per 10,000 people” rather than one case per million. The researchers also noted that their estimate is likely to be conservative due to missing data for many contaminants that are either unmonitored, infrequently monitored or out of compliance with monitoring and reporting requirements.

    Back in 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act established a requirement that the EPA “set allowable levels for pesticides in a way that would ‘ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure’”; the Act also stipulated an additional tenfold margin of safety “to account for pre- and postnatal toxicity.” A subsequent analysis found that the EPA had failed to apply the additional margin of safety for the majority of pesticides reviewed. Unfortunately, the same phenomenon seems to hold true for drinking water contaminants. One of the important conclusions drawn by EWG and others is that mere compliance with national drinking water standards is far from a guarantee that contaminant levels are safe, especially for children."
    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...ng-neurotoxic/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  38. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020)

  39. Link to Post #80
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    FEDERAL REPORT FINDING FLUORIDE LOWERS IQ OF CHILDREN REVIEWED BY NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
    Source: Press Release: Fluoride Action Network
    March 6th, 2020
    PRNewswire/
    http://fluoridealert.org/news/federa...y-of-sciences/

    "The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) just released an assessment of a draft report on fluoride neurotoxicity produced by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). The NAS suggested improvements to strengthen the report and heavily criticized NTP for ignoring evidence from animal studies and for inadequately addressing the human evidence at fluoride levels common in the USA, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

    Paul Connett, PhD, Director of FAN, an environmental group, welcomed the NAS report and said, “If the recommendations are adopted, they will make the final report ‘iron-clad’ against criticisms. The NAS suggestions should strengthen the draft report’s conclusion that fluoride is a presumed neurotoxin in children, which is based on 149 human studies. This finding brings into question the long-standing assurances from public health officials that water fluoridation is safe.”

    Connett went on to say, “The NAS review has been misinterpreted by fluoridation defenders. The NAS did not independently review the scientific evidence but instead limited itself to comments on whether the NTP clearly and thoroughly explained their methods. The NAS emphasized its finding ‘… does not mean that the NTP’s conclusion is incorrect.'”

    “Many NAS suggestions are minor and should have little effect on the conclusion of ‘presumed’ neurotoxic in children. However, the inclusion of the hundreds of identified animal studies, as recommended by NAS, can only increase confidence in the conclusion.”

    “The other main NAS criticism was that NTP inadequately addressed the question most people are interested in: Does fluoridated water pose a neurotoxic risk? Criticizing NTP’s vague discussions about uncertainty over this question, the NAS recommends NTP do a proper dose-response analysis to address this issue head-on. FAN believes such an analysis will confirm there is sufficient evidence linking water fluoridation to lowered IQ and other neurotoxic effects.”

    Connett further stated, “Multiple strong scientific studies, at exposures relevant to fluoridation, have been published after the NTP’s review. They link fluoridation in Canada to greatly lowered IQ in formula-fed infants (Till 2020) and 300% higher rates of ADHD (Ridell 2019); fluoridation in USA with sleep disturbances in adolescents (Malin 2020); and fluoride with lower IQ by thyroid disruption (Wang 2020).” "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

  40. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to onawah For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (18th March 2020), Mercedes (17th June 2020)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 4 8 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts