The Fluoride Thread

[MorningSong]

Just out in these past few days:


Water Fluoridation Officially Classified as a Neurotoxin
March 10, 2014 by Barbara Minton

(Health Secrets) The fluoridation of water supplies began more than 60 years ago, and helped usher in the beginning of the “better living through chemistry” era in which we have found ourselves. Another benchmark of this era is the meteoric rise in neuro-developmental disabilities such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), bi-polar disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments that have afflicted millions of children worldwide with increasing frequency. Now scientists have documented the connection between these two events, in a study published this month in the journal Lancet Neurology.

The study led its authors, Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health, and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine, to classify fluoride as a developmental neurotoxin, meaning it is toxic to brain cells. As a result, cognitive development is impaired and intelligence quotient (IQ) is reduced.

They write, “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.” The majority of these studies showed levels of fluoride at concentrations which the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently allows in the US, which is less than 4 milligrams per liter.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) 276 million Americans are still consuming fluoridated drinking water. The CDC along with the American Dental Association has long been a strong advocate for water fluoridation.

Fluoride joins the rouges gallery of industrial chemicals injuring developing brains

The same research team conducted a systematic review in 2006, and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxins: lead, methyl mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since then, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxins: manganese, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, the polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and now fluoride. The scientists postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered.

Harm from neurotoxins is often untreatable and the damage is permanent. The pharmaceutical drugs that have become so popular and profitable for treating chemically injured brains do nothing to heal. Instead they simply mask the symptoms temporarily but ultimately cause even greater dysfunction through their side effects, one of which is brain shrinkage.

Gandjean and Landrigan note their concern that children worldwide are “being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievement, and damaging societies.” According to them, it is crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children’s brain development.

To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxity, they are proposing a global prevention strategy that would include mandatory testing of chemicals and the formation of a clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity, alone and in combination. “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean states. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

Commenting on the classification of fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin, Fluoride Action Network Executive Director Paul Connett, PhD, said “adding more fluoride to American’s already excessive intake no longer has any conceivable justification. We should follow the evidence and try to reduce fluoride intake, not increase it.”

Fluoride is not easily eliminated from the body. It accumulates in bones and teeth, and even in the pineal gland. As many as 41% of teens and adults who have grown up with water fluoridation have dental fluorosis, a mottling of their tooth enamel. Other conditions linked to long term intake of fluoridated water are DNA damage, cancer, osteoporosis, Alzheimer’s disease, endocrine disruption (particularly to the thyroid), inability to focus, accelerated aging, lowered immunity, sleep disorders, and muted psychic awareness and spiritual development.

http://alignlife.com/articles/news/water-fluoridation-officially-classified-as-a-neurotoxin


Lancet Neurol. 2014 Mar;13(3):330-338. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(13)70278-3. Epub 2014 Feb 17.
Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity.
Grandjean P1, Landrigan PJ2.
Author information
Abstract

Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants-manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24556010


Fluoride Classified as Dangerous to Developing Brains

Fluoride joins lead, arsenic, methylmercury, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, and other chemicals known to cause harm to brains, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Fluoride is newly classified as a developmental neurotoxin by medical authorities in the March 2014 journal Lancet Neurology (a search for the word fluoride in this article will not produce results, we suggest you search for ride). The authors are Dr. Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health and Dr. Philip Landrigan of the Icahn School of Medicine.

The authors write “A meta-analysis of 27 cross-sectional studies of children exposed to fluoride in drinking water, mainly from China, suggests an average IQ decrement of about seven points in children exposed to raised fluoride concentrations.” The majority of these 27 studies had water fluoride levels which the US Environmental Protection Agency currently allows in the US – less than 4 milligrams per liter.

Developmental neurotoxins are capable of causing widespread brain disorders such as autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, and other cognitive impairments. The harm is often untreatable and permanent.

Grandjean and Landrigan write, “Our very great concern is that children worldwide are being exposed to unrecognized toxic chemicals that are silently eroding intelligence, disrupting behaviors, truncating future achievements, and damaging societies, perhaps most seriously in developing countries.”

The authors say it’s crucial to control the use of all harmful chemicals to protect children’s brain development. They propose mandatory testing of these chemicals and the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse to evaluate them for potential neurotoxicity. “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director says, “In light of the new classification of fluoride as a dangerous neurotoxin, adding more fluoride to American’s already excessive intake no longer has any conceivable justification. We should follow the evidence and try to reduce fluoride intake, not increase it.”

The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports 276 million Americans are consuming fluoridated drinking water, largely as a result of the CDC’s vigorous advocacy to maintain and increase those numbers.

But the CDC’s own evidence reveals Americans already show signs of fluoride-overexposure and reports that 41% of American teenagers have dental fluorosis, a physical marker that they ingested too much fluoride while their teeth were forming. Evidence also shows these markers in the US are not decreasing over time, but are increasing. Connett asks, “Why would the CDC persist in going against the tide of evidence to promote higher fluoride intake. Sadly, it seems, health agencies in fluoridated countries seem to be more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than protecting children’s brains.”

http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoride-newly-identified-as-dangerous-to-brains/

[EC1000]

Too bad we can't file a class action suit against the FDA for approving the use of flouride back in the day but it was part of the big plan all along. Funny thing is that flouride actually causes dental damage rather than strengthening teeth as it was prosed when the idea was originally "sold" to the public. I was a kid back in the 70's and can still remember all of the flouride propaganda in commercials and from the school dental hygenist and such.

[Matt P]

Why can't we file a class action law suit?

Matt

[EC1000]

Why can't we file a class action law suit?

Matt

well maybe we can. It could include everyone born in or living in the US for over the past 45 years or so. Know any good lawyers? :)

[Matt P]

Know any good lawyers? :)

Are there such a thing? ;)

Actually no but I was wondering if a class action would even be allowable/legal. You'd have to prove individual harm I suppose? Who would you sue? The local water company? The local government for allowing the fluoride? Both?

Matt

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

Back when I lived in KY a man from the state would come to our farm and put fluoride into the well water.
If I recall correctly. We had a spring and well of our own and let the gov't poison it.

[Kimberley]

Know any good lawyers? :)

Are there such a thing? ;)

Actually no but I was wondering if a class action would even be allowable/legal. You'd have to prove individual harm I suppose? Who would you sue? The local water company? The local government for allowing the fluoride? Both?

Matt

Matt welcome to Avalon...

My husband is a 30+ year practicing USA lawyer and he is a very good man...no he is not as awake as I would like however he actually decided to be a lawyer because he thought he could help people..and he has but he also has learned how F**k*d the system is and being a lawyer pays the bills...

That said i have been briefing him about fluoride because it is a topic that i am passionate about and I am making head way...there is hope... I will report back when I have made more progress.

Matt and all we are doing great work and i thank us all for that!

Much love! :grouphug:

[MargueriteBee]

Perhaps this report will help get the fluoride out.

[Sloppyjoe]

I drank tap water from the city most of my life until a few months ago where I decided to buy some 5 gallon jugs and fill them up at my dads well in the country. Now when I drink water from restaurants and whatnot it tastes like dead water to me.

[Frederick Jackson]

And add to the list of deleterious effects of fluoride compounds in the water and salt supplies decreased fertility and damage to the reproductive organs and renal failure.

[aviators]

We need to see Fluoride go . It seems like such a easy case to prove.
The brainwashing has been effective and deeply engrained.
With professionals saying its good for your teeth.
In the US a lot of the Fluoride is coming from China.
God only knows what else is in there? I know things are changing but not fast enough. Here's another bit if you like.

Harvard Study: Fluoride Lowers Children’s Intelligence By 7 IQ Points

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/02/harvard-study-published-national-institute-health-journal-finds-fluoride-lowers-childrens-intelligence-7-iq-points.html

88pfVo3bZLY

[conk]

There is a very small benefit from low doses of a particular fluoride, but of course authorities always use the cheaper, less effective (and dangerous) kind. The amount that provides benefit comes from nature, often in black tea and other plants.

Of course the Russians used fluoride in POW camps to make the prisoners complacent and apathetic, easier to control. The Nazis did something similar.

Guess who the largest contributor to the American Dental Association is. The fertilizer industry! Wha.....? Yep, fluoride is a waste byproduct of their processes. Same with Alcoa Aluminum company. Got to keep the dentists happy so they'll continue to promote the worthless poison!

[onawah]

I don't see an ongoing thread on fluoride, but if I missed it, somebody please send me a link.
If not, then I think we need one.
Here's the latest from FAN (Fluoride Action Network)


Simply put Fluoride Action Network’s 5th Citizens’ Conference on Fluoride exceeded all our expectations. The Science day (Sept 6), Organization day (Sept 7) and the Lobby day (Sept 8) were all great – and to crown it all key participants had meetings with top officials at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) before the conference (Sept 4) and EPA Water Division officials after the conference (Sept 8). The details of these meetings will have to come later, suffice it now to say that Bill Osmunson DDS, William Hirzy PhD, and Chris Nidel, a lawyer, attended the HHS meeting and Quanyong Xiang PhD, Chris Neurath, William Hirzy PhD and myself attended the meeting with EPA.

Highlights

Here are some of the highlights of the conference and lobby day from my perspective but I am a little hesitant to do this because all the speakers were unbelievably good. There were no duds and no dull moments. We hope to have videos of some of the conference presentations available in the not too distant future (we will let you know).

But before I get to the speakers I will repeat what I said to the approximately 100 attendees. I am a very privileged person. I have met many of the activists on this issue from around the world. I know what a very special bunch they are. No one I have worked with on this is in it for money, power, or prestige. The people I have met in this battle on several continents are just wonderful people. Almost by definition they are caring; they are persevering and most have had to resist personal attacks by proponents and attempts to marginalize them in their communities. So why do they do it? For most the answer is as simple and as powerful as the desire to protect their children and grandchildren and to have the right to determine which medicines they take and for others it is a determination to have scientific integrity used to inform public health decisions. In the main many of them feel very isolated. So the joy for me at this 5th FAN Conference was to see many of these folks from the US and Canada meet up and find out that they are not alone and that they have had similar experiences to others fighting this same battle. They also experienced the joy of finding that despite our differences in many other categories (politics, religion, ethnicity, income, etc.) this is an issue that we can all work on together and behave in the way that human beings were meant to behave when their children’s health is at stake.

Because this account is a little long and some of you may not make it to the end of my summary of the conference presentations I am going to start with Dan Stockin’s explosive revelations, which came at the end of the Sunday session, about what appears to be collusion between the Centers for Disease and Prevention’s Oral Health Division (CDC) and the American Dental Association (ADA) to mislead the American public on the dangers posed by fluoridation. (You can also read this bulletin online at http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_09-16-14/ )

Dan Stockin, MPH, is a career public health professional from Georgia. He has worked closely with Civil Rights leaders in Atlanta and in the process has coined the term “Fluoridegate” to describe the failure of the CDC Oral Health Division to issue health warnings on fluoride exposure, especially to kidney patients and members of the Black and Hispanic communities who appear to be particularly susceptible to fluoride’s toxicity. Dan brought the Sunday session to a very exciting close. In fact his presentation was like the unfolding of a John Grisham novel. Dan released 2500 pages of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These documents pertained to all the exchanges between employees at the Oral Health Division of the CDC (the only division at the CDC that deals with fluoridation) and the ADA. (There are also documents from the Department of Health and Human Services.) These documents make it abundantly clear that what we have suspected for a very long time has been correct: namely, the ADA and CDC Oral Health Division are the tweedledum and tweedledee of fluoridation promotion. They work hand in hand (often at taxpayers’ expense) to spin the message in favor of fluoridation. Instead of taking evidence of harm seriously, they see their job as “getting around” the information in the larger effort of protecting this practice rather than protecting the public’s health. In this effort they are tracking every step FAN is making, read every bulletin, warn local dental associations about every appearance I make, as well as several other key individuals and organizations in this battle. It is not surprising that the ADA is doing this: the shock is they have such willing and eager cooperation from the civil servants working at the CDC. The following short excerpt gives you the flavor. This comes from an email titled, “Special Analysis” from Kip Duchon, PE (an engineer working at the CDC Oral Health Division) and Jane McGinley, a spokesperson for the ADA:

“…since you rank as a special friend with elevated consideration, I am sharing with you (confidentially, so don’t pass on to anyone without asking me first if you can) my most recent review of this information that I prepared for a “special” and confidential use (wink-wink).” (my emphasis, PC)

See Dan Stockin’s powerpoint and four files of FOIA documents from the FAN website. You can also access the FOIA documents from Chris Nidel’s website (click on fluoride, then FOIA docs).

Now back to the beginning of the FAN conference.

Saturday (Sept 6)

Henry Lickers, Director of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, Department of the Environment, opened the proceedings with the traditional and moving Mohawk greeting and welcome.

After my presentation (Fluoridation 101) we heard from Michael Connett, JD, who summarized what he called the “rest of the iceberg” with respect to the neurotoxicity studies of fluoride’s impact on the brain, which makes fluoride’s lowering of IQ quite understandable. Look out for the videotape of Michael’s presentation, as it will be a great addition to our video library. See Michael’s powerpoint. Also see FAN’s press release, Fluoride Brain Damage Studies Mounting, based on Michael’s presentation.

The highlight of the day came when Quanyong Xiang, PhD, gave a most important presentation on his IQ work in China. Dr. Xiang works for the Chinese Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) in Jiangsu Province. As many of you know the EPA is basing its new risk assessment for fluoridation on the endpoint of severe dental fluorosis. Dr. Xiang confirmed that the lowering of IQ was a more sensitive endpoint than severe dental fluorosis because some of the children in his study with lowered IQ had either moderate or mild dental fluorosis. Thus we must urge the EPA to use lowered IQ as the more sensitive end point for its risk assessment to determine a new MCLG (maximum contaminant level goal). See Dr. Xiang’s powerpoint.

After Xiang we heard from Bill Hirzy, PhD (a former risk assessment specialist at the EPA). In his presentation Bill showed the EPA how to do an honest risk assessment using standard safety factors. This reassessment would force a MCLG of zero – and thus end water fluoridation. See Bill’s powerpoint.

Chris Neurath of FAN then showed how weak the fluoridation promoters’ criticism of the IQ studies, contained in the meta-analysis performed by the Harvard team (Choi et al, 2012), are. Chris easily dismissed the lightweight NZ study by Broadbent et al. (2014). See Chris’ powerpoint.

We were delighted when we heard that Jennifer Luke, DDS, PhD, was attending our conference. It was Luke who pioneered work on fluoride and the pineal gland. In her short presentation (which she agreed to give at the last minute) Luke produced an unexpected bombshell. She told us that children with autism and other developmental disorders produce very little melatonin. Since melatonin production was lowered in the high fluoride treated animals in her experiments (Luke, 1997), researchers may have to add exposure to fluoridated water as a possible additional cause or compounding factor for the rapid rise in autism in the US. See Luke’s powerpoint.

In a legal panel Jim Turner, Charlie Brown and other lawyers discussed what steps we can take to force the EPA to do an honest job with their much delayed risk assessment on fluoride. The timeline here is shocking. In 1986 the EPA produced a horribly non-protective standard for fluoride in drinking water (Maximum Contaminant Level) and the science based, but not enforceable, Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCL, MCLG) of 4 ppm (the WHO and our neighbors Canada and Mexico have a 1.5 ppm standard). Whistle blowers at the EPA warned that this 4 ppm standard was politically-motivated and the Natural Resources Defense Council took legal action. All to no avail. Americans have had to live with this unscientific MCLG for nearly three decades. In 2003, the US EPA asked the National Research Council of the National Academies to review the MCLG. Three years later they produced a 500-page review (NRC, 2006). This review concluded that the 4 ppm standard was non-protective of health and advised the EPA to do another risk assessment to determine a new MCLG (this is the ideal scientifically based goal to protect all our citizens; the MCL is a federally enforceable standard which takes into account the economic costs of removal of fluoride where it occurs naturally). Eight years later and we are still waiting for that risk assessment to be completed.

Chris Nidel, tort case lawyer, explained the status of his current lawsuit against the sellers of artificially fluoridated bottled water targeted for infants. He, and other lawyers, is seeking out more parents around the country with children afflicted with dental fluorosis who will join this class-action suit, as well as others with evidence that they have been harmed by fluoride. See Chris’ powerpoint.

Bill Osmunson, DDS, gave his usual clear and concise summary of just how weak the evidence is that swallowing fluoride reduces tooth decay. This graphical plots he used examined the percentage of parents answering ”yes” to the question, “Do your children have very good or excellent teeth” in 50 state surveys administered by the HHS. The response from high-income families was about 80% across the board and for low-income families about 60%. However when plotted against the percentage of the population of each state drinking fluoridated water, the graphs were essentially flat indicating no obvious relationship between children having excellent teeth (at least as perceived by parents) and the fluoridation status of each state. See Bill’s powerpoint (in pdf) to see these graphs.

From the floor Mark Gietzen from Wichita, Kansas, offered an intriguing hypothesis as to how early dental researchers like McKay unwittingly ascribed in the late 1920’s less tooth decay to those with dental fluorosis – and set the whole idea of water fluoridation in motion. There may have been other reasons why in those days people with dental fluorosis had less tooth decay. Mark will be refining his hypothesis for possible future publication.

And that was only Saturday. The power-points of all these presentations are online at FAN’s website. In the next few months we hope to have some edited videotaped versions of the presentations. A very special word of thanks to Doug Cragoe for videotaping virtually the whole proceeding and ditto to Clint Griess for streaming most of the conference online.

After dinner, the highlight of Saturday evening was when a grand piano suddenly appeared and we were entertained by Jay Sanders (Clean Water California) a professional musician from San Francisco and Richey, a professional singer and guitarist from Ireland. Their professional performance was not completely sabotaged by a solo from Michael! We all joined in the sing-along, which was a great end to an exciting and information-packed day.

Sunday (Sept 7)

Aisling FizitGibbon got Sunday off to a colorful and cracking start in her brilliant pink “super hero” flying suit and cape. In Ireland Aisling is known as The Girl Against Fluoride and she is getting huge media attention. She presented her experience in fighting fluoridation and the reasons why we must change the way we fight. She stressed that it was more about psychology than information. Aisling said that people should consider marketing a positive message instead of a negative one. She said that negativity in Ireland did not work because the citizens swallowed the PR that fluoridation is good for you. She said she got the most attention when she went “naked” – holding up posters “Stripped of My Rights” in strategic places. Currently she is working on a comic book for kids where she will be taking on Freaky Flora, a F-pusher.

Rick North is an activist who worked with Clean Water Portland during their historic fluoridation referendum. Rick presented a thrilling account of the incredible victory citizens achieved – against HUGE odds – in keeping fluoridation out of Portland, Oregon, in 2013. He detailed some of the devious behind-the-scenes moves by the pro-fluoridation forces – which included paying out $143,000 to local, largely ethnic groups to support fluoridation. Some literally got $20,000 for doing little more than have their name on a list of “endorsements.” Luckily the local chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People held out against this bribery and instead were active participants in the anti-fluoridation campaign. Rick made the audience gasp at pictures Clean Water Portland’s huge billboard (the largest I have ever seen in a campaign of this kind and included in his powerpoint). Rick also compiled a list of arguments and messaging systems, which seemed to work best in their campaign. This information should be very, very useful for people just beginning their campaigns, although we should remember that what might work in one community might not work in another as locals know their community better than anyone else.

Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign manager, outlined the progress being made in two recent FAN initiatives: The Worldwide Alliance to End Fluoridation and Parents Against Fluoridation, or at least that’s what we thought we would call this campaign before some of the comments made at the conference. There was very strong sentiment (from Jim Turner, Aisling and others) that we should be FOR something not AGAINST something – at least in the title of the group. So we will give the last word to our members. See Stuart’s powerpoint.

WHICH TITLE DO YOU PREFER:

1) Parents Against Fluoridation

2) Parents For Fluoride-Free Water

3) Or a third alternative (your suggestion)?

Please email your responses to Ellen this week.

Another last minute addition to our agenda was Jim Bohl, the legislator from Milwaukee, who led an effort there to end fluoridation in this very large city. Jim outlined the pitfalls of undertaking an initiative like this without the support of an organized group of citizens. Even though Jim was able to bring in several experts (dentist Bill Osmunson, pediatrician Yolanda Whyte and myself) the well-heeled proponents were able to bring in their shock-and-awe team and mobilize a few local dentists and doctors to speak up at the same hearing. They sowed enough doubt in the minds of his fellow legislators (some of whom were very sympathetic to removal of fluoride) to make a vote against fluoridation “risky” in their minds without a public clamoring for them to do so. Jim was able to salvage something for his efforts. He got the council to vote to have a statement on water bills warning parents not use fluoridated tap water to make up baby formula to reduce the risk of dental fluorosis. See Jim Bohl’s powerpoint.

Henry Rodriguez, Concilio Zapatista 4383, is from San Antonio and works with the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest and largest Hispanic organization in the US. Henry explained his involvement in helping communities fight fluoridation and told us of a dispute that occurred after a vote was taken at LULACs September 2011 annual conference that approved a resolution on the Civil Rights Violation Regarding Forced Medication. An individual in the LULAC leadership unanimously removed the resolution from the group’s website and Henry explained what he did to get back online. In addition to his wise words Henry won the audience with his passion and his dancing ability! See Henry’s powerpoint.

Dr. Joseph Mercola gave the keynote address immediately after lunch. Dr. Mercola is a passionate advocate of natural medicine, organic food, a wellness champion, and a visionary who has succeeded in implementing much needed changes to our current healthcare system. In 1997, after 25 years as a physician to thousands of patients, Dr. Mercola merged his passion for health with his interest in technology and created Mercola.com, now the #1 natural health website in the world, educating and empowering millions. He has crafted a simple but powerful plan for readers to take back their health.

Dr. Mercola’s presentation was largely based on his soon-to-be-published book Effortless Healing. He argues that good health is your birthright and within your grasp, you just have to step out of its way. In both his book and his presentation Dr. Mercola described the 9 simple secrets to sidestepping illness, shedding excess weight, and helping your body to fix itself.

Before he began his presentation Dr. Mercola introduced members of the Health Liberty Alliance he has put together and supports so generously. These included Ronnie Cummins of Organic Consumers Association; Charlie Brown of Consumers for Dental Choice; Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccination Information Center and myself for Fluoride Action Network. Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology was unable to attend. Smith is a staunch advocate for ending GMOs.

It was inspiring to be able to hear and meet Dr. Mercola in person in addition to some of the key players in his team.

Mike Ewall, JD. I have known Mike for over 20 years. He is simply one of the best grass roots organizers I have met. Back in the late 80’s it was while he was still a student that he introduced me and many other grass roots activists to the power of the internet. Like many other areas of life this revolutionized the grass roots movement. In his talk he told us how year after year (or rather every other year) the promoters of fluoridation have tried to introduce mandatory fluoridation in Pennsylvania. There have been some squeaky moments but every time the opponents have fought it back. Mike told us how they have successfully put together a broad coalition to do this. Mike also spoke of the importance of putting together a multi-racial coalition to fine tune the arguments on the disproportionate harm fluoride causes to communities of color. See Mike’s powerpoint.

Charlie Brown, JD. Charlie is the executive director and legal council for Consumers for Dental Choice. He discussed the success that they have had fighting the use of mercury amalgams. This has become a worldwide campaign with a global mercury bill on reducing mercury contamination of the environment. The language in the bill refers to a phase down (Charlie would prefer phase out) in the use of mercury amalgams (euphemistically and deceptively referred to as “silver fillings” by the ADA, even though they are 50% mercury!). Charlie urged us to stress the environmental damage caused by dumping thousands of tons of hazardous waste into the environment each year, resulting from the use of the fluoridating chemicals derived from the phosphate fertilizer industry. He also urged us to drive a wedge between the CDC and the ADA, just as they have tried to do with FDA and the ADA. A trade association (ADA) has no right to tap into taxpayers’ money to promote or defend its dirty work in its effort to protect itself from accumulated liabilities from its aggressive promotion of two neurotoxins: mercury amalgams and fluoride.

Bill Osmunson, DDS. Explained to us his many years of effort to get the FDA to regulate fluoride for ingestion. It currently identifies fluoride as an “unapproved drug” even though this has been the most prescribed medicine (via water fluoridation) in American history. In his presentation Bill gave details of his second petition to the FDA CDER. This petition, submitted in Nov 2010, had 32 pages and 36 Appendixes with documentation for support. The request read:

The Undersigned Submits this Petition in Support for Reconsideration of a Decision, to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, in Dockets FDA-2007-P-0346 (FDA CDER denial). The FDA CDER denial is in Violation of the FD&C Act when the FDA CDER delegates Drug Regulatory Authority to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). This Appeal Respectfully Orders the FDA to No Longer Defer Regulatory Action on the Manufacturing of the Unapproved Fluoridated Water Drug

This petition lays out the evidence that fluoride is a drug and argues that Congress has prohibited the EPA from adding drugs to water. The MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between FDA and EPA did not include drugs (the MOU has been rescinded). Fluoride is not a nutrient. Public water systems are manufacturing a misbranded, adulterated, and illegal drug. The FDA has the power and the responsibility to put this right but refuses to do so. As a result the American public is not being protected by the very agency responsible for protecting the public from drugs. This is one of the issues we hope will be taken up – if or when – Congress organizes joint hearings on fluoridation, which was our goal for lobbying for Monday (Sept 8) see below.

Panel of Activists:

•• Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh is the founder of Clean Water Sonoma-Marin.


•• Neil Carman, PhD, formerly with the Texas Air Commission and member of the Sierra Club and Fluoride Free Austin.


•• Jay Sanders helped form the new non-profit: Clean Water California- see Jay’s powerpoint


•• Brooke Templeton is founder of End Fluoridation in Baltimore – see Brooke’s powerpoint

In addition to the details raised by each of these activists which were pertinent to their local situations, the exciting thing for me and others was to see the combination of both experience (Dawna and Neil) and the energy, youth and enthusiasm of the new people getting involved in this battle. If the proponents of fluoridation were waiting for us “oldies” to die off then they must be shaking in their boots as they see the waves of younger folks marching over the hill. I think we can safely say that it is no longer a question of “if” fluoridation is going to be defeated but “when.”

In addition to these formal presentations from this panel, there were many contributions from the floor from other grass roots activists. I am thinking especially of Regina Imburglia from Dallas, Texas. Talk about the irrepressible force meeting the immovable object that is Regina. She reminds me of the remarkable fact that a mushroom, despite it softness of its flesh, can push its way through concrete!

Monday Sept 8, FAN lobby day.

Our anticipation was that this Lobby Day would be the beginning of a year-long effort to get Congress to hold joint Congressional hearings on fluoridation. Over the next 12 months we hope that all of you will keep sending letters into your Congressional representatives asking them to hold these hearings. At our end we will be organizing a number of sign-on letters via our online system. But in addition please use each new piece of information as an excuse to write to them again (e.g. another community ending fluoridation; another scientific paper showing harm or another scandal where it is shown that our regulatory bodies are being subverted by lobbyists representing special interests like the ADA and the pharmaceutical industry).

Remember our three demands:

1) No more taxpayers’ money to the CDC to promote fluoridation. There is enough private money from the ADA and the Pew Charitable Trusts to finance pro-fluoridation propaganda.

2) That the US EPA Office of Water conduct an honest risk assessment based upon the studies that have associated lowering of IQ with fluoride exposure. The EPA’s job is not protect the fluoridation program but to protect our health, especially our children’s intellectual development.

3) That the FDA finally after 68 years of dragging its bureaucratic feet regulate fluoride for ingestion – both in tablet form and as delivered in water. They have done a good job regulating fluoridated toothpaste now do the same for fluoridated water and fluoride supplements.

Thanks to all the people that helped to organize this wonderful conference (Ellen C., Bill H., Bill O, Sylvia Erville, Stella Kwan, Stuart Cooper), to all those who helped Ellen at the registration desk and book table, those who supported it financially, and to all to those who dug deep and came to Crystal City in person.

To view the conference powerpoints we also have them at this site.

Sincerely,

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network
Co-Author, The Case Against Fluoride

[gripreaper]

There are 52 threads on Fluoride. Go here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/search.php?search_type=1

type in they keyword box: "Fluoride", select "Search Titles Only" and they will come up.

[ponda]

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain



http://cdn.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/ckeditor/Sayer%20Ji/images/spice_turmeric_brain_health.jpg

Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, to stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why new research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising!

Continues... (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/spice-prevents-fluoride-destroying-your-brain)

[LivioRazlo]

I was led to this website by another member quite some time ago and have been buying in bulk when funds allow it. Definitely reccommend them if anyone is ever interested: http://www.herbco.com/o-organic-170-turmeric.aspx

[onawah]

I did do a search, but didn't see one main, current thread just on fluoride, in general, though lots of places where it's mentioned in reference to something specific. There is always something new about fluoride in the news, like GMOs, and I think we need to have one general, ongoing thread about each.
There are 52 threads on Fluoride. Go here:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/search.php?search_type=1

type in they keyword box: "Fluoride", select "Search Titles Only" and they will come up.

[7alon]

Surprised that I haven't found history of this being posted on this forum

zpw5fGt4UvI

Very good documentary.

[onawah]

FAN IS NOW SUING THE EPA TO END FLUORIDATION
(Looks like it's time to resurrect this thread!)
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | April 25, 2017
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_4-25-17/


It’s official: the Fluoride Action Network–along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups–has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation. This may be the lawsuit we have all been waiting decades for.

According to FAN’s attorney, Michael Connett, “this case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’—meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”

READ THE OFFICIAL COMPLAINT

Industry, legal, and environmental observers following the EPA’s implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed out that a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition would provide a test case for the agency’s interpretation that petitioners must provide a comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction on a particular use. Legal experts have suggested that the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet.

Background Information

On Nov 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The full TSCA petition can be accessed here, a shorter 8-page summary here, and our press release here.

We presented the Agency with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the Agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed, and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary. We believe that an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk.

On February 27th, the EPA published their response. In their decision the EPA claimed, “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.”

As many independent scientists now recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin. The question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose.

While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies, to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.

EPA’s own Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlight the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. We presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g. reduced IQ), and pointed out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of U.S. children now receive. Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to fluoride — and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal of the Petition.

Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides that citizens can challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples)
http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/epa/
We welcome therefore having these issues considered by a federal court.

Winning this lawsuit will require a full team effort, and we want you to feel a part of that team and a part of this moment in history. Please consider playing a larger role in this potentially fluoridation-ending lawsuit by making a tax-deductible contribution. See below for details about making donations and about our “thank you” gift for supporters.
More here: http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_4-25-17/

[Hervé]

Exclusive: Dr. Paul Connett interview on shocking new fluoride study (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/exclusive-dr-paul-connett-interview-on-shocking-new-fluoride-study/)

by Jon Rappoport (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/author/jonrappoport/) Nov 19 (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/11/19/exclusive-dr-paul-connett-interview-on-shocking-new-fluoride-study/), 2017


Explosive: new mainstream study concludes fluorides are lowering children’s IQ.


The study referred to in this interview was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, in September 2017. It is titled: “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age.” (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/ehp655/) It is often referred to as the Bashash study, after its first listed author.

The study concluded:
“…higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 y.”
In short, pregnant women exposed to fluorides give birth to children who later show up with lower IQ.

I interviewed Paul Connett, PhD.

From his CV (http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/connett.bio.html):
“Paul Connett is Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY. For the past 30 years, Paul has put his scientific knowledge to work by helping (without fee) communities around the world understand the science of controversial issues like…fluoridation. In addition to explaining the dangers of these practices he offers details of the alternatives…[Dr. Connett is the author of] The Case Against Fluoride (http://www.chelseagreen.com/the-case-against-fluoride) (Chelsea Green, 2011, co-authored with James Beck & H. Spedding Micklem).”

“Paul has researched the literature on fluoride’s toxicity and the fluoridation debate for 17 years. He helped to found the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) (http://www.fluoridealert.org/).”
I found the following items from Dr. Connett’s bio fascinating:
“In June 2001, Paul (together with Dr. William Hirzy) was invited to debate proponents of fluoridation at the annual conference of the Association for Science in the Public Interest (ASIPI) in Richmond, Virginia. The proponents refused to participate in this debate.”

“In November 2001, Paul (together with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix) were invited by the American College of Toxicology to debate proponents, but they [the proponents of fluoridation] again refused. On both the above occasions Dr. Connett gave a presentation of the arguments against fluoridation in lieu of the debate.”

“In March 2003, Paul was invited by the US EPA to present the opponent’s position in a one-on-one debate on fluoridation to be held at their annual Science Forum in Washington, DC, on May 6, 2003. Despite a six week effort by the organizers of this event, no scientist or official holding a pro-fluoridation position was willing to participate in this debate. In lieu of this debate, Paul provided a power-point presentation to a packed audience, which included 8 congressional aides, representatives from major environmental organizations, EPA officials and the media. The title of Paul’s talk—‘Fluoridation: The Undefendable Practice.’”
Here is my interview with Dr. Connett:

Q: There is a new study on the effect of fluorides on IQ. Several questions: Do you believe the study is well done? Does it deserve our attention? What conclusions does it draw?
A: This is a very important study. You can see my reaction to it in the videotaped interview (http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-lower-iq-in-kids-new-study-says/) at this link on the day it was published: Fluoride Exposure in Utero Linked to Lower IQ in Kids, New Study Says.

Taken at face value it should have been a good study. It was financed largely by the NIEHS [National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences] (part of NIH , which of course is pro-fluoridation). It was conducted largely by specialists in the field who have done similar studies on other neurotoxicants. None of them to my knowledge had taken a public position against water fluoridation (indeed one was known to be pro-fluoridation) so the notion of bias here was small…

Q: What is the reaction of public health agencies to the new study?
A: Pro-fluoridation agencies have done what they always do – attack any study that finds harm. They are all more interested in protecting the archaic practice of water fluoridation than to protect the health of our children. Extraordinary that any civil servant should think that children’s teeth are more important than their brains! The people at the top are desperately trying to protect a policy they have waxed lyrical about for 70 years. The people in the middle are taught to promote “policy” not question it and the people at the bottom simply believe what they were taught at dental or medical school and reinforced by their professional bodies. Others I think are very concerned that if they lose fluoridation it will affect the public’s trust in other public health practices – a clear example would be vaccination, a multi-billion dollar interest supported by the CDC (a big champion of fluoridation).

Q: How have major media reacted to the new study?
A: Apart from CNN and CTV in Canada and Newsweek there has been little coverage by the mainstream media. It was not covered by the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal or any other major newspaper. That again is extraordinary for a study of this significance. Sadly, this is also typical of these outlets when it comes to the detailed science on this issue. They simply don’t want to know.

Q: I’ve been covering the fluoride situation [fluoridating water supplies] in New Zealand (note to reader: article archive [U]here (https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/category/fluoride/)). Last I heard, there was a move to take decision-making away from local governments and put it in the hands of federal health councils, who would determine whether to fluoridate water supplies. Can you give me an update?
A: Yes this is a dreadful development. Thus, in addition to the health issues we now have democracy threatened in NZ. Yesterday [11/16/17], the new government re-introduced the bill [handing over fluoridating decisions to federal authorities] for a second reading. One can only hope that the coalition partners will not be bullied into going along with this. A NZ first member is strongly against this bill. I would hope that the Green Party will not be railroaded on this either. But they have been very weak so far.

Q: I’ve been told that many years ago, you were in favor of water fluoridation. What was the turning point? What made you change your mind?
A: To be more accurate I didn’t want to get involved. I was so busy teaching chemistry and working on waste [disposal issues] (which has taken me to 49 states and 65 other countries) that I didn’t have time for a third issue. And I certainly didn’t want a third issue in which if I got involved would get me labelled as “loony tunes.” Over the years I was approached by three different people to get involved (once in Spokane, WA; another from Ohio and a third from Ontario). I resisted them all. Then someone I couldn’t resist twisted my arm…– my wife – in 1996. When I read the literature she had amassed I was both shocked with what I learned and embarrassed that I had not got involved before. I have spent the last 21 years trying to make amends.


—end of interview—


Here are further comments (http://fluoridealert.org/articles/fluoride-exposure-in-utero-linked-to-lower-iq-in-kids-new-study-says/) on the new Bashash fluoride study, from the group Dr. Connett helped start, the Fluoride Action Network:
“The loss of IQ [reported in the Bashash study] is very large. The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm F [fluoride] water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.”

“The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States. The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation.”

“This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures. This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study. This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants.”

“The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists. But the implications of this study are enormous. A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag. It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.”
As I’ve been writing and saying for many years, one of the major forms of fake news is not mentioning the real news at all. Omitting it. Or downplaying it. This is the case here, with the new fluoride study.

Mothers giving birth to children with lower IQs?

Not a concern.

Not a problem.

This is the stance of major media, who shout about “other people’s fake news.”


Jon Rappoport

[Hervé]

28 medical studies come to the same shocking conclusion: Fluoride is linked to lower intelligence in children (https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/09/27/read-the-shocking-conclusions-from-28-medical-studies-linking-fluoride-to-lower-iq-in-children/)

Alex Pietrowski Waking Times (https://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/09/27/read-the-shocking-conclusions-from-28-medical-studies-linking-fluoride-to-lower-iq-in-children/)
Thu, 27 Sep 2018 00:00 UTC


https://www.sott.net/image/s24/491147/large/Brain_Scan_3.jpg (https://www.sott.net/image/s24/491147/full/Brain_Scan_3.jpg)

To date, there are at least 53 known international scientific studies concluding that fluoride consumption is harmful to the development of intelligence in children, it impairs their learning and memory capacity. Children are commonly exposed to fluoride from municipal water supplies, dental treatments, environmental pollution, and in-utero.

Municipal water fluoridation is a state-mandated pharmacological intervention that ostensibly aims to fight dental fluorosis, but this claim is highly contested, and a growing body of research indicates that water fluoridation is linked to lower IQ in children. Medication without consent is a human rights violation (http://www.who.int/genomics/public/patientrights/en/).

In 2017, former EPA senior scientist, William Hirzy, PhD noted:
"The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride. Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures." ~Former EPA senior scientist, William Hirzy, PhD (http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_2-6-17/) Here is a sampling of some of the shocking conclusions from these studies, as documented by The Fluoride Action Network (http://fluoridealert.org), where a full breakdown on these studies (http://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/), as well as comments about study methodologies and locations, may be found.
"Chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride in water was observed to be associated with lower intelligence quotient." ~IQ Study #41: Nagarajappa (2013) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/23335/)

"School children residing in area with higher than normal water fluoride level demonstrated more impaired development of intelligence when compared to school children residing in areas with normal and low water fluoride levels." ~IQ Study #47: Sebastian (2015) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/23058/)

"[C]hildren residing in areas with higher than normal water fluoride level demonstrated more impaired development of intelligence and moderate [dental fluorosis]. Millions of children including adults around the world are affected by higher level of fluoride concentration through their drinking water and are therefore potentially at risk. It is concluded that for the benefit of the future generation, urgent attention should be paid on this substantial public health problem." ~IQ Study #50: (Das 2016 (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/25929/))

"[S]tudents of the study area have less IQ than students of non-contaminated area, demonstrating that consumption of F also has a major role with the intellectual development of children." ~IQ Study #49: Mondal (2016) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/22507/)

"The data from this research may support the hypothesis that excess fluoride in drinking water has toxic effects on the nervous system." ~IQ Study #48: Khan (2015) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/23336/)

"Fluoride in the drinking water was significantly related with the IQ of children. Along with fluoride, mother's diet during pregnancy was also found to be significantly related with IQ of children." ~IQ Study #46: Kundu (2015) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/22508/)

"Results of our field study raise a concern about the safety of elevated systemic exposure to fluoride from high concentrations in the drinking water. While topical fluoride treatment confers benefits of reducing caries incidence, the systemic exposure should not be so high as to impair children's neurodevelopment especially during the highly vulnerable windows of brain development in utero and during infancy and childhood and may result in permanent brain injury." ~IQ Study #45: Choi (2015) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/20589/)

"Exposures to fluorine and arsenic are deleterious to the development of intelligence and the development of growth in children" ~IQ Study #43: Bai (2014) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/19413/)

"We observed reduced AChE activity in [the high fluoride area] which may be directly correlate[d] with the reduced intelligence score of the subjects." ~IQ Study #40: Singh (2013) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/19734/)

"The study found that children residing in a region with a high drinking water F level had lower IQs compared to children living in a low drinking water F region (p<0.001). The differences could not be attributed to confounding educational, economic, social, cultural, and general demographic factors." ~Karimzade (2014) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/19349/)

"This study indicates that exposure to fluoride is associated with reduced intelligence in children." ~IQ Study #36: Saxena (2012) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/14808/)

"In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children's intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis." ~IQ Study #35: Ding (2011) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/17870/)

"Based on the findings, chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride can be one of the factors that influence intellectual development." ~IQ Study #34: Poureslami (2011) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/17871/)

"Previous studies had indicated toward decreased Intelligence in children exposed to high levels of fluoride and our study also confirmed such an effect." ~IQ Study #32: Shivaprakash (2011) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/17873/)

"Findings of this study suggest that overall IQ levels in children's exposed to high fluoride level were significantly lower than the low fluoride areas." ~IQ Study #31: Sudhir (2009) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/21090/)

"High exposure to fluoride most definitely has an adverse effect on the development of intelligence in children, in particular on the capability of abstract inference." ~IQ Study #30: Li (2009) (http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/li-200911.pdf)

"This study indicates that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with neurotoxic effects in children." ~IQ Study #28: Wang (2007) (http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/wang-2007.pdf)

"In agreement with other studies elsewhere, these findings indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for impaired development of intelligence." ~IQ Study #27: Trivedi (2007) (http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/trivedi-2007.pdf)

"Exposure to high levels of fluoride is likely to cause a certain level of harm to a child's level of intelligence." ~IQ Study #26: Fan (2007) (http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/fan-2007.pdf)

"Based on the findings of this study, exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence." ~IQ Study #25: Seraj (2006) (http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/14783/)

"High fluoride burden has a definite effect on the intellectual and physical development of children." ~IQ Study #24: Wang (2005) (http://www.fluorideresearch.org/414/files/FJ2008_v41_n4_p344-348.pdf)

"The findings of this study thus replicate those of earlier studies and suggest that a real relationship exists between fluoride exposure and intelligence." ~IQ Study #18: Lu (2000) (http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/lu-2000.pdf)

"These results show that water improvement and defluoridation can improve the mental and physical development of children in a fluorosis area." ~IQ Study #16: Yao (1997) (http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/yao-1997.pdf)

[avid]

Despite all this evidence, West Cumbria’s beautiful water is STILL being fluoridated, in fact, the machinery to facilitate this that was broken at Corn How water treatment plant has now been replaced so we can still be the local ‘guinea-pigs’ of fluoridation: notable local changes include obesity, lower IQ, this area is being deliberately trashed, and now introducing toxic borehole water which includes heavy metal mine wastage in areas near nuclear waste disposal facility. - they need the purer water, it beggars belief.

[Bill Ryan]

As a matter of interest: in Ecuador, and I believe in many other South American countries, fluoride is not added to the water, but to the SALT.

That's because many rural communities have their own water supply, straight from the mountain or river. But everyone needs salt. So they get it into the population that way.

In the packaging, they're proud that it's fluoridated. (Fluorada = Fluoridated. Yodada = Iodized.) The citizens think this is a wonderful modern health benefit that's being gifted to them.

(I do have a source of pure salt here, so it IS easily possible to escape it. But the locals just don't know that. It's a sad and interesting commentary on our times.)

http://projectavalon.net/Ecuador_fluoridated_salt.jpg

[Valerie Villars]

Earlier, I found this site, being curious about my own fluoride intake because of this thread. It is a United States only resource, about each state and town's water supply. You can check which city's water supply has fluoride, how much and what year they began fluoridating the water. It's all factual.

The link says Louisiana, but you can check any state in the U.S. What's interesting is I noticed New Orleans didn't become fluoridated until 1974, after my parents divorced and we moved across the lake to the Northshore, where there was no fluoridation the whole time I was growing up. We had natural artesian well water.

We still have well water where I live now.

http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/states/louisiana/

[onawah]

There is an Hispanic movement in the US aimed at educating Hispanics about what a poisonous substance fluoride is. It will be great if their influence is spreading to other countries.

See: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/lulac01/
"INFLUENTIAL NATIONAL HISPANIC CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANIZATION VOTES TO OPPOSE WATER FLUORIDATION

Ellijay, GA – In an action with far-reaching national ramifications, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest Hispanic civil rights organization in the United States, has adopted a resolution opposing the practice of water fluoridation.

The resolution was passed at the 2011 LULAC national convention in Cincinnati.

The news adds Hispanic leaders to a growing list of groups and prominent individuals now speaking out against the controversial practice of fluoridation, including former Atlanta mayor and U.N. ambassador Andrew Young, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s daughter and niece Dr. Bernice A. King and Dr. Alveda King, Coalition of African American Pastors President Rev. William Owens, and civil rights leader and minister Dr. Gerald Durley.

“The Hispanic community is no longer going to be silent on this issue,” says Henry Rodriguez, LULAC’s Texas civil rights chairman. “This is about forcing us to be medicated through our drinking water without our consent or full disclosure of the risks.”

“Fluoridation is a civil rights violation,” he says. “Opposition to fluoridation is going to continue building and there is no stopping it. There are millions of Hispanics and other minorities in the U.S. who don’t have the funds to avoid fluoridated water for making their babies’ milk formula. And millions of families don’t know they’re being medicated in their drinking water, or about possible risks for kidney patients and diabetics.”

Human rights advocate Dr. Bernice A. King states, “Water fluoridation needs to end. It is good that organizations are lending their support to help push this outdated and harmful practice of fluoridation toward collapse. This is wonderful news.”

Babies, diabetics, kidney patients, and other groups are listed by the National Research Council as susceptible groups especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides.

Water utilities add fluoride chemicals to drinking water to help prevent cavities. They are the only chemicals specifically added to treat or prevent a health condition in the body, rather than to treat the water itself.

“Fluorides are listed in the ‘Drug Facts’ information on boxes of fluoridated toothpaste sold to help prevent cavities,” says Daniel G. Stockin of The Lillie Center Inc., a firm working to end water fluoridation. “But water utilities haven’t been acknowledging fluorides as a medication when they are added to drinking water for the same purpose.”

The Gerber company now sells an unfluoridated bottled water so parents of young babies can avoid using fluoridated water when mixing milk formula. Major toothpaste manufacturers are also now selling unfluoridated toothpaste for toddlers marked “Fluoride-free. Safe if swallowed.”

After decades of water fluoridation, data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control indicates that Hispanics have significantly higher levels of untreated cavities than whites, and that Hispanics have disproportionate amounts of “fluorosis” stains disfiguring their teeth.

“Fluoridation certainly hasn’t been very effective at preventing cavities in Hispanics,” states Stockin. “Oral health education and access to dental care for disadvantaged families, this is what Hispanic families need.”

The LULAC resolution notes the National Research Council’s 2006 acknowledgement of large gaps in research on fluoride’s effects on the body, and that these gaps contradict assurances made by public health officials that fluorides and fluoridation have been exhaustively researched.

The resolution also demands to know why health agencies are “more protective of the public policy of fluoridation than they are of public health.”

“Watch what develops now as members of the Hispanic legal community are awakening to this issue,” Stockin says. “This issue of disproportionate fluoride harm to minorities is gaining attention because it is real and we have science supporting it. The train has left the station. Fluoridation is ending. You can look for a quickening cascade of cities, water utilities, health officials and others distancing themselves from fluoridation.” "


As a matter of interest: in Ecuador, and I believe in many other South American countries, fluoride is not added to the water, but to the SALT.


(Actually what is being used primarily now is not natural fluoride at all, but a very toxic byproduct of industry called hydrofluosilicic acid.) See:https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/tsca_21_petition_hfsa_2013-04-22.pdf

[East Sun]

Could it be more obvious, there is a "hidden" agenda to slowly destroy us.
When we follow the line of politicians from local to State to Federal we can see that there is a higher
force dictating what "they" the politicians have to do, or else.
Are they reptilian, tptb, or what?
We need to know and do something about the problem.

What can be done when we are up against a force greater than us?
That is the question.
We need to count our assets. We have physical, Spiritual and our ingenuity. But mostly we can not give up, ever...............

[Pam]

Earlier, I found this site, being curious about my own fluoride intake because of this thread. It is a United States only resource, about each state and town's water supply. You can check which city's water supply has fluoride, how much and what year they began fluoridating the water. It's all factual.

The link says Louisiana, but you can check any state in the U.S. What's interesting is I noticed New Orleans didn't become fluoridated until 1974, after my parents divorced and we moved across the lake to the Northshore, where there was no fluoridation the whole time I was growing up. We had natural artesian well water.

We still have well water where I live now.

http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/states/louisiana/

I checked out the website that you recommended and it is so informative. I am happy to say that my town has rejected fluoride in our water system. I live in Washington state, and so many feel it is really progressive but they sure have a lot of work to do with Fluoride in the water systems.

I have learned a lot from this thread and the really creepy part is that fluoride is hiding in so many foods and even cooking utensils. One more reason why eating foods that have not been processed is beneficial. There is a definite agenda to dumb us down.

[Verdilac]

The link below may shock some, It did me when I found out this practice goes on in real life. It is a treatment called fluoride tooth varnishing and is aimed at children in the UK as well as other locations around the world. Very chilling, came out in a cold sweat when I found out this is happening.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/healthy-living/oral-health/Pages/Fluoride-Varnish-What-Parents-Need-to-Know.aspx

[Flash]

The link below may shock some, It did me when I found out this practice goes on in real life. It is a treatment called fluoride tooth varnishing and is aimed at children in the UK as well as other locations around the world. Very chilling, came out in a cold sweat when I found out this is happening.

https://www.healthychildren.org/English/healthy-living/oral-health/Pages/Fluoride-Varnish-What-Parents-Need-to-Know.aspx


tell me about this.

When Mini-Flash (a non active member here) was small, she would go to the dentist regularly, he would offer the fluoride at the end of clean up and i would refuse. I had put in her file to not give any fluoride treatment.

I was having her on a biological diet plus treatments to enhance here body biology/chemistry to its maximum, to give her a chance for her nervous system to regenerate. And fluoride is harming the nervous system, undoing what I was doing.

When she got to be about 13, she went alone to the dentist, 3 times. Then I realized that a treatment was billed on my credit card for those 3 times. I checked out and it was the fluoride treatment. I was so angry, went there had me refunded and said no more treatment. This guy teaches at university, how bad!!.

Well, when she got to be 16, at which age they can legally chose medical treatment, the dentist intimidated her, laughing at her, because she was refusing fluoride. She came back home crying. To this day, she still has perfect teeth without any fluoride (Montreal water is not fluoridated).

I finally changed dentist for a natural / health conscious one, more expensive but worth the price.

To this day, I am still angry - I had told this bad dentist's colleague that fluoride is dangerous and more so for children with neurological developmental impairment. But this bad dentist would not hear parents and would forego parents order.

[Bill Ryan]

To this day, I am still angry - I had told this bad dentist's colleague that fluoride is dangerous and more so for children with neurological developmental impairment. But this bad dentist would not hear parents and would forego parents order.

Thanks, and that's a very instructive story. Kind of scary, too. A parallel, as of course you know, is the bullying of new mothers — really close to intimidation — to inject their babies with everything that one might think of, really soon after birth.

Not related to fluoride, but 20 years ago I had a molar root canal problem. The dentist I want to (in Edinburgh, Scotland), lent me her own book about the work of Dr Weston Price (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?56504-Pulling-root-canal-tooth-need-advice-&p=643702&viewfull=1#post643702) to read overnight, and then invited me to make my own decision. (I asked her to please take the tooth out!)

That dentist was enlightened. We need tens of thousands more like that.

[onawah]

Not just after birth, but invitro, as well, when the child is even more vulnerable.
"A parallel, as of course you know, is the bullying of new mothers — really close to intimidation — to inject their babies with everything that one might think of, really soon after birth."
When I was still in my 20s , I had a dentist who foresaw lots of root canals and other painful and ultimately toxic procedures in my future, since I was already under so much stress due to a serious disability and was grinding my teeth at night.
He actually recommended that I have my teeth pulled right then and get dentures, which would have saved me so much pain and expense later on.
And he wasn't offering because he thought I was a lucrative prospect.
Not wise enough then to concede, I wish now I had listened!
It truly was inevitable that I would have to get dentures, but it just prolonged the agony not getting it done early on. and was much more painful that way in the long run.





To this day, I am still angry - I had told this bad dentist's colleague that fluoride is dangerous and more so for children with neurological developmental impairment. But this bad dentist would not hear parents and would forego parents order.

Thanks, and that's a very instructive story. Kind of scary, too. A parallel, as of course you know, is the bullying of new mothers — really close to intimidation — to inject their babies with everything that one might think of, really soon after birth.

Not related to fluoride, but 20 years ago I had a molar root canal problem. The dentist I want to (in Edinburgh, Scotland), lent me her own book about the work of Dr Weston Price (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?56504-Pulling-root-canal-tooth-need-advice-&p=643702&viewfull=1#post643702) to read overnight, and then invited me to make my own decision. (I asked her to please take the tooth out!)

That dentist was enlightened. We need tens of thousands more like that.

[suwesi]

Fluoride attaches to the iodine receptors of the thyroid.
(after a dentist appointment they put a lot of fluoride on my teeth - not knowing what it was I swallowed most of it - they told me not to drink anything for an hour. and forgot to tell me to spit it out.)

I went into being hypothyroid - felt exhausted, cold all the time. started gaining weight. felt awful.

Then I found Dr. Brownsteins iodine book. Iodine is needed by the body. Fluoride not.
I started on the iodine protocol. Detox was heavy the first days.
But it flushed out my fluoride and bromide deposits quickly.

My energy is back. I feel great. My cycts (breast/ovary) are gone!
And I am dreaming a lot (so my pineal gland seems to have been freed es well)

You can find tons of testimonials on iodine (lugols) on amazon.
Cheap and poweful!

Greetings :)

[avid]

Dentists generally utilise products that are infiltrated with leaching fluoride, such as replacement fillings after mercury-riddled olde amalgam ‘safely’ removed. I searched for fluoride-free filling products, or any other substance that would be introduced into ‘remedial’ dentistry, and could not find anything which was not contaminated with fluoride. Even crowns, dentures...
Trying to find an holistic dentist who has not been ‘compromised’ (innocently or not, as they work to ‘award schemes’, like most health services who are beholden to the big pharma), is almost impossible.

However, earlier on in this thread, it was advocated that Curcumin (organic turmeric) helped to deplete fluoride in the body and brain. Last year, I started on organic curcumin with organic black pepper to facilitate absorbtion 600mg capsules per day, as my water is fluoridated. Hopefully, the terrible proliferation in West Cumbria of alzheimers and dementia will not affect me yet.... fingers et al crossed....

[onawah]

Three new studies
10/10/18
https://www.ehn.org/we-add-it-to-drinking-water-for-our-teeth-but-is-fluoride-hurting-us-2611193177.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1
Oct 10, 2018
"Three new studies released today link fluoride exposure to ADHD and thyroid problems — and point to drinking water as the major source of exposure.
Brian Bienkowski
Two studies — one from Canada and one Mexico — released today point to potential health problems from fluoride, which, in a majority of U.S. communities, is purposefully added to drinking water to protect people's teeth.

The Canada study found that adults who are iodine deficient and have higher levels of fluoride in their system have a greater risk of an underactive thyroid. The Mexico study found mothers with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy were more likely to have children with symptoms of ADHD. Both studies were published in the journal Environmental International.

A third study, published in Environmental Health Perspectives, found that among 1,566 pregnant women in Canada, fluoride levels in urine were almost two times higher for women who lived in regions where the element was added to their drinking water compared to pregnant women in regions with non-fluoridated water.

The studies call into question the practice of purposely adding fluoride to water or salt, which is done to prevent cavities and, to a lesser extent, osteoporosis. Many cities in the U.S. and Canada add fluoride to public drinking water and in Mexico it's added to some salt. Approximately 66 percent of people in the U.S. receive drinking water with added fluoride, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

About 80 percent of fluoride exposure comes from water and beverages such as tea, which can leach fluoride from soil. Other sources include grapes and shellfish.

"I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure," Ashley Malin, lead author of the Canada thyroid study and a researcher at the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told EHN. "And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years."

Fluoride, iodine and thyroids
Malin and colleagues had massive amounts of information from the Canadian Health Measure study. They looked at fluoride levels in the urine of nearly 7 million Canadians, as well as iodine deficiency and thyroid gland activity.

They found Canadians who were deficient in iodine—a mineral crucial for proper functioning of the thyroid — and who had high amounts of fluoride in their urine also had higher levels of thyroid stimulating hormones. Elevated levels of these hormones are a marker for a suppressed thyroid gland – commonly referred to as hypothyroidism, a condition that can cause a host of problems including fatigue, disrupted heart rates, and altered metabolism.

Small increases in thyroid stimulating hormones can be problematic, Malin said.

"Someone doesn't need to have full blown hypothyroidism to have an elevation in [thyroid stimulating hormones]. Research is showing more and more that subclinical elevations are associated with bad health effects," Malin said.

Iodine helps flush fluoride from the body so a deficiency leaves the body with more fluoride, which has been shown to interfere with certain enzymes important for thyroid function. This could explain why only iodine deficient Canadians seemed sensitive to fluoride impacts.

Malin said 18 percent of the nearly 7 million people they studied were iodine deficient. "We're talking about potentially [more than] a million people at risk of an underactive thyroid due to fluoride exposure."

But there are major health benefits of fluoride in water. According to the CDC, drinking fluoridated water reduces cavities (also called tooth decay) by about 25 percent in children and adults. The agency named water fluoridation one of its "Ten Great Public Health Achievements" of the 20th Century.

Dr. Manish Arora, a dentist and vice chairman of the Department of Environmental Medicine and Public Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told EHN via email that it "is important to balance these results with what we know about the benefits of water fluoridation as well."

"There have been tremendous gains in children's oral health worldwide over the past decades that, at least in part, can be attributed to the beneficial effects of fluoride," said Arora, who was not involved in any of the studies released today but is collaborating with some of the researchers on other projects.

While the new study doesn't prove fluoride impacts thyroid function, previous studies have linked the element to reduction thyroid hormones, and to elevated thyroid stimulating hormones and increased likelihood of hypothyroidism and diabetes in adults.

Behavior impacts

In the other study published today, researchers looked at 213 Mexican mother-children pairs and examined mothers' urine fluoride levels during pregnancy and assessed children for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms at ages 6 to 12. They found mothers with higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy were more likely to have children with ADHD symptoms, especially inattention.

It's not clear from this study why fluoride may impact child's behavior, but it could be driving thyroid hormone insufficiency in pregnant mothers (which can lead to problems in their unborn), or altering children's levels of dopamine, which moves signals from nerve cells to the brain and is vital for behavior development.

Christine Till, an associate professor and researcher at York University, told EHN one of her main concerns is that pregnant women are susceptible to iodine deficiency, which, according to the study from Canada, could leave the mothers-to-be with thyroid problems.

Also, fluoride easily crosses the placenta from mother to her unborn. The study is not the first to find a fluoride-behavioral link: A previous study linked the element to ADHD in U.S. children.

Dr. Howard Hu, co-author of the Mexico study and an epidemiological researcher at the University of Washington, told EHN the research from Canada on fluoride levels in pregnant women "makes the results of this study from Mexico even more applicable to what might be going on in North America."

To add or not to add
The evidence that fluoride may have negative impacts on health is building, Hu said, adding that one of the "most awkward features of this debate" is that it pits one branch of public health vs another.

Arora said "as a dentist and environmental health scientist, I feel this is an opportune moment in our professions to have an honest discussion."

"A question that is becoming increasingly important – is fluoridation of water supplies the best way to deliver the oral health benefits of fluoride?" Arora said. "For me, there is no 'one size fits all' answer to this. Socioeconomics, background risk and other aspects of the community have to be considered, but now is the time to have the scientific debate."

In a statement, the American Dental Association told EHN their National Fluoridation Advisory Committee would review the new studies, adding that "public health policy is based on a collective weight of scientific evidence, not the results of a single (or few) studies. The ADA remains committed to fluoridation of public water supplies as the single most effective public health measure to help prevent tooth decay."

Hu echoed Arora and said the answer in moving forward with fluoride is more nuanced than being pro- or anti-fluoride.

"Clearly this warrants additional research and consideration with how policies related to fluoride may need to be rethought," Hu said. "And not simply 'do we use fluoride or not,' but can we figure out a way to preserve the benefits while minimizing the potential adverse effects."

Till said she is "certain the safety of fluoride ingestion has not been proven."

"The problem is that it's an uncontrolled dose – everyone is exposed to different levels. It may be prudent for pregnant women to reduce ingesting fluoride during pregnancy."
RELATED ARTICLES AROUND THE WEB
Impact of Drinking Water Fluoride on Human Thyroid Hormones: ... ›
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20696-4

[onawah]

Making Sense of the New Studies Associating Fluoride With Harm

O0VQxdwuixM
fluoridealert
Published on Oct 16, 2018
"FAN, Paul Connett reacts to three recently released studies linking fluoride exposure to ADHD, thyroid problems, and showing that pregnant women in “optimally” fluoridated Canada have significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than women in non-fluoridated communities.

This third study also showed that pregnant Canadians had fluoride urinary levels similar to those that had reduced IQ in offspring from last year’s Bashash et al, 2017 NIH-funded study.

These findings suggest that the Bashash results from Mexico City may be applied to Canada, and probably the United States, namely that pre-natal exposure to fluoride has the potential to lower IQ in children."


From Fluoride Alert.com email update today:
Making Sense of the New Studies Associating Fluoride With Harm
OCTOBER 18, 2018
"The FAN team shall never forget the date September 19, 2017. We had concluded our FAN conference in Washington DC on Sept 18 and we were preparing to journey home. In the early hours of the morning we got the news that a rigorous and high-quality US-government funded study had been published that confirmed our worst fears about fluoride’s ability to impact the mental development of young children. The scientific bombshell was that this harm occurred in the womb! Since then - at least in our circles - the name of the lead author –Bashash- has become a household word. Now just over one year later in October 2018, three more papers have been published in the Environment International and the Environmental Health Perspectives. These include a second paper by Bashash et al.

FAN's Response

The Fluoride Action Network's Executive Director, Paul Connett, PhD, has filmed a response to these three papers. Please click on the link below to watch, then please share the video with local decisionmakers and neighbors. You can also share FAN's video post on Facebook. See video:


(Click on graphic to watch video)


Here are those three papers and a brief explanation why they are important:

Till C, Green R, Grundy JG, Hornung R, Neufeld R, Martinez-Mier A, Ayotte P, Muckle G, Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada, Environmental Health Perspectives.


In this study (partially funded by the US National Institutes of Health) the urinary levels of fluoride in pregnant mothers was measured in ten large cities in Canada (7 fluoridated, 3 not). The authors found the same range of urinary fluoride levels in the Canadian women as in the Mexican city study (Bashash et al., 2017). The mean values in the fluoridated Canadian communities were almost identical to the Mexican City study (0.91 versus 0.87 ppm). We should note two things a) the large sample size used (N=1566 women) and b) the maternal urinary fluoride (UF) was analyzed exactly the same way as in the Bashash study (i.e. adjusting for urinary creatinine). This allows us to make direct comparisons across the two studies.

This rebuts the simplistic claim by the ADA (issued within a few minutes of the publication of the Bashash study on Sept 19, 2017) that the results were not relevant to the USA.



Bashash M, Merchand M, Hu H, Till C, Martinez-Mier AE, Sanchez BN, Basu N, Peterson K, Green R, Schnaas L, Mercado-Garcia A, Hernandez-Avila M, Tellez-Rojo MM. Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) Symptoms in Children at 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico City. Environmental International.
This study (also partially funded by the US NIH) was done on the same cohort of mother-child pairs as used in the earlier groundbreaking Bashash et al, 2017 IQ study. In this study, 213 Mexican children aged 6-12 who had elevated prenatal (i.e. in utero) exposure to fluoride (as measured in their mothers’ urine) were more likely to show symptoms of ADHD (Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder) as reported by parents. Prenatal fluoride exposure was more strongly associated with inattentive behaviours and cognitive problems, but not with hyperactivity. In other words, pre-natal fluoride exposure not only interferes with overall cognitive development (as shown earlier by Bashash et al, 2017), but according to this study may also contribute to symptoms of ADHD.

Bashash controlled for gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure. All these factors can influence neurological development.

Malin AJ, Riddell J, McCague H, Till C. The Relationship among Urinary Fluoride, Urinary Iodine and Serum Thyroid Stimulating Hormone Levels among Adults Living in Canada. Environment International.

In this study Ashley Malin and co-workers measured the TSH levels in both men and women in Canada. TSH levels are a measure of underactive thyroid gland. When TSH levels go up they indicate an increased risk of hypothyroidism, which has many serious health implications. The study used health-related data from a nationally representative sample of Canadians. The study consisted of 6,914,124 adults between the ages of 18 and 79 years. Adults who were diagnosed with a thyroid disorder, or who were on thyroid medication, as well as pregnant women were excluded. These exclusion criteria are important because they deliberately excluded those who are likely most vulnerable to effects of fluoride. Also, it Is important to note that ~40% of the sample lived in communities that were fluoridated (meaning that most of the sample (~60% ) were exposed to only low levels of fluoride in their drinking water.

Malin et al. did not find a relationship between fluoride exposure and increased TSH levels among the general population, but they did find a relationship with people who already some iodine deficiency. Specifically, they reported that:

“An increase of 1 mg of urinary fluoride (specific gravity adjusted) was associated with a 0.35 mIU TSH/liter among adults with moderate-to-severe iodine deficiency.”

In other words, fluoride exposure appears to exacerbate the condition of hypoactivity for people with low iodine intake. Malin controlled for age, sex, body mass, as well as calcium levels in blood all of which can influence TSH levels.

It was striking to find how common iodine deficiency is among adults in Canada (and US). In the current study, almost 18 per cent of adults fell in the moderately-to-severely iodine deficient range.


This mimics an important result found in 1991 by Lin et al, where it was found that modest exposure to fluoride (0.9 ppm) further lowered the IQ of offspring from mothers with iodine deficiency. Note there is a strong relationship between hypothyroidism in the mother and lowered IQ in their offspring. (See a discussion of this in the presentation given by Dr. Vyvyan Howard on Oct 6, 2018 at Otago University, NZ.)



This study builds upon the substantial evidence that fluoride exposure can impact thyroid function in some individuals, including at “optimal levels.”

See news coverage of these studies:http://fluoridealert.org/issues/moms2b/media-coverage-on-3-important-papers-published-october-11-2018/


Paul Connett, PhD
Exective Director
Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org/search-results/?q=OCTOBER%2018%2C%202018%20%20

[onawah]

A short list on why fluoridation is a bad idea:

2014 Legal Analysis of Policy: http://works.bepress.com/rita_barnett/3/
Compulsory Water Fluoridation: Justifiable Public Health Benefit or Human Experimental Research Without Informed Consent
William & Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review (2014)
Rita F Barnett
http://chej.org/
The Center for Health, Environment and Justice has been on the front line in the fight for environmental health for 38 years. We train and support local activists across the country and build local, state and national initiatives that win on issues from Superfund to climate change.

[onawah]

Thyroid Deficiency Linked to Iodine Deficiency and Fluoridated Water
Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 23, 2018
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/10/23/thyroid-deficiency-linked-to-iodine-deficiency-fluoridated-water.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20181023Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM242233&et_rid=451783470
O0VQxdwuixM
"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
People who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher fluoride levels may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity
Pregnant women living in communities with fluoridated drinking water have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in nonfluoridated communities
Research has previously revealed that women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence
Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with higher measures of ADHD, including more symptoms of inattention, in the children at ages 6 to 12 years
More than 66 percent of the U.S. population drinks water with added fluoride,1 despite the fact that studies continue to question its safety and usefulness for its stated purpose: preventing cavities. A number of countries — including Germany, Sweden, Japan, the Netherlands, Finland and Israel — have already stopped this hazardous practice, but many Americans are still at risk.

In Canada, nearly 39 percent of the population also receives fluoridated drinking water (compared with only about 3 percent of Europeans).2 It's been known for years that fluoridated water consumption is linked to thyroid dysfunction and behavioral problems like attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and two new studies have added to the already apparent associations.

Exposure to Fluoridated Water May Disrupt Thyroid Functioning
Your thyroid gland, located in the front of your neck, influences almost every cell in your body. Thyroid hormones regulate your metabolism and are required for growth and development in children and nearly every physiological process in your body.

When your thyroid levels are unbalanced, it can lead to a cascade of problems throughout your body. In hypothyroidism, the most common thyroid disorder, your thyroid gland activity is suppressed.

Also known as underactive thyroid, many with this condition are unaware they have it, and another 4 to 10 percent of the U.S. population may suffer from subclinical hypothyroidism that is missed by testing yet associated with miscarriage, preterm birth and altered growth and neurodevelopment in babies.

Even moderately imbalanced thyroid levels may be associated with increased risk of metabolic syndrome, researchers noted in the journal Environment International, which is why "studying factors that contribute to low thyroid function, even at the subclinical level, is of high public health importance."3

Notably, subclinical hypothyroidism is diagnosed by high serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) concentrations, and "fluoride in drinking water, even at levels as low as 0.3–0.5 mg/L, have predicted elevated TSH concentrations," the researchers added. "Higher water fluoride concentrations have also predicted an increased likelihood of a hypothyroidism diagnosis among adults."4

The latest study, which involved data from nearly 7 million Canadian adults not taking any thyroid-related medication, found that higher fluoride levels were not associated with higher TSH levels in the general population; however, when iodine status was accounted for, the results shifted.

Iodine Deficiency May Heighten the Risks of Fluoridated Water
Your body uses iodine across several organ systems, but it is most commonly known to synthesize thyroid hormones. Clinically low levels of iodine are associated with visible symptoms, such as a goiter (swelling of the thyroid gland), hypothyroidism or pregnancy-related problems. However, subclinical iodine deficiency can also interfere with your thyroid function.

Meanwhile, the Canadian study revealed that adults in Canada who have moderate-to-severe iodine deficiencies and higher fluoride levels tend to have higher TSH levels, which indicates they may be at an increased risk for underactive thyroid gland activity.5

It's a startling finding, considering nearly 2 billion people worldwide don't get enough iodine in their diet.6 As the researchers of the featured study noted, this means that those with iodine deficiency may be at an even greater increased risk from drinking fluoridated water:7

"Iodine deficiency can contribute to decreased thyroid hormone production and exacerbate the thyroid-disrupting effects of certain chemicals, as well as fluoride …

Fluoride exposures of 0.05 to 0.13 mg/kg/day have been associated with adverse thyroid effects among iodine sufficient people, while lower fluoride exposures of 0.01 to 0.03 mg/kg/day have been associated with these effects among iodine deficient people."

The effects were so worrying that lead study author Ashley Malin, a researcher at the department of environmental medicine and public health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told Environmental Health News:8

"I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure … And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years … We're talking about potentially [more than] a million people at risk of an underactive thyroid due to fluoride exposure."

In 2015, for instance, British researchers warned that 15,000 people may be afflicted with hypothyroidism in the U.K. as a result of drinking fluoridated water.9 In areas where fluoride levels in the water registered above 0.3 mg/l, the risk of having a high rate of hypothyroidism was 37 percent greater compared to areas that do not fluoridate.

Pregnant Women Drinking Fluoridated Water Have Higher Fluoride Levels
Fluoride exposure can occur from multiple sources, ranging from tea and processed foods to dental products, pharmaceuticals and fluoride-containing pesticides. However, research continues to show that drinking water remains a primary route of exposure, including in pregnant women.

In a study of more than 1,500 pregnant women living in Canada, those living in communities with fluoridated drinking water have two times the amount of fluoride in their urine as women living in nonfluoridated communities.10

"Research is urgently needed to determine whether prenatal exposure to fluoride contributes to neurodevelopmental outcomes in the offspring of these women," researchers explained.11 In fact, research has previously revealed that 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 General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities and Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI) scores, respectively.

Lead researcher Dr. Howard Hu, of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto in Canada, said in a news release:12

"Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure. It also suggests that the prenatal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children."

The findings were groundbreaking, as the study, which spanned 12 years and received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), was one of the first and largest studies looking into this topic.

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Is Linked to ADHD
The Canadian study on pregnant women living in fluoridated communities revealed levels of fluoride similar to those found in a study of pregnant women living in Mexico City, where the chemical is added to table salt. The same Mexican sample population has now been featured in another study, linking fluoride exposure to ADHD.13

The study, which involved more than 200 mother-children pairs, found that higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with higher measures of ADHD, including more symptoms of inattention, in the children at ages 6 to 12 years. "[The f]indings are consistent with the growing body of evidence suggesting neurotoxicity of early-life exposure to fluoride," researchers explained.14

It's also possible that fluoride may contribute to or exacerbate behavioral problems such as ADHD by way of pineal gland calcification. Despite its diminutive size, your pineal gland tends to accumulate significant amounts of fluoride, which eventually causes it to calcify.

Besides ADHD-like symptoms, pineal calcification may also play a role in Alzheimer's and bipolar disease. According to Frank Granett, director of clinical pharmacy operations at Behavioral Center of Michigan Psychiatric Hospital:15

"Located deep within the brain below the corpus callosum, which is the circuit connector for the right and left brain hemispheres, the pineal gland is responsible for the secretion of melatonin, the human body's biological time-clock hormone regulating normal sleep patterns.

More importantly, the pineal gland plays a critical role in the enzyme pathway for the production of brain neurotransmitters including serotonin and norepinephrine. Additionally, the body's antioxidant defense system is optimized by healthy pineal tissue, which helps eliminate free-radical toxin accumulation in the body."

A review in Lancet Neurology also classified fluoride as one of only 11 chemicals "known to cause developmental neurotoxicity in human beings,"16 alongside other known neurotoxins such as lead, methylmercury, arsenic and toluene. Among the proposed mechanisms of harm, studies have shown fluoride can:17

Interfere with basic functions of nerve cells in the brain

Reduce nicotinic acetylcholine receptors

Reduce lipid content in the brain

Damage the pineal gland through fluoride accumulation

Impair antioxidant defense systems

Damage the hippocampus

Damage Purkinje cells

Increase uptake of aluminum, which has neurotoxic effects

Encourage formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer's disease)

Exacerbate lesions induced by iodine deficiency

Increase manganese absorption, which has also been linked lower IQ in children

Impair thyroid function, which can also affect brain development

Can Fluoride Be Removed From Drinking Water?
Effective 2015, the level of fluoride in U.S. drinking water was reduced to 0.7 mg/L from a previously recommended range of between 0.7 and 1.2 mg/L. If you live in the U.S. and want to know fluoride levels in your water, the Environmental Working Group's (EWG) Tap Water Database can help.18 This is important for everyone, but pregnant women and households mixing formula for babies should take extra care to consume fluoride-free water. EWG notes:

"Even fluoride levels of 0.7 ppm, the amount of fluoride in drinking water recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service, can result in too much fluoride for bottle-fed babies.

EWG recommends that caregivers mix baby formula with fluoride-free water. The National Toxicology Program is investigating the potential for low doses of fluoride to alter thyroid function and childhood brain development."19

Unfortunately, fluoride is a very small molecule, making it tremendously difficult to filter out once added to your water supply. Any simple countertop carbon filter, like Brita, will not remove it.

If you have a house water carbon filtration system that has a large volume of carbon, then it may reduce the fluoride as fluoride removal is in direct proportion to the amount of fluoride and the time it's in contact with the media. It's just not going to get it all. Among the more effective filtering systems for fluoride removal are:

Reverse osmosis (RO). The drawback is that it will remove many valuable minerals and trace elements as well. RO systems also need frequent cleaning to avoid bacterial growth. So, use a tankless RO system with a compressor
Water distillation, which, like RO, gets everything out, including beneficial minerals. You then need to restructure the water
Bone char filters and biochar with activated charcoal
The simplest, most effective, most cost-effective strategy is to not put fluoride in the water to begin with.

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 the CDC, 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why? The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place.

Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water 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 (FAN) and visit the links below:

Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter 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.
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."

[onawah]

Judge Orders More Discovery In TSCA Fluoride Suit
https://www.waterskraus.com/judge-orders-discovery-tsca-fluoride-suit/
OCTOBER 24, 2018
"The order marks the latest in a series of potentially precedential losses the EPA has suffered in the landmark TSCA fluoride suit.

A federal judge has ordered EPA to provide internal documents and allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on the risks posed by fluoridation, mandates that highlight the effect of an earlier ruling allowing the plaintiffs to introduce new evidence in their landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) suit rather than limiting it to the agency’s record.

In an Oct. 4 order, Judge Edward Chen, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered EPA to release internal documents regarding its scientists’ views of a study linking fluoridation to IQ decrements, as well as ordering EPA to allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on whether its existing fluoride standards consider neurotoxicity risks.

The order marks the latest in a series of potentially precedential losses the agency has suffered in the landmark TSCA suit, Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, where environmentalists and public health groups are seeking to force EPA to grant their petition seeking to ban the practice of treating drinking water with fluoride.

“In my view, it’s quite significant going forward … [Chen] didn’t provide any qualifications. He allowed deposition and forced EPA to search for internal documents,” the plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Connett with Waters Kraus & Paul’s Los Angeles office, tells Inside EPA. “Even though [the order] is not technically precedential, it’s nevertheless helpful guidance for future courts” because this case is the first of its kind.

Late last year, Chen ruled that the reformed TSCA allows citizens to petition EPA to regulate single uses of substances, a stance at odds with the agency’s position in this case, where it rejected the petition because it sought to regulate one use of fluoride, the fluoridation of drinking water for its dental benefits.

More significantly for the latest order, Chen also ruled last February against the agency’s arguments to restrict the suit to the evidence presented in EPA’s petition denial — paving the way for a rare, de novo hearing of the petitioners’ arguments, scheduled for August 2019, where the plaintiffs are expected to offer a host of new scientific studies on the risks posed by the widely used substance.

EPA has declined to appeal either ruling and instead has vowed to win the suit on the merits. But attorney observers say the rulings will usher in increased interest from public interest groups in filings such petitions — an action that had previously been rare, and even more rarely, if ever, challenged in court.

Environmentalists last month filed a similar section 21 petition urging the agency to amend its Chemical Data Reporting rule to require businesses to report their uses of asbestos, an effort aimed at closing what the petitioners say is a loophole EPA created when it said the regulation does not cover asbestos because it is “naturally occurring.”

Section 21 gives EPA 90 days to respond to such a petition. Should EPA deny the petition, or fail to respond within 90 days, the petitioners can sue the agency in federal court.

Chen’s latest ruling broadens the evidence that plaintiffs can gather from EPA, allowing for discovery of certain internal documents and even deposition of EPA staff on certain topics.

In his latest ruling, Chen reminds EPA that in this TSCA section 21 suit, “the Court reviews Plaintiffs’ administrative petition de novo. 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.”

Joint Letter

Chen’s order responds to a joint Sept. 27 letter EPA and plaintiffs filed that details areas in which the litigants, after several months of discovery negotiations, have been unable to agree.

For example, the plaintiffs tell Chen that they “requested EPA documents related to the first-ever” National Institutes of Health-funded study of fluoride and IQ, which was published in September 2017.

“This much anticipated and methodologically rigorous study (which was funded, in part, by the EPA) found that fluoride ingestion during pregnancy correlates with significant and sizable IQ loss in children and thus strongly supports Plaintiffs’ position,” they say.

The plaintiffs are seeking any internal documents that may exist of EPA scientists’ review of the study. “Internal EPA documents showing, inter alia, that EPA’s own scientists recognize the strength of this study (A) would be probative reliance material for Plaintiffs’ experts, (B) would assist the Court in assessing the testimony of EPA’s litigation experts, and (C) would help identify potential witnesses.”

The plaintiffs argue that “[d]espite the probative value of EPA’s internal assessments of these studies, EPA has taken the sweeping position that any views of its individual scientists are wholesale irrelevant. The only documents EPA has produced, therefore, are official EPA and third-party documents that were already available in the public domain. This runs counter to the Court’s discovery ruling which permitted Plaintiffs to discover ‘evidence [that] would not have been previously available to Plaintiffs but is within the scope of the petition.’”

EPA, however, argues that plaintiffs’ discovery “unnecessarily focuses on internal discussion and the personal opinions of agency personnel. Given the scope of discovery already defined by the Court, EPA searched for and produced responsive documents relevant to the existence of scientific studies and data rather than EPA’s interpretation of that data.”

“Additionally, EPA flagged for Plaintiffs the potential that such requests likely impinge on EPA’s deliberative process privilege. . . . Nevertheless, Plaintiffs implicitly reflect their desire to harm the agency by attacking its credibility through compelled testimony of its own scientists.”

Chen also ordered EPA to respond to plaintiffs’ request for a witness. Chen writes that the plaintiffs’ requests “are relevant because whether the EPA considered the neurotoxic risk of fluoride in establishing its safety standards bears on how much weight the Court should give to any EPA argument that its safety standards can be used to show what a safe level of fluoride is.”

Chen acknowledges EPA’s “protests that the request is duplicative and not proportionate to the needs of the case because the ‘factual and scientific predicates for EPA’s denial of the petition are publicly expressed and identified in the document denying the petition.’”

But Chen notes that “EPA has not identified any undue burden from the request, and courts have made clear that ‘the deposition process provides a means to obtain more complete information [than written responses to discovery requests] and is, therefore, favored,’” citing a 2008 case, Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., from the U.S. District Court for Nevada.

Connett deposed EPA’s Ed Ohanian, associate director for science, on Oct. 15. As a witness in a federal rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Ohanian represents EPA and his statements are binding on the agency for purposes of the litigation, Connett says.

Fluoride Neurotoxicity

The plaintiffs in their letter to Chen explained they seek access to depose EPA witnesses “to clarify whether, and to what extent, EPA’s current safety standards the [maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) in drinking water] and [reference dose (RfD), the maximum amount an individual can be estimated to ingest daily over a lifetime without experiencing noncancerous health effects] considered neurotoxicity as a potential risk of fluoride.”

The plaintiffs add that based on information they have received, “it appears EPA’s safety standards did not meaningfully consider fluoride neurotoxicity, and, as such, cannot be used to demonstrate a neurological safe level of fluoride.”

EPA, however, argues that “While EPA takes the position as a matter of policy that neurotoxicity is not a risk of concern at doses below those associated with the MCLG and RfD, EPA is not required to defend that policy position in this litigation.”

“Moreover, in public documents addressing the issue which have already been provided to Plaintiffs, EPA has noted that the available data on neurotoxicity are not sufficient to assess the public health relevance to the U.S. population. Thus, Plaintiffs are unable to identify how inquiry into the MCLG for fluoride is relevant to the availability and existence of scientific studies and data necessary to demonstrate an unreasonable risk. … Plaintiffs have not provided a convincing explanation of how the disputed discovery relates to the only fact ‘of consequence’ in this litigation — whether there is scientific evidence of an unreasonable risk of injury.”

This article originally appeared in the October 22, 2018 issue of Inside EPA." https://insideepa.com/daily-news/latest-epa-defeat-judge-orders-more-discovery-tsca-fluoride-suit

[pueblo]

How long before people say 'no more' to the mandatory addition of a neurotoxin like Fluoride to our water?




Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Epidemiologic and animal-based studies have raised concern over the potential impact of fluoride exposure on neurobehavioral development as manifested by lower IQ and deficits in attention. To date, no prospective epidemiologic studies have examined the effects of prenatal fluoride exposure on behavioral outcomes using fluoride biomarkers and sensitive measures of attention.
OBJECTIVE:

We aimed to examine the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and symptoms associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
METHOD:

213 Mexican mother-children pairs of the Early Life Exposures to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) birth cohort study had available maternal urinary samples during pregnancy and child assessments of ADHD-like behaviors at age 6-12. We measured urinary fluoride levels adjusted for creatinine (MUFcr) in spot urine samples collected during pregnancy. The Conners' Rating Scales-Revised (CRS-R) was completed by mothers, and the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT-II) was administered to the children.
RESULTS:

Mean MUFcr was 0.85 mg/L (SD = 0.33) and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 0.46 mg/L. In multivariable adjusted models using gamma regression, a 0.5 mg/L higher MUFcr (approximately one IQR higher) corresponded with significantly higher scores on the CRS-R for DSM-IV Inattention (2.84 points, 95% CI: 0.84, 4.84) and DSM-IV ADHD Total Index (2.38 points, 95% CI: 0.42, 4.34), as well as the following symptom scales: Cognitive Problems and Inattention (2.54 points, 95% CI: 0.44, 4.63) and ADHD Index (2.47 points; 95% CI: 0.43, 4.50). The shape of the associations suggested a possible celling effect of the exposure. No significant associations were found with outcomes on the CPT-II or on symptom scales assessing hyperactivity.
CONCLUSION:

Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention as measured by the CRS-R in the offspring.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:

ADHD; Fluoride; Neurobehavioral; Pregnancy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316181

[onawah]

It seems to be a race between how quickly "they" can poison and dumb us down enough that not enough people realize how and why they are doing that, and whether enough will awaken in time to stop them from doing it!
Certainly a race to the death, and they sure have a lot of ways of distracting people from noticing....

How long before people say 'no more' to the mandatory addition of a neurotoxin like Fluoride to our water?




Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City.

Abstract
BACKGROUND:

Epidemiologic and animal-based studies have raised concern over the potential impact of fluoride exposure on neurobehavioral development as manifested by lower IQ and deficits in attention. To date, no prospective epidemiologic studies have examined the effects of prenatal fluoride exposure on behavioral outcomes using fluoride biomarkers and sensitive measures of attention.
OBJECTIVE:

We aimed to examine the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and symptoms associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
METHOD:

213 Mexican mother-children pairs of the Early Life Exposures to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) birth cohort study had available maternal urinary samples during pregnancy and child assessments of ADHD-like behaviors at age 6-12. We measured urinary fluoride levels adjusted for creatinine (MUFcr) in spot urine samples collected during pregnancy. The Conners' Rating Scales-Revised (CRS-R) was completed by mothers, and the Conners' Continuous Performance Test (CPT-II) was administered to the children.
RESULTS:

Mean MUFcr was 0.85 mg/L (SD = 0.33) and the Interquartile Range (IQR) was 0.46 mg/L. In multivariable adjusted models using gamma regression, a 0.5 mg/L higher MUFcr (approximately one IQR higher) corresponded with significantly higher scores on the CRS-R for DSM-IV Inattention (2.84 points, 95% CI: 0.84, 4.84) and DSM-IV ADHD Total Index (2.38 points, 95% CI: 0.42, 4.34), as well as the following symptom scales: Cognitive Problems and Inattention (2.54 points, 95% CI: 0.44, 4.63) and ADHD Index (2.47 points; 95% CI: 0.43, 4.50). The shape of the associations suggested a possible celling effect of the exposure. No significant associations were found with outcomes on the CPT-II or on symptom scales assessing hyperactivity.
CONCLUSION:

Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention as measured by the CRS-R in the offspring.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
KEYWORDS:

ADHD; Fluoride; Neurobehavioral; Pregnancy

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30316181

[Hervé]

Water fluoridation is now a multi-industries concerted scam between the nuclear and aluminum industrial wastes, big pharma, psychiatry and intelligence agencies:




From Sue Arrigo:

[...]

Georgetown University should be called CIA U. The mental research facility is not on the main campus near the regular college students. It is on a separate piece of land that makes it harder to run away from. The name of it is not Georgetown, but it is part of Georgetown University.

Some people at the CIA have complained that attention deficit disorder is associated with the fluoridation of water and that the CIA refused to release the data on it in order to keep getting so many almost normal kids delivered to the door of their mind control clinics around North America.

They also complain that the CIA knows the treatment for attention deficit disorder, a drug to chelate the fluoride and expel it from the body and refuses to publish that data as well.

It is true that there are a number of books on the subject for internal consumption at the CIA. An ordinary epidemiologist could look at the issue and find out if those rumors within the CIA are true.

The reason everything was limited to two weeks was that was the length of time that the in-hospital psychiatric hospitalization could maximally be extended to, to run basically healthy kids “through testing of their condition”. The CIA developed a bunch of bogus tests to run on ADD kids to justify their two-week hospitalization like “withdrawing them from sugar, food dyes, etc.”

When this University facility’s history in mind control comes to the public’s attention, it will be a little hairy. Hundreds, no thousands, of parents will suddenly want to know if their child, grown or otherwise, was a mind control subject or in the control group. I will mention in passing three fairly reliable methods of knowing that.

That information comes from CIA reports about what to do to confuse parents if they get to another therapist later, ie what disinformation to give them to prevent them from uncovering that the kid was mind controlled.

That first piece of disinformation is -- "No one can tell if a person is a mind control victim—certainly not regular family and neighbors, only a qualified therapist could know and since they can’t tell no one can."

That is given because the CIA found out that 56% of the children were discovered to have been uncovered by relatives and family members as "robotic" or "messed up in their minds" or "with inexplicable behaviors that came from outside of themselves."

Teachers were particularly good at distinguishing control kids from experimental kids, and a number of teachers near that facility were killed by the CIA—on the order of a dozen in a decade.

The second piece of disinformation that the CIA primed therapists around the world have dispensed is that it is "normal" for kids to act out in their teenage years by cross-dressing. It turned out that just the opposite is true of normal teenagers. They want to define their sexual identity and not cross dress.

Teenagers are the most intolerant to cross dressing per CIA research. Unless of course, they are mind control subjects and have been trained to sexually please chicken hawks by boys dressing as girls. There is no market for girls dressed as boys so the cross dressing only goes in one direction.

Surprisingly, the CIA research showed that homosexual boys rarely cross dressed on their own at that age - unless they had been used by porn filmmakers, chicken hawks and mind controllers. So the presence of cross-dressing in a teenage boy is highly predictive that he is a mind control or abuse victim.

The third piece of disinformation that the CIA fed therapists in journals to fool them and the parents is a bit subtler. The disinformation said "There is no normal age at which children should be told about sex. Sex education can occur at any age — it is up to the parents to decide. And sex education may be bad for kids so maybe we shouldn’t have it in our schools..."

The CIA spent a lot of money to convince parents, churches, and schools not to have real sex education classes. The reason was that when kids were allowed to freely talk in a group about their sexual experiences or fantasies or theories of sex, the kids themselves could see that some of them had very different levels of exposure to, and sophistication in, these matters.

So if sex education had to be taught the CIA wanted canned talks in which the kids were not allowed to talk. It thus trained sex educators to control the amount kids could talk and tried to make it taboo for the kids to talk to each other afterwards.

The CIA also found out that there was a best age for sex education –about the start of puberty. So then they fostered some campaigns to force the education to be earlier. The reason for that was that some young child whose native curiosity would not lead to sophisticated knowledge of sexual action, were coming out with it in front of parents and therapists.

It was better for the CIA if they could say that the kid learned it in a sex education class than from CIA prostitution of them. So although it sounds contradictory, the CIA’s bottom line on sex education disinformation was—don’t have sex education classes, but if you must have them have them very early and don’t let kids talk at them. Make it a more taboo subject by the way you skirt it or only allow it to be taught in a very short segment and never referred to again.

The CIA sponsored conferences for sex educators under a front company call “First Dating Experiences” if I remember correctly. Or maybe just “First Experiences”. When the abstinence only people objected the name of the front company was called something like “Wait for Marriage, Inc."

It was the same front. The same staff, address etc. The CIA also pushes abstinence and marital fidelity fronts while not practicing these things themselves. It does that to increase the effectiveness of its blackmail ops.

Sexual blackmail only works when the society is condemning towards others. It is not the abstinence of fidelity that the CIA is after, it is the condemning of others it is after.

Condemning is a form of hate and the CIA provokes hate and condemning as a way of controlling others. It is a mind control technique that can then be used to get people to fight wars etc against their best interests.

The CIA is looking for “handles” into a person’s psyche—an emotional issue that drives a person to act. Then it exploits it. It also creates handles by funding songs and lyrics into existence. That is another whole level of mind control directed at a population instead of individuals.

I have gotten off track some here. This is useful information but not staying focused on the main topic.

[tests to run on ADD kids to justify their two-week hospitalization] It was a total scam. They just needed something so difficult that parents couldn’t easily do at home to con the parent into letting Johnny stay at the hospital. They withdrew the food alright. They barely fed the kids at all. They fed them out of boxes, pre-packaged potato chips like Pringles and called that a sugar free diet. The last day the parents would come to pick the kid up and the interaction was observed carefully to see how well the kid could lie about his stay and what he had eaten in the hospital.

It was a complete fantasy. The kid had been down in the basement without a bed, clothes, or single hot meal. The kids that passed had incredible abilities to make believe. So good that they even believed it. They were multiples just like me. They had gone through an hour’s hypnosis at the end of that torture and with the help of the hypnotist had imagined all that had happened to them in that two-week period of time.

The parents were told that they couldn’t see the kids because the kids needed to learn a new way to relate to them to help their ADD, and that had to be learned well before they saw them again.

The parents wanted a break from their ADD kids for 2 weeks so it worked. And the kids did relate to their parents differently after two weeks of hard torture without a hot meal. Meanwhile, some say the CIA did actually give them the fluoride chelating drug—a pill once a day so that the ADD was better. The program was popular with parents.

The University facility touted its benefits. Researchers forged results to show how effective it was and others studied how to torture the kids and split their minds more reliably.

Not all kids split well enough to pretend, or keep up the pretense. These are the ones people know of as the Finder kids. They were taken away from their parents. They were not able to find pushers in their communities, so they were sent to be sex slaves and drug mules where they didn’t have to perform at as high a level.

If they couldn’t even do that, they were killed. They were not one-use kids for the sexual/torture use of the Ultra-rich, they were already used goods. The kids that Bush Sr. was expending were kids that came to that facility that were selected to be held in reserve for his use and his use only. Their parents had applied for their son’s hospitalization but the “application had been held up.”

Bush, Sr. had a certain look of boy he liked, like the youngest boy “Eager to Beaver” in the Brady House Boys (?). They looked like he looked when he was a boy before “it happened to him” at age 6. He kept on sodomizing kids like his dad sodomized him. His father kept it up much longer than others can imagine. He kept it up until he was close to death. Some things run in families.

Would you want to see your dad if that continued to be what you had to submit to? Dark and ugly secrets that even the principals might not know—what with multiplicity being what it is. Bush, Sr. — does he even know that he goes to that base and why? I leave it to your remote viewing skills and imagination to decide.

I was not at the CIA because of my ability to imagine what loose ends there were. I was there to know what loose ends there were and failing to know could cost me my life and more than that.

The actual results were that the CIA training was not adequate in amount or quality to do anything to train a kid in pushing. So the experiment was not a test of that at all. The experiment was a cover story for how to get the kids into one’s hands.

[...]
So, now, instead of dealing with scientific data, we are dealing with undoing myths and legends about "settled sciences" of inquisition proportion and order of magnitude.

[onawah]

More good info on fluoride in this thread: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104808-Toronto-University-Fluoride-Study-Link-to-ADHD&p=1256087#post1256087

[pueblo]

More good info on fluoride in this thread: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104808-Toronto-University-Fluoride-Study-Link-to-ADHD&p=1256087#post1256087

My apologies Onawah, i did a search for a fluoride thread but somehow missed this one!

Perhaps a Mod could merge them if that was agreeable?

[onawah]

Sure, fine with me Pueblo.


More good info on fluoride in this thread: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?104808-Toronto-University-Fluoride-Study-Link-to-ADHD&p=1256087#post1256087

My apologies Onawah, i did a search for a fluoride thread but somehow missed this one!

Perhaps a Mod could merge them if that was agreeable?

[pueblo]

Could a Mod please merge this thread with this one please?

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?75012-The-Fluoride-Thread

[Hervé]

Could a Mod please merge this thread with this one please?

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?75012-The-Fluoride-Thread
[Mod note: Done! Thanks, Hervé]

[onawah]

Judge Orders More Discovery In TSCA Fluoride Suit
OCTOBER 24, 2018
The order marks the latest in a series of potentially precedential losses the EPA has suffered in the landmark TSCA fluoride suit.
https://www.waterskraus.com/judge-orders-discovery-tsca-fluoride-suit/
"A federal judge has ordered EPA to provide internal documents and allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on the risks posed by fluoridation, mandates that highlight the effect of an earlier ruling allowing the plaintiffs to introduce new evidence in their landmark Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) suit rather than limiting it to the agency’s record.

In an Oct. 4 order, Judge Edward Chen, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ordered EPA to release internal documents regarding its scientists’ views of a study linking fluoridation to IQ decrements, as well as ordering EPA to allow plaintiffs to depose agency staff on whether its existing fluoride standards consider neurotoxicity risks.

The order marks the latest in a series of potentially precedential losses the agency has suffered in the landmark TSCA suit, Food & Water Watch Inc., et al, v. EPA, where environmentalists and public health groups are seeking to force EPA to grant their petition seeking to ban the practice of treating drinking water with fluoride.

“In my view, it’s quite significant going forward … [Chen] didn’t provide any qualifications. He allowed deposition and forced EPA to search for internal documents,” the plaintiffs’ attorney, Michael Connett with Waters Kraus & Paul’s Los Angeles office, tells Inside EPA. “Even though [the order] is not technically precedential, it’s nevertheless helpful guidance for future courts” because this case is the first of its kind.

Late last year, Chen ruled that the reformed TSCA allows citizens to petition EPA to regulate single uses of substances, a stance at odds with the agency’s position in this case, where it rejected the petition because it sought to regulate one use of fluoride, the fluoridation of drinking water for its dental benefits.

More significantly for the latest order, Chen also ruled last February against the agency’s arguments to restrict the suit to the evidence presented in EPA’s petition denial — paving the way for a rare, de novo hearing of the petitioners’ arguments, scheduled for August 2019, where the plaintiffs are expected to offer a host of new scientific studies on the risks posed by the widely used substance.

EPA has declined to appeal either ruling and instead has vowed to win the suit on the merits. But attorney observers say the rulings will usher in increased interest from public interest groups in filings such petitions — an action that had previously been rare, and even more rarely, if ever, challenged in court.

Environmentalists last month filed a similar section 21 petition urging the agency to amend its Chemical Data Reporting rule to require businesses to report their uses of asbestos, an effort aimed at closing what the petitioners say is a loophole EPA created when it said the regulation does not cover asbestos because it is “naturally occurring.”

Section 21 gives EPA 90 days to respond to such a petition. Should EPA deny the petition, or fail to respond within 90 days, the petitioners can sue the agency in federal court.

Chen’s latest ruling broadens the evidence that plaintiffs can gather from EPA, allowing for discovery of certain internal documents and even deposition of EPA staff on certain topics.

In his latest ruling, Chen reminds EPA that in this TSCA section 21 suit, “the Court reviews Plaintiffs’ administrative petition de novo. 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.”

Joint Letter

Chen’s order responds to a joint Sept. 27 letter EPA and plaintiffs filed that details areas in which the litigants, after several months of discovery negotiations, have been unable to agree.

For example, the plaintiffs tell Chen that they “requested EPA documents related to the first-ever” National Institutes of Health-funded study of fluoride and IQ, which was published in September 2017.

“This much anticipated and methodologically rigorous study (which was funded, in part, by the EPA) found that fluoride ingestion during pregnancy correlates with significant and sizable IQ loss in children and thus strongly supports Plaintiffs’ position,” they say.

The plaintiffs are seeking any internal documents that may exist of EPA scientists’ review of the study. “Internal EPA documents showing, inter alia, that EPA’s own scientists recognize the strength of this study (A) would be probative reliance material for Plaintiffs’ experts, (B) would assist the Court in assessing the testimony of EPA’s litigation experts, and (C) would help identify potential witnesses.”

The plaintiffs argue that “[d]espite the probative value of EPA’s internal assessments of these studies, EPA has taken the sweeping position that any views of its individual scientists are wholesale irrelevant. The only documents EPA has produced, therefore, are official EPA and third-party documents that were already available in the public domain. This runs counter to the Court’s discovery ruling which permitted Plaintiffs to discover ‘evidence [that] would not have been previously available to Plaintiffs but is within the scope of the petition.’”

EPA, however, argues that plaintiffs’ discovery “unnecessarily focuses on internal discussion and the personal opinions of agency personnel. Given the scope of discovery already defined by the Court, EPA searched for and produced responsive documents relevant to the existence of scientific studies and data rather than EPA’s interpretation of that data.”

“Additionally, EPA flagged for Plaintiffs the potential that such requests likely impinge on EPA’s deliberative process privilege. . . . Nevertheless, Plaintiffs implicitly reflect their desire to harm the agency by attacking its credibility through compelled testimony of its own scientists.”

Chen also ordered EPA to respond to plaintiffs’ request for a witness. Chen writes that the plaintiffs’ requests “are relevant because whether the EPA considered the neurotoxic risk of fluoride in establishing its safety standards bears on how much weight the Court should give to any EPA argument that its safety standards can be used to show what a safe level of fluoride is.”

Chen acknowledges EPA’s “protests that the request is duplicative and not proportionate to the needs of the case because the ‘factual and scientific predicates for EPA’s denial of the petition are publicly expressed and identified in the document denying the petition.’”

But Chen notes that “EPA has not identified any undue burden from the request, and courts have made clear that ‘the deposition process provides a means to obtain more complete information [than written responses to discovery requests] and is, therefore, favored,’” citing a 2008 case, Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York v. Vegas Const. Co., from the U.S. District Court for Nevada.

Connett deposed EPA’s Ed Ohanian, associate director for science, on Oct. 15. As a witness in a federal rule 30(b)(6) deposition, Ohanian represents EPA and his statements are binding on the agency for purposes of the litigation, Connett says.

Fluoride Neurotoxicity

The plaintiffs in their letter to Chen explained they seek access to depose EPA witnesses “to clarify whether, and to what extent, EPA’s current safety standards the [maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) in drinking water] and [reference dose (RfD), the maximum amount an individual can be estimated to ingest daily over a lifetime without experiencing noncancerous health effects] considered neurotoxicity as a potential risk of fluoride.”

The plaintiffs add that based on information they have received, “it appears EPA’s safety standards did not meaningfully consider fluoride neurotoxicity, and, as such, cannot be used to demonstrate a neurological safe level of fluoride.”

EPA, however, argues that “While EPA takes the position as a matter of policy that neurotoxicity is not a risk of concern at doses below those associated with the MCLG and RfD, EPA is not required to defend that policy position in this litigation.”

“Moreover, in public documents addressing the issue which have already been provided to Plaintiffs, EPA has noted that the available data on neurotoxicity are not sufficient to assess the public health relevance to the U.S. population. Thus, Plaintiffs are unable to identify how inquiry into the MCLG for fluoride is relevant to the availability and existence of scientific studies and data necessary to demonstrate an unreasonable risk. … Plaintiffs have not provided a convincing explanation of how the disputed discovery relates to the only fact ‘of consequence’ in this litigation — whether there is scientific evidence of an unreasonable risk of injury.”

This article originally appeared in the October 22, 2018 issue of Inside EPA."

[onawah]

Five MORE Fluoride-Condemning Studies Published
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, Oct 15, 2018
http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v14n23.shtml
"This article may be reprinted free of charge provided 1) that there is clear attribution to the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, and 2) that both the OMNS free subscription link http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html and also the OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml are included.
(OMNS Oct 15 2018) Five new published studies support previous research linking fluoride to thyroid disease; ADHD; overdosing formula-fed infants and bias in government reports. Another reveals pregnant Canadians have higher urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas which previous studies linked to offspring's lower IQ.

Fluoride exposure coupled with iodine deficiency is linked to thyroid disease, report researchers in Environment International (December 2018). They said this is the first human population-based examination of chronic low-level fluoride exposure on thyroid function that considers residents' iodine status.
"I have grave concerns about the health effects of fluoride exposure," said lead author Ashley Malin, "And not just from my study but the other studies that have come out in recent years," (Environmental Health News).

"Higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with global measures of ADHD and more symptoms of inattention [in offspring]," researchers report in Environment International (December 2018). This is consistent with a growing body of evidence linking neurotoxicity to early-life fluoride exposure, they said.
"Our findings are consistent with a growing body of evidence suggesting that the growing fetal nervous system may be negatively affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure," said Morteza Bashash, the study's lead author and a researcher at University of Toronto's School of Public Health. (NeuroscienceNews.com)

"Significantly more infants, particularly those under six months old, will exceed the UL [Upper Limit] when consuming formula reconstituted with 0.7 ppm [fluoride] water, increasing their risk of developing dental fluorosis." (Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry, 2018).
"The primary adverse effects associated with chronic, excess fluoride intake are enamel and skeletal fluorosis." (National Academy of Sciences, 1997).

The US Centers for Disease Control encourages the addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies to reach 0.7 ppm without adequately informing parents about the consequences of fluoride overexposure.

Organizational bias compromised the integrity of fluoride research from the beginning and persists today (Medical Hypotheses, Spencer and Limeback, December 2018) The authors identify ten major flaws in a recent US National Toxicology Program's (NTP) fluoride experiment as an example of how institutional bias can skew science.
Canadian pregnant women have double urine fluoride levels in fluoridated vs. non-fluoridated areas (Environmental Health Perspectives, October 10, 2018). Previous Mexican research links urine fluoride levels in pregnancy to offspring's lower IQ. The Canadian and Mexican women's fluoride levels are similar, which causes concern.
"We found that fluoride in drinking water was the major source of exposure for pregnant women living in Canada," said Christine Till, an associate professor of Psychology in York's Faculty of Health and lead author on the study. (News Release from York University in Toronto)


[The Orthomolecular Medicine News Service thanks Paul Beeber, JD, nyscof@aol.com and the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. for this release. For more information:
http://FluorideAction.Net ,
NYSCOF on Twitter ;
NYSCOF on Facebook


Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine
Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org


Find a Doctor
To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml


The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource.


Editorial Review Board:
Ilyès Baghli, M.D. (Algeria)
Ian Brighthope, M.D. (Australia)
Prof. Gilbert Henri Crussol (Spain)
Carolyn Dean, M.D., N.D. (USA)
Damien Downing, M.D. (United Kingdom)
Michael Ellis, M.D. (Australia)
Martin P. Gallagher, M.D., D.C. (USA)
Michael J. Gonzalez, N.M.D., D.Sc., Ph.D. (Puerto Rico)
William B. Grant, Ph.D. (USA)
Tonya S. Heyman, M.D. (USA)
Suzanne Humphries, M.D. (USA)
Ron Hunninghake, M.D. (USA)
Michael Janson, M.D. (USA)
Robert E. Jenkins, D.C. (USA)
Bo H. Jonsson, M.D., Ph.D. (Sweden)
Jeffrey J. Kotulski, D.O. (USA)
Peter H. Lauda, M.D. (Austria)
Thomas Levy, M.D., J.D. (USA)
Homer Lim, M.D. (Philippines)
Stuart Lindsey, Pharm.D. (USA)
Victor A. Marcial-Vega, M.D. (Puerto Rico)
Charles C. Mary, Jr., M.D. (USA)
Mignonne Mary, M.D. (USA)
Jun Matsuyama, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
Dave McCarthy, M.D. (USA)
Joseph Mercola, D.O. (USA)
Jorge R. Miranda-Massari, Pharm.D. (Puerto Rico)
Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada, M.D. (Finland)
Tahar Naili, M.D. (Algeria)
W. Todd Penberthy, Ph.D. (USA)
Dag Viljen Poleszynski, Ph.D. (Norway)
Jeffrey A. Ruterbusch, D.O. (USA)
Gert E. Schuitemaker, Ph.D. (Netherlands)
Thomas L. Taxman, M.D. (USA)
Jagan Nathan Vamanan, M.D. (India)
Garry Vickar, MD (USA)
Ken Walker, M.D. (Canada)
Anne Zauderer, D.C. (USA)

Andrew W. Saul, Ph.D. (USA), Editor-In-Chief
Editor, Japanese Edition: Atsuo Yanagisawa, M.D., Ph.D. (Japan)
Robert G. Smith, Ph.D. (USA), Associate Editor
Helen Saul Case, M.S. (USA), Assistant Editor
Ralph K. Campbell, M.D. (USA), Contributing Editor
Michael S. Stewart, B.Sc.C.S. (USA), Technology Editor
Jason M. Saul, JD (USA), Legal Consultant "

[onawah]

New Study Concludes "a relatively large proportion of fluoride intake is retained in the body in weaned infants."
05 November 2018
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-nutrition/article/fluoride-retention-in-infants-living-in-fluoridated-and-nonfluoridated-areas-effects-of-weaning/BFC2F44C66597EFD59C6F403B4BF9A85

"Limited knowledge is available on total fluoride exposure, excretion and retention in infants, despite the first year of human life being the critical period for dental development and risk of dental fluorosis. This study investigated total daily fluoride intake (TDFI), excretion (TDFE) and retention (TDFR) in infants living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated water areas at pre- and post-weaning stages of development. Healthy infants, aged 0–12 months, were recruited and their TDFI (mg/kg body weight (BW) per d), from diet and toothpaste ingestion, was assessed over a 3-d period using a dietary diary and tooth-brushing questionnaire. TDFE (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by collecting 48-h urine and faeces. TDFR (mg/kg BW per d) was estimated by subtracting TDFE from TDFI. A total of forty-seven infants completed the study: sixteen at pre-weaning and thirty-one at post-weaning stages, with a mean age of 3·4 and 10·0 months, respectively. TDFI was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P=0·002) but higher in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFE was mainly affected by type of feeding, with higher excretion in formula-fed infants (P<0·001). TDFR was lower in the non-fluoridated area (P<0·001) and at the pre-weaning stage (P<0·001) but higher in formula-fed infants (P=0·001). In conclusion, a relatively large proportion of fluoride intake is retained in the body in weaned infants. This is an important consideration in fluoride-based prevention programmes, with goals to maximise caries prevention while minimising the risk of dental fluorosis."

[onawah]

FAN Professional Statement calling for end to fluoridation
(From FAN's email update today)
NOVEMBER 16, 2018

"A few days ago the Fluoride Action Network* sent out a request to professionals in any medical, scientific, legal, educational, environmental or other field, to sign a "New Professionals' Statement" http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/new-professionals-statement/calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide--see the list of signers to the new statement. http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/professionals-statement/the-new-statement-signers/

This "New Professionals' Statement" has been triggered by the publication of very important and disturbing U.S. Government-funded studies (Bashash et al, 2017 and 2018). These studies have added very strong additional evidence to the large number of existing studies that show that fluoride is neurotoxic. They underline that the critical period of exposure to fluoride is in the womb and that at levels of fluoride exposure currently experienced by pregnant women in fluoridated communities there is a strong correlation with the lowering of IQ and ADHD symptoms in their offspring.

Sadly, and possibly because the imposed dental practice of water fluoridation is so entrenched in the psyche of the medical, dental and public health establishments in fluoridated countries, neither governments not the mainstream media are warning the public about this large - and growing - body of scientific research.

Thus, we are appealing to professionals to sign this statement. We hope by circulating this it will help us get this information out to more professionals, the public (especially pregnant women), the media and decision-makers in fluoridated countries, and eventually halt this unnecessary and reckless practice being imposed on our children.

Please note, we are inviting all professionals to sign this new statement regardless of whether they signed the original 2007 statement or not. For the moment we will be treating this as a standalone statement, but so that we don’t lose the weight of nearly 5000 signers to the previous statement we will find some way of combining the totals of unique signers in the future.

If you are a professional and wish to add your name you can do it online HERE. http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2477/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=8760 Please provide your name, highest degrees, occupation town/state/country and email address. If you feel inclined please add a short statement of your own.

If you are not a professional this effort gives you an excellent opportunity to approach your doctor, dentist and other professionals in medical and environmental fields with this shocking new information that fluoridation maybe damaging the brains of future generations. If you have a university in your town you may wish to approach professors teaching in any scientific field. All the key information you and they need for this can be obtained from our revolving mastheads on our home page FluorideALERT.org .

SIGN & SHARE THE STATEMENT TODAY http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2477/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=8760

Thank you for all you are doing to end this reckless and unnecessary practice."
Paul Connett, PhD,
Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network
and co-author of The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green, 2010)

[onawah]

New Bill Promoting Fluoridation
Fluoride Action Network
DECEMBER 4, 2018
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2477/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=23358

On President Trump’s desk is currently a bill created and promoted by the American Dental Association that--if signed into law--could allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide funding to state dental associations and regional oral health coalitions promoting fluoridation and lobbying for its expansion. In other words, even more tax-dollars could go into pro-fluoridation propaganda with little accountability. Needless to say not a penny of this will be used to tell the American people about the U.S. government-funded studies linking exposure to fluoride during pregnancy and lowered IQ and increased indicators of ADHD in offspring (Bashash et al.,2017, 2018)

H.R. 2422, called the Action for Dental Health Act of 2017, is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing. At first glance, directing federal funds through CDC grants to innovative dental programs for the poor and underserved seems like a good idea. In fact, I believe the majority of this money will go to worthy programs that are less harmful, more effective alternatives to fluoridation. This is one of the obstacles we face in requesting a veto from the President, but we need to educate him about the potential risk that will come with his signature.

In the House and Senate we worked to amend the bill to prohibit the promotion of fluoridation. While some good amendments were eventually made, reducing the funding significantly and putting some checks and balances on how this grant money would be used, we were unsuccessful in getting an amendment we wanted prohibiting the promotion of fluoridation.

While fluoridation isn’t mentioned in the text or in the ADA’s lobbying materials, it is a primary part of their Action for Dental Health Initiative. And if you read between the lines you can see that the vague language of the bill authorizes the use of federal funds “to develop and implement initiatives to improve oral health…through community-wide dental disease prevention programs; and by increasing public awareness and education related to oral health and dental disease prevention.,” which incorporates all of the keywords necessary to include the ADA’s favorite program: fluoridation.

Effectively, by leaving controversial fluoridation language out of the bill and replacing it with vague authorization, the ADA has successfully tricked House and Senate members. Now we must try one last hail-Mary effort to educate the President. While chances are slim he will choose this for the first veto of his presidency, our efforts now will at least serve to alert his administration to the public health debacle that is fluoridation.

SEND A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

You can also call their offices and leave a message with staff:

Donald J. Trump
Phone (202) 456-1111

Mike Pence
Phone (202) 456-1111
Please take action, share, and stay tuned for more information about this bill over the coming days, including how it came about, how it has changed, and how it may impact your future campaign efforts. We understand that Trump must act on this bill by the end of the week, so please take action as soon as possible.
Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
See all FAN bulletins online: http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

Statements from Professionals Opposed to Fluoridation - Part One
From FAN's email update today:
"To date approximately 200 professionals have signed the New Professionals' Statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Many of these provided short personal statements as to why they oppose fluoridation. Below, we print 18 of these statements. In future bulletins we will provide more.

In addition, we are very happy to share this videotaped testimonial from Mike Ewall, JD, the highly respected director of the Energy Justice Network. Paul and Ellen have worked with Mike for over 30 years fighting both incineration and fluoridation. For many years Mike has successfully kept mandatory fluoridation out of the state of Pennsylvania.
sGh3GeXjnrM

Dr. Robert C Dickson, MD, CCFP, FCFP, BPE

Artificial water fluoridation is unethical, unsafe, ineffective and not necessary for any body function. It is outdated, harmful and regressive. There are so many better ways to improve the oral and overall health of infants, young children, the disadvantaged, the chronically ill, the elderly and people of color.

Robban Sica, MD

Among the many health-damaging effects of Fluoride, is its harmful effect on the thyroid. It is no surprise Hashimoto's thyroiditis and hypothyroidism is at epidemic levels, which dramatically impacts a person's quality of life and ability to function effectively.

Neil Carman, Ph.D.

Fluoride is one of the most toxic chemicals added to the water and is an industrial hazardous waste from the phosphate fertilizer industry and other industrial sectors.

Philip Robertson, ND
In clinical practice, in fluoridated Geelong, Australia, it is most unusual not to see patients with fluoride toxicity symptoms every week.

Dorothy Lambert, Ph.D.

I oppose fluoridation in the water as it is bad for people's thyroid and also has other medical issues.

David Banks, DDS

Fluoridation is mass medication with a known neurotoxin.

Miriam Westerman

I have fought against water fluoridation in Israel and beyond since 2002. It has been clear for many, many years that in the handful of fluoridated countries that fluoride is a “protected pollutant.” I signed the original 2007 Professional's Statement. At the time I worked in the Medical Laboratory for diagnostic tests and research, Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem. I have since retired but I continue to fight for sanity in the battle against this outdated and risky practice.

Gerald Steel, MS, PE, Esq.

Fluoridated water is an illegal unsafe drug that is harming people who ingest it.

Mageswari Sangaralingam, MEM

Malaysia is still adding fluoride to its public drinking water system. The fluoride level recommended by the Ministry of Health Malaysia is 0.5 – 0.9 mg/L. Some states in Malaysia had stopped artificial fluoridation of drinking water in the wake of higher cases of dental fluorosis amongst the population. We want an end to fluoridation of our drinking water considering its neurotoxicity and other health impacts.

Daniel Eyink, MD

Fluoridation is medical treatment of the population without considering the individual's health needs nor their rights of choice. I strongly object to its use.

RS Carlson DDS

Community Water Fluoridation is forced medication--See Recent Decision Of New Zealand Supreme Court…It is an obsolete approach as a solution to dental caries which is a nutritional issue as many health issues are.

J Collins Meek, Ph.D.

As a neurological learning specialist, I have known for many years that fluoridated drinking water reduces learning capabilities in children, some much worse than others. It is highly inappropriate for authorities to dose the drinking water with material that is toxic for most, if not all, children.

Herminio Delgado, PG (Professional Geologist), CEG (Certified Engineering Geologist)

Fluoride is harmful and people should have the option of choosing whether they are exposed to this toxin.

William Potter, PhD Biochemistry

Potential neuro-developmental toxin. Inappropriate use of water system to deliver topical drug.

Arjun Khandare, Ph.D.

Fluoride is a slow poison, causes dental, skeletal and non-skeletal fluorosis. It affects almost all the organs in the body. Most serious is its damage to the brain. There is strong evidence that it lowers IQ in children.

James Reeves, Ph.D.

Even if fluoride helped children's' teeth (unlikely), ADULTS should not be forced to consume it in every glass of water, every day of life, thus being exposed to many serious health issues.

Carol Vander Stoep, RDH, BSDH

I write books about oral/systemic medicine and it is unbelievable to me that we still think fluoridation is a great idea due to all the unforeseen consequences of adding fluoride as a "medication" to water. Even a popular biology lecturer came to Austin and lectured hygienists here of her turn around on the issue after she nearly died from hypothyroidism and took a closer look.

John Mueller, BSc (Geoph. Engr.) P.E. (Civil, Control Systems)


As Senior Engineer in Water and Sewer Dept of municipal public works utility, I first began studying fluoridation when tasked with preparing the technical specifications for fluorosilicic acid (FSA) for the utility's purchasing contract for fluoridation chemicals. I then learned that arsenic invariably occurs as a contaminant in measured concentrations in virtually all tanker truck shipments of FSA to the municipality's two drinking water treatment plants. The two plants serve about a half-million people, and began fluoridation in 1953. Deliberately adding a chemical contaminated with arsenic, which has an EPA assigned Maximum Contaminant Level Goal of zero, is a violation of the spirit and intent of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Indeed, it makes a mockery of the SDWA on the basis that the added arsenic, a known carcinogen, is diluted to a concentration below the enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level, thereby passing regulatory compliance requirements. Meanwhile, in our city, Dental fluorosis, seen as patchy paper-white patchy enamel defects on front teeth, is commonplace among young and old alike in lifetime residents. "

Thank you,
Paul Connett, Ph.D.
Director
Fluoride Action Network
See all FAN bulletins online http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

Statements From Professionals Opposed to Fluoridation
FAN Part 2
DECEMBER 6, 2018

"In this bulletin we provide another 30 statements from the list of doctors, dentists, nurses, scientists, water treatment operators, and others who have signed the New Professionals' statement calling for an end to fluoridation worldwide. Some of these statements have been edited to avoid repetition.

Declan Waugh, Ireland
As a scientist and risk management consultant, I have read the science and reviewed the evidence regarding water fluoridation and fluoride intoxication. As a published author who has also undertaken risk assessment of fluoride intake I am aware that you cannot control the dose of exposure when you contaminant the public water supply with this toxin. Evidence suggests that Fluoride works topically in reducing dental caries but ingesting fluoride is harmful to the body, the soft organs including the brain, liver, kidneys, heart, lungs and immune system. I do not consent to mandatory fluoridation both on scientific and ethical grounds. It is a flawed policy that needs to stop immediately. The science is clear, fluoride is a neurotoxin, a metabolic and enzymatic poison and it should not be ingested, particularly by pregnant women or infants or persons who are susceptible to its toxic effects such as individuals who are iodine deficient, chloride deficient, individuals with kidney disease or compromised immunity.

Michael May, BSc Eng, CEng
…Fluoridation of our water supply impacts the young and poor disproportionately more since the young often obtain it in higher concentrations than adults and the poor can`t afford the Reverse Osmosis filtration required to remove it.

Eve-Marie Arcand, DDS
My 18 years of experience as a dentist have showed me that eating habits and oral hygiene are the key factors to prevention of dental decay. My examination of the literature regarding water fluoridation has convinced me that even though the intention behind this practice is good, the risks largely exceed the potential benefits (that appear to be much lower than expected initially)… It is unsafe for many people; it can harm babies that are bottle fed and it can make it worse for individuals with impaired thyroid function. Toxins are very abundant in our environment and we need to reduce them whenever it is possible, so adding a known toxin to water makes no sense.

April Hurley, MD
I oppose dosing developing children with neurotoxins under the guise of "treating" them. I oppose damaging all body tissues to address dental damage which can be prevented by wiser, safer, and nutritional means. I oppose harming people to "protect" them…

Emily Matthews, RN
It works better applied directly to teeth. Anybody who wants it can have it applied at their visit to the dentist. It is medication without consent when put in drinking water…

Jeffrey Sutherland, Ph.D.
The latest research shows that even in amounts commonly found in doctored water it reduces the IQ of children significantly. As a research scientist with significant expertise in the effects of radiation exposure I know that small amounts of toxins such as mercury, fluoride, and even chlorine can significant increase negative health effects.

Heidi Ward- McGrath, BVSc
Fluoride has detrimental effects on the health of pets that are supplied with fluoridated water. Fluoride affects the functionality of their thyroid gland and subsequently hormonal status. Our renal patients are negatively affected by this addition. I am concerned about fluoride uptake into bone. There is scant pet animal research in this area, however I suspect similar levels of fluoride in dog and cat joints is contributing to pain, inflammation and disease. Many pet owners are unaware of the impact this unnecessary addition to their pets vital water supply is having on their pets overall health. It must end.

Carol Wells, RDH, Canada
…Every single ounce of artificially fluoridated water consumed, while drinking and eating foods that have been rinsed, washed or cooked …with hexafluorosilicic acid – a neurotoxin - no amount is safe.

Lashawn Bollenbach, RN
Fluoride is toxic and…has damaged my daughter’s teeth as diagnosed by our traditional dentist in Oklahoma. Studies show that it lowers IQ significantly, and it's criminal to continue this antiquated practice in modern America.

David McRae, Australia
Water fluoridation is poor medicine/public health in that it doses all citizens with a strong chemical substance regardless of need, sensitivity, medical conditions and other risk factors.

Tina Kimmel, Ph.D., MSW, MPH
Fluoridation chemicals (including unavoidable contaminants) are neurotoxic, in addition to dozens of other harms to the body. They pose the worst risks to fetuses and infants…Despite all this, fluoridation is being imposed on local water districts by unelected government officials.

Richard Taylor, M.A. Psychology, licensed psychologist
Fluoride accumulates in brain and bone and causes lowered IQ and ADHD like symptoms, and has been implicated in causing osteosarcoma in juvenile males.

Michael Fadell, MD
It is a toxin! I am a grandfather and am concerned for the health of my granddaughter!

Obiora Embry, BS, Industrial Engineering, EIT
I have been against water fluoridation for over 20 years and am dismayed that even with the knowledge of how toxic it is to humans (the born and unborn) it is still used within most communities within the United States…

George Eichholzer, BASc, P. Eng
There are far better ways to help teeth without poisoning the water supply.

Reverend Jonathan Singleton, MA, MDiv
It's not healthy.... It's not a vitamin.... It's not needed in the human body.... It's IMMORAL!

Kevin O'Donnell
I was diagnosed with osteoporosis at age 53, and have avoided drinking tap water for the past several years, drinking only bottled water formulated by reverse osmosis.

Gary Fortinsky, DDS, HOM
…if the benefits of fluoride are supposedly topical, then why is it in our water?

George Fairfax, MD
There is much evidence of adverse effects that is occurring in humans.

Alan Feuer, MPME
…It only serves to financially benefit the sellers of fluoride.

Mary Sanda, RN, BSN, CCRC
I believe it is extraordinarily irresponsible to add fluoride to public water supplies. Even if you agree that fluoride is beneficial topically to the teeth, it is not meant to be absorbed by all of the cells in our bodies, especially brain cells…From the tiniest of newborn babies to the largest adults, all of us are exposed to the same concentration of fluoride in the water. I am a nurse and there is absolutely no such thing as prescribing a drug in the same concentration for everyone universally. One does not need to be in the medical field to understand how wrong it is to add any substance to our water supply to treat people, not knowing how different people could be affected.

Hugh Davoren, RD, PGDipSci, PGDipDiet
From a human nutrition perspective, Fluoride is not required for any purpose. It is not a nutrient. Sure, when applied topically Fluoride does seem to have a positive effect in delaying the onset of decay. In NZ the average dietary intake of Fluoride is at least 2 mg daily via the food supply alone (not including fluoridated water), a lot more if you're a tea drinker. There is simply no need to have it added to our water supply any longer.

Richard Mills, MD
Fluoride is a toxic inorganic ion that plays no part in normal human biochemistry.

Christopher Christianson (Utilities Operations Supervisor, grade IV Wastewater, T3 Treatment, D3 Distribution)
It is unnecessary to add this chemical to the water supply. It does not treat water, and what benefit it may have is administered ineffectively at uncontrolled dosage in the wrong method. Most fluoridated drinking water does not even enter a human's mouth--possibly 99%. It's flushed down the toilet, watered onto a lawn, washed onto a car, or flows down the drain with the dishwater and the laundry water. Thus, it becomes an environmental waste, as wastewater treatment plants do not remove fluoride.

David Ball, DDS, MAGD, AIAOMT
Fluoride is a toxin with effects at ppm, we don't need it, you can't control the dose people get.

John Holden, DOM
As a natural medicine physician, I have known for years that the fluoride added to drinking water has toxic effects on the body, and environment. Fluoride stores up in the body over time, and displaces necessary nutrients like calcium and iodine, disrupting bone, glandular, and brain function, and has been shown to contribute to cardiovascular disease and low IQ…

According to Dr. Charles Gordon Heyd, Past President of the American Medical Association (AMA):"I am appalled at the prospect of using water as a vehicle for drugs. Fluoride is a corrosive poison that will produce serious effects on a long-range basis. Any attempt to use water this way is deplorable."

It is human nature to resist change to ideas that have been believed for a long time, regardless of their validity. The scientific evidence against fluoridation of drinking water is overwhelming.
Dominic Berry, Ph.D.
First of all, it is an obvious and flagrant violation of medical ethics because it constitutes medication without consent. Second, I am a professional research scientist, have spent quite some time going through the literature on the subject, and am absolutely shocked by the dishonesty of the people promoting the practice.

Stephen Taylor, DNP
We should have clean drinking water and water treatment plants should provide this, not attempt to be our pharmacy.

Kristie Lavelle, OTR/L, CHT
The health risks from fluoridation to the brain, bones, thyroid, and kidneys far outweigh any benefits to teeth. It is unethical to force exposure to fluoridation chemicals on entire populations without consent.

Debbie Rhyner, RN
Internal ingestion of fluoride is unnecessary for dental cavity prevention & can be harmful to the human body … Any substance or drug that is utilized as a preventative or curative treatment plan, should always be individualized to each person. Adding fluoride to the public water supply isn't individualized dosing, but it is a careless 'one size fits all' approach. It doesn't take into account the weight, age, gender or health status of each person or the quantity of water that each person drinks per day. Therefore, it should NOT be added to the public water supply! Topical application of fluoride is an appropriate treatment choice that can be offered to patients on an as needed basis for dental cavity prevention. "

Thank you,
Paul Connett, Ph.D.
Director
Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

New Study: Potential Role of Fluoride in the Etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease
https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965
12/6/18
(From FAN's email update today)
Abstract
"The etiopathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease has not been fully explained. Now, the disease is widely attributed both to genetic and environmental factors. It is believed that only a small percentage of new AD cases result solely from genetic mutations, with most cases attributed to environmental factors or to the interaction of environmental factors with preexistent genetic determinants. Fluoride is widespread in the environment and it easily crosses the blood–brain barrier. In the brain fluoride affects cellular energy metabolism, synthesis of inflammatory factors, neurotransmitter metabolism, microglial activation, and the expression of proteins involved in neuronal maturation. Finally, and of specific importance to its role in Alzheimer’s disease, studies report fluoride-induced apoptosis and inflammation within the central nervous system. This review attempts to elucidate the potential relationship between the effects of fluoride exposure and the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. We describe the impact of fluoride-induced oxidative stress and inflammation in the pathogenesis of AD and demonstrate a role for apoptosis in disease progression, as well as a mechanism for its initiation by fluoride. The influence of fluoride on processes of AD initiation and progression is complex and warrants further investigation, especially considering growing environmental fluoride pollution.
View Full-Text: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/19/12/3965/htm

[onawah]

STUDIES ON TOOTH DECAY RATES AFTER WATER FLUORIDATION IS STOPPED
https://fluoridealert.org/studies/caries05/
"For decades, the American Dental Association (ADA) has long warned that if communities end their water fluoridation programs, the rate of tooth decay will increase. In it’s “Fluoridation Facts” brochure, the ADA states:

“Dental decay can be expected to increase if water fluoridation in a community is discontinued for one year or more, even if topical products such as fluoride toothpaste and fluoride rinses are widely used.”

At the turn of the 21st century, however, a flurry of 4 published studies reported that tooth decay rates did not increase in communities that had ended fluoridation. In fact, in each of the studies, the rate of tooth decay continued to decrease.

The fact that tooth decay decreased following the end of fluoridation is consistent with the fact that tooth decay rates in all western nations have sharply declined over the past 50 years irrespective of whether the country fluoridates its water, or not.

Fluoridation Cessation Studies
1. CANADA:

“The prevalence of caries decreased over time in the fluoridation-ended community while remaining unchanged in the fluoridated community.”
SOURCE: Maupome G, Clark DC, Levy SM, Berkowitz J. (2001). Patterns of dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 29: 37-47.

2. FINLAND

“The fact that no increase in caries was found in Kuopio despite discontinuation of water fluoridation and decrease in preventive procedures suggests that not all of these measures were necessary for each child.”
SOURCE: Seppa L, Karkkainen S, Hausen H. (2000). Caries Trends 1992-1998 in Two Low-Fluoride Finnish Towns Formerly with and without Fluoridation. Caries Research 34: 462-468.

3. GERMANY

“In contrast to the anticipated increase in dental caries following the cessation of water fluoridation in the cities Chemnitz and Plauen, a significant fall in caries prevalence was observed.”
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T, Lorenz R, Bruhmann S. (2000). Decline of caries prevalence after the cessation of water fluoridation in the former East Germany. Community Dentistry and Oral Epidemiology 28: 382-9.

4. CUBA

“In 1997, following the cessation of drinking water fluoridation, in contrast to an expected rise in caries prevalence, DMFT and DMFS values remained at a low level for the 6- to 9-year-olds and appeared to decrease for the 10/11-year-olds. In the 12/13-year-olds, there was a significant decrease, while the percentage of caries-free children of this age group had increased…”
SOURCE: Kunzel W, Fischer T. (2000). Caries prevalence after cessation of water fluoridation in La Salud, Cuba. Caries Research 34: 20-5. "

[onawah]

U.S. Water Fluoridation: A Forced Experiment that Needs to End (Can it be clearer than this?)
JANUARY 09, 2019
By the Children’s Health Defense Team
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/u-s-water-fluoridation-a-forced-experiment-that-needs-to-end/?utm_source=mailchimp

"The United States stands almost entirely alone among developed nations in adding industrial silicofluorides to its drinking water—imposing the community-wide measure without informed consent. Globally, roughly 5% of the population consumes chemically fluoridated water, but more people in the U.S. drink fluoride-adulterated water than in all other countries combined. Within the U.S., just under a third (30%) of local water supplies are not fluoridated; these municipalities have either held the practice at bay since fluoridation’s inception or have won hard-fought battles to halt water fluoridation.

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.
The fluoride chemicals added to drinking water are unprocessed toxic waste products—captured pollutants from Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry or unregulated chemical imports from China. http://fluoridealert.org/issues/water/fluoridation-chemicals/ The chemicals undergo no purification before being dumped into drinking water and often harbor significant levels of arsenic and other heavy metal contamination; one researcher describes this unavoidable contamination as a “regulatory blind spot that jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4090869/

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laneur/article/PIIS1474-4422%2813%2970278-3/fulltext —have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491930/ and lowers children’s IQ. Fluoride is also associated with a variety of other health risks https://files.iaomt.org/wp-content/uploads/IAOMT-Fact-Sheet-on-Fluoride-and-Human-Health.pdf in both children and adults. However, U.S. officialdom persists in making hollow claims that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial, choosing to ignore even its own research! A multimillion-dollar longitudinal study https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655 published in Environmental Health Perspectives in September, 2017, for example, was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences—and the seminal study revealed a strong relationship between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered cognitive function in offspring. Considered in the context of other research, the study’s implications are, according to the nonprofit Fluoride Action Network, “enormous”—“a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.”

According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.
A little history
During World War II, fluoride (a compound formed from the chemical element fluorine) came into large-scale production and use as part of the Manhattan Project. According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a “leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.” https://www.projectcensored.org/18-manhattan-project-covered-up-effects-of-fluoride-toxicity/
In order to stave off lawsuits, government scientists “embarked on a campaign to calm the social panic about fluoride…by promoting its usefulness in preventing tooth decay.” https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-case-against-fluoride/

To prop up its “exaggerated claims of reduction in tooth decay,” https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/the-case-against-fluoride/ government researchers began carrying out a series of poorly designed and fatally flawed community trials of water fluoridation in a handful of U.S. cities in the mid-1940s. In a critique decades later, http://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ a University of California-Davis statistician characterized these early agenda-driven fluoridation trials as “especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.” As one example, a 15-year trial launched in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 used a nearby city as a non-fluoridated control, but after the control city began fluoridating its own water supply five years into the study, the design switched from a comparison with the non-fluoridated community to a before-and-after assessment of Grand Rapids. Fluoridation’s proponents admitted that this change substantially “compromised” the quality of the study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627472/

In 1950, well before any of the community trials could reach any conclusions about the systemic health effects of long-term fluoride ingestion, the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) endorsed water fluoridation as official public health policy, strongly encouraging communities across the country to adopt the unproven measure for dental caries prevention. Describing this astonishingly non-evidence-based step as “the Great Fluoridation Gamble,” the authors of the 2010 book, The Case Against Fluoride, argue that:

“Not only was safety not demonstrated in anything approaching a comprehensive and scientific study, but also a large number of studies implicating fluoride’s impact on both the bones and the thyroid gland were ignored or downplayed” (p. 86).

In 2015, Newsweek magazine not only agreed that the scientific rationale for putting fluoride in drinking water was not as “clear-cut” as once thought but also shared the “shocking” finding of a more recent Cochrane Collaboration review, https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010856.pub2/abstract namely, that there is no evidence to support the use of fluoride in drinking water.

Bad science and powerful politics
The authors of The Case Against Fluoride persuasively argue that “bad science” and “powerful politics” are primary factors explaining why government agencies continue to defend the indefensible practice of water fluoridation, despite abundant evidence that it is unsafe both developmentally and after “a lifetime of exposure to uncontrolled doses.” Comparable to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s book, Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, which summarizes studies that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and “credulous journalists swear don’t exist,” The Case Against Fluoride is an extensively referenced tour de force, pulling together hundreds of studies showing evidence of fluoride-related harm. https://www.alternet.org/2015/04/thimerosal-let-science-speak/

… death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease.
The research assembled by the book’s authors includes studies on fluoride biochemistry; cancer; fluoride’s effects on the brain, endocrine system and bones; and dental fluorosis. With regard to the latter, public health agencies like to define dental fluorosis as a purely cosmetic issue involving “changes in the appearance of tooth enamel,” but the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT)—a global network of dentists, health professionals and scientists dedicated to science-based biological dentistry—describes the damaged enamel and mottled and brittle teeth that characterize dental fluorosis as “the first visible sign of fluoride toxicity.” https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts/fluoride-exposure-human-health-risks/

The important 2017 study https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655 that showed decrements in IQ following fluoride exposure during pregnancy is far from the only research sounding the alarm about fluoride’s adverse developmental effects. In his 2017 volume, Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix, https://pregnancyandfluoridedonotmix.com/index.html John D. MacArthur pulls together hundreds of studies linking fluoride to premature birth and impaired neurological development (93 studies), preelampsia (77 studies) and autism (110 studies). The book points out that rates of premature birth are “unusually high” in the United States. At the other end of the lifespan, MacArthur observes that death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease. A 2006 report by the National Research Council warned that exposure to fluoride might increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.http://fluoridealert.org/news/letter-the-link-between-fluoride-levels-and-alzheimers-disease/

The word is out
Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix shows that the Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Harvard’s National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Toxicology Program all are well aware of the substantial evidence of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity, yet no action has been taken to warn pregnant women. Instead, scientists with integrity, legal professionals and the public increasingly are taking matters into their own hands. A Citizens Petition
http://fluoridealert.org/researchers/government-reports/timeline-the-tsca-law-suit-against-u-s-epa/
submitted in 2016 to the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act requested that the EPA “exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.” This request—the focus of a lawsuit to be argued in court later in 2019—poses a landmark challenge to the dangerous practice of water fluoridation and has the potential to end one of the most significant chemical assaults on our children’s developing bodies and brains."

[onawah]

World expert on lead now warns of fluoride's neurotoxicity
NEWS PROVIDED BY
Fluoride Action Network
Jan 31, 2019, 08:00 ET
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/world-expert-on-lead-now-warns-of-fluorides-neurotoxicity-300787432.html

"NEW YORK, Jan. 31, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- A major review article in the journal Pediatric Medicine by Dr. David Bellinger includes fluoride in a list of chemicals known or suspected to interfere with the neurodevelopment of children, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
http://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/32944/

Bellinger, recognized as one the leading experts in the world on the neurotoxicity of lead, holds three important positions in Boston: two at Harvard and one at Boston Children's Hospital.

In his review of fluoride's neurotoxicity, Bellinger cites the meta-analysis of 27 IQ studies from China and Iran (Choi et al., 2012); a follow-up study in China he co-authored (Choi et al., 2015) and the more recent US-government funded mother-offspring studies from Mexico City (Bashash et al., 2017 and 2018). These latter studies, which controlled for many possible confounders, found a very strong association between fluoride levels in the pregnant mothers' urine and lowered IQ in their offspring. These fluoride urine levels from the mothers in Mexico City correspond to the fluoride levels in pregnant women in fluoridated communities in Canada (Till et al., 2018).

While the mainstream media covered the Choi meta-analysis from 2012, they have ignored all the major neurotoxicity studies published since then. Meanwhile, they continue to go overboard on low-quality studies that focus on tooth decay.

According to Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director, "We hope that when more pediatricians read about these important neurotoxicity studies –especially the mother-offspring studies– that they will warn women of child-bearing age to avoid all sources of fluoride during pregnancy and parents not to bottle-feed their infants with formula prepared with fluoridated tap water."

Connett added, "There are over 350 published studies on fluoride's effect on the brain: 130 human studies, over 200 animal studies, and 33 cell studies." "

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

Related Links
fluorideaction.net

[onawah]

All “silver” dental filling are poisoned with mercury and it was covered up for 30 years
Nov 22, 2018
https://www.getholistichealth.com/78281/silver-dental-filling-poisoned-mercury-covered-up/

"As part of a lawsuit settlement with several consumer groups, the F.D.A. was finally forced to publicly admit that all “silver” dental filling are poisoned with mercury, which attacks the brain as it is absorbed into the blood, and fumes that are emitted whenever one of its victims chews. These facts have been known, and covered up, for 30 years.

“Dental amalgams contain mercury, which may have neurotoxic effects on the nervous systems of developing children and fetuses. When amalgam fillings are placed in teeth or removed from teeth, they release mercury vapor. Mercury vapor is also released during chewing… Pregnant women and persons who may have a health condition that makes them more sensitive to mercury exposure, including individuals with existing high levels of mercury bioburden, should not avoid seeking dental care, but should discuss options with their health practitioner.”

— www.fda.gov

After this article was published, the F.D.A. removed the web page (http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/consumer/amalgams.html) that the above quotes were taken from, which is very likely in flagrant violation of the court order. The court had required them to post this information publicly.

Notice that in spite of the court; they still wrote that mercury “may” have neurotoxic effects, as if toxicologists are not really sure about it yet, and they even went so far as to pretend that brain poisonings should only be an issue to consider for infants.

Of course, this is just another one of their attempts to confuse the issue, since the real issue that we are being distracted from is members of the older population with dental fillings, and who are suffering from mercury-induced Alzheimer’s disease.

They are truly disgusting people, who go into spasms whenever something truthful gets too close to them. The court has mandated that F.D.A. officials take action against the practice of using “silver” dental fillings in 2009, or risk being held in contempt of the court.

Unfortunately, we realize that this illegitimate, presidentially-appointed agency will continue to do what it always has done — operate outside the law.

Anyone at risk of mercury poisoning should supplement his diet with selenium, which is a natural neutralizer of mercury. We strongly recommend the high-quality selenium that is found at health food stores, but not general retailers.

Selenium neutralizes some toxic heavy metals; especially mercury and aluminum. Our research shows that selenium alone will prevent most so-called “age-related” degenerative brain diseases. These diseases are, in most cases, lifelong heavy metal accumulation and toxicity.

They are simple cases of poisoning, and the victims are not really diseased. Preventing the brain damage with selenium is tremendously easier than reversing it, which can be impossible. People should be aware that taking excessive amounts of selenium can be dangerous. A typical dose for an adult is 100 mcg., and 400 mcg. should never be exceeded.

Of course, anyone with enough time and money should have his so-called “silver” fillings replaced with safer materials, along with undergoing a good detoxification program. Ironically, if they really were pure silver fillings, then they would improve health, and have no toxic effects.

View “Smoking Teeth”

See it for yourself: Here is a video from the University of Calgary, and it shows poison gasses coming from old dental fillings, and a weak mercury solution corroding brain neurons via a microscope."

9ylnQ-T7oiA

[Dennis Leahy]

The fluoride thread had been invaded by mercury! :bigsmile:

Speaking of fluoride, you have to tell your dentist ahead of time to get non-fluoride composite (they may have to order it.) You have to tell them that you don't want any fluoride in the composite filling material. Some of it has fluoride, and some has timed-release fluoride. Some has no fluoride.

[onawah]

I don't know why I posted that article about mercury on this thread, but I guess I will leave it, since it's somewhat related.
The fluoride thread had been invaded by mercury! :bigsmile:

Speaking of fluoride, you have to tell your dentist ahead of time to get non-fluoride composite (they may have to order it.) You have to tell them that you don't want any fluoride in the composite filling material. Some of it has fluoride, and some has timed-release fluoride. Some has no fluoride.

[onawah]

Iodine Medicine
Published on March 8, 2019
by Dr, Mark Sircus
https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-medicine/?utm_source=Dr+Sircus+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter_08_03_2019&inf_contact_key=a3df7e110c7a95938d371d87924f83a6
"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-and-uses-for-iodine-iodine-to-rescue/

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

https://drsircus.com/iodine/main-reasons-iodine-supplementation-essential/

https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-treatments-radiation-exposure/

https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-treats-prevents-cancer/

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

https://drsircus.com/iodine/iodine-breast-cancer-treatment/

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

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

https://drsircus.com/heavy-metals/iodine-phobia-salt-truth/

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

https://drsircus.com/iodine/pediatric-iodine/

[ThePythonicCow]

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.

[Hervé]

Facebook just suspended Natural News for 7 days for posting this rather ho-hum fluoride infographic (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=185509)

By Mike Adams (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?author=129) on March 21, 2019
Mike Adams — Natural News March 19, 2019


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/facebook-eye.jpg (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/facebook-eye.jpg)

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 (http://fluoride.news), 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.)


https://www.naturalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/facebook_031919-300x151.png

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.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Fluoride-infographic-banned-by-Facebook.jpg (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Fluoride-infographic-banned-by-Facebook.jpg)
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 (http://techgiants.news) 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 (http://Fluoride.news).
* See this post (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106339-Fatal-shootings-at-Christchurch-Mosques-in-New-Zealand&p=1282025&viewfull=1#post1282025) (<---) and this thread: Who Owns the US Congress, Really? (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?106374-Who-Owns-the-US-Congress-Really)

[ThePythonicCow]

Facebook has now decided to suspend Natural News for seven days for posting the educational fluoride infographic you see below.
Good grief.

[avid]

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?

[onawah]

Connecting the Dots — A Statement Opposing Fluoride
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
May 23, 2019
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/05/23/statement-opposing-fluoride.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2&utm_campaign=20190523Z1&et_cid=DM289273&et_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.

4Jc-o749L4A

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."

[Cara]

Press release from Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.


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/newsroom/2019/fluoride-may-diminish-kidney-and-liver-function-in-adolescents-study-suggests

[RogueEllis]

From: lightonconspiracies.com

Research Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

Source: Mercola (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/09/03/fluoride-causes-brain-damage.aspx)

By: Doctor Joseph Mercola
September 3, 2019

hjKUqf85E6Q

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

[Hervé]

Study Shows Massive IQ Decrease in Males with Fluoride: JAMA Pediatrics Journal Editors Stunned (https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2019/09/24/study-shows-massive-iq-decrease-in-males-with-fluoride-jama-pediatrics-journal-editors-stunned/)

By jameslyonsweiler (https://jameslyonsweiler.com/author/jameslyonsweiler/) in aluminum (https://jameslyonsweiler.com/category/aluminum/), autism (https://jameslyonsweiler.com/category/autism-2/), Cures (https://jameslyonsweiler.com/category/cures-2/)
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 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30788699)[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 (https://envgencauses.com/)), the observational studies that DID find association (e.g., Gallagher and Goodman (https://envgencauses.com/)), 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 (https://lifebiomedguru.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/pmi190007audioa_prod-2-podcast-1.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/?term=fluoride+aluminum+synergistic

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=aluminum+mercury+synergistic

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

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


https://lifebiomedguru.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/bruce.jpg?w=700&h=425 (https://lifebiomedguru.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/bruce.jpg)

[onawah]

Fluoridated Water May Soon Be Outlawed
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 22, 2019
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2019/10/22/fluoridated-water-may-soon-be-outlawed.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art2ReadMore&utm_campaign=20191022Z1&et_cid=DM373386&et_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! "

[onawah]

NEW STUDY: FLUORIDATION LOWERS IQ OF FORMULA-FED BABIES
11/20/19
http://fluoridealert.org/news/new-study-fluoridation-lowers-iq-of-formula-fed-babies/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=ffb48c93-62f1-4935-a777-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-releases/new-study-fluoridation-lowers-iq-of-formula-fed-babies-300962294.html?tc=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.” "

[onawah]

Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review
Philippe Grandjean
Environmental Health volume 18, Article number: 110 (2019)
https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-019-0551-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."

[Franny]

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.

[onawah]

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/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

More Studies Show Fluoride Affects Brain and Disrupts Sleep
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
January 23, 2020
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/01/23/fluoride-health-risks.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20200123Z1&et_cid=DM441021&et_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."

[onawah]

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 "

[onawah]

FLUORIDATION USELESS AND ESPECIALLY HARMFUL TO POOR CHILDREN, RESEARCH SHOWS
http://fluoridealert.org/news/fluoridation-useless-and-especially-harmful-to-poor-children-research-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-releases/fluoridation-useless-and-especially-harmful-to-poor-children-research-shows-301002067.html?tc=eml_cleartime "

[onawah]

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
dxu0WWMwAE4

[onawah]

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/news/whats-in-childrens-drinking-water-far-too-often-something-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/news/whats-in-childrens-drinking-water-far-too-often-something-neurotoxic/

[onawah]

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/federal-report-finding-fluoride-lowers-iq-of-children-reviewed-by-national-academy-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).” "

[onawah]

Mercola's new economical water filter removes fluoride
https://waterfilters.mercola.com/fluoride-water-filter.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=dpeReadMore&cid=20200316Z1&et_cid=DM482862&et_rid=830704378
3/16/20

( I've researched it and could not find a shower filter that removes much in the way of fluoride, if any, and Mercola's doesn't either, but the new counter top and under the counter sink filters look good, and it's not reverse osmosis, so it's less costly.
The only method I could find of removing fluoride from showers is a very costly reverse osmosis unit which would still not provide enough water all at once for a good shower, unless you also installed a huge holding tank.
The shower filters on the webpage are an old model, and do not remove fluoride. I called their ordering number today and pointed out that people may think those models have the new technology, and it should be made clear that they don't, so hopefully they will change the ad.
Lots of good, relevant info in the article about why filtered water is necessary for health at https://waterfilters.mercola.com/fluoride-water-filter.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=dpeReadMore&cid=20200316Z1&et_cid=DM482862&et_rid=830704378
...most of which I am not copying here, since a lot of it is info that's already been posted on this thread and others.)

"Independently tested, the Fluoride Removal Full Spectrum Water Filter selectively allows healthy minerals to pass through while providing broad-range contamination reduction up to 99.9% of chlorine, heavy metals, pesticides, herbicides, pharmaceuticals, viruses, bacteria and fungi.
The easy-to-use filter removes up to 99.9% of fluoride without the disadvantages of other technologies, including water wastage and the need for a storage tank.
Testing shows the filter’s proprietary fluoride reduction media reduces fluoride better than the two top fluoride-specific media used in other fluoride removal systems."

"Why You Can’t Trust Your Local Utility’s Water Report
Local water testing doesn't measure the unregulated chemicals in your water.
Many people quickly point out... “Our public utility routinely tests our drinking water supplies and its reports don’t show any contaminants.”

That’s a valid point, but here’s why you can’t trust those reports...

Federal and state regulatory agencies give nearly all of our nation’s drinking supplies a passing grade when tested. That’s because these contaminants are at levels declared legal under the Safe Drinking Water Act or state regulations.

And that’s only for contaminants included on the test list!

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not added a new contaminant to the list of regulated drinking water pollutants that makes up the Safe Drinking Water Act in more than 20 years.

The presence of unregulated chemicals in drinking water is especially worrisome. That is what forms the basis of public utility water tests.

Pollutants are there. The EWG found more than 160 unregulated contaminants in the tap water supplies it tested across the country. Here are just three of the many unregulated industrial and farming chemicals it found in drinking water at levels above those that may pose a cancer risk:

Chromium-6, an industrial chemical (found in water from all 50 states)
1,4-dioxane, an industrial solvent
Nitrates from industrial agriculture
So what can you do?

When you invest in an effective water filtration system that specifically removes fluoride, you drastically reduce your daily intake of not only fluoride and plastic microparticles but more than 267 contaminants, including those we just talked about.

Up Until Now, You Couldn’t Remove Fluoride Without Losing Precious Minerals and Wasting Water
The ideal on-the-go solution is a reusable, safe water bottle refilled with filtered water.
Up until now, you really couldn’t find a water filter that removed substantial amounts of fluoride without resorting to reverse osmosis. Most water filters and their technologies remove 50% or less of fluoride.

Reverse osmosis has been the standard for removing fluoride for years. However, its main drawbacks include wasting a lot of water and removing healthy minerals from the water.

Two other types of fluoride removal systems have their issues as well. Activated Alumina (AAL) can leach aluminum into your drinking water, and Bone Char (BC) technology requires acidic water for it to work correctly and hasn’t shown good filtering capacity.

Some systems claim to remove 95% or more of fluoride, but when you look at independent test results and the results people actually get with use, that’s not always the case. With some systems, performance drops drastically after the first 25 or 30 gallons.

I’ve been working for years to find an effective and affordable solution for removing fluoride. I believe you should be able to turn on your tap and drink plenty of water without worrying about getting a hefty dose of fluoride or other contaminants.

And you deserve the convenience of being able to refill your reusable, safe water container straight from your faucet without having to buy and drink water from risky and environmentally-polluting disposable water bottles.

We’ve finally found an option that surpasses anything else we’ve seen over the years – and can provide you with all this. It’s groundbreaking technology that no one else has, at least not yet.

Introducing... The Breakthrough Technology That Can Remove up to 99.9% of Fluoride, Lead, Microplastics and Countless Other Contaminants
Under-Counter Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Our Under-Counter Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Our Fluoride Removal Full Spectrum Water Filter, available in your choice of an Under-Counter or Countertop unit, provides broad-range contamination reduction while retaining beneficial minerals.

This revolutionary system is unlike any prior fluoride-removing filter. A whole new paradigm in water filtration, it marries existing technologies and combines medias for a unique approach to:

Reduce up to 99.9% of 172 contaminants, including arsenic, chromium and other heavy metals, disinfectants, anions, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), pharmaceutical drugs, pesticides and herbicides using .5 micron carbon block filtration.
Remove up to 99.9% of fluoride and chlorine while selectively allowing essential minerals, like calcium, magnesium and potassium, to pass through.
Reduce microorganisms, such as bacteria, viruses, cysts and fungi using .01 micron filtration.
Countertop Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Our Countertop Fluoride Removal Water Filter
Shield and remove larger particulate and sediment to help prolong flow rate and filter life.
Best of all, it’s independently tested to do all this. You don’t just have to take someone’s word for it.

Obtaining fresh filtered drinking water has never been so simple. With our Fluoride Removal Under-Counter Water Filter, all it takes is a turn of the handle to receive a flow of water that’s up to 99.9% clear of fluoride, chlorine and other contaminants for safe drinking, cooking and more.

With the push of a button, our Fluoride Removal Countertop Water Filter delivers the same, clean water directly from your faucet.

Let’s take a closer look at its breakthrough technology...

This Unique System Marries Existing Technologies for a Whole New Paradigm in Fluoride Removal
Our Fluoride Removal Full Spectrum Countertop Water Filter system removes contaminants and unwanted substances through three different stages:
https://media.mercola.com/assets/images/fluoride-water-filter/water-filter-stages.jpg
Cutaway view of the countertop water filter
Sediment Shield
Removes larger particulate and sediment to prolong flow rate and filter life.

0.5 Micron Carbon Block
Reduces up to 99.9% of a wide range of contaminants, including heavy metals such as arsenic and chromium, pesticides and herbicides, pharmaceuticals, fluoride and chlorine.

0.01 Micron Filtration
Reduces most micro-organisms commonly found in municipal water supplies, such as viruses, bacteria and fungi.

Both Under-Counter and Countertop Fluoride Removal Water Filter units are designed for use on a treated water supply.

The convenient under-sink design of the Under-Counter model with optional wall mount bracket allows you to enjoy filtered water without a bulky filter system taking up valuable space on your counter top.

For the Under-Counter model, use an existing soap dispenser or other 1/2” hole in your sink or countertop to install your faucet. Detailed instructions for installation are provided. Because it is the customer’s responsibility to install the appliance properly, we recommend using a licensed plumber if you lack the appropriate tools for installation.

For those desiring an effective fluoride removal system that doesn’t require installation, our small and compact Countertop model sits alongside your sink, and makes an attractive addition to any countertop. Simply connect to your cold water supply using the included diverter valve and hose.

Please note: The Countertop unit will work with any faucet except ones with a pull-down sprayer. If you have this type of faucet, order our Under-Counter model.

Both models have an easy replacement filter system and feature a battery-powered LED filter life indicator. The indicator reminds you when to replace the filter, saving you the hassle of having to keep track. Replacement filters are available separately."

[onawah]

The Pollution Story - Behind Fluoridation (Part I)
July 9, 2019 | Melissa Gallico | 43:08 Part 1 of 12
"Drawing from historical primary source documents which she links to in the show notes, intelligence analyst Melissa Gallico argues that public water fluoridation is a pollution scandal—the biggest pollution scandal in American history.
https://www.fpollution.com/
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLcQaIZX8EOJbAtZQ5XvgMXx37Rf-yh0bp

(Also, petition to sign at the link, to ban fluoridation in the US, from Change.org)

[onawah]

OUR DAILY DOSE
by Jeremy Seifert
Oct 19, 2015

"Hailed by the Centers for Disease Control as one of the top ten public health achievements of the 20th century, water fluoridation is something most of us assume to be safe and effective. But new science has upended this assumption, revealing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin and an endocrine disruptor. The CDC tells us that drinking fluoride decreases tooth decay, at best, by 25%. That is one-half to one cavity per person over a lifetime. Is one less cavity worth risking a child's long-term brain and thyroid health? It's time to rethink this very old practice.

In OUR DAILY DOSE, filmmaker Jeremy Seifert (GMO OMG) lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day. This is an eye-opening look at how we have less control over our health than we may have thought.
www.ourdailydose.com "

2mUUrZJaHPU

[onawah]

Federal trial against EPA on fluoridation postponed due to coronavirus
Fluoride Action Network
Mar 24, 2020
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/federal-trial-against-epa-on-fluoridation-postponed-due-to-coronavirus-301028948.html

( The "pandemic" scare is such a good distraction from addressing issues which are long over-due for attention. What timing! :sad: )

"NEW YORK, March 24, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- A legal case challenging the safety of water fluoridation which was set for a two-week trial in April in federal district court in San Francisco has been postponed due to the coronavirus outbreak. The case against the EPA was brought by several environmental groups led by Food & Water Watch and Fluoride Action Network (FAN) under provisions in the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA). Plaintiffs argue the neurotoxic harm to children presents an unreasonable risk and far outweighs any possible benefit to teeth, reports Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Paul Connett, PhD, director of FAN, says of the scientific evidence:

"As of 2020 there have been 72 fluoride-IQ studies, of which 64 found a lower IQ among children with higher fluoride exposure. Many of the earlier studies were in places with elevated natural fluoride levels. There is now very strong evidence that fluoride damages both the fetal and infant brain at the levels used in artificially fluoridated areas."

"You only have to read four studies to realize that deliberately adding fluoride to drinking water unnecessarily endangers children's brains. Three* of these four studies were funded by the National Institutes of Health.

The first* came in Sept 2017 with a groundbreaking study from Mexico City. This study found a strong association between the amount of fluoride women were exposed to during pregnancy and lowered IQ in their offspring.

The second* came in 2019 when a study published in JAMA Pediatrics essentially replicated the Mexico City finding in Canadian communities.

The third came in 2019 and found a staggering 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to non-fluoridated ones.

The fourth* came in 2020, when it was reported that children who were bottle-fed in fluoridated communities in Canada lost up to 9 IQ points compared to those in non-fluoridated communities.

"The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

"While we wait to prove our case in court, I urge everyone, including scientists, doctors, journalists and public health officials to read these four papers and not simply take the word of fluoridation promoters on the evidence. The risk to our children's developing brains is so great it is unconscionable to delay warnings to pregnant women and parents."

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network
Related Links
http://fluoridealert.org "

[onawah]

Neurotoxicity Experts Cleared to Testify At Fluoridation Chemicals Trial June 8 in Federal Court
Fluoride Action Network
May 14, 2020
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/neurotoxicity-experts-cleared-to-testify-at-fluoridation-chemicals-trial-june-8-in-federal-court-301059436.html

"NEW YORK, May 14, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- The judge in a June 8 federal court trial in San Francisco has cleared the way for three international experts in neurotoxicity to testify on the risks of fluoride in public water supplies, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) reports.

In addition, the court ruled that the purported benefits of community water fluoridation cannot be part of the trial, restricting testimony to the toxic risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Paul Connett, Ph.D., executive director of lead plaintiff FAN in the case, hailed the decisions as helping to keep the focus of the trial where it belongs, on recent scientific studies pointing to IQ loss in the offspring of pregnant women exposed to higher levels of fluoride. The plaintiffs seek to ban the addition of fluoridation chemicals to public water supplies "to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic effects of fluoride." (See backgrounder, "Fluoridation's Neurotoxicity".)

The rulings came May 8 in a hearing that laid the groundwork for a video trial set to begin June 8 and to run for two weeks. Due to the COVID-19 virus, the trial has been compressed.

Despite the time constraints, Connett expressed confidence that FAN's case for showing fluoride's neurotoxicity will be demonstrated. That will be crucial to the case against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Three experts the EPA sought to exclude from the trial but who will now take part include: Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard and the University of Southern Denmark, Dr. Howard Hu of the University of Washington, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.

Relying on the citizen petition provisions of TSCA, the lawsuit challenges a practice endorsed by the U.S. Public Health Service 70 years ago and affecting 200 million Americans on public water systems.

As plaintiff, FAN is joined by Moms Against Fluoridation and the consumer advocacy group Food and Water Watch. Several individuals representing themselves and/or their children complete the list of plaintiffs."

A Fact Sheet providing further information on the case is at http://fluoridealert.org/tsca-fact-sheet/

SOURCE: Fluoride Action Network


Related Links
https://fluoridealert.org

[onawah]

FLUORIDE ON TRIAL STARTING TODAY
From Fluoride Action Network's email update today
6/8/20

"How to Watch The Trial From Home

The trial will take place over the next two weeks, every weekday except Thursdays. We are expecting the proceedings to go for about 4 hours each day.

Due to the Coronavirus, the entire trial will be streamed live on Zoom. This means you can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet. We recommend downloading Zoom for your device prior to Monday morning. You can do that by visiting the Zoom Download Center. If you cannot, or would prefer not to download Zoom, you can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

The trial will start at 8AM (Pacific time) / 11AM (Eastern time) on Monday.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial on Monday:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Here is the call in information for audio only if you choose not to use Zoom:

Dial by your location
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Find your local number:https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

**Recording or re-broadcasting the trial is prohibited by the court**

What FAN Has In Store Next Week

Ideally, you will want to watch this historic trial since we cannot record it and it will include testimony from some of the world's foremost neurotoxicity experts, as well as our legal team cross-examining EPA witnesses. However, for those who cannot join, FAN will be sending out daily bulletins over the next two weeks to recap what you missed and to provide the Zoom link for the next day's hearing.

If for whatever reason you cannot find the link for the day's proceedings in your email inbox, then we will also be posting the link on our Homepage (www.fluoridealert.org), as well as on our Facebook and Twitter pages. Alternatively, you can also find the link on Judge Chen's daily docket page under Food & Water Watch, Inc et al v. Environmental Protection Agency et al.

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network"

More here: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/fact-sheet/
"Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), a group of non-profits and individuals petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to end the addition of fluoridation chemicals into drinking water due to fluoride's neurotoxicity. The EPA rejected the petition. In response, the groups are suing the EPA in Federal Court.

The following information is provided by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) as background for the lawsuit brought by FAN and others under provisions of the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976.

THE TRIAL
A two week trial is set to begin on June 8 through to June 19 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in San Francisco. (The trial will not be held on the Thursday of either week.) Due to the coronavirus, the trial will be broadcast live via video stream. Details for accessing the trial will be made available closer to the day on the FAN homepage.

THE LAW
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (TSCA) authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical that presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA gives EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

THE CASE
On Nov. 22, 2016, FAN, along with five other organizations and five individuals, presented a Citizens’ Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA. The Petition requested the EPA to exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies on the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular, and human research showed that fluoride was neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities.

THE COURT
The case landed in Federal Court after the EPA denied the Citizen Petition cited above as TSCA allows Plaintiffs to file suit. The Court denied EPA’s Motion to dismiss the case on December 21, 2017 – see the Court Order here.

• Information about the court is found here.
• Information on getting court documents is found here.

For help in accessing documents related to our case, our case number is Civ. No. 17-CV 02162-EMC. If you use the PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) retrieval system online at pacer.gov, the number to type in 17-02162. You need to establish an account and login. There are some modest fees.

THE PLAINTIFFS
Groups: Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, Moms Against Fluoridation
Individuals: Audrey Adams, a resident of Renton, Washington (individually and on behalf of her son); Kristin Lavelle, a resident of Berkeley, California (individually and on behalf of her son); Brenda Staudenmaier, a resident of Green Bay, Wisconsin (individually and on behalf of her children).

THE DEFENDANTS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

ATTORNEYS
For Plaintiffs: Michael Connett and C. Andrew Waters, Waters Kraus & Paul, El Segundo, CA.
For Defendants: U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental Defense Section, Washington, D.C.

PRECEDENT-SETTING
This is the first time in its 44-year history that citizens have reached the trial stage of a lawsuit under TSCA. Paul Connett, PhD, executive director of FAN, stated the following:

“This case may be groundbreaking for environmental legal cases and, at least as important, it is groundbreaking for the opposition to fluoridation. Opposition to fluoridation is now at least 70 years old, but for most of that time has been wrongly dismissed as a fringe and unscientific position.

“The rapidly emerging science on developmental
neurotoxicity, especially loss of IQ from early life
exposure to fluoride, is a game-changer.
“It has brought the world’s leading environmental health
experts to not only engage in the science with the help
of millions of dollars in National Institutes of Health
funding, but also to conclude that the risk to children
is too great to consider water fluoridation safe.”

PLAINTIFF’S ARGUMENTS
As stated in their initial Petition to the EPA under TSCA, the Plaintiffs want the EPA “to protect the public and susceptible subpopulations from the neurotoxic risks of fluoride by banning the addition of fluoridation chemicals to water.” EPA has the authority to regulate drinking water additives.

The Fluoride Action Network, Food and Water Watch, and Mothers Against Fluoridation present the court with a number of human, animal and cell studies supporting the assertion that fluoride is neurotoxic. These include “over 50 studies linking fluoride to cognitive deficits in humans,” according to the lawsuit complaint. Since the complaint, 15 more studies have been published, for a total of 65 studies reporting an association of fluoride exposure with lower IQ.

The complaint’s Statement of Facts says, “The National Research Council’s 2006 Review and Subsequent Peer-Reviewed Research Demonstrates Fluoride’s Ability to Harm the Brain.” It goes on to cite 50 human studies and 45 animal studies to support the claim. The complaint further states, “Fluoride Poses Neurotoxic Risks at Doses Comparable to the Doses Ingested in Fluoridated Communities in the United States.” The complaint includes extensive evidence to support the claim of neurotoxic risks from fluoridated water.

The complaint further states, “Susceptible Subpopulations Are at Heightened Risk of Fluoride Neurotoxicity.” “Nutritional status, age, genetics, co-exposure to other toxicants, and disease are known to influence an individual’s susceptibility to chronic fluoride toxicity,” according to the complaint. Infants, the elderly, those with poor nutrition, kidney disease sufferers, and African Americans are specifically identified as those with “heightened risk.”

Challenging the EPA’s own standards, the suit goes on to argue that, “The dose that would protect against fluoride neurotoxicity according to EPA’s Guidelines, and standard risk assessment procedures, is incompatible with the doses of fluoride ingested in fluoridated areas.”

The complaint also addresses the claimed dental benefits of fluoridation: “Recent Studies Show that Fluoridation Presents Little Meaningful Benefit to Teeth.” In support, the complaint cites a review of studies by the Cochrane Collaboration, a highly respected independent organization that critically reviews effectiveness of health treatments. The Cochrane review found a “high risk of bias” amongst the effectiveness studies and limited applicability to modern lifestyles. The review also noted that no Randomized Controlled Trials, the gold standard for health effectiveness evaluations, were found for fluoridation. The Plaintiffs’ complaint further asserts that “modern studies of fluoridation and tooth decay have found that the difference in cavity rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas is small, inconsistent, and often non-existent, particularly in the permanent teeth.”

The lawsuit complaint concludes: “Fluoridation Is Unnecessary as There Are Safer, More Effective Alternatives, Including Topical Fluoride Products.” Citing a number of sources, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the complaint argues that “the major anticaries benefit of fluoride is topical and not systemic,” that quotation coming from a 2006 report of the National Research Council (page 16).

In bringing the lawsuit, FAN and co-plaintiffs justify the legal action by asserting that the EPA “dismissed studies relied upon by Plaintiffs on demonstrably false grounds” and “failed to consider the research on fluoride neurotoxicity through the framework of its Guidelines on Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment.”

PROGRESS OF THE CASE
A timeline of the case can be found here.

Several rulings in the case have gone in favor of the petitioners, allowing the case to proceed to trial:

Key dates and rulings so far:

Dec. 21, 2017
Court rules in plaintiffs’ favor, denying the EPA’s motion to dismiss the case. In denying the motion, the court noted, “The purpose of citizen petitions is to ensure the EPA does not overlook unreasonable risks to health or the environment.” The ruling is found here.

Feb. 7, 2018
Court rules in plaintiffs’ favor, denying the EPAs motion to limit review to the administrative record, thus allowing use of important new scientific studies published since the case was initiated. The ruling is found here.

Sept. 25, 2019
Court denies extension of time for discovery, which the plaintiffs opposed. The ruling is found here.

Dec. 30, 2019
Court denies both the plaintiffs’ and EPA’s motions for summary judgment, found here.

May 8, 2020
Court allows plaintiff’s expert witnesses Drs. Hu, Grandjean, and Lanphear, to participate in trial, rejecting challenge by EPA lawyers. Court says benefits of fluoridation are not to be part of trial, denying effort by EPA to include that topic.

June 8 – 19, 2020
A two-week trial by Zoom webinar. Further details on the public’s access to the webinar will be announced prior to the trial. The trial had been originally scheduled to start in August 2019. It was then moved to April 2020 and further postponed to June 8 as a result of the coronavirus.

WITNESSES
Lead attorney Michael Connett has stated:

“We have been fortunate to be able to work with some of the world’s leading experts on fluoride’s neurotoxicity, and these experts will be testifying at trial.”

See Connett’s video update on the case.

Plaintiffs’ Expert Witnesses (partial list)
Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD
Dr. Grandjean is adjunct professor of environmental health at the Harvard School of Public Health. A Danish scientist, he works in environmental medicine and is the head of the Environmental Medicine Research Unit at the University of Southern Denmark. He has led groundbreaking investigations of neurotoxic chemicals, including mercury and fluoride. He is considered a leading expert in the field, having won numerous awards. (Curriculum vitae and Wikipedia)

Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD
Dr. Hu is a physician-scientist, board-certified in Internal Medicine and Preventive (Occupational) Medicine, who most recently served as Professor of Environmental Health, Epidemiology, Global Health and Medicine and the Founding Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto (2012-2018) and is now at the University of Washington School of Public Health. Dr. Hu was the senior investigator on an NIH-funded (National Institutes of Health-funded) study examining the effects of prenatal fluoride exposure on IQ and other neurodevelopmental harm. (See Bio)

Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH
Dr. Lanphear is a professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. Dr. Lanphear’s groundbreaking research on the neurotoxic effects of low-level lead exposure has shaped regulatory policy in the U.S., and he is now conducting similar (NIH-funded) research on the impacts of low-level fluoride exposure on IQ. Among his interests are early childhood health and environmental neurotoxins. (See Bio)

Kathleen Thiessen, PhD
Dr. Thiessen is a risk assessment scientist at Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis who served on the National Research Council panel that prepared the landmark 2006 review, “Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA’s Standards.” Dr. Thiessen has authored health assessments on fluoride, and other toxic substances, for the EPA and other federal agencies. (See Bio)

Defendants’ Expert Witnesses (partial list)
Ellen Chang, ScD
Joyce Tsuji, PhD
Both of the above experts are employed by Exponent, Inc., a consulting firm known for servicing large corporations."

MORE AT THE LINK: http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/fact-sheet/

[onawah]

Day Two Of The Trial & A Recap Of Day One
6/9/20
Fluoride Action Network
From FAN's email update today:

"Day two of the TSCA fluoridation trial in federal court will start again at 8AM (Pacific) / 11AM (Eastern). You can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet using Zoom (Download Zoom: https://zoom.us/download?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0 ). You can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Here is the call in information for audio only if you choose to listen by phone:

Dial by your location
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

**Recording or re-broadcasting the trial is prohibited by the court**

A Recap Of Day One & What To Expect On Day Two

FAN's Director, Paul Connett, PhD has written a great summary of what happened yesterday in court. Click here to read it: http://fluoridealert.org/content/the-tsca-trial-day-1-june-8-2020/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0

Our Friends at Fluoride Free New Zealand have also created a nice document with information about two of the witnesses FAN has called to testify: https://mailchi.mp/fluoridefree.org.nz/us-court-case-has-started?e=4971ee9077&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0

A number of media outlets have covered the trial. Click here to view the coverage thus far: https://fluoridealert.org/news/?country=united-states&sub=tsca-lawsuit&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0
Today, we expect to hear the end of testimony from Howard Hu (principle investigator for the Bashash 2017 and 2018 studies https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp655?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=67a80f18-88cc-4ad3-b084-2366771637e9&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0 ... who will likely be followed by Philippe Grandjean (testifying from Denmark), and if there is time, Bruce Lanphear (a co-author of the Green et al., 2019 study and the Till et al., 2020 study : http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/green-2019.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=67a80f18-88cc-4ad3-b084-2366771637e9&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0).

To help get the full value in watching this trial, here are the declaratory statements and resumes prepared by each of today's expert witnesses: Bruce Lanphear's Statement http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-trial-Lanphear-declaration.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=67a80f18-88cc-4ad3-b084-2366771637e9&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0 and Philipe Grandjean's Statement:http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-trial-Grandjean-Declaration.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d2727b36-379f-4a5a-835c-f8ed8c91c5e0
These statements are now in the record and it's on these statements that their testimony will be presented by our lawyers Michael Connett and Andy Waters, and cross-examined by the EPA's lawyers."

http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

DAY THREE OF THE TRIAL & A RECAP OF DAY TWO
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | June 10, 2020
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_6-10-20/

"Day three of the TSCA trial in federal court will start thirty minutes later than the past two days, at 8:30AM (Pacific) / 11:30AM (Eastern). You can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet using Zoom (Download Zoom). You can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Here is the call in information for audio only if you choose to listen by phone:

Dial by your location
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

**Recording or re-broadcasting the trial is prohibited by the court**

A Recap Of Day Two & What To Expect On Day Three

Wow, day two of the trial was both entertaining and thrilling, as our second expert witness, Danish scientist and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean, MD, DMSc, took the stand. According to many who watched, he left no doubt that fluoridation poses a threat to the brains of children, and he completely dismantled the EPA’s arguments, paid experts, and lines of questioning. It was a sight to behold, and once the court makes a recording available we will share it with enthusiasm.

FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD has written a comprehensive summary of Tuesday’s hearing (day two). http://fluoridealert.org/content/the-tsca-trial-day-2/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=492bbd66-0721-4212-a207-8c2a94d3d2a4
Media coverage has increased substantially, with major outlets now reporting on the trial thanks to our media team’s extensive outreach and education campaign. Two articles we’d like to highlight are those by the San Francisco Chronicle and journalist Dan Ross of Fair Warning, whose article was picked up by additional outlets, including the Oregonian.

Click here to view all of the media coverage thus far: https://fluoridealert.org/news/?country=united-states&sub=tsca-lawsuit&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=492bbd66-0721-4212-a207-8c2a94d3d2a4
There has also been a great deal of social media activity around the trial. You can see some of it by searching for the hashtag #Fluoridetrial on Twitter, though we urge supporters using this medium to instead use #FluorideLawsuit as we have over the past year.

Today, we expect to hear the just the end of testimony from Howard Hu, MD, MPH, Sc.D., who testified on day one. We also expect to hear from renowned clinical scientist and professor Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH (a co-author of the Green et al., 2019 study and the Till et al., 2020 study). Here is his declaratory statement and resume: Bruce Lanphear’s Statement:" http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-trial-Lanphear-declaration.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=67a80f18-88cc-4ad3-b084-2366771637e9&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=492bbd66-0721-4212-a207-8c2a94d3d2a4

[onawah]

A Recap Of Day Three
From FAN's email update today 6/12/20

"Day three of the trial was another exciting one, as FAN attorney Michael Connett continued to call our expert witnesses to the stand to reveal the truth about fluoridation’s neurotoxicity. The day started with the completion of testimony from Dr. Howard Hu, which was followed by testimony from renowned clinical scientist and professor, Dr. Bruce Lanphear. Some of the day’s most exciting moments came with Lanphear’s testimony as he explained that there was no safe level of fluoride exposure in regards to neurotoxicity, and that the effects seen in recent studies are “equal to what we saw with lead in children.”

After Lanphear, the court watched the deposition video of the CDC’s Oral Health Division Director, Casey Hannan. He confirmed that his agency agreed with the National Research Council’s 2006 findings that fluorides “interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means,” among many other stunning admissions, yet did nothing to act upon or study these findings.

Next was fact witness Dr. Kris Thayer, Director of the US EPA’s Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division. She confirmed the vulnerability of the developing brain to environmental toxins, as well as fluoride’s known neurotoxicity “at some level.”

The last witness on day three was veteran risk assessment scientist, Kathleen Thiessen, PhD, who was a member of the 2006 NRC committee that reviewed fluoride, and authored around a third of the report. https://fluoridealert.org/researchers/nrc/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=29c9dae0-362c-43c4-88e0-17ad6dcf6c18 The highlights of her powerful testimony included confirming that the EPA was ignoring the neurotoxic risk from fluoridation because doing so would require them to effectively ban the practice. She also compared the amount of evidence of neurotoxicity from fluoride to other toxins the EPA currently did regulate as neurotoxic, saying “the amount of evidence for fluoride is considerably larger.” You can read Dr. Thiessen’s full declaration and resume by clicking here: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-trial-Thiessen-Declaration.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=29c9dae0-362c-43c4-88e0-17ad6dcf6c18

Click here for a detailed and comprehensive summary of day three’s testimony by FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD. http://fluoridealert.org/content/the-tsca-trial-day-3/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=29c9dae0-362c-43c4-88e0-17ad6dcf6c18
Daily trial summaries are also being provided by the legal news website Law360, but registration with a "non-free email domain" is required to read the full articles. If you have such an email domain, there are the three summaries thus far.

Click here to view all of the media coverage of the trial.https://fluoridealert.org/news/?country=united-states&sub=tsca-lawsuit&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=492bbd66-0721-4212-a207-8c2a94d3d2a4&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=29c9dae0-362c-43c4-88e0-17ad6dcf6c18 "

[onawah]

Recap of Day Four Fluoride on Trial
6/15/20
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/dayfourrecap?wvpId=18cbe6de-5ca3-4f21-bf65-e8835d85b9f3
(MORE HYPERLINKS IN THE ARTICLE)

"Day four of the trial started out with the EPA’s cross-examination of FAN’s last expert witness, Dr. Kathleen Thiessen. This included a second failed attempt to have Dr. Thiessen’s testimony thrown out due to claims that she didn’t consider the potential benefits of fluoride in reducing dental decay. Not only did she consider these factors, but concluded decisively that the health risks of fluoride outweighed any claimed benefits. Thiessen was also attacked for her past efforts to educate the public about the evidence of harm from fluoridation, in lieu of the EPA not doing their job and warning citizens.

Her testimony was followed by another round of cross-examination of fact witness Dr. Kris Thayer of the EPA’s Chemical and Pollutant Assessment Division. EPA attorney’s spent much of this time having Dr. Thayer explain what she considered to be the most methodologically superior systematic review process, and how such a review hasn’t been conducted on fluoride. This led to one of the most revealing moments of the day, when FAN attorney, Michael Connett, elicited a response from Thayer that was devastating to the EPA's case. He asked if the EPA had ever actually completed a risk assessment on any of the chemicals they have regulated using the methods Thayer suggested for fluoride. Thayer answered that they had not, showing that such high hurdles only seem to exist for fluoride.

The EPA then called their first expert witness, Joyce Tsuji, PhD from corporate consulting firm Exponent. This is the same scientists-for-hire firm the tobacco industry used to deny lung cancer risk. https://business-ethics.com/2016/12/13/1724-big-companies-in-legal-scrapes-turn-to-science-for-hire-giant-exponent/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c452729b-dd53-4386-aa0c-a6f814bc35aa The day ended right as FAN’s attorney started his cross-examination; where we will start again on Monday morning.
For those who want to use the reminder of this weekend to catch up on the trial, here is a brief summary from FAN’s Research Director, Chris Neurath:

We believe we are doing extremely well. For me, the biggest irony is that EPA chose the “experts for hire” from Exponent who in the majority of their work, are helping their industry clients avoid liability and regulation from the EPA. A major reason we brought this lawsuit was because the EPA is glacially slow at developing regulations to protect human health from toxic chemicals. The TSCA statutes’ Section 21 provision allows citizen’s groups to bring scientific evidence before an impartial court and jump start the regulatory process for chemicals that EPA has avoided for years, if not decades.

Congress inserted this process into TSCA to protect human health when EPA’s process is too slow. All of our experts on the human studies have equated the current harm from water fluoridation to that from childhood lead exposure. That will come as a startling statement to viewers of the trial. The conclusion that fluoridation is as bad as childhood lead poisoning from the time when leaded gasoline was still allowed comes from the worlds leading experts in this field, Professors Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu, and Bruce Lanphear.

All three have described the high quality scientific studies, which have brought them to this conclusion. All three have said that delay in regulating fluoridation risks millions of children suffering IQ loss and potentially increased risk of ADHD.

So, it is ironic that EPA will rely on the Exponent firm experts to try to argue there is insufficient evidence to take action yet. That argument comes straight from the cigarette companies and lead industries play book. We expect them to try to muddy the waters and sow doubt. As Professor Grandjean stated in testimony, he is "embarrassed for the EPA" to have chosen these people to defend their inaction in protecting children from neurotoxic harm of fluoride.

FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD has produced detailed and comprehensive summaries of the first three days of the trial: Day One / Day Two / Day Three. Paul has also provided a simplified version of Thiessen's evidence, which shows that safe reference doses (RfD) deemed to protect children from neurotoxic effects as demonstrated in animal studies - done using 5 different starting points - all reveal RfDs much lower than children receive in the USA. Some by very large margins. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/TSCA-trial.Thiessen.excerpts.6-12-20.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c452729b-dd53-4386-aa0c-a6f814bc35aa

Daily trial summaries are also being provided by the legal news website Law360, but registration with a "non-free email domain" is required to read the full articles. If you have such an email domain, here are the three summaries thus far: Day One / Day Two / Day Three / Day Four

Click here to view all of the media coverage of the trial.https://fluoridealert.org/news/?country=united-states&sub=tsca-lawsuit&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=492bbd66-0721-4212-a207-8c2a94d3d2a4&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c452729b-dd53-4386-aa0c-a6f814bc35aa "

[onawah]

Fluoride on Trial Day --Week 2 Day Five
FAN's email update from this am
6/15/20

"Day five of the trial will start this morning (Monday) at 8:30AM (Pacific) / 11:30AM (Eastern). It will begin with the cross-examination of the EPA's first expert witness on the animal studies, Dr. Joyce Tsuji https://www.exponent.com/professionals/t/tsuji-joyce-s?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a68bc829-2f8d-4052-85e4-967e202bf3e0 of Exponent https://business-ethics.com/2016/12/13/1724-big-companies-in-legal-scrapes-turn-to-science-for-hire-giant-exponent/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c452729b-dd53-4386-aa0c-a6f814bc35aa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a68bc829-2f8d-4052-85e4-967e202bf3e0. After Dr. Tsuji, we suspect we'll hear from her colleague at Exponent, Ellen Chang, Sc.D., https://www.exponent.com/professionals/c/chang-ellen?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a68bc829-2f8d-4052-85e4-967e202bf3e0 who is expected to attack the human studies and do her best to create as much doubt as possible in exchange for a hefty payday from the EPA.

I also want to draw your attention to a new 30-minute video interview on the trial with FAN's Director, Paul Connett, PhD. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYsxI22XI-c&feature=emb_title&fbclid=IwAR2WRTdPopkjvWh-O19TJ9TPnkCGQVeV1fDTAJh_h-J1jtTQEBdrP9HSCPs&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a68bc829-2f8d-4052-85e4-967e202bf3e0 If you're looking for a relatively quick but comprehensive way to catch up with what has been going on, this is for you.

How to Follow Today's Proceedings

You can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet using Zoom (Download Zoom). You can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

If you cannot listen in on the trial, FAN will also continue LIVE Tweeting the highlights from the proceedings so even more of you can join in the excitement of this historic event.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09

Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Here is the call in information for audio only if you choose to listen by phone:

Dial by your location
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

**Recording or re-broadcasting the trial is prohibited by the court** "

[onawah]

Media Blackout: The Federal Court Case To End Water Fluoridation!
16,623 views•Jun 14, 2020
Spiro Skouras with FAN's Dr. Paul Connett
80.2K subscribers

"As we are inundated with headlines about violent riots and looting being passed off as mostly peaceful protests, or how the dreaded virus continues to spread in communities around the world. There is another story taking place which directly effects hundreds of millions of people globally that is being blacked out by the mainstream corporate media.

Unlike the aforementioned crisis' which are being sited as the justification for the World Economic Forum's Great Reset. This public health crisis actually has a rather simple solution. To end water fluoridation by no longer adding the toxic substance to the nations water supply.

You would think this would be a straightforward process considering the mountains of studies which conclude fluoride is a harmful neurotoxin attributed to lower IQ's and ADHD. Unfortunately government regulatory agencies have been not only defending this practice for generations, they champion the forced medication as a great achievement in medical history.

Right now, in perhaps one of the most important trials of our time. The Fluoride Action Network is taking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head on in an unprecedented court case that could lead to the end of water fluoridation in the US and possibly worldwide as other nations would likely follow suit.

In this interview, Spiro is joined by Dr. Paul Connett of the Fluoride Action Network to discuss the current court case against EPA and water fluoridation as the first week of the trial has come to an end and the second, possibly final week is about to begin.

Fluoride Action Network
http://fluoridealert.org

Link & Times To Watch The Trial Live
http://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-...

Spiro’s Interview with Dr. Paul Connett & his Son, Attorney Michael Connett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQAjW... "

GYsxI22XI-c

[onawah]

Fluoride on Trail--Recap of Day 5
6/16/20
(MORE HYPERLINKS IN THE ARTICLE AT: )
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/day5recap?wvpId=a8f7048d-de9f-4d94-8cc7-6ed9658c1f62

"Day Five of the trial began with FAN's attorney, Michael Connett's cross-examination of the EPA's first expert witness, Joyce Tsuji, PhD, a consultant from Exponent. Tsuji spent much of the exchange doing a lot of talking but providing few answers. This happened so often that the judge stopped the proceedings twice and warned her. This turned out to be a reoccurring theme for her testimony on the stand, as her answers repeatedly contradicted the testimony from her pre-trial deposition. Connett was able to get her to admit "there is enough literature for us to be concerned" about fluoride's neurotoxicity, and that despite touting in-depth systematic reviews, she had only skimmed through the animal studies showing anatomical changes to the brain shown in a large number of fluoride studies.

Tsuji’s central argument was that animal studies that found neurological harm – especially behavioral changes indicating memory and learning impairment – were done at very high doses which were not relevant to human exposures. However, she conceded that the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) (20 mg/Liter) in the single study (McPherson, 2019) she thought was adequate in her review – would be equivalent to 1.3 ppm (well below the current MCL for fluoride of 4 ppm) for humans if the necessary scaling factors were applied. She also accepted it would have been better if McPherson had also included a higher dose – say 45 ppm (as used in many other studies)– to have looked for a LOAEL.

Tsuji argued that “very high” doses of fluoride would interfere with other system effects (e.g. muscular) which might manifest itself indirectly as changes in neurological behavior. What she looks for in this case is changes in bodyweight at the chosen doses. But she conceded that not all the studies (even the majority) of the studies that Dr. Thiessen used to determine LOAELs in her risk assessment were not conflicted with levels that caused loss in bodyweight. These are the filled square red boxes in the figure below from Thissen’s testimony (all at 45 ppm). Thiessen used these LOAELS to determine safe (i.e. protective) reference doses for humans (RfD) which are all well below current exposure levels for bottle-fed infants in the USA (see the second figure below.)
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/day5recap/384b4dd4-c869-4ae4-8436-fd9f120ea0a1.jpg
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/day5recap/d0dca26e-e76e-4e0a-83ab-515c4213379f.jpg

The EPA then called their second expert witness, Dr. Ellen Chang (also from Exponent), to discuss the human fluoride/IQ studies. She spent much of her time attacking the quality of the studies linking fluoride to lowered IQ that were NIH funded, peer-reviewed, and published in leading scientific and medical journals. She then pivoted and started to praise an abstract of a study that claims to have found the fluoride exposure actually increased IQ. Despite not being accepted by a publication since being made public over 10-months ago, never being peer-reviewed, and the methodology remaining a mystery, Dr. Chang said she assumed--without justification--it was a higher quality study than those finding IQ loss.

In this moment, her bias was painfully apparent. Even the judge started asking how she could make such assumptions. What was abundantly apparent to viewers was the complete contradiction of how thorough and scrupulous Chang claims to be in selecting high quality studies and how willing she is to completely jettison those standards when clutching at straws to use this unpublished study support her client’s interests.

Connett continued his cross-examination, finding that Dr. Chang has billed the EPA around $150,000 for her work, bringing the total bill for Exponent to approximately $350,000. The remainder of questions focused on Dr. Chang's long history of producing systematic reviews for corporate polluters showing that there was always "insufficient evidence" of causation for the severe aliments caused by their products. This included reviews for DOW Chemical's Agent Orange, Monsanto's glyphospate, 3M's PFOAs, and pesticides from Syngenta and Croplife. She also worked for the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, and the Manganese Interest Group.

The most telling moment for exposing her methodology for the “industry friendly” instrument it is, came when Connett asked her about her findings on behalf of Dow and Monsanto that there was no convincing or causal evidence that Agent Orange caused specific cancers. After she explained what she found he showed her pages from the US Veterans’ Administration, which said that Agent Orange caused these very same cancers! Connett actually highlighted the word “Causes.” Change was left mumbling something about her definition of “causation” was different from the VA’s definition. Precisely! Chang’s definition and her methodology is designed to protect industry’s profits but the VA’s definition was designed to protect the veteran who served in Vietnam.

Ultimately, Connett was successful in exposing her blatant bias and long track record of being on the wrong side of history and science. He was also able to get her to admit that the fluoride/IQ studies from Till, Green, and Bashash remain the most rigorous neurotoxicity studies to date, and that all found lowered IQ.

Here is the table summarizing Chang’s view of the 10 most relevant human IQ studies to date:
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/day5recap/e29f33ca-e5ed-49ca-aaf5-27ba12157ce4.jpg
The top 5 found lowered IQ the bottom 5 did not. According to Paul Connett, director of FAN, “Based on the quality of these two sets Chang has essentially lost the case for the EPA.”

Catch Up On The Trial

If you missed the first week, FAN’s Director, Paul Connett, PhD has produced detailed and comprehensive summaries of the first three days of the trial: Day One / Day Two / Day Three. Paul has also provided a simplified version of Thiessen's evidence, which shows that safe reference doses (RfD) deemed to protect children from neurotoxic effects as demonstrated in animal studies - done using 5 different starting points - all reveal RfDs much lower than children receive in the USA. http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/TSCA-trial.Thiessen.excerpts.6-12-20.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=c452729b-dd53-4386-aa0c-a6f814bc35aa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8f5eda22-b978-48ad-a0cc-e041eb88e65c

Daily trial summaries are also being provided by the legal news website Law360, but registration with a "non-free email domain" is required to read the full articles. If you have such an email domain, here are the three summaries thus far: Day One / Day Two / Day Three / Day Four / Day Five

Day Five Click here to view all of the media coverage of the trial. http://fluoridealert.org/content/news-reports-june-2020-tsca-fluoride-trial/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=8f5eda22-b978-48ad-a0cc-e041eb88e65c

Day Six Of The Trial

Day six of the trial will start this afternoon (Tuesday) at 1:30PM (Pacific) / 4:30PM (Eastern). It will begin with the continued cross-examination of the EPA's second expert witness, Ellen Chang, Sc.D. of Exponent. We expect most of the questions to focus on an abstract of a study from a cohort in Spain that claims to have shown fluoride increased IQ. "

[onawah]

Fluoride on Trial--the Finale--with closing arguments
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/finaldayoftrial?wvpId=a8f7048d-de9f-4d94-8cc7-6ed9658c1f62
6/17/20
(MORE HYPERLINKS IN THE ARTICLE)

"Recap of Day Six

In a nutshell, day 6 was the conclusion of the EPA's defense and simply put they did not put a dent into the plaintiff's case that the deliberate addition of fluoride into the public drinking water presented an unreasonable risk to the mental development of the fetus and the infant.

First up was Dr. Ellen Chang an expert from the Exponent, the firm that many polluting industries use to protect their chemicals. Before she spoke the EPA told the court that they were dropping their use of the abstract of a fluoride/IQ study using a new cohort from Spain that has yet to be published. Discussion of this abstract made up much of Chang's testimony on day five, so throwing it out as evidence was a major blow to the EPA's case.

When Chang spoke she appeared somewhat chastened, and in her responses to questions from the judge she essentially acknowledged that the human cohort studies of pregnant women and their offspring in Mexico City (Bashash 2017, 2018) and Canada (Green 2019) were of high quality and her reservations were fairly mild. When Judge Chen dug deeper and asked her directly to provide examples of errors in these studies, her answer was that she didn't want to provide any because they would be speculative as she didn't have the raw study data, inflicting serious damage to her claims of errors.

Next up was Dr Tala Henry, Director of the EPA's Risk Assessment Division, who has 25 years of risk assessment experience at the agency. Her testimony focused on the many hurdles presented to those who attempt a risk assessment and risk evaluation of a chemical.

Under questioning from EPA lawyer Debra Carfaora, she indicated that FAN's experts had not negotiated all those hurdles to her satisfaction. However, under cross examination from Michael Connett, the plaintiff's lawyer, he showed that she wasn't an expert on fluoride, and that her testimony on the stand contradicted in many ways what she had said in her deposition testimony. He offered about a dozen examples of impeachment testimony, making it painfully obvious that she wasn't a credible expert witness.

In an article in Law 360 today, Michael's most destructive blow to Dr. Henry during cross-examination came when he asked:

"You held the plaintiffs to a burden of proof that EPA has not held a single chemical under section 6 [of the Toxic Substances Control Act] before, correct?" Connett asked.

"By the words on the page, I guess that's true," Henry said. "But it was really, my opinion was based mostly on the methodological problems."

The EPA's attorney offered a good summation of their expert witnesses' testimony, when at one point the lawyer was caught on a hot mic saying, "This is not helpful!"

The EPA closed its case with a short video segment of Dr. Joyce Donohue, the predominant fluoride expert in the EPA's Office of Water. If anything, this video strengthened our case and did not weaken it.

Now onto day 7 - the final day of phase one of the trial. We will hear concluding statements from both sides. Whatever you do, don't miss this. It could be FAN's finest moment in our 20 year's existence and our scientific and educational effort to end fluoridation worldwide.

Watch The Closing Arguments

Our final day in court will start this morning at 8:30AM (Pacific) / 11:30AM (Eastern). We are expecting some statements from depositions to be read into the record, followed by closing arguments, and possibly a short rebuttal from a witness. If there was one day to watch, this is it!

You can watch or listen from any computer or mobile device with internet using Zoom (Download Zoom). You can also listen to the trial using your phone as you would a typical conference call.

If you cannot listen in on the trial, FAN will also continue LIVE Tweeting the highlights from the proceedings so even more of you can join in the excitement of this historic event.

Here is the direct link to watch the trial:https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1607275798?pwd=UTZiNE1lbDE1MXdiYThNNEFtaklFQT09
Meeting ID: 160 727 5798
Password: 670801

Here is the call in information for audio only if you choose to listen by phone:

Dial by your location
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
+1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
+1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/ac4JkPfcjo

**Recording or re-broadcasting the trial is prohibited by the court** "

[onawah]

Fluoride on Trial --Recap Day 7 An Historic Moment
From FAN's email update today
6/18/20:

"The landmark federal trial pitching FAN and others against the US EPA over water fluoridation came to a dramatic turning point yesterday. FAN has argued that fluoride's ability to impact the mental development of both the fetal and infant brain posed an unacceptable risk to millions of Americans (and others) drinking fluoridated public water supplies. The dramatic moment came when, after both sides had completed their summary statements, the federal judge surprised everyone by recognizing the key plank in the plaintiff's case and undermining the key argument in the EPA's case.

The judge said:

So much has changed since the petition was filed…two significant series of studies – respective cohort studies – which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence.

The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate. It’s not a proper allocation. It’s not the proper standard.

In short, after 20 years of work by FAN and it’s supporters, and 70+ years of campaigning by opponents of fluoridation since it’s inception, yesterday felt like a moment in time where the validity of our objections was finally recognized on a world stage.

According to FAN director Paul Connett, PhD, "While this is not a final victory for FAN it indicates a path forward to achieve that final victory. Needless to say we are very excited about this outcome. We had our 7 days in court: we had some of the best experts in the world testify on our behalf and our lawyers, especially Michael, were brilliant in presenting our case. Here now is the day in more detail. The invisible science is now visible and the voiceless have been heard. It's official it is in the record- and no one can take that away."

Closing Statements

Here are just some of the powerful points from Michael Connett’s closing statement for the plaintiffs:

"In this case, the EPA has failed in its duties to protect the public from harm."
"TSCA commands that the EPA not just protect the general public...if there is one unreasonable risk, to just one susceptible subpopulation, the EPA must take action to remove such risk."
"We brought before your honor, world class experts in the highest order. Experts that the EPA has consistently depended on for assessments...The EPA has based their regulations on lead and mercury on our experts."
“It's undisputed that fluoride will pass through the placenta into the brain of the fetus. It's undisputed that babies who are bottle fed with fluoridated water receive highest doses of fluoride in our population at the moment of greatest vulnerability. It's undisputed that fluoride damages the brain.
At the start of the trial I said there are three key questions that need to be answered. Is there a hazard? Is there a risk? Is the risk unreasonable? The answer [to all three questions] is a resounding yes."
"We have 4 high quality cohort studies. Each has found associations between early life exposures to fluoride and lowered IQ…by around 5 IQ points. The effect size rivals the neurotoxic effects of lead.”
"There is no dispute that the developing brain is the most susceptible to neurotoxic side-effects."
"The most likely explanation for the observed adverse effects...is that fluoride is a neurotoxin at the levels found in fluoridated communities across the United States."
Connett also pointed out that the experts the EPA relied upon, including the two Exponent employees, were not experts on fluoride, and that the agency did not call their own employees to answer key questions in the case. He was referring to EPA’s foremost expert on fluoride, Dr. Joyce Donahue, as well as Dr. Kris Thayer. Additionally, he said the EPA never once attempted to determine an estimate of what the levels are that cause neurotoxic effects. Connett added that the EPA witness Joyce Donohue, PhD said the National Institutes of Health funded-studies were "well conducted" and "warrant a reassessment of all existing" fluoride studies.

Then Connett concluded his statement by showing the true extent of potential damage, saying we have 2 million pregnant mothers in fluoridated areas and over 400,000 exclusively formula-fed babies in fluoridated areas, all presently being exposed to fluoride-contaminated drinking water.

EPA’s Turn

The EPA’s attorney started by questioning whether fluoride posed a hazard. Early on in her closing statement, the judge stopped her—which would become a very common occurrence--and said, "The way you're framing this is not helpful. I don't think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard…the critical question is at what level it poses a risk.”

It was at this point, that the EPA’s closing statement turned into a 40-minute inquisition by the judge. First he started asking about the EPA’s claims that the animal studies showed fluoride to be safe. This resulted in him getting their attorney to admit that if the studies found a moderate effect in adult rats, then why wouldn’t there then be a prenatal and neonate effect? This put the EPA in a corner, causing them to ditch their line of argument and admit that the human studies are in-fact more relevant.

The judge then reprimanded the EPA for challenging the reliability of Philippe Grandjean's benchmark dose, but never taking the time to calculate their own to prove their point. EPA quickly pivoted to an argument that the Canadian and Mexican cohorts weren’t applicable to the US; probably one of the dumbest arguments we hear from proponents. The judge intimated that he was aware of the new study out of California proving otherwise, which appeared pretty devastating to the EPA.

The judge concluded by asking one final question, “Under TSCA, can the court find an unreasonable risk without finding causation?” EPA replied, "yes."

Judge Makes Recommendations

After closing statements, Judge Chen immediately started sharing his views on the case and making recommendations. This is when he said (it’s worth repeating):

So much has changed since the petition was filed…two significant series of studies – respective cohort studies – which everybody agrees is the best methodology. Everybody agrees that these were rigorous studies and everybody agrees that these studies would be part of the best available scientific evidence.

The EPA appears to have applied a standard of causation, which from my read of TSCA is not accurate. It’s not a proper allocation. It’s not the proper standard.

Chen continued by asking the parties whether they could discuss the possibility of an amended petition and re-assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, leaving his ultimate ruling until that was complete.

To many observers, it felt as though Chen was intimating that FAN had essentially won the case, but the he was giving the EPA a chance to right their original wrongs.

Michael Connett pointed out that the EPA has dragged their feet for a long, long time (it has been 14 years since the NRC report recommended that the EPA determine a new safer drinking water standard). So plaintiffs are in a situation where the EPA has made a political decision not to do anything, which is why we brought this petition in the first place. He also expressed concern that for a citizen's group this is a massive undertaking, pointing out that the plaintiffs have spent 4 years building this case, and the concern is that the time and resources necessary to go through the process a second time would be prohibitive.

At this point, the EPA claimed that they couldn’t just re-evaluate our amended petition, because their guidelines for TSCA require an impossible burden of proof that no one could possibly meet to trigger a meaningful review. They also claimed that the U.S. EPA does not have the resources or expertise to undertake a risk evaluation of fluoride neurotoxicity.

Judge Chen then made clear that a lack of resources is not an excuse, and said that if both parties can’t figure out a solution he'll rule on it himself, as he's been given the power to do so.

Connett then said that we can't ignore the evidence we have in front of us, and the EPA needs to do something RIGHT NOW to warn people of this risk. "

http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

Del Bigtree on High Wire talks with Jeffrey Jaxen about the fluoride trial
6/22/20
https://www.facebook.com/HighWireTalk/videos/3167908736603873/UzpfSTI3Mjg0NTE5OTQ5OTU3NToyOTc0MTI5MDE5MzcxMTY2/
3167908736603873/
*********************************************
And
Dr. Paul Connett's closing statement: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/tsca-trial.closing.june2020.pdf?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=1f7b9bde-772e-4f92-99ca-bfd62fd9a600

[onawah]

Twitter is censoring a new article by Joseph Mercola, MD on the #FluorideLawsuit and the most recent NIH funded research on fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
https://scontent-dfw5-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/107086748_3378043158925434_5863587241225918266_o.jpg?_nc_cat=103&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=JiRmGPgM4HoAX9T2v7X&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-1.xx&_nc_tp=7&oh=dbfcbd8ac4b17cdc611023cc60501412&oe=5F29094F

Link to Dr. Mercola's article: https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/07/07/end-water-fluoridation.aspx?cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20200707Z1&mid=healthrtlucm20200707z1&rid=910815420

(Many hyperlinks to studies, etc. in the article not embedded here)
The End of Fluoridation Is in Sight
Analysis by Stuart Cooper, Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network
July 07, 2020

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
A collection of some of the strongest fluoride studies in history have recently been published, showing that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk and hazard to all, but to the fetus and infants in particular
After a four-year process, a landmark fluoridation trial was held in federal court, and fluoridation’s neurotoxic risk to vulnerable subpopulations was confirmed, along with the U.S. EPA’s failure to take action to protect citizens from these risks
The judge has urged the parties to discuss the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, after which the judge will present his final ruling
While FAN is taking the lead in court, at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours
New educational and advocacy tools are available so you can take action to end fluoridation in your community or state, to immediately protect the most vulnerable
Water fluoridation is one of the biggest public health failures of the 20th century. Despite solid scientific evidence of harm, politics and public relations have kept the practice alive.

Proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), have spent millions of dollars on promotion and public relations to sell fluoridation using half-truths, convincing talking points, and diversions.

But fluoridation is also one of the most widely rejected health interventions on Earth, with 95% of the world's population consuming water from systems that are not fluoridated.

For the past decade, the trend has moved in the direction of communities ending the practice, not starting it. And now, due to an abundance of new research, a landmark lawsuit and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of the Fluoride Action Network and its supporters like you, the practice could be on the brink of extinction.

The Evidence of Harm Is Too Great To Be Ignored
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 is permanent and cannot be undone later in life.

The evidence of neurotoxic harm from water fluoridation has been mounting at an unprecedented rate in recent years, and has quickly become the most urgent reason to end the practice as soon as possible. A cavity can easily be filled, but damage to a child's brain is permanent.

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, 65 human studies linking moderately high fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence, three human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development, and seven Mother-Offspring studies linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy to reduced IQ in offspring.

Over the past year, we've also seen unprecedented new science from Canada and the USA showing fluoride harms the developing brain from exposures due primarily to artificial water fluoridation at the "optimal level." Several of these high-quality studies were funded by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (formerly the National Institutes of Health).

Strongest Studies Published Over the Past Year
Seven studies published in 2019 and 2020 are among the strongest yet, and are obviously relevant to water fluoridation as they were conducted in communities with what the ADA considers the "optimal level" of fluoride in drinking water. These include:

Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association's journal on Pediatrics. It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.
Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International. It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.
Till 2020 — published in Environment International. It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.
Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health. It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019 and Bashash et al, 2017.
Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health. It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride's effect on the pineal gland.
Malin 2019 — published in Environment International. It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The CDC funded this study.
The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only "one or two studies" finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. In fact, the level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

A recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean, MD, DMSc, also concluded that:

"… 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."

It should come as no surprise then, that a draft systematic review published in 2020 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.

The review identified 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, but did not include the three most recent neurotoxicity-related studies from the York University group (Till 2019; Riddell 2019), or the study showing that women in the U.S. had levels of fluoride in urine high enough to cause damage to the brain of the fetus (Uyghurturk 2020).

While the draft NTP review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. This fact was recently echoed in a letter published in Pediatric Research by the co-authors of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study, which said:

"Over the past 75 years, health authorities have declared that community water fluoridation-a practice that reaches over 400 million worldwide-is safe. Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent.

When a Canadian study reported that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women was associated with lower IQ scores in young children, critics attacked the methodology of the study and discounted the significance of the results.

Health authorities continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe, despite four well-conducted studies over the last 3 years consistently linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in offspring …

The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs impedes the response to early warnings about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride, especially for the fetus and infant for whom there is no benefit."

FAN Leads the Fight Against Neurotoxins
Since 2000, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has been committed to reducing exposure to fluoride, and even with all of the science firmly on our side, we couldn't wait for legislators and public health officials to cast aside their entrenched dogma in favor of fluoridation and catch up on the science. Instead, we initiated the legal process to end the practice that today affects more than 200 million Americans.

A little-known provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gave us our opportunity. It offers citizens a way to circumvent the corruption and force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit or limit the use of toxic substances.

Watchdog groups no longer have to convince the EPA of unreasonable risk; they can now have an objective judge decide based on an independent review of the evidence.

We are also laying the foundation for future TSCA challenges by citizens and environmental groups. For example, because of Judge Edward Chen's ruling to deny the EPA's motion to dismiss our case, TSCA law will now be interpreted to allow the EPA to be petitioned to regulate single uses of substances, rather all uses, which was the EPA's position. This change will make it easier for activists to force the EPA to review the risks of specific chemicals used commercially.

While it has been four years since this effort began in November of 2016 — when the Fluoride Action Network, together with a coalition of nonprofits and individual citizens, presented a petition to the EPA to end the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public's drinking water — it has actually taken 20 years of effort by FAN to bring us to this point.

It took the development of our extensive website in the early days. It took the creation of our comprehensive health database (larger than any government had put together on fluoride's toxicity).

It took countless submissions to government agencies and the translation of many Chinese neurotoxicity studies and much more. And, after much delay due to government shut downs and Covid-19, our day in court finally arrived.

Trial of the Century
The trial began with an opening statement from the attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Connett. He made the succinct but powerful case that fluoride presents a hazard (threat to the brain); that this hazard is a risk at the doses experienced in fluoridated communities; and that it is an unreasonable risk.

The EPA, represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice, argued that establishing fluoride as a neurotoxic hazard requires a systematic review, which they claimed FAN's experts didn't perform.

They also argued that the evidence showing harm from fluoride at the levels found in communities that practice fluoridation wasn't strong enough to yield action from the EPA. Both of these claims would be disproven by FAN's experts and attorney during the trial.

This was followed by three days of testimony from FAN's expert witnesses, all independent and leading scientists whose world-class expertise includes fluoride, neurotoxicity and risk assessments, and whose expertise the EPA has relied on in the past on other toxicants like lead and mercury. The witnesses included (click on links to see their declarations and resumes):

Philippe Grandjean, MD, Ph.D.
Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD
Bruce Lanphear, M.D., MPH
Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D.
Their testimony was followed by the EPA's witnesses, two of which were experts-for-hire from the corporate consulting firm Exponent, and one was a risk assessment expert from the EPA.

It was revealed that the EPA paid Exponent approximately $350,000 for their testimony, which was focused primarily on claiming that there was insufficient evidence of harm — something they're known for doing in every trial, no matter who they're representing or how strong the science is.

One of their witnesses, Dr. Ellen Chang, has a long history of defending and producing systematic reviews for corporate polluters, including for DOW Chemical's Agent Orange, Monsanto's glyphosate, 3M's PFOAs, and pesticides from Syngenta and Croplife. She also worked for the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, and the Manganese Interest Group.

Several paragraphs here couldn't possibly do the in-depth proceedings of the trial justice, or highlight all of the shocking and incredible statements that were made. I would urge you to read our detailed summaries for each of the trial days.

I would also urge you to visit our TSCA trial overview page, where you can find the basic facts, a timeline of all actions and rulings, links to all of the submissions made by FAN, links to all of the media coverage, and links to the studies we relied upon to make our case. You can also visit our Twitter page, where we provided live tweet coverage of days 3 through 7.

The Judge's Reaction
After seven days of trial and closing statements from both parties, the judge held off on making a final ruling, but he did make it fairly obvious that he was convinced that FAN fluoride was a neurotoxin and likely posed an unreasonable risk. He said that the EPA had failed to properly assess that risk, and illegitimately turned down FAN's 2016 petition for TSCA action.

The judge urged the parties to spend the next few weeks discussing the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, and leave his final ruling until that is complete. Both parties expressed doubt that such an arrangement would be fruitful, but ultimately agreed to move forward with it and update the court on their progress in the beginning of August.

We Expect the EPA Could Continue to Delay
We don't expect the overzealous proponents of the fluoridation, including the EPA, CDC and ADA, to roll over without using every avenue possible to save their credibility by protecting fluoridation. They've already proven time and again, they have deep pockets and no shame.

Proponents don't seem to realize that 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.

While FAN is taking the lead in court, at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours.
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.

Before the trial the EPA had already intimated that they could appeal a ruling in our favor, and that even if we win the appeal the rulemaking process to end fluoridation's neurotoxic harm could take up to three years. This would mean tens of thousands more children permanently harmed by fluoridation.

This is why, regardless of the ultimate verdict, FAN will continue to need your support. We have forged this precedent-setting path together. Your support, contributions and sharing of our cause and legal case have played a critical role in making this happen, and we thank you. Whether we win or lose this trial, our important education efforts will have to continue.

Please consider investing in an end to fluoridation by making a tax-deductible donation to our work.

Also, please consider signing-up to receive FAN's email bulletins and following us on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram. We will keep you informed about the latest fluoride research and news, plus give you opportunities help influence fluoride policy in your area and throughout the world.

New Tools and Resources to Educate Leaders About Neurotoxicity
While FAN is taking the lead in court at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours. To make the task easier, we have created a number of new educational materials.

First, is our handout on neurotoxicity. We have both a color version along with a black and white version for cheaper bulk printing, as well as a list of the references for this handout that you can combine to make a nice double-sided handout if you so choose. You can also check out our other handouts here.

Second, FAN's Research Director, Chris Neurath, filmed a Zoom webinar in which he presented detailed evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.

He described the rapidly accumulating peer-reviewed science showing that fluoride lowers the IQ of children and increases their risk of neurobehavioral problems like ADHD. He put those studies into perspective in ways we can all understand.

This video a powerful tool for campaigners and parents looking to learn the science and to share it with decision-makers. Neurath's presentation is about 50 minutes and includes a 30-minute question and answer session that took place at the end. Click here to access the PowerPoint slides used in this presentation.

Help educate your state-level decision makers about the neurotoxic harm caused by water fluoridation. Use our simple automated email system to send Neurath's presentation to your state legislators and urge them to introduce a bill next session to end the practice throughout your state: Educate Your Legislators NOW.

FAN has also produced a new video series entitled, "Four Game-Changing Studies," explaining the science behind fluoridation's neurotoxicity in four short videos featuring Paul Connett, Ph.D. The shorter format makes the content easier to share on social media and easier for local authorities to digest incrementally.

Game-Changing Study #1 — Bashash 2017
Game-Changing Study #2 — Green 2019
Game-Changing Study #3 — Riddell 2019
Game-Changing Study #4 — Till 2020

This week from July 6 to 12, Mercola.com highlights Fluoride Awareness Week by raising public awareness on fluoride – its sources, toxicity and impact to your overall health and well-being.
HijFxUoMzbs
While fluoride is added to water supplies throughout the U.S., an abundance of research now shows it’s doing more harm than good. Studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can potentially lead to serious health problems, affecting many areas of the body – including your bones, brain, thyroid, pineal gland and even blood sugar levels. Fortunately, we have organizations like the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) who are helping to fight the end of water fluoridation worldwide.

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.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. "

[onawah]

Fluoride lawsuit update w/ Dr. Connett & Dr. Mercola
Fluoride Awareness- Interview with Paul Connett
773 views•Jul 13, 2020
Mercola
364K subscribers

"• Over the past 20 years, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has facilitated the removal of fluoride from the water supplies of hundreds of communities across North America, Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand. This week, we’re helping FAN raise funds to continue their efforts to eliminate water fluoridation worldwide
• I will match all donations, dollar for dollar up to $25,000, given to this important cause during our annual Fluoride Awareness Week
• In 2017, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and coalition partners filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial of their petition to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water. They presented their case before the judge June 8, 2020
• A landmark U.S. government-funded study published in 2017 found a strong relationship between pregnant women’s exposure to fluoride and the subsequent IQ of their offspring. The higher the fluoride levels of the urine of the women (a measure of their total exposure to fluoride regardless of source), the lower the IQ of the children
• A 2019 study found a nearly 300% increase in ADHD prevalence in adolescents in Canadian communities with fluoridated water supplies, compared to those living in nonfluoridated communities "

Fluoride Action Network:
https://fluoridealert.org/

Read the full article here:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/07/12/dr-paul-connett-fluoride-awareness-2020.aspx?cid_source=bitchute&cid_medium=video&cid=health_Fluoride-Awareness-Interview-with-Paul-Connett

J5ZPZw47gxY

[norman]

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/spice-prevents-fluoride-destroying-your-brain%60?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20The%20Spice%20That%20Prevents%20Fluoride%20From%20Dest roying%20Your%20Brain%20%28VZRzJJ%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJucmRhdmllcy5qaW1AZ29vZ2xlbWFpbC5jb20iLCAia2xfY29tcGFueV9pZCI6ICJLMnZYQXkifQ%3 D%3D


https://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/ckeditor/Sayer%20Ji/images/spice_turmeric_brain_health.jpg


Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising...

- - - - -

edit:

A long time back, when watching a video about Codex Alimentarius (I think) I heard that 'soon' all spices and herbs would be irradiated on entry into the country (UK).

I'm far from scholarly enough to know what that could really mean, but I don't like the sound of it, as regards the actual effectiveness of using normally available spices and herbs from the shops.

[onawah]

Health food stores normally provide organically grown spices that have not been irradiated, at least in the US.
And we have Frontier Herbs here as well, a mail order company that provides the same, and probably other companies as well.
Seek and ye shall find!

The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain

https://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/spice-prevents-fluoride-destroying-your-brain%60?utm_campaign=Daily%20Newsletter%3A%20The%20Spice%20That%20Prevents%20Fluoride%20From%20Dest roying%20Your%20Brain%20%28VZRzJJ%29&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Daily%20Newsletter&_ke=eyJrbF9lbWFpbCI6ICJucmRhdmllcy5qaW1AZ29vZ2xlbWFpbC5jb20iLCAia2xfY29tcGFueV9pZCI6ICJLMnZYQXkifQ%3 D%3D


https://www.greenmedinfo.com/sites/default/files/ckeditor/Sayer%20Ji/images/spice_turmeric_brain_health.jpg


Fluoride is found everywhere today, from antibiotics to drinking water, no stick pans to toothpaste, making exposure inevitable. All the more reason why research proving this common spice can prevent fluoride damage is so promising...

- - - - -

edit:

A long time back, when watching a video about Codex Alimentarius (I think) I heard that 'soon' all spices and herbs would be irradiated on entry into the country (UK).

I'm far from scholarly enough to know what that could really mean, but I don't like the sound of it, as regards the actual effectiveness of using normally available spices and herbs from the shops.

[onawah]

Update From Fluoride Action Network:
"#FluorideLawsuit Update

Yesterday the court held a status hearing with attorneys for FAN and the EPA. We will be providing a detailed recap soon, but in short:

-EPA will let the court record stand as is, and put no effort into doing as the Judge recommended to work with FAN attorneys to initiate a systematic review of fluoride's neurotoxicity.

-The EPA attorney said: "EPA doesn't have the resources right now to meet with the plaintiffs."

Judge does the following:

-He put the case in abeyance while he awaits NTP review.

-He will keep open evidence only for new studies / NTP review.

-He tells FAN attorneys to re-submit an amended petition with pregnant mothers as plaintiffs to EPA whether EPA is willing to review it or not. Judge will monitor EPA response.

-He says there is still a chance for more testimony later on any new evidence considered.

-The next Status Conference will be at 10:30AM (US Pacific time) on November 5th."

[onawah]

RFKJr. interviews Connett, FAN's attorney
Fluoride Action Network
8/24/20
"NEW -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interviews FAN's attorney, Michael Connett, about our case in federal court against the EPA over the neurotoxicity of fluoridation chemicals":
https://www.instagram.com/p/CEKl5DqnMNI

CEKl5DqnMNI

[onawah]

TSCA FLUORIDE TRIAL WITNESS SPOTLIGHT
August 6th, 2020
http://fluoridealert.org/articles/tsca-fluoride-trial-witness-spotlight/

"FAN has produced a video series and text summaries featuring commentary taken from the declarations of expert witnesses FAN called to testify in federal court during our recent TSCA trial against the EPA.

Dr. Howard Hu

http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Howard-Hu-Spotlight-662x1024.png
You can read Dr. Hu’s full Declaration for the trial (his qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references) here:
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-trial-Hu-Declaration.pdf

jyyfz17CyRM

Dr. Phillipe Grandjean

http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Phillipe-Grandjean-Spotlight-665x1024.png
7K2ah5j_kR8

You can read Dr. Grandjean’s full declaration for the trial (his qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references) here:
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-trial-Grandjean-Declaration.pdf

Dr. Bruce Lanphear

http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Bruce-Lanphear-Spotlight-662x1024.png

FpqboQhL6hE

You can read Dr. Lanphear’s full declaration for the trial (his qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references)
here:
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Bruce-Lanphear-Spotlight-662x1024.png


Dr. Kathleen Thiessen

http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Kathleen-Thiessen-661x1024.png

sXCIsfRq83I

You can read Dr. Thiessen’s full declaration for the trial (her qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references) here:
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/EPA-trial-Thiessen-Declaration.pdf "

[onawah]

More experts raising the alarm
10/89/20
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/birnbaum?wvpId=18cbe6de-5ca3-4f21-bf65-e8835d85b9f3

"The former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health has joined in the growing chorus of objective experts publicly raising the alarm about fluoridation’s impact on the developing brain.

Toxicologist and microbiologist, Linda Birnbaum, PhD, co-authored an op-ed appearing in the Environmental Health News this morning with Christine Till, PhD, an associate professor of Psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist, and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019) and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD, and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research. Lanphear is also an award winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science Committees, is a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead Review Panel, and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

The op-ed entitled, It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development, and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the US "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state that "Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children...

...We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake."

Fluoride Action Network
Dear Supporter:

The former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health has joined in the growing chorus of objective experts publicly raising the alarm about fluoridation’s impact on the developing brain.

Toxicologist and microbiologist, Linda Birnbaum, PhD, co-authored an op-ed appearing in the Environmental Health News this morning with Christine Till, PhD, an associate professor of Psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist, and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019) and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD, and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research. Lanphear is also an award winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science Committees, is a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead Review Panel, and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

The op-ed entitled, It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development, and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the US "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state that "Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children...

...We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake."

See: https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-childrens-health-2648120286.html?rebelltitem=7#rebelltitem7

The Op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video on the impact of fluoride on brain development. It was produced by Little Things Matter, a non-profit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Here is their description of the video:

“Over the past 75 years, health authorities have promoted community water fluoridation to reduce dental caries. Until recently, however, no studies had examined the safety of fluoride in vulnerable populations, like pregnant women and infants. This video describes the history of water fluoridation and new research that found fluoride is toxic to the developing brain.”

hI4kpvW760M

Lanphear's organization also created a printable flyer to educate the general public on "Ways for pregnant women to reduce fluoride exposure," as well as prevent dental decay.

https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/birnbaum/19db9694-9aa3-42e7-acc9-906b7322d2b1.jpg

This deserves to go viral. Please repeatedly share all of these materials far on wide with friends, family, co-workers, fellow campaigners, local officials, and the media. Also consider emailing it to scientists at your local colleges and universities, along with pediatricians and midwives in your community."

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

[onawah]

Fluoride Action Network
"The Director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, Casey Hannan, testified under oath during deposition for our #FluorideLawsuit that the CDC has no data that would establish the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite a growing body of evidence showing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin."

https://www.facebook.com/FluorideActionNetwork/videos/204870914414150/

[onawah]

Fluoride Action Network
From their email update
11/30/20
NEW STUDY

"Despite decades of using fluorosilicic acid to fluoridate communities--usually toxic waste from the fertilizer industry--very few studies have ever been conducted on the chemical, and those that have been conducted found various negative results (contaminated batches, leaching of heavy metals, high corrosiveness, etc).

A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal "Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis" has found that fluorosilicic acid at the levels found in fluoridated communities induces genotoxicity, contributes to dental fluorosis, causes DNA damage in mesenchymal stem cells, alters bone mineralization, and causes oxidative stress."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383571820301686?via%3Dihub"Highlights

•HIGHLIGHTS
Fluorosilicic acid is the most used additive for water fluoridation.

•
Dental fluorosis can be caused by fluorosilicic acid present in drinking water.

•
DNA damage was caused by fluorosilicic acid in mesenchymal stem cells.

•
Fluorosilicic acid altered bone mineralization in mesenchymal stem cells.
•
DNA damage caused by fluorosilicic acid was attributed to oxidative stress.

Abstract
Excess fluoride in water can produce changes in tooth enamel mineralization and lead to diseases such as dental or skeletal fluorosis. The present study aimed to assess the genotoxic effects, oxidative stress, and osteoblastic mineralization induced by fluorosilicic acid (FA) in murine bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs). BM-MSCs were isolated from the femurs and tibias of rats and cultured under standard conditions. Cells exposure occurred for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days to different concentrations of FA (0.6-9.6 mg/L). Cytotoxicity was observed in 14 and 21 days of exposure for all concentrations of FA (cell proliferation below 60 %), and for 3 and 7 days, in which the proliferation was above 80%. Alkaline comet assay results demonstrated significant increased damage at concentrations of 0.3-2.4 mg/L, and the micronucleus test showed increased rates for micronucleus (1.2-2.4 mg/L) and nuclear buds (NBUDs) (0.3-2.4 mg/L) (P < 0.05/Dunnett’s test). An alkaline comet assay modified by repair endonuclease (FPG) was used to detect oxidized nucleobases, which occurred at 0.6 mg/L. The oxidative stress was evaluated by lipid peroxidation (TBARS) and antioxidant activity (TAC). Only lipid peroxidation was increased at concentrations of 0.6 mg/L and 1.2 mg/L (P < 0.001/Tukey’s test). The osteogenesis process determined the level of extracellular matrix mineralization. The mean concentration of Alizarin red increased significantly in 14 days at the 0.6 mg/L concentration group (P < 0.05/Tukey’s test) compared to the control group, and a significant difference between the groups regarding the activity of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) was observed. Unlike other studies, our results indicated that FA in BM-MSCs at concentrations used in drinking water induced genotoxicity, oxidative stress, and acceleration of bone mineralization.

Keywords
dental fluorosisfluorosilicic acidgenotoxicitymesenchymal stem cellsoxidative stress, osteogenesis"

[Ewan]

Dark Waters

Inspired by the true story of Robert Bilott, an attorney who took on the DuPont company in an environmental suit exposing a decades-long history of chemical pollution in drinking water.

During the film references are made to The Manhatten Project where certain discoveries were made, not the first time I've seen reference to TMP in connection with fluoride - may have been connected with the decision to flouridate America's water.

Dark Waters Trailer (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9071322/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)

How Dupont poisoned the world (https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/devil-we-know-how-dupont-poisoned-world-teflon)

NYT-The-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html)

[onawah]

From Fluoride Action Network's email update today 12/3/20

"If you could ask representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the safety of fluoridation under oath, what would you ask them? Our lawyers had that opportunity during depositions for our TSCA case in federal court, and today we will reveal a couple of shocking examples of what they said.

Damning Deposition Videos from the TSCA Trial

The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policy makers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation's safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong. Instead of verifying any of these claims, policy makers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation's watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation.

Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of "safe and effective" is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the Director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children:
XkILustjf5A

In this second video, Joyce Donohue PhD, a scientist from the EPA's Office of Water, admits that the EPA's current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out-of-date and should be updated in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years:
rkMAJ_jtEOk

[onawah]

NTP Fluoride Neurotoxicity Review
From Fluoride Action Network's email update today
12/12/20
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/ntpsummary_copy1?wvpId=cde2f31e-f877-4441-abb1-689eaef07e44&fbclid=IwAR0nlVVJ2zOuLc97sffh_SkkqDjFS6T8F37lhMo8fCZyWk_UmyHn8cvISBI

"The NTP's review was initiated in 2016 in response to a nomination from FAN. It is expected to be finalized early in 2021 and it will be up to FAN and our supporters to finish what we started, by using this groundbreaking review to call on regulatory and health agencies to cease fluoridation immediately.

Fundraising Update

GOOD NEWS! One of our super angels will double all donations today up to a total of $1000! "

A Deep Dive Into The NTP Fluoride Neurotoxicity Review
89 views•Dec 10, 2020
fluoridealert
5.42K subscribers
"There is very strong evidence that at exposures to fluoridated water occurring right now in the United States, children are being harmed." - Chris Neurath, FAN Research Director.

"This 30 minute presentation takes an extended look into the scientific literature on fluoride's neurotoxicity currently under systematic review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). Chris Neurath, FAN Research Director offers comments on the NTP review and shows, through a benchmark-dose analysis, that fluoride is a neurotoxic risk to children, in utero and in infancy, at exposure levels seen in fluoridated communities."

CXBxbkRH-To

[onawah]

Natl Academy Sciences/FLUORIDE’S NEUROTOXICITY FINDINGS
THE NAS STRENGTHENS FINDINGS ON FLUORIDE’S NEUROTOXICITY
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | February 16, 2021
http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_2-16-21/

"The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a non-profit group dedicated to education on fluoride’s toxicity, finds that the National Academies of Sciences’ (NAS) recent peer-review of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) revised report, strengthens the NTP’s conclusion that “fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans” lowering the IQ of children.
http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/ntp.revised-monograph.9-16-2020.pdf

FAN agrees with the NAS that the NTP should place “more emphasis” on the “marked consistency” of the evidence:

“… 44 of the 46 studies … indicate an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ. Those results highlight the marked consistency in the current epidemiologic literature on fluoride and childhood IQ.”
FAN adds that its own analysis indicates 15 of the 17 highest quality lower-dose studies most relevant to water fluoridation demonstrated the same “marked consistency” as did higher-exposure studies.

FAN agrees with the NAS that NTP should not make definitive statements about fluoride’s effects at low doses until a “dose-response” analysis has been performed. This has been falsely interpreted by fluoridation defenders to imply that that lower doses are not neurotoxic!

In reality, the best human studies (Bashash 2017, 2018; Green 2019; Till 2020) have found neurotoxic harm to occur at current exposure levels for people living in fluoridated communities. When FAN and others have used the methods advocated by the NAS they predict asafe reference dose (RfD) which is extremely low. A pre-print study by Grandjean et al. report a very low safe reference dose needed to protect the fetus. FAN’s analysis confirms their conclusion.

As far as exposure to the fetus or the bottle-fed infant is concerned, we believe, as with lead, there is “no safe level” for exposure to fluoride.

The NAS made numerous technical suggestions to improve the “clarity” of the document. FAN agrees these would improve and strengthen the NTP report, but they are unlikely to alter the NTP’s conclusion that fluoride is a “presumed” developmental neurotoxicant.

According to Paul Connett, FAN director, “There is enough scientific evidence to conclude that both pregnant women and parents’ bottle-feeding infants, be warned to avoid fluoride. The only responsible thing now is for U.S. regulatory bodies to halt their support of water fluoridation. An immediate moratorium should be imposed so that no further damage is done to the mental development of children while further investigations are conducted.” "

See all FAN bulletins online: http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

American Dental Association (ADA) spins false narrative about National Academies (NASEM) review of NTP monograph
From: Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
4/8/21

"Before diving into the NASEM review and what it really says, for those interested in the lawsuit FAN is currently trying to determine the genesis and legal status of a short unsigned statement purportedly from the NTP about its monograph which appeared in an EPA submission in the TSCA trial on Feb 22. We will give updates when we can.

The ADA’s false claims about the NASEM review

On February 11, the ADA issued a press release giving its response to the 2nd NASEM review. The ADA’s response is typical of the way the ADA has responded to any evidence of harm from water fluoridation for over 50 years. They simply state that “white is black.”

The ADA claimed that the NASEM report mirrored its own claims that there have been few studies of fluoride neurotoxicity and those studies are “unreliable”, “conflicting”, and “subject to widespread interpretation” (ADA News, Feb 11, 2021).

This ADA claim is the exact opposite of what both NASEM and the NTP have concluded. NTP found almost 500 studies of neurotoxicity, over 150 of which were in humans. NASEM urged NTP to highlight the fact that 44 out of 46 human IQ studies showed “marked consistency” in finding adverse effects. The NTP rated 29 of the human studies high quality. NASEM quibbled about the quality ratings of a few of them, but never said the studies were “unreliable” or “conflicting”. The NTP clearly stated that there were a great number of studies, including higher quality studies, and that the studies’ “consistency” and “robustness” were the reasons NTP reached a conclusion rating of presumed hazard. Here is how NTP explained their conclusion:

The NTP conclusion that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans is supported by the extent, consistency, and robustness of the effect in the available data in children. Seventeen of the 19 lower risk-of-bias studies reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children across multiple populations. Meta-analyses conducted at the recommendation of NASEM based on their review of the September 6, 2019 draft monograph provide further support for the hazard conclusion of presumed (NASEM 2020). [emphasis in original; revised NTP monograph 2020, p 71]

What the NASEM review actually said about the NTP monograph’s conclusion

Most importantly, the NASEM review did not challenge the scientific basis of the NTP’s presumed hazard conclusion. The NASEM committee’s recommendations on specific issues, when considered altogether, would not lead to any change in the presumed hazard conclusion, and if anything, they would strengthen it rather than weaken it. The NAS review even suggested ways the evidence could be used to more strongly support its conclusion, and urged NTP to be as clear as possible about why it had reached its conclusion.

Here is an example of how NASEM applauded the NTP’s meta-analyses and emphasized how they support a conclusion of presumed hazard:

Evaluation of the Meta-Analysis

The committee found the meta-analysis to be a valuable addition to the monograph and acknowledges the tremendous amount of work that was required. The meta-analysis applied standard, broadly accepted methods, and the data shown in Figure A5-1 and the related evaluations are especially informative (NTP 2020a, p. 235). As noted in the revised monograph, 44 of the 46 studies represented in that figure had effect estimates to the left of zero—results that indicate an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ. Those results highlight the marked consistency in the current epidemiologic literature on fluoride and childhood IQ. The subgroup analyses also add considerable strength to the monograph.” [emphasis added; NASEM 2021, p 11]

NASEM did, however, strongly castigate NTP for continuing to include claims that the evidence at exposures below 1.5 mg/L were “inconsistent” and “unclear”. NASEM said that NTP had not done any rigorous dose-response analyses so should not offer any conclusions about what dose may or may not be low enough to avoid neurotoxic harm:

Drawing conclusions about the effects of low fluoride exposures (less than 1.5 mg/L) would require a full dose–response assessment, which would include at a minimum more detailed analyses of dose–response patterns, ... [and numerous other analyses] ... Those analyses fall outside the scope of the NTP monograph, which focuses on hazard identification and not dose–response assessment. Given the substantial concern regarding health implications of various fluoride exposures, comments or inferences that are not based on rigorous analyses should be avoided. [emphasis in original; NASEM 2021, p 14]

FAN agrees with NASEM that the NTP should not be making pronouncements about the impacts of low levels of fluoride without a formal risk assessment based on a dose-response analysis. If NTP had followed this NASEM suggestion they would have eliminated a key weakness of both drafts of the NTP’s monograph: the flawed notion that there is a threshold in the quality of evidence at 1.5 ppm. Such a threshold does not exist.

Indeed, FAN used the data gathered by NTP from dozens of higher quality human studies and applied the types of rigorous dose-response analysis methods cited by NASEM and commonly used by EPA. FAN found that the evidence for loss of IQ at exposures below 1.5 mg/L is at least as strong as that for the studies above 1.5 mg/L. FAN’s dose-response analysis also found the highest quality studies showed IQ loss from exposures at and below 0.7 mg/L, the current level for artificial water fluoridation in the USA. Other dose-response assessments have also found a substantial risk of IQ loss from exposures at or below 0.7 mg/L (Hirzy et al 2016; Grandjean et al 2020, preprint).

Another example of the ADA’s deceptive descriptions of the NTP systematic review arises in a wildly out-of-context quote they use that describes an NTP 2016 report on just animal studies, rather than the much more comprehensive NTP 2020 report that found the human evidence was much stronger than the animal evidence. The ADA quotes a reference to the 2016 animal review finding a “low-to-moderate level of evidence” in animal studies, and misapplies that to the large body of human evidence that is the foundation of the current NTP review. Furthermore, even if there were only “low-to-moderate” animal study evidence and no human studies existed, with other chemicals the NTP has often considered such evidence sufficient to conclude they pose a presumed hazard.

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network"

See all FAN bulletins online :http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[onawah]

UPDATE From Fluoride Action Network
4/9/21
(Yesterday's bulletin posted just above. I did not embed all the hyperlinks, but this article should be posted on FAN's webisite in a day or two at: http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/)

"*Three important hyperlinks in yesterday's bulletin are no longer working properly. We have updated those links in this version, and added a few more. Thanks for your patience.

American Dental Association spins false narrative about National Academies (NASEM)
review of National Toxicology Program Monograph

Before diving into the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine's (NASEM) review and what it really says, for those interested in the lawsuit FAN is currently trying to determine the genesis and legal status of a short unsigned statement purportedly from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) about its monograph which appeared in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submission in the TSCA trial on Feb 22. We will give updates when we can.

The ADA’s false claims about the NASEM review

On February 11, the American Dental Association (ADA) gave its response to the 2nd NASEM review. The ADA’s response is typical of the way the ADA has responded to any evidence of harm from water fluoridation for over 50 years. They simply state that “white is black.”

The ADA claimed that the NASEM report mirrored its own claims that there have been few studies of fluoride neurotoxicity and those studies are “unreliable”, “conflicting”, and “subject to widespread interpretation” (ADA News, Feb 11, 2021).

This ADA claim is the exact opposite of what both NASEM and the NTP have concluded. NTP found almost 500 studies of neurotoxicity, over 150 of which were in humans. NASEM urged NTP to highlight the fact that 44 out of 46 human IQ studies showed “marked consistency” in finding adverse effects. The NTP rated 29 of the human studies high quality. NASEM quibbled about the quality ratings of a few of them, but never said the studies were “unreliable” or “conflicting”. The NTP clearly stated that there were a great number of studies, including higher quality studies, and that the studies’ “consistency” and “robustness” were the reasons NTP reached a conclusion rating of presumed hazard. Here is how NTP explained their conclusion:

The NTP conclusion that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans is supported by the extent, consistency, and robustness of the effect in the available data in children. Seventeen of the 19 lower risk-of-bias studies reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children across multiple populations. Meta-analyses conducted at the recommendation of NASEM based on their review of the September 6, 2019 draft monograph provide further support for the hazard conclusion of presumed (NASEM 2020). [emphasis in original; revised NTP monograph 2020, p 71]

What the NASEM review actually said about the NTP monograph’s conclusion

Most importantly, the NASEM review did not challenge the scientific basis of the NTP’s presumed hazard conclusion. The NASEM committee’s recommendations on specific issues, when considered altogether, would not lead to any change in the presumed hazard conclusion, and if anything, they would strengthen it rather than weaken it. The NAS review even suggested ways the evidence could be used to more strongly support its conclusion, and urged NTP to be as clear as possible about why it had reached its conclusion.

Here is an example of how NASEM applauded the NTP’s meta-analyses and emphasized how they support a conclusion of presumed hazard:

Evaluation of the Meta-Analysis

The committee found the meta-analysis to be a valuable addition to the monograph and acknowledges the tremendous amount of work that was required. The meta-analysis applied standard, broadly accepted methods, and the data shown in Figure A5-1 and the related evaluations are especially informative (NTP 2020, p. 235). As noted in the revised monograph, 44 of the 46 studies represented in that figure had effect estimates to the left of zero—results that indicate an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ. Those results highlight the marked consistency in the current epidemiological literature on fluoride and childhood IQ. The subgroup analyses also add considerable strength to the monograph.” [emphasis added; NASEM 2021, p 11]

NASEM did, however, strongly castigate NTP for continuing to include claims that the evidence at exposures below 1.5 mg/L were “inconsistent” and “unclear”. NASEM said that NTP had not done any rigorous dose-response analyses so should not offer any conclusions about what dose may or may not be low enough to avoid neurotoxic harm:

Drawing conclusions about the effects of low fluoride exposures (less than 1.5 mg/L) would require a full dose–response assessment, which would include at a minimum more detailed analyses of dose–response patterns, ... [and numerous other analyses] ... Those analyses fall outside the scope of the NTP monograph, which focuses on hazard identification and not dose–response assessment. Given the substantial concern regarding health implications of various fluoride exposures, comments or inferences that are not based on rigorous analyses should be avoided. [emphasis in original; NASEM 2021, p 14]

FAN agrees with NASEM that the NTP should not be making pronouncements about the impacts of low levels of fluoride without a formal risk assessment based on a dose-response analysis. If NTP had followed this NASEM suggestion they would have eliminated a key weakness of both drafts of the NTP’s monograph: the flawed notion that there is a threshold in the quality of evidence at 1.5 ppm. Such a threshold does not exist.

Indeed, FAN used the data gathered by NTP from dozens of higher quality human studies and applied the types of rigorous dose-response analysis methods cited by NASEM and commonly used by EPA. FAN found that the evidence for loss of IQ at exposures below 1.5 mg/L is at least as strong as that for the studies above 1.5 mg/L. FAN’s dose-response analysis also found the highest quality studies showed IQ loss from exposures at and below 0.7 mg/L, the current level for artificial water fluoridation in the USA. Other dose-response assessments have also found a substantial risk of IQ loss from exposures at or below 0.7 mg/L (Hirzy et al 2016; Grandjean et al 2020, preprint).

Another example of the ADA’s deceptive descriptions of the NTP systematic review arises in a wildly out-of-context quote they use that describes an NTP 2016 report on just animal studies, rather than the much more comprehensive NTP 2020 report that found the human evidence was much stronger than the animal evidence. The ADA quotes a reference to the 2016 animal review finding a “low-to-moderate level of evidence” in animal studies, and misapplies that to the large body of human evidence that is the foundation of the current NTP review. Furthermore, even if there were only “low-to-moderate” animal study evidence and no human studies existed, with other chemicals the NTP has often considered such evidence sufficient to conclude they pose a presumed hazard.

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network "

[onawah]

Federal Fluoridation Lawsuit Update
Fluoride Action Network via salsalabs.org
4/27/21
from: Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org

"Good news! Last Thursday, the Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion to add additional standing evidence into the case, which should help fully satisfy the Judge’s prior concerns on this issue and ensure that the case is resolved on the merits. The Judge also made clear that he is very keen to read the National Toxicology Program’s finalized report on fluoride's neurotoxicity, which is expected sometime later this year, as well as other new science on the issue, including an upcoming pooled analysis of the NIH-funded birth cohort studies. In order to consider this new science, the Judge discussed having a “phase 2 trial” where Plaintiffs and EPA can introduce additional expert testimony on the NTP report and other developments. The next status hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30AM (Pacific US).

While the plaintiffs believe they have already presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that fluoridation poses an unacceptable risk, they appreciate the seriousness with which the Judge is taking the case, and his commitment to having the science govern the result.

Since its formation in 2000, the Fluoride Action Network has believed that when scientists and the public learn of the poor science underpinning water fluoridation, that the practice would fall under its own weight. That belief has steadily grown as more and more scientific research has shown the dangers fluoride poses to a number of tissues including the teeth, the bone, the kidneys, the endocrine system and particularly the brain. All of this science we have meticulously cataloged in our health database and shared with visitors to our website. But this educational exercise has not been a simple matter – against us every step of the way has been an entrenched lobby, including both dental interests and the public health bureaucracies in largely English speaking countries – who refuse to give up this practice. For them fluoridation has always been and always will be “safe and effective." No amount of science will change their minds. Given a level playing ground they would be laughed out of court. Hitherto, they have had the power to convince the world that "black is white." But now we are actually in court and it is a level playing field!

In light of this, the Judge’s keen interest in following the science has been, and remains, a welcome development. Although he didn’t say it, the Judge’s comments suggest that he doesn’t want to hear any more obfuscation from EPA in lieu of science, and that they can’t win this case by simply appealing to their authority.

Thank you,

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network"

[onawah]

Judge Issues Written Court Order Dismantling EPA Arguments
Mid-year Mini-fundraiser Begins Today
From: Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
info@fluoridealert.org https://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_6-8-21/

"Judge Edward Chen has issued his written court order following the April 22nd hearing for our federal litigation against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Court awarded plaintiffs yet another big legal victory, granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.

This order is significant for several reasons: it strengthens our standing in the eyes of the Court, it shows the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, and it sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather then restart the multi-year petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

The court will continue to hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program’s monograph is published, as well as at least two additional studies expected to be published later this year. Included will be a benchmark dose analysis (used for dose-response analyses to support chemical risk assessments and regulatory actions) on the Mexican and Canadian cohorts (Bashash, 2017, 2018; Green, 2019 and Till, 2020) showing that harm is caused at fluoride levels in drinking water much lower than 0.7ppm. Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22nd status hearing the Judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, "As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence."

The court order indicated that once the Judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the petitioners (FAN) will be able to re-submit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made.

The next status hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30AM (Pacific US).

READ THE COURT ORDER

We Need Your Help!

The stakes are high, as our TSCA case could be our best chance to end fluoridation in the United States, leading to a domino-effect around the world. While this ruling gave us another important legal victory (one of many, which is a good sign), it could potentially increase our expenses if the proposed "second phase" of the trial takes place. Rather than scramble at the last minute to raise funds, with your help now we can make sure we have the funding necessary for our expert witnesses to prepare for additional depositions and testimony in court. This last hurdle will be a critical moment for us since it will focus on a politicized NTP report and a game-changing benchmark dose analysis showing harm at very low levels.

It has taken more than 20 years of effort from FAN to bring us to this point. It took the development of our extensive website in the early days. It took the creation of our comprehensive health database (larger than any government had put together on fluoride’s toxicity). It took countless submissions to government agencies and the translation of many Chinese and other foreign language studies, and much more. None of this could have happened without wonderful supporters like you. We have forged this precedent-setting path together. Your continued support, contributions, advocacy work, and sharing of our cause and legal case has also played a critical role in making this happen, and we thank you.

It's also important to note that our work together won’t end with the judge’s decision. Whether we win or lose this trial, our important education efforts will have to continue to ensure the ruling influences public policy. To this end, we are in the middle of a major upgrade of our website in an effort to make our huge data-base more accessible and easier to use. We are also constantly expanding our educational and advocacy work, targeting federal agencies, state legislatures, and countless local councils and electorates debating the issue. As more science has been published showing harm from fluoridation, the dental lobby has doubled their lobbying efforts, and so must we.

These developments, along with our mini trial funding needs, is why today we are launching our semi-annual fundraiser. If you are as excited as we are about the upcoming finale to the trial and the opportunity to have our website's resources and tools at your fingertips like never before -- both the culmination of over two decades of work -- then please consider contributing directly to these efforts. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation."

[Journeyman]

Can anyone recommend a fluoride free toothpaste here in the UK?

[onawah]

VIDEO: Fluoride/IQ Study Author Presents Findings
From Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
info@fluoridealert.org
6/26/21

"One of the most important videos on fluoride and fluoridation -- at least over the past year or so -- is an hour-long presentation and Q&A from this past March, hosted by the Wisconsin Environmental Health Network. The presentation is by Professor Christine Till, PhD on her landmark studies looking at fetal and infant fluoride exposure. She is an award-winning researcher, adjunct scientist to the Neurosciences and Mental Health Program at SickKids, and associate professor of Psychology at York University.

Dr. Till is lead author of several significant fluoride studies, including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019), the 2020 study, Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort, and the 2018 study, Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada.

Fp3L_jwJtio

Please share this video with neighbors and local decision makers. Even the most skeptical ought to find it informative and difficult to refute.

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network"

[onawah]

Updates on the Fight to End Water Fluoridation
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
July 03, 2021
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/07/03/fight-to-end-water-fluoridation.aspx?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=a00207b9-27b0-48a4-9c89-5c2827bf6b82

A_C4JbQSMPA

STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), provides promising updates on the historic lawsuit that FAN filed against the U.S. EPA to end water fluoridation
The judge hearing the case plans to review two things before making a decision: the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) final review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity when it comes out, along with a benchmark dose study (BMD) that was recently published on fluoride’s effects on IQ levels
This landmark study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ in children by one point
A Swedish study published in April 2021 found that rates of hip fractures among postmenopausal women were higher in regions with higher levels of fluoride in drinking water
The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline
If you’re concerned about the health effects of fluoride, please support FAN with your tax-deductible donation today; Mercola.com will match your donation, dollar for dollar, up to $25,000, during Fluoride Awareness Week

It’s Fluoride Awareness Week here at Mercola.com, and I spoke with Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), for the occasion. Connett has been instrumental in catalyzing the movement to remove fluoride — which is neurotoxic — from water supplies in the U.S. as well as internationally, and he shared some exciting updates that have us moving closer to a post-water-fluoridation world.

First up is an update to the historic lawsuit that FAN filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court. In 2016, 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).

The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting FAN’s lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Although the EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case, the motion was denied by the court in 2017.1 The trial was held in June 2020, and while the judge has yet to make a final ruling,2 it’s moving in a positive direction.

“We had a recent hearing in which the judge denied the latest effort by the EPA to get the case dropped,” Connett said in our interview. “He's ruled in our favor several times now on key decisions. What he made clear is he's very interested in the science of this issue. He wants to wait before he makes his ruling.”

Judge Plans to Review New Fluoride Study Showing IQ Reduction
The judge hearing the case plans to review two things before making a decision: the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) final review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity when it comes out, along with a benchmark dose study (BMD) study that was recently published on fluoride’s effects on IQ levels.

“So, half of what the judge wants to see has come out,” Connett said. Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an internationally known expert in environmental epidemiology, with ties to both Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark, is the EPA’s go-to person on mercury’s neurotoxicity3 and he has warned about the risks of exposing children to neurotoxicants during early life and in utero.

Grandjean and colleagues just published a landmark study showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy impairs the brain development of the child.4 The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point.

Not only do the findings suggest that water-fluoride recommendations meant to protect pregnant women and children should be revised,5 but they show that there’s significant risk even at current fluoridation levels. Connett said:

“What they found, they would predict a lowering of IQ in children if the pregnant mother's urine was at 0.2 milligrams per liter … To put that into perspective, the average in north California and in Canada, two studies, is between 0.8 and one part per million. So in other words … four to five times more.

So you could predict (because this is a linear relationship), the average loss of IQ for children born in the United States, if their mother drinks fluoridated tap water, is going to be between four and five points, and that's massive when you look at the impact on a whole population. Massive.”

As Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign director, previously stated, “It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.”

The trial is moving along in a positive direction, but they’re not out of the woods yet. Connett noted that there is evidence from confidential sources that pressure has been put upon the NTP, so there is concern that their findings could be whitewashed. “Once again, we might be confronted with the best science being nullified by political interference,” he said.

Expert Research Highlights Fluoride’s Dangers to Children
One of the experts who testified during the trial was Dr. Bruce Lanphear, who is known as “the EPA's ‘go-to man’ on lead's neurotoxicity, and his work shaped their lead standards.”6 Lanphear’s JAMA Pediatrics study, published in 2019, found that every 1 mg/L increase in fluoride in Canadian pregnant women’s urine was linked to a 4.5-point decrease in IQ in their male children.7

The study is one of several NIH-funded studies8 that Connett believes will be key to the case. “Fabulous methodology, the best methodology to date,” Connett said. Other NIH-funded studies include:

•In a study of 213 Mexican mother-child pairs, higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)9

•Babies fed formula mixed with fluoridated water had IQs that were lower than babies fed formula mixed with nonfluoridated water, and researchers noted, “Consumption of formula reconstituted with fluoridated water can lead to excessive fluoride intake.”10

According to Connett, “So the only difference was whether these children got fluoridated tap water in their formula when they were babies. A staggering 13 IQ points dropped, staggering.”

•In a study of 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico, higher prenatal exposure to fluoride, in the range of exposure levels reported for pregnant women in other areas, was associated with lower cognitive function in the children at ages 4 and 6 to 12 years.11

The collective exposure of children to fluoride in drinking water is a major public health threat. Going back to Grandjean’s study showing that even very low exposures to fluoride in utero are toxic, Connett explained:

“He [Grandjean] said, right now the damage to children's brains in the United States is probably greater for fluoride than it is for lead, arsenic and mercury. Now he's not saying that atom for atom fluoride is more toxic than lead, mercury or arsenic …

He's just saying, if you look at what's happening today, fluoride is doing more damage to our kids’ brains than these other well-known neurotoxic substances, lead, mercury and arsenic. The reason of course is the exposure. There are millions of children that are being exposed to fluoridated tap water on a daily basis. Millions of pregnant women.”

Damaging People From ‘Womb to Tomb’
It’s not only children who are at risk from fluoride’s adverse effects. A Swedish study published in April 2021 found that rates of hip fractures among postmenopausal women were higher in regions with higher levels of fluoride in drinking water.12

In this case, the fluoride was naturally occurring in the water at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L, making their total exposures similar to those of women living in regions with artificial water fluoridation. While rates of all types of bone fractures were elevated in areas with higher fluoride in drinking water, the link to hip fractures was particularly strong. Connett said:

“So they worked out their individual exposure to fluoride and, low and behold, they found that postmenopausal women drinking the same range of fluoride concentration that we have in fluoridated communities in the United States had a 50% increased prevalence of hip fracture.

As you know, hip fracture is very serious. We have about 300,000 hip fractures in the elderly in the United States and 30% of those women who get those hip fractures are dead within a year. Many of them do not regain an independent existence …

Hip fractures are a very serious issue for elderly people. So we may be damaging people from womb to tomb. Damaging the fetus and then damaging our bones over a lifetime, which has fatal consequences when you reach old age.”

FAN Catches Head of CDC’s Oral Health Division in a Lie
The CDC’s Division of Oral Health is still actively promoting water fluoridation, and the CDC just recently gave a large grant to Mississippi to do so, Connett said. “Now let me explain who they are,” he said, referring to the Division of Oral Health:

“There's only about 30 people who are interested in teeth, and they're nearly all dentally trained, and they work hand in hand with the ADA [American Dental Association]. So they're a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of supporting fluoridation, and they heavily influence local decisions. So, although the federal government doesn't accept responsibility for it, they're encouraging communities to do it …

This Oral Health Division has worldwide influence.
There's not a day that goes by that somebody, some doctor, some dentist, some public health official, some politician says that fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century. So enormous influence, but no responsibility for harm.”

CDC’s Oral Health Division is primarily made up of those trained in dentistry — not specialists looking at the effects of fluoride on the brain and body. “Let's have a group at the CDC that promotes fluoridation based upon what they think it does for teeth, and let's have another group of people that, regardless of promotion, is looking very carefully at all the evidence which indicates harm to the bone, to the brains and so on,” Connett said.

FAN also caught Casey Hannon, director of the CDC’s Division of Oral Health in a lie. According to Connett, “He said, ‘These NIH-funded studies were done at levels much higher than the water fluoridation programs.’ Absolute nonsense. They were done either at doses equivalent to what people in fluoridated communities get, or they were actually done in fluoridated communities themselves.”

This prompted FAN and over 100 professionals to write a letter to the new CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “We weren't after punishment of Casey Hannon, the head of the Oral Health Division. We were after a change of policy. He's only doing what all the previous heads of the Oral Health Division have done, which is to promote fluoridation as being safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.”

FAN is hopeful that with a new person in the position, being informed about the latest fluoridation/IQ studies, positive changes will continue. Already, they’ve gotten a response from Dr. Karen Hacker, the director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

“The important point for us is that we've now got engagement at the CDC above the Oral Health Division. We don't get these platitudes about how wonderful it [fluoridation] is for teeth,” Connett said.

Help End the Practice of Water Fluoridation
The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

“Fluoride is following the same trajectory as lead,” Connett said, “because basically, whether or not you found a neurotoxic effect for lead was simply a function of how well designed your study was. The better your study was designed, the more likely you were to find that lead was lowering IQ. The same thing is happening with fluoride.”

If you’re concerned about the health effects of fluoride, please support FAN with your tax-deductible donation today. Mercola.com will match your donation, dollar for dollar, up to $25,000, during Fluoride Awareness Week.
How will FAN use the funds? They’re expecting a mini trial to come up soon, and they’ll need to provide expert witnesses to give commentary on the final version of the NTP report and the BMD analysis. They’re also revamping their website, FluorideAlert.org, to make it easier for people to use and access information (especially for those who do so via cell phone).

“We have the largest health database in the world, bigger than many governments, maybe all governments, on the health effects of fluoride. We want to make that more accessible,” Connett said. FAN also uses funding to help communities end water fluoridation or keep it out of their cities:

“Right now, Spokane [Washington] is trying to keep fluoridation out, I think for the fourth time. Calgary is trying to put it back in … They're claiming that tooth decay has gone up dramatically in Calgary since they stopped fluoridation, and that’s simply not true.

… our mission is to get this information to as many people as possible, so with their help we can take this information to the power structures. We're doing it in federal court and we're doing it with our website. Right now, we're doing it by engaging with people at the CDC above its Oral Health Division.”

On a practical level, if you live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering your water. While Connett travels to a natural spring to collect pure water every few weeks — the ideal solution — this won’t be possible for many people.

Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it’s difficult to filter out once added to your water supply, but reverse osmosis filtration is effective for fluoride removal.

The simplest, most effective and most cost-effective strategy is to not put fluoride in the water to begin with, but while we work to end water fluoridation, you do not want to expose yourself or your family to fluoride, so be sure to find a fluoride-free source of pure drinking water

https://media.mercola.com/themes/mercola/images/fluoride-awareness-2021-content-tag-desktop.jpg

On June 28 to July 4, 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.”

PrA9nJJkRJ4

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 helpSo, 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 tenth 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."

- Sources and References
1 Fluoride Action Network, Trial Fact Sheet
2 Fluoride Action Network, TSCA Trial
3 Fluoride Action Network, The TSCA Trial, Day 3, June 11, 2020
4, 5 Fluoride Action Network June 8, 2021
6 Earth Justice July 2, 2018
7 JAMA Pediatrics August 19, 2019
8 Fluoride Action Network, Appendix C, The NIH-Funded Studies
9 Environ Int. 2018 Dec;121(Pt 1):658-666. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.017. Epub 2018 Oct 10
10 Environment International January 2020, Volume 134
11 Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Sep 19;125(9):097017. doi: 10.1289/EHP655
12 Environmental Health Perspectives April 6, 2021
Short

­

[onawah]

THE CDC IS IGNORING FLUORIDE-BRAIN STUDIES: URGE CONGRESS TO HALT FUNDING TO ORAL HEALTH DIVISION
Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | August 25, 2021
https://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_8-25-21/?fbclid=IwAR1mbff3jWCGrLyvJ0l0Unyf9LO_GcmlgHdvLJF0nO7xXMGgMYnVZhVfdCA
(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"On May 3, 2021, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sent a letter signed by over 100 professionals to the new Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Rochelle Walensky, asking for an objective internal review of the fetal and infant neurotoxicity science.

On June 15, 2021, Dr. Karen Hacker sent an email reply.

On June 23, 2021, FAN responded by requesting a meeting between Hacker and a collection of world leading fluoride neurotoxicity experts.

On July 15, 2021, Dr. Hacker responded to our meeting request, expressing interest in a meeting, but asking us to follow up at a later date due to COVID being a higher priority for her office at the moment.

On August 4, 2021, FAN sent a reply agreeing to follow up in several months, but pointing out that the CDC is blatantly ignoring our warnings about the new science on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and is currently utilizing many resources to promote, fund, and expand fluoridation programs in the US. We have asked her to suspend these promotional programs and direct staff–not involved with COVID–to initiate a review of the neurotoxicity science on fluoride.

How You Can Help!
We’re making progress, but to keep this pressure on the CDC we are utilizing a multi-step strategy with which we need your help. In June, we asked all of you to use our automated email system to send our original letter to the CDC along to your Congressional members in the hopes of generating pressure on the CDC to respond. It worked, as thousands of letters were sent to Congress and the CDC replied back just a few days later.

Today we are beginning a new campaign to end the funding of the Division of Oral Health at the CDC because their promotion of fluoridation is harming future generations. Money is the only language government agencies seem to understand.

Please join us in asking our Congressional representatives to deny federal funding to the CDC’s Oral Health Division in their next operating budget until the CDC:
Ends all promotion of fluoridation, and
Agrees to send warnings to the most vulnerable populations to fluoride’s toxicity: pregnant women and bottle-fed infants. That these warnings be spread through TV and Radio advertisements, pediatricians and the WIC program.
If the CDC does not come up with assurances that these steps will be taken, we urgently request Congress to follow up with hearings with CDC officials so that they can explain why they are not willing to take these reasonable and important steps to protect our children.

Every email counts, and with your help and some patience I’m confident we can get the attention of Congressional staff and possibly members. We must. The stakes are too high for our children and future generations to be ignored any longer.

SEND THE LETTER TO CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS+--https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/congressdefundfluoridationpromotion/index.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2e86f5e0-39d9-4336-a84b-323503b09b0d

For an even greater impact you can also send a personal email or (even better) a hardcopy letter to your Congressional representative
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/congressdefundfluoridationpromotion/index.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2e86f5e0-39d9-4336-a84b-323503b09b0d
and your Senators
https://www.senate.gov/senators/senators-contact.htm?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2e86f5e0-39d9-4336-a84b-323503b09b0d
expressing your concerns about the unscientific and biased nature of the Oral Health Division’s promotion of fluoridation, and calling for an end of federal fluoridation funding.

We greatly appreciate your continued support and efforts to end water fluoridation throughout the world.

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network
See all FAN bulletins online http://fluoridealert.org/about/archive-of-fan-bulletins/

[I am B]

Hello fellow avalorians. The fluoride thing has been something in the back of my head (pun intended) for a long while now. When I was a kid, at school, we'd be made gargle fluoride every once in a while for "dental health". I already saw there was something crooked (I'm funny today) there back then, specially because we didn't do that often at all.
Now, despite living in an underground water rich area, most (all) of the countless natural fountains in my area, dating back to the first iberian civilisations, have been closed for, again "health reasons". I have a neighbouring friend with a well at his place, so I have the clean water supply almost covered, but I'd also like a way to cleanse, if I happen to accidentally get it from other sources, like the salt Bill mentioned. (we have it here too)

I'm afraid this could have been answered a thousand times, but for the love of mine I've been skimming through the forum a few times already, trying to use the search tool and all, but I can't manage to find whats the best and easiest solution for cleansing oneself. Or at least nothing definitive, if there is any.

I've read about iodine, some species and teas, and I'm thinking about borax too. Is that it?

Thank you very much!

[onawah]

There are some good protocols listed here (beyond the obvious: https://cleanersofterwater.com/fluoride-detox-science-based/
as follows:
"Boron (Borax)
Boron’s element has been shown to help with skeletal fluorosis and is crucial for healthy bones and joints.

According to research, ingesting 5-6 mg daily is the best for arthritis prevention even in old age.

It is found in several organically grown foods, including several nuts, particularly hazelnuts, almonds and peanuts, apricots, grapes, prunes, dates, chickpeas, kidney beans, and lentils.

Now, some people may prefer to supplement their diet to ensure sufficient daily boron intake. Among the most popular supplements: Borax, a rare but naturally occurring mineral that comprises boron and functions as a difluoride that leaches fluoride from the human body.

Naturally, most people know borax as a multipurpose cleaner and detergent booster. Multiple online sources state that you could mix between 1/32 into 1/4 tsp of pure borax using a quarter gallon (1 litre) of water and sip that cocktail in tiny portions during the day. A pinch of sea salt is known to bring even more outstanding results.

Yet, we want to distance ourselves from these claims, not because we feel that borax won’t help with fluoride detoxification.

We do not like to make false statements regarding the purity of any arbitrary borax product taken from the supermarket. Not all of them are of food-grade quality.

In the borax research, test subjects were treated with 300 to 1,100 milligrams of borax each day for three weeks with excellent results. However, the scientists concluded that “further studies are essential to (...) determine whether high doses of borax can be administered to individuals over an elongated period without causing subtle negative effects to liver and kidneys”.

The FDA has announced borax is prohibited for use in foods. The European Chemical Agency has categorized the mineral as reprotoxic.

What happens if you got a boron overdose?

In excess, boron can have detrimental effects, inhibits lots of enzymatic activities in the human organism. How much is too much? According to a study, unwanted side effects can begin to happen in the lower gram range, which is many, many times greater than what you may ingest with a regular diet - even if you add a supplement.

Tamarind
Too much fluoride can cause metabolic disorders. So, it is excellent that in a 2012 research, scientists discovered that tamarind leaf powder served to revive lipid, carbohydrate, and antioxidant metabolism in rats exposed to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water.

Another research -- this time with people -- has demonstrated that tamarind ingestion (10g daily) contributes to a substantial increase in fluoride excretion through urine.

Tamarind has been used in Ayurvedic medicine for centuries. Pulp, bark, seeds, leaves, and fruits could be turned into teas, teas & spices, tinctures, and extracts.

Remove Fl from Your System
Curcumin (Turmeric)
Curcumin gives the spice turmeric its yellow colour. Additionally, it is referred to as an anti-inflammatory powerhouse.

What’s more, when ingested in large enough dosages, it appears to have a neuroprotective effect. In an experiment with rats, curcumin supplementation has been shown to decrease the toxicity of fluoride and its brain-damaging consequences significantly.

Other studies have demonstrated that curcumin treatment is very likely to protect your kidneys from injury due to fluoride overload and stop genotoxic effects, meaning harm caused to a genetic material like DNA. Damaged genetic material leads to mutations and possibly cancer.

Our Recommendation: Add raw garlic or turmeric/curcumin powder into your foods, smoothies, and juices.

Iodine
Iodine is essential for our bodies. It plays a significant role in cell metabolism and is required for the production of thyroid hormones. Supplementation with iodine contributes to increased urinary excretion of fluoride.

What’s more, fluoride in drinking water is not as toxic when accompanied by adequate iodine intake.

Simultaneously, it would be best to watch out because a lot of iodine can do more damage than good. Especially people who have a preexisting thyroid disease have a higher chance of developing a thyroid disorder. The same holds for the elderly, infants, and fetuses.

In general, the suggested daily amount of iodine intake for adults is 150 μg.

If you find it challenging to reach this threshold, consider adding more sea fish and sea vegetables -- think kelp or wakame --to your diet. Other iodine-rich foods include eggs, beans, and potatoes. As a last resort, take a look at iodine supplements that are widely available and relatively cheap.

Vitamin C
A study with Fluorosis patients indicates that, even in excessive dosages, vitamin C doesn’t influence urinary fluoride excretion.

However, compared to curcumin, vitamin C may help stop your kidneys from being harmed by an excessive amount of fluoride intake.

The best natural vitamin C sources? Try kale, acerola, broccoli, kiwis, lemons.

Selenium + Zinc
In an animal study, selenium is an “antidote representative against fluorosis,” protecting mice’s brains against the side effects of sodium fluoride in their drinking water.

What’s more, another study indicates that research rats exposed to fluoride drinking water with a blend of sodium selenite and zinc sulfate (contains selenium) can counteract kidney damage.

Interestingly enough, both antioxidants are more effective when administered together than alone.

Great sources for selenium are brazil nut and more or less all sorts of sea fish and meat.

Zinc can also be found in nuts, meat, and fish, and that seeds.

Calcium + Magnesium
Typically Between 70 to 90 per cent of the fluoride which you ingest is consumed in your intestines. The precise percentage depends upon the kind of fluoride. For highly soluble sodium fluoride, nearly 100 per cent is consumed.

The good news is that it is possible to lower this percentage by adding more calcium and magnesium to your diet. Lower magnesium and calcium intake contribute to enhanced fluoride absorption.

Where to find calcium and magnesium? Avocado, seeds, nuts, fish, whole grains, bananas, and leafy greens.

fluoride detox
Chelation Therapy?
The Objective of A chelation treatment is the detoxification of heavy metals. Fluoride, however, is a salt. Whether chelation has some effect on fluoride content in the body, we don’t know. We could not find any scientific study for or against it.

Liver Cleanse?
Among the many functions of the liver is to break down toxic substances. It’s the primary organ for the detoxification of our bodies. However, if so-called “liver cleanses” actually help with fluoride detox remains to be shown.

Saunas?
Dry Saunas are likely to release sodium fluoride stored in fatty tissues. But according to our study, there’s not any such thing as fluoride in adipose tissue.

Detox Side Effects
Many online sources state that detoxing from fluoride can cause symptoms such as headaches and sluggishness. Naturally, they may talk from personal experience. At least we could not find any scientific data to support these claims.

Nonetheless, it makes excellent sense to drink loads of un-fluoride water when detoxing to ensure that all excess fluoride with flushed out."


Hello fellow avalorians. The fluoride thing has been something in the back of my head (pun intended) for a long while now. When I was a kid, at school, we'd be made gargle fluoride every once in a while for "dental health". I already saw there was something crooked (I'm funny today) there back then, specially because we didn't do that often at all.
Now, despite living in an underground water rich area, most (all) of the countless natural fountains in my area, dating back to the first iberian civilisations, have been closed for, again "health reasons". I have a neighbouring friend with a well at his place, so I have the clean water supply almost covered, but I'd also like a way to cleanse, if I happen to accidentally get it from other sources, like the salt Bill mentioned. (we have it here too)

I'm afraid this could have been answered a thousand times, but for the love of mine I've been skimming through the forum a few times already, trying to use the search tool and all, but I can't manage to find whats the best and easiest solution for cleansing oneself. Or at least nothing definitive, if there is any.

I've read about iodine, some species and teas, and I'm thinking about borax too. Is that it?

Thank you very much!

[I am B]

Thank you so much! A thousand thanks and then a thousand more, I really appreciate!

[onawah]

PS It's best to get fresh turmeric root if you can and ferment it for best absorption.
Whole turmeric is better than curcumin, but most turmeric supplements contain black pepper, which assists in absorption, but can also cause gastric issues.
If you ferment turmeric, it becomes more bioavailable, without any side effects.
More here: https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?107978-Joints-inflammation-etc&p=1423799&viewfull=1#post1423799

Thank you so much! A thousand thanks and then a thousand more, I really appreciate!

[onawah]

Nature Magazine Publishes Fluoridation Article
Today's email from Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
11/21/21

"“…toxicologists worry that dental-health gains have come at a cost.”

One of the world's most important scientific journals has published a special news feature on water fluoridation, focusing on the Fluoride Action Network's federal court case against the U.S. EPA and quoting our legal counsel along with several accomplished neurotoxicity researchers. It’s a well-balanced piece that we suggest sharing far and wide with the message: you can fill a cavity, but you cannot fix damage to the brain.

The piece, entitled "The Fluoride Wars Rage On," has been published by the United Kingdom-based journal right as the nation faces the significant threat of a fluoridation mandate. It lays the truth bare for the scientific community, revealing that:

"Yet research over the past 50 years has sown a seed of doubt. Rates of tooth decay in some high-income countries with no fluoridation have declined at a pace similar to that seen in fluoridated US communities. And an increasing number of studies are indicating that fluoride...might be a developmental neurotoxin, even at the level that the US Public Health Service has declared optimal for fluoridation...Some toxicologists and epidemiologists are now questioning whether even low doses of fluoride can have systemic effects, including causing a dip in IQ in children who were exposed to it in utero. The first indications of this came from studies that compared unfluoridated villages and communities with fluoridated ones...followed by better-controlled studies that measured fluoride in individuals. In the United States, each new study was met with extreme criticism, ridicule and anger that, at times, threatened the careers of those involved.”

It also accurately communicates the toll fluoridation has on the very population it is intended to benefit; those with limited financial means:

"…toxicologists worry about any impact of fluoridated water on IQ, especially in populations that are already vulnerable because of exposure to high rates of air pollution and elevated poverty rates, for example. And even if such populations are aware of the potential risks of fluoridation, they are least likely to be able to afford bottled water to use when formula-feeding infants, for instance.”

The article is also packed with powerful quotes, including from FAN's attorney Michael Connett. One important quote comes from Pamela Den Besten, a pediatric dentist and researcher, raising alarms about the lack of research on side-effects:

"Den Besten has spent her career trying to work out the systemic effects of swallowing this anion. The fact that fluoride can affect ameloblasts, the cells that produce and deposit tooth enamel, suggests that it could affect other cells of the body. In fact, she notes, studies in animals and humans show that, in addition to fluorosis, cellular effects of fluoride also include inflammation and altered neurodevelopment. That, in turn, suggests that it could make its way into the brain. Den Besten says that means researchers should be looking into whether fluoride has potential effects on the central nervous system. 'It should be a high priority to answer these questions. And yet, it’s not.' These potential effects of fluoride are important for individuals at all ages, she says.”

Another comes from physician and scientist Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD:

“Hu sees two big problems with how the dental public-health community has reacted. The first, he says, is that most of those in the dental community who are critiquing his and Till’s conclusions are doing so without a deep understanding of how they got them. 'From the environmental epidemiology perspective, the methods employed in the most recent studies of prenatal fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment are exceptionally rigorous,' he says, and were put through stringent peer review. The second problem is a misplaced idea that decades of research on fluoride prove it is safe. 'They are ignoring the fact that almost none of these ‘decades’ of research have focused on the very specific issue of prenatal fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment...There hasn’t been a single US study of fluoridation, prenatal exposure and natal development,' Hu says. He and his collaborators are starting one now, using data from past studies, and they aim to have answers in the next two years."

First published over 150 years ago in 1869, Nature is considered the world's leading multidisciplinary science journal. It's where Watson and Crick first published their discovery of the structure of DNA and Kendrew published his discovery of the first structure of protein, changing biology forever. Nature had previously published an article on fluoridation in 1986 by Mark Diesendorf entitled, "The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay." This commentary called for the scientific community to reassess the claimed benefits of fluoridation after research showed reduction in decay could not be attributed to fluoridation.

The publication of Nature's latest article on fluoridation is further evidence that significant people in the scientific community are not only taking notice of the neurotoxicity research, but are raising alarms. In recent years, studies have been funded by the U.S. Government, and well-established toxicologists and award winning researchers, such as Linda Birnbaum, Philippe Grandjean, Howard Hu, Bruce Lanphear, and Christine Till have been sharing these landmark study findings and are actively pursuing additional research. Major high-impact scientific and medical journals are publishing this research, including JAMA, the Lancet, Pediatrics, and Environmental Toxicology. This is all good news for us."

Click below to read and share this important article: "THE FLUORIDE WARS RAGE ON"
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02924-6

( I take exception to a lot that's in that article, but at least they got some things right, and hopefully help to keep the conversation going. )

[onawah]

Some Good News From the CDC
Today's update:Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
12/1/21
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/cdcmeeting?wvpId=1a1767ed-9162-420c-93a8-f3f8eb85d87a

"Our supporters will recall that for several months I have been attempting to get the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) to take a second look at its promotion of water fluoridation. The US-government funded studies that have provided very strong evidence that fluoride damages the developing brain of both the fetus and the bottle-fed infant (Bashash 2017 and 2018; Green 2019, Till 2020) were the impetus.

On May 3, 2021, FAN sent a letter signed by over 100 professionals to the new Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Rochelle Walensky, asking for an objective internal review of the fetal and infant neurotoxicity science.

On June 15, 2021, Dr. Karen Hacker, Director of the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC, responded with an email reply.

On June 23, 2021, FAN responded by urging the CDC to organize a meeting between Dr. Hacker and a collection of leading independent fluoride neurotoxicity experts.

On July 15, 2021, Dr. Hacker responded to our suggestion, expressing interest in organizing such a meeting, but asked us to remind her at a later date due to COVID being a higher priority for her office at the moment.

On August 4, 2021, FAN sent a reply agreeing to follow up in several months, but pointing out that the CDC ought to suspend their aggressive promotion of fluoridation until they could learn about the new science on fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
In our first letter to the CDC we urged them to create an internal panel to gather new information on fluoride's neurotoxicity. To help the CDC speed up this process, while they were dealing with the pandemic, I made contact with several scientists who co-authored many of the recent studies and had a comprehensive understanding of the topic. I asked Dr. Bruce Lanphear and Dr Christine Till (two of the key authors of the fluoride-IQ papers); Dr. Philippe Grandjean (author of the Benchmark Dose Analysis), and Dr. Linda Birnbaum (former director of the NIEHS (2009-2019), if they would accept an invitation from the CDC to meet with Dr. Hacker and others to discuss their and others work on this issue. They all said they would accept the CDC's invitation if offered.

When communicating with these scientists, I made it clear that my desire was only to help the CDC gather the latest objective research by asking key scientists if they would accept a CDC invitation to present their work. The neurotoxicity science is strong, consistent, and speaks for itself, so I didn't even consider suggesting what should be discussed, leaving it up to the CDC and the scientists to decide how the meeting would go.

Of course, there has been a growing chorus of concern in recent years about fluoride's neurotoxicity from the scientific and medical communities. I knew from an editorial that Lanphear, Till and Birnbaum had written, that they were among the best informed who, not surprisingly, supported the need to get warnings to pregnant women to avoid fluoridated water, which FAN has been advocating since the Bashash paper published in 2017. Though, who else in the world would be more appropriate for the CDC to meet with than these researchers? These were the actual authors of the most recent studies, and not public health pundits.

Finally, the good news!

Dr. Karen Hacker agreed to coordinate an information-gathering session with members of her staff and Drs. Lanphear, Till and Grandjean to hear them give details of two papers (Green 2019 and Grandjean 2021). The 30 minute meeting took place on November 1st via Zoom. On the call, in addition to Drs. Hacker, Lanphear, Till and Grandjean, were:

Casey Hannan, Director, CDC’s Division of Oral Health

Peter Briss, Medical Director, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention Health Promotion

Joanna Stetner, Principal Senior Attorney, CDC branch of the Office of the General Counsel
FAN's Science Director, Chris Neurath, and I were invited to listen to the presentation since the CDC's information-gathering meeting was originally our suggestion. We listened, but did not participate.

The meeting: Till, Grandjean and Lanphear summarized their work in 15 minutes and then asked if the CDC had any questions or comments. At this point Dr. Hacker stressed that from their (the CDC's) point of view this was strictly a "listening session." At this point, the three experts gave further commentary, which included asking the CDC to review the risks of fluoridation in addition to promoting its benefits. Till stressed that contrary to some comments from other sources, these neurotoxic effects were being observed at the doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Grandjean indicated that in Europe there were calls for the World Health Organization (WHO) to review the neurotoxicity of fluoride. Finally, Dr. Lanphear stressed that in these times of Covid how important it was for the public to trust the CDC. Having the CDC revisit the risks of fluoridation would help to build that trust.

In my last communication with Dr. Hacker, I stressed that these studies were coming out 'thick and fast" and I included the following list of 19 fluoride neurotoxicity studies published between 2017-2021."

Stay tuned,

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

[onawah]

Fluoride Lawsuit Update
405 views Dec 31, 2021
fluoridealert
5.7K subscribers

'Lead attorney in the TSCA Fluoride Lawsuit, Michael Connett, gives an update on the progress of the case. The next trial status conference is scheduled for January 18, 2022. Follow the TSCA lawsuit timeline to keep up to date on the ongoing trial: https://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca... "
uMpj5uA_BEI

[onawah]

Here's What Happened At Yesterday's Lawsuit Status Hearing
1/19/22
Fluoride Action Network via salsalabs.org
https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/statushearingupdate?wvpId=1a1767ed-9162-420c-93a8-f3f8eb85d87a

"TSCA Court Status Hearing

On Tuesday afternoon, the Federal Court in San Francisco held a status hearing for our lawsuit against the EPA. The hearing was brief, as the Judge reiterated his longstanding desire to wait until the National Toxicology Program (NTP) has published the final version of their review on fluoride's neurotoxicity before continuing with the trial. The NTP communicated to the legal counsel for both parties that they had submitted the final draft of their review for external peer review, and the final report would likely be published around the end of March, but that this would be determined by the timeliness of the external review.

The Judge asked if a study from a Spanish birth cohort, which was only an abstract during the summer of 2020 trial, had been published and peer-reviewed. The EPA reported that it had, and that its findings would help the EPA's position. FAN's counsel explained that there were serious problems with this study that expert testimony would spotlight at future hearings. Our counsel also made the Judge aware of the publication of additional studies strengthening FAN's position, and the Judge responded that it would make sense to include these in the trial as well, so the EPA "has all of the information it needs to make a comprehensive assessment."

The Court then set the next status hearing for June 7th at 2:30PM (Pacific Time). This ought to give the NTP enough time to publish their review. The Judge has suggested that once it has been published, FAN's attorneys will be free to re-submit an amended petition to the EPA that includes the NTP publication and any additional neurotoxicity studies. The EPA will get a second chance to conduct an objective assessment following TSCA rules, which they didn't do for the first petition. Once this has been completed, the Judge is expected to hold a second phase to the trial, giving experts an opportunity to assess the new evidence and the EPA's response to our second petition if they choose not to deem fluoridation chemicals a hazard on their own.

Stay tuned! We will continue to provide updates as the trial progresses.

Send Our Surgeon General Letter To Your State Legislators

Yesterday, we shared that FAN has sent a letter to the U.S. Surgeon General notifying him about the new science linking fluoridation to neurotoxicity for developing children, and asking him to take action by at least warning pregnant women and parents of bottle-fed infants about this significant side-effect. While we wait for a response, we urge all of you to use our automated system to send the letter to your state legislators asking them to read it and take action locally. Similar campaigns have generated thousands of emails in the past, and have kept the issue in front of legislators, who at an increasing rate, are introducing bills to end fluoridation mandates or ban the practice altogether. Let's keep this education effort going. Please click here to send your own letter today.

Last Call For Web Designers

In a recent bulletin we put out a call looking for an experienced web designer we'd like to hire to update our website. We received some very promising replies, but wanted to give our supporters one last shot to submit their interest and qualifications before we started reaching out to those candidates.

Again, here’s what we’re looking for: a WordPress designer/consultant for hire who can build a dynamic, secure website from the ground up (starting from a custom template). Mobile site responsiveness is a key goal. Must be familiar with CSS/PHP and be able to integrate a new website using Wordpress CMS. We are also looking for a developer who is skilled in javascript to create interactive graphics that will be a main feature on our new site.

If you fit this description, please email your interest and qualifications to FAN's Education and Outreach Director, Jay Sanders: jstandards@yahoo.com

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

[Journeyman]

They pushed this through amidst the height of covid lockdown hysteria:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/water-fluoridation-prevents-tooth-decay-and-does-not-lead-to-hip-fractures/ar-AAVkhiS?ocid=msedgdhp

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-report-confirms-fluoridation-can-reduce-tooth-decay-among-children

Looks like they'll get their way... :(

[Ewan]

They pushed this through amidst the height of covid lockdown hysteria:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/water-fluoridation-prevents-tooth-decay-and-does-not-lead-to-hip-fractures/ar-AAVkhiS?ocid=msedgdhp

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-report-confirms-fluoridation-can-reduce-tooth-decay-among-children

Looks like they'll get their way... :(

:faceplam: Nothing to do with children in the most deprived areas likely to be eating the most processed foods and sugars then. Ludicrous!

[onawah]

Take Action Today
From Fluoride Action Network
6/4/22
Send your state legislators our presentation on the neurotoxicity of fluoride, and urge them to introduce a bill next session to prohibit the practice throughout your state. https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/sendneurathpresentationtostatelegislators/index.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9fecf881-5adc-4eed-9dc4-8d04ec882b46&fbclid=IwAR0lIZrAlZ_7Z7EBeJknWoSWY4j5Ah1Nn23W0GQ2EABgdXReTXXrBnr_f7c


Here's the letter that will be sent automatically to your legislators:
"Dear Legislator,

As a supportive constituent, I strongly urge you to please watch this new presentation detailing the recent scientific evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin harming the fetus when mothers are exposed to fluoridated water, along with infants who are fed primarily formula reconstituted with fluoridated tap water.

Click here to watch the Youtube version of this presentation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzNP8GfiGxA

If you do nothing else, please read these four peer-reviewed studies published in prominent journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association. You'll realize that deliberately adding fluoridation chemicals to the public's drinking water unnecessarily endangers children’s brains. Three* of these four studies were funded by the National Institutes of Health: http://fluoridealert.org/articles/four-studies/

TAKE ACTION: Keep in mind that there are now more studies showing neurotoxic harm from fluoridation than there were when lead was removed from gasoline or PFOAs started to be heavily regulated and levels in water restricted by legislators. Please follow the examples of legislators in Hawaii, Iowa, and New Hampshire who have introduced bi-partisan bills to prohibit fluoridation throughout their states. In fact, the bill in New Hampshire passed out of committee by an almost unanimous vote and was placed on the consent calendar. Please introduce a bill in your own state this upcoming session to protect your most vulnerable citizens before more are harmed.

Here are the bills you can use as an example:

New Hampshire - https://gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billText.aspx?sy=2019&id=169&txtFormat=pdf&v=current

Hawaii - https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2020/bills/SB2732_.HTM

Iowa - https://www.legis.iowa.gov/publications/search/document?fq=id:1035815&q=fluoride

Thank you."
Click here to watch the Youtube version of this presentation: KzNP8GfiGxA

[onawah]

2022 Fluoride Action Network Update
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
6/26/22
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/06/26/2022-fluoride-action-update.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20220626Z1&mid=DM1197223&rid=1531335951

MuDziukOjtO4/

"STORY AT-A-GLANCE
The National Institute of Environmental Health Science-funded Bashash study, published in 2017, showed fluoridated water lowers IQ in children.
Each 1-milligram per liter increase in fluoride in a pregnant woman’s urine is associated with a four- to five-point drop in her child’s IQ
Canadian researchers found bottle-fed children who lived in a fluoridated community had, on average, nine points lower IQ compared to those who were bottle-fed in a non-fluoridated community
The science showing water fluoridation is hurting our children is significant, and keeps growing.
More than 20 studies published since 2017 have confirmed fluoride lowers IQ
Water fluoridation became public health policy in 1950 when the U.S. Public Service endorsed the practice before any of the trials started in 1945 had been completed.
For many decades since then, little effort has been made to research harmful effects
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has sued the Environmental Protection Agency in an effort to end the water fluoridation policy.
A win will make it easier to overturn water fluoridation policies on the state level, even if the EPA drags its heels.
We’re currently waiting for a final report from the National Toxicology Program.
Once the report is released, FAN can go back to court and hopefully win the case
In this interview, Paul Connett, Ph.D., cofounder of and scientific adviser for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), provides an annual status update for 2022.
As long-time readers of this newsletter will know, we've supported and promoted FAN for over a decade.

Fluoride is one of the many unnecessary barriers to optimal health, and we've been fighting all this time to educate people about the risks of fluoridated water, and to end water fluoridation once and for all. During Fluoride Awareness Week, I will match your donations dollar for dollar, so please consider making a tax-deductible donation today. https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005

Fluoride Lowers IQ
According to Connett, the science was conclusively resolved in 2017, when the first of the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (NIEHS)-funded studies came out. This study, the so-called Bashash study,1 confirmed what many previous investigations had shown, namely that drinking fluoridated water lowers IQ in children.

"It was a very striking study," Connett says. "It was a very, very good study. It had to be, to get NIEHS funding. It was based on individual measurements of exposure in pregnant women, and individual measurements of outcome.

They measured the fluoride levels in their urine, three times, once in each trimester. Urine level is a very good measure because it gives you a measure of total exposure, whether it comes from toothpaste, water or food.

They found a strong association between the pregnant woman's exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in children, and they'd taken care of dozens of confounding variables. It was four to five IQ points for a 1-milligram per liter increase of fluoride.

In fact, the range for that four to five IQ point lowering was the same range that you get for pregnant women in the United States in terms of fluoride levels. So, that was the most striking thing. The average level in their urine was 0.87 parts per milligram (i.e., 0.87 milligrams per liter)."

Children's IQ Is Being Decimated
While on the topic of IQ, there's now evidence suggesting that pandemic measures such as mask wearing and isolation have caused an average 22-point drop in IQ among babies born during the pandemic.2 Normally, only 16% of children are born with an IQ lower than 85. Most are between 85 and 115. During the pandemic years, almost all the babies they tested scored below 85, scoring an average of just 78!

A four- to five-point loss for every 1-mg per liter increase in fluoride in mothers' urine was shocking, so that really says something about the harm these countermeasures have done. Compound that with fluoridated water, and some children could be looking at a 27-point loss in IQ, which is simply staggering. That's basically the difference of going from the level of genius to average, or from average to imbecile.

The pandemic restrictions were clearly an aberration, although it's not impossible that they'll try to implement them again in the future. But if we discount the impact they've had, fluoride tops the list of environmental factors that rob children of intelligence, and has been doing so for the last 75 years. Connett notes:

"Chris Neurath, our science director, estimates that more IQ points are being lost in America from fluoride than caused by any other factor, including premature birth and exposure to lead. Fluoride, today, is causing more loss of IQ points than lead."

When the Bashash study was published, Connett thought the fight was over. But he was wrong. Water fluoridation continued unabated in many places. A few years later, a Canadian study came out (Till, 2020), showing the IQ difference between children who were bottle-fed in a fluoridated community, compared to those who were bottle-fed in a non-fluoridated community was nine points.

Bureaucratic Inertia and Profit Motives Put Children at Risk
So, the science3 showing water fluoridation is hurting our children is there. As noted by Connett, what we've been doing for the last several decades is to try to push back the political forces that refuse to admit the error and stop their endorsement of water fluoridation.

"One of the shocks I've had, over the last few years, since 2017, is to discover that there really are people out there who believe a small benefit to teeth, if it exists, actually warrants this risk to the brain," Connett says. "[They believe] that reducing tooth decay is more important than protecting children's brains.

And unfortunately, it includes the U.S. surgeon general. It includes the most powerful people in public health in England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States and Ireland.

When people ask me, 'Why do they fluoridate the water? Why do they take these risks in order to reduce tooth decay?' I've had to say, 'Well, you are asking me to come up with a rational explanation for irrational behavior.' It's just not rational ... there's no scientific explanation for this practice.

The only thing I can come up with is ... money ... All the major universities in the United States are benefiting from government money subsidizing dental research. And if you say that fluoridation is the best thing since sliced bread, this money keeps rolling in.

Obviously, there's also a lot of money going into the phosphate fertilizer industry, where the fluoridated chemicals come from. Instead of treating [fluoride] as hazardous waste, it's put in our drinking water. So that's another 'rational' explanation, if you like, as to why it's happening. But the most likely [reason], from my point of view, is bureaucratic inertia."

The first municipality to institute water fluoridation was Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945,4 but it wasn't until 1950 that the U.S. Public Health Service and the American Dental Association endorsed it.5 This occurred before any of the trials — which were supposed to be ongoing for at least 10 years — had been completed. For many decades since then little effort has been made to research fluoride's harmful effects.

This changed in 2017 with the NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences-funded IQ studies. However, even now, the people in charge of this policy have not been willing to admit they were wrong in promoting this practice for fear of losing credibility. It may be that if they were to admit that fluoridation was a mistake, the public wouldn't trust them on other public health practices.

Unfortunately, over time, it has only become more difficult to admit the mistake. Who wants to admit government has been harming children's health for more than 75 years without ever changing course? Personal careers may no longer be at stake, but the credibility of the agency is. Loss of public trust in our health agencies could also affect people's trust in other public health measures, including childhood vaccinations, which they want to avoid at all costs.

Warnings Are Not Being Put Out
Now that we know there's no protection for fetuses — that any fluoride a pregnant woman consumes goes into her developing child, including its brain — pregnant women need to be told to stop drinking fluoridated water and using fluoridated toothpaste, at least while they're pregnant and possibly for some time before. But those warnings are not going out. Connett says:

"We begged the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, saying, 'We know it's going to take you time to stop your support of this policy, but at least warn pregnant women to avoid fluoridated water and tell parents who bottle feed their infants not to use fluoridated water.'

But they won't do it. We wrote several letters to the head of the CDC, and then we asked them to listen to experts. We got experts of some of these IQ studies.

Philippe Grandjean, Bruce Lanphear and Christine Till gave a 30-minute presentation to Dr. Karen Hacker at the CDC. This was all private, no one was watching except us, and they had no questions whatsoever ... but they continue to promote fluoridation as the best thing since sliced bread.

In fact, they're planning right now to increase the number of people potentially getting fluoridated water by 19 million, because they're developed a tablet system, like the tablets you put into urinals, big tablets of sodium fluoride, and these are injected [into the water supply] through a plastic tube. It's a very cheap delivery system, which is suitable for small communities.

So, 19 million people who have been living in rural areas, who've been protected because it was too expensive to put in all the usual equipment, now have the wonderful benefits of these fluoride tablets. And the promotion of this new delivery system is going on at the same time that the science is coming out [showing it's] lowering the IQ of children and increasing symptoms of ADHD."

EPA Has a Duty to End Water Fluoridation
In 2016, FAN filed a petition under the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), primarily based on Chinese studies showing fluoride harms the brain, urging them to end water fluoridation. Under the TSCA, the EPA is required to ban uses of chemicals shown to pose an unreasonable risk to the health of the American people, including vulnerable subsets.

"Dr. Philippe Grandjean did a risk assessment using the Canadian study and the Mexico City study — the Bashash6 and Green7 studies — and estimates the level of fluoride in mothers' urine associated with a one-point IQ loss in offspring is 0.2 ppm. The average in the United States is about 0.8 to 0.9 parts per million in a fluoridated community.

0.7 ppm is the recommended level to put in the water. I'm talking about the level in a mother's urine, which is approximately the same level. In Canada, they measured it as 0.91 ppm. So, if 0.2 ppm lowers IQ by one point, 0.8 ppm would lower the IQ by four IQ points; 0.9 ppm would lower it by 4.5 IQ points. The relationship is linear."

Update on FAN's Lawsuit Against the EPA
When the EPA rejected FAN's petition, FAN filed a lawsuit against them. The trial began in June 2020. Leading experts and scientists testified on FAN's behalf. The EPA, meanwhile, used experts from Exponent, a consulting company that does the dirty work for Dow, DuPont and other chemical companies. They've defended dioxins, PCBs and RoundUp, just to name a few.

"They tried to show, in court, that none of those things are harmful. It's all in our imagination. And they tried to do the same with fluoride, but the judge at the end was clearly impressed with the evidence ... The other striking thing in the trial is that these industry-friendly consultants, Exponent Inc., admitted that the studies we were citing ... were the best studies conducted to date.

And so, he said, 'I want to see three things. I want to see this BMD analysis published' — that was by Philippe Grandjean, and it's since been published; 0.2 ppm in mothers' urine [results in the] loss of one IQ point — 'I want to see the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) final report, and I want to see if there are any other studies which have taken place, which contradict what we've heard.'

Well, he's got the BMD analysis from Grandjean, but we are still waiting for the National Toxicology Program to finalize [its report]. And this is the final act of politics versus science in the whole fluoridation fiasco. For 70 years, they really haven't had decent science demonstrating benefits and certainly not decent science showing it was safe.

They've avoided the studies showing harm. Finally, we've got those studies. This is the final act, but clearly something is delaying that NTP report, and we think it's the dark forces behind fluoridation, the dental lobby and the other people with perhaps economic interest who cannot bear to see this practice go.

For them, protecting this policy is more important than protecting the health of our people, and that's a scary thing. When policy is king, science is a slave, and that's what we're seeing."

Are We Witnessing the Battle of Two Agencies?
The sad fact is, many if not most of our public health agencies and regulatory bodies are completely captured by the industry, which is why public health now comes last.

Connett's wife is currently researching the role of the National Institute of Dental and Cranial Facial Research (NIDCR) in the fluoridation program. This agency came into existence in 1948, on the back of the water fluoridation program. As such, it became the conduit for dental research on the taxpayer's dime, and a lot of that money was siphoned into fluoridation.

"Fluoridation was the justification for the gravy train," Connett explains. "My wife has been going into that gravy train and I have a hunch that what we are looking at right now is the battle between two agencies: the NIEHS, which is concerned about fluoride's neurotoxicity, and the NIDCR, which does not want to see fluoridation go down the tubes."

The good news is that, since we started over two decades ago, highly-respected top experts in neurotoxicity are now involved in the research on fluoride, and more are joining in to look at the toxicity of fluoride on various tissues. New studies are coming out all the time. More than 20 have been published on fluoride and IQ since 2017.

And, even if the EPA ends up dragging its heels for years when it comes to implementation at the federal level, a positive ruling would make it far easier to end water fluoridation at the state level.

How to Avoid Fluoride Exposure
In the meantime, how can you avoid fluoride exposure? Connett responds:

"I'll tell you what we do. We get our water from a local spring. And you do have companies that deliver spring water to your household. If you can afford it, that is the best way. If you have it done by a company that does that, they will tell you how it's tested and you will be secure knowing that you're not drinking fluoride.

I think that's the single best investment. Get non-fluoridated spring water, and use that for cooking, tea, coffee, et cetera, and drinking. The other thing you can do is, obviously, avoid fluoridated toothpaste.

Avoid mechanically deboned meat — patties, where they mince up the meat using a machine — because fluoride accumulates in animal bone, so that's where you're going to get fluoride from. If you're going to eat meat, eat whole steaks, whole chickens or whatever, not minced up. Avoid ground meat.

The other thing is fish. Tinned fish, pilchards, sardines, salmon, the bones in those tinned fish tend to be very soft [and contain loads of fluoride]. In the sea, [natural fluoride] is 1.4 ppm, parts per million, so the fish .

For 20-odd years I've been trying to tell people the fluoride ion is the toxic thing ... There's nothing safe about natural fluoride. The only thing about natural fluoride is when you get it, you usually get a lot of other minerals as well, including magnesium and calcium, and they in turn can be protective against fluoride.

So, if you get 1 ppm fluoride but you get 100 ppm of calcium or magnesium, that will help protect you against that fluoride ion being taken up."

If you want to get your fluoride level tested, just look up labs that measure fluoride in water. They will be able to provide you with that test, and it's typically quite inexpensive. If you have fluoridated water, be aware that it's very difficult to filter out. Cheap carbon filters won't do it. You need either reverse osmosis or distillation equipment to get it out, which is why NOT adding fluoride in the first place really is the best solution.

[B]What's Next With the EPA Lawsuit?
For now, we're waiting for the NTP report to come out. Once published, FAN will go back to the court. At that point, the judge will want to hear expert analyses of the report from both sides.

"He will read it, but he will want experts from both sides to convince him that the NTP is saying what we think it says — that the best studies show that fluoride lowers IQ ...

The NTP has had two draft reviews, and in those draft reviews, they found — according to Chris Neurath who analyzed them — 27 studies which they classified as high quality, meaning low risk of bias ... and of those 27 high quality studies, 25 found a lowering of IQ and two did not. So, 25 out of 27.

Of those 25, 11 were done at less than 0.7 ppm or equal to 0.7 ppm. That's the level at which we fluoridate ... and the majority of the high-quality studies ... found a lowering of IQ at less than 1.5 ppm. And 1.5 ppm is what the EPA considers to be relevant, as far as any study pertaining to water fluoridation.

Remember, you've got to deal with things like margin of safety, and if IQ is lowered at 1.5 ppm, there is no margin of safety to protect children drinking 0.7 ppm, because some could drink twice as much water as other children. They would be getting the equivalent of 1.5 ppm in terms of dose. Then, you've got the range of vulnerability of those children.

So, less than 1.5 ppm fluoridation would have to end if it lowered IQ. That's if you lived in a world which was rational and in which science had a chance of actually functioning in the regulatory bodies. But most of them are captured by industry. The CDC is captured by the drug industry, the EPA is captured by the chemical industry, the FDA, until recently, the mercury people [and the drug industry]."

[B]Fluoride Awareness Week - Your Help Is Needed
On June 20 to June 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.”

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 tenth year in a row, I will be matching funds up to $25,000, that’ll be donated to Fluoride Action Network. https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/1415005

According to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), at least 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? Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation."


- Sources and References
1, 6 FAN Bashash study 2017
2 EDsource.org September 17, 2021
3 FAN Research
4 CDC Water Fluoridation
5 Am J Public Health. 2016 February; 106(2): 210–211
7 FAN Green study 2019

[onawah]

Toxic Torts: An Interview With Fluoridation Chemical Expert Gary Pittman
email update 10/12/22 from:Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/fILBYDfZ1s7-t0oAh6EO9fiUy6hPXcpcubWdzjWwAGhnZF2iZ9doN9a4zz6wUPRZ55nS_Xc3TXxz9f3Vwuc0n33q0s9HUCu7oWyZH-gCgoygcbpHgnFONSfK5_muv1Y9QNyK3iowT64a8-tFeNxHGUQCErYbL5uJvBl8VFNM=s0-d-e1-ft#https://default.salsalabs.org/59397456-4949-4a72-b631-f0cf9a698d0b/83240716-3c0a-47ad-a655-926d812b7647.png

"Dear Friends,

IMPORTANT NOTE: The next status hearing for our federal TSCA lawsuit was originally scheduled for October 20th, however the Court has now pushed it back a week to Wednesday, October 26th at 3:30PM (US Pacific) / 6:30 (US Eastern). We will keep you updated as the hearing approaches and provide Zoom login information so you can watch from home.

We have a special feature for our supporters today! Several weeks ago, members of the Fluoride Action Network had the opportunity to interview Gary O. Pittman on the connection between the phosphate industry and the fluoride chemicals that are added to drinking water in the United States. Gary spent a career as an industry consultant and phosphate plant manager for Occidental Chemical Corporation (now called OXY) at their mining and processing operations in northern Florida. This industry is the primary "producer" of fluorosilicic acid, which is a toxic waste product captured by their pollution scrubber systems and distributed to towns and cities across the U.S. for use in the public water supplies as "fluoride."

Pittman is the author of the book Phosphate Fluorides, Toxic Torts, and appears in the recent film about the Florida fertilizer industry, Phosfate.

This hour-long interview features a wide-ranging discussion on:

* How phosphates are mined
* Toxic chemicals at the phosphate plant
* How fluoride is captured from from phosphate rock slurry
* Why defoamers are used in the process
* Toxic work conditions that impacted the health of workers and the environment
* The financial and political influence of the chemical industry.

We hope that you enjoy it and share the links with your contacts and anyone who may be interested in knowing where fluoridation chemicals come from."

The Fluoride Phosphate Connection - Gary O. Pittman Interview (Full)
253 views Oct 6, 2022
fluoridealert
5.97K subscribers

"The Fluoride Action Network interviews Gary O. Pittman on the connection between the phosphate industry and the fluoride chemicals that are added to drinking water in the United States. Gary spent a career as a phosphate plant manager and industry consultant. He's the author of the book "Phosphate Fluorides, Toxic Torts."

This hour-long interview features a wide-ranging discussion on:

* How phosphates are mined
* Toxic chemicals at the phosphate plant
* How fluoride is captured from from phosphate rock slurry
* Why defoamers are used in the process
* Toxic work conditions that impact the health of workers and the environment
* The financial and political influence of the chemical industry

For an audio only version of this video check out our podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/user/fancast...

Phosphate plant footage courtesy of K-nep Images, source video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p00uW... "

CkGNCpaPhVA

[onawah]

BIG NEWS! The Court Rules In Favor Of Our Motion
From Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
10/31/22

https://ci6.googleusercontent.com/proxy/L2xbO-QU1iUM86H_DzCGWq-lqepbyxWXwDmKmaUBeuVDDsK0GMaV-YKzjw0s2hxz-pdKtxsa6rbaJrRQern1p2ZNWSsJDNDDtLtD-m1YL5LKMAgy8P--8cHOVro1B9O0TXns3RonUPsaYQBIDAdyGnT2PGLGIxQ-WWTV3zTv=s0-d-e1-ft#https://default.salsalabs.org/2fbdf397-4319-4564-98cf-cc3bf306f87e/a3050e6a-ef0f-412f-818d-84e6cbc34f5a.jpg

"BIG NEWS! The Court ruled in favor of our motion, and the lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in federal court is moving forward, bringing us another step closer to a final ruling.

If you missed Wednesday's exciting hearing in federal court, you will be able to watch it. The court recorded the proceedings and will release it to the public. I was waiting to include a link to the recording in this bulletin, but it hasn't been released yet. When it is, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) will immediately share it with you in an email and on social media. Stay tuned! In the meantime, here's what happened.

At the end of the initial trial in June of 2020, the Court put a stay/abeyance on the proceedings, wanting to wait for the National Toxicology Program (NTP) to finalize its review of the science on fluoride and human neurotoxicity. At the time, lawyers for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) told the Court that the review would be forthcoming, and based on the NTP's typical review process, the delay on our trial ought to have been short-lived. However, in unprecedented fashion, the NTP has subjected their fluoride report to at least three separate peer-reviews, with a fourth currently ongoing. This is in contrast to previous NTP Monographs on other chemicals, where there has only been one public peer-review culminating in a public vote by a panel of scientists. More than two-years after the Court was assured a final document, the NTP has yet to publish one.

FAN and our attorneys felt that we had waited patiently for long enough. Prior to Wednesday's hearing, our attorneys filed a motion asking the Court to take the case out of abeyance and to hold a second trial where our experts can comment on the latest scientific studies, including existing versions of the NTP review. If the Court wasn't inclined to hold a second phase of the trial, we also expressed support for a ruling based on the existing record rather than continue waiting for the NTP.

The EPA objected to ending the stay, preferring the Court to either wait for the final NTP review or make a ruling based on the existing court record. The EPA were not in favor of reopening the trial to more expert testimony, new evidence, or any version of the NTP report but the "final" version, if one is ever published. That timeline would have likely delayed the trial into late 2023 or beyond.

On Wednesday, the Court ruled in favor of our motion to lift the stay on the proceedings. Not only did this signal the Court's desire to move forward with our case, but the Court specifically reopened discovery so attorneys and the Court could examine an updated version of the NTP's review, without it needing to be published. The EPA's objections to using any version of the NTP report besides the "final" version was based on their concern that the NTP's findings would be made public prematurely. To circumvent this objection, the Court placed the NTP's review under protective order so that it will only be available to the parties involved, the Court, and expert witnesses. The public will not have access unless the Court decides otherwise, or if FAN wins a separate pending legal case on our Freedom of Information Act Request (FOIA) for the report.

Thankfully, the Court made it clear to both parties that it expects to be provided with the NTP review before the next status hearing set for early January, regardless of what process is used to get it. The Court urged both parties to come together and find a way to get the current NTP review into the Court's hands "voluntarily," but our attorney, Michael Connett, was also told that if he needs the Court's help "using subpoenas or a motion to compel," he knows where to find the Judge. This was another victory for our side, as the Court clearly agreed with our argument that the updated NTP draft was worth looking at, and took action to obtain it.

In agreement with FAN's position, the Court reiterated its preference for a phase-two of the trial, with additional expert testimony. The Court also wants the NTP Director to explain in detail the remaining timeline for publishing their "final" review and the criteria for determining whether the review will be published or not.

Once the Court has the NTP review, the Judge will read it, as well as consider the NTP Director's responses to his questions. A determination will then be made whether to wait a little longer for the NTP to publish a "final" report, or admit the NTP draft as evidence, allowing us to immediately move the trial into the next phase.

We should find out at the next status hearing, scheduled for Tuesday, January 10, at 2:30PM (Pacific).

For more information about lawsuit, including a trial timeline and documents, click here:
https://fluoridealert.org/issues/tsca-fluoride-trial/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2fbdf397-4319-4564-98cf-cc3bf306f87e

For more information on the NTP's Review, click here: https://fluoridealert.org/researchers/the-national-toxicology-program/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=358cf374-7533-423c-a7a7-2f4c2441b0fa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2fbdf397-4319-4564-98cf-cc3bf306f87e

Thank you for your continued support"

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network
https://fluoridealert.org/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2fbdf397-4319-4564-98cf-cc3bf306f87e

[onawah]

Fluoride Lawsuit Resumes 1/12/23
Fluoride Action Network

Reminder to tune in this Thursday 2:30pm EST as the TSCA #FluorideLawsuit resumes. Recall that we sued the EPA for failing to do its job regulating #fluoride. 6 years into the case, and after a two year delay, Thursday’s hearing represents a major move forward in the lawsuit.
Tune in here tomorrow: https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/2356595?recipient_id=mm17CzRN74OK3NF_WE7ibw%7C%7Cc3R1YXJ0ZWNvb3BlckBnbWFpbC5jb20%3D&fbclid=IwAR3PWPd0lZzXikxdssUL5rgo2Dhh5plwGcPsOVueXhiSQ3PQlHtrc-jYuCIhttps://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/325266922_1136742607001270_2039072727758948549_n.png?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=K0UGxY4zwvoAX8padzt&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=00_AfBtRmlf7-K1sq6_5DVjCL9Sa9NGJNYONWaAwS7IVi59CA&oe=63C4B388

Watch the trial live on Zoom using the login below:
https://fluoridealert.org/news/internal-cdc-emails-claim-assistant-secretary-for-health-blocked-release-of-fluoride-review/?fbclid=IwAR2C_7K8RKlpZAC1m4KWXCcVg-DoEdgU00-8UD21QW1_QswgfHgfqnkdbWE
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1619911861...
Webinar ID: 161 991 1861
Password: 912881

[onawah]

Report on Latest Fluoridation Case Hearing
From today's email update:Secure Arkansas <actionalerts@securetherepublic.com>
reply-to: Secure Arkansas <info@securetherepublic.com>
(Secure Arkansas is a non-profit based in the US state of Arkansas. The article below is from Fluoride Action Network's website concerning the federal case being brought against the EPA.)
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2023/01/17/ozark-mtn-regional-public-water-authority-reports-on-latest-fluoridation-case-hearing/

https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/01/snip-of-Most-developed-nations-do-not-fluoridate-includes-dangers-of-sodium-fluoride.jpg

"Concerning water fluoridation, many of you have asked about the report from January 12, 2022 federal court hearing. Here is what happened a few days ago. This battle has been going on for a long time, but we do see light at the end of the tunnel. It seems the Judge is looking at the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity and ruled against the EPA for trying to delay the trial. The next ZOOM court hearing is April 11, 2022. Yes, the EPA is stonewalling and dragging their feet.

As the battle continues to rage, you can bet that the corrupt government agencies like the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) do not want the damning information in that critical NTP report released to the public, but truth will prevail, dear reader. HHS continues to try to block the release of the fluoride review! Here's a snippet:

Newly released emails reveal that leadership within the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Institute of Health acted to prevent the release of long-delayed review of fluoride’s toxicity by the National Toxicology Program. The emails specifically claim that Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine intervened to stop the release of the NTP review, also known internally as a monograph.

The government knows that our health is at risk and fluoride is a known toxic poison.

From Chairman Andy Anderson, Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority:

OMRPWA Board plus others interested in our battle against fluoridating community water supplies:

It is my opinion that the Judge was excessively restrained, but it was apparent that he has not been pleased with the Government. You will note that the report that is being kept from we the people was given to the American Dental Association. The ADA is neither a plaintiff nor a defendant. They have no more right or reason to get the report than you or me. Can you say collusion?

(I am biting my tongue to keep from saying what I would like to say about these governmental agencies.)



Andy Anderson - Chairman

Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority

Cell: 870-365-6680

http://www.ozarkmountainregionalpwa.org



The article below is a report from Fluoride Action Network (FAN):

Court Rejects EPA's Attempt To Delay Case Further

Dear Friends:

At Thursday’s status hearing for our federal lawsuit against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the neurotoxicity of fluoridation chemicals, the Judge acknowledged that “justice delayed is justice denied,” ultimately ruling against the EPA’s request for additional delay of the trial. The Court also set a timeline for the final phase leading up to a verdict.

In a public display of the EPA’s callousness towards the millions of children in the US currently at risk of neurotoxic harm from fluoridation, their lawyers asked the Court to suspend the trial a second time by putting it back in abeyance for at least 6 more months. When the Judge asked if the EPA would want additional delays after 6 months, their lawyers were unwilling to make any promises, saying that they wanted to wait for the publication of the National Toxicology Program’s state of the science review and meta-analysis on fluoride neurotoxicity; a process that could take over a year or may never actually happen.

It ought to concern every parent, grandparent, and future parent that after already two years of delay awaiting the publication of the NTP review, the EPA continues to ask for delay upon delay upon delay.

FAN’s attorney, Michael Connett, explained to the Court that the Director of the NTP admitted in his declaration that the government's review on fluoride’s harm to the developing brain may never be made public, despite 7 years of work by NTP's scientists and an unprecedented number of peer-reviews. Emails obtained using a Freedom of Information Act Request by FAN’s lawyers also showed that even if the NTP Director chose to publish the review, leadership at US Health and Human Services (HHS) could continue to block it from being released to the public.

Because of a motion that FAN filed and won in October, the Court and Plaintiffs now have the final NTP review that was intended to be published on May 18th, 2022 before political pressure from the CDC, NIDCR, and HHS led to it being suppressed. This completed document is already the most peer-reviewed and scientifically scrutinized NTP report in history, and ought to be more than adequate for the Court to proceed with the trial. However, this completed report is currently under protective court order, and can only be viewed by the Court, the Plaintiffs, the Defendants, and their experts.

Attorney Connett shared FAN’s position that we want the Court to make the final NTP review from May 2022 available to the public, as well as the communications and criticisms from the CDC and HHS that led to it being blocked. Conversely, . Connett pointed out that FAN has evidence obtained through FOIA requests showing that the American Dental Association was already given the NTP review so they could work to discredit it, and therefore there is no justifiable reason for the EPA to continue hiding it from the public.

Also in contrast to the EPA, Connett asked the Court to allow for the start of depositions and discovery immediately and schedule a second phase of the trial for early summer so a decision could be made as soon as possible. The Judge indicated that there was presently a Court backlog that would cause scheduling conflicts for June through August, but he set the next hearing date for April 11th. The Court indicated that it would rule on allowing public access to the NTP final report either before or at the April hearing, as well as schedule the last phase of the trial, likely for late summer/early Fall of this year.

As one FAN Board Member summed it up:

We want transparency. The EPA wants secrecy.

We want a decision as soon as possible. The EPA wants delays.

We want the decision based on science. The EPA sides with pro-fluoridation government authority figures who ignore, attack and twist the science and if necessary, do everything in their power to ensure the NTP report and meta-analysis never see the light of day.

Overall, we were pleased with the outcome of today's hearing, because it keeps the process moving steadily forward.

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

--------------------------------------------------

One of the many dangers of fluoride is that it accumulates in our soft tissues, like our brains, thyroid, and kidneys, and it can also cause osteosclerosis — the abnormal hardening and increase in density of bone. Our nation is suffering from thyroid disease, and even a slightly underactive thyroid can be a causative factor for disease and can lead to a multitude of health problems and symptoms like being overweight or obese, a slow heart rate, high blood pressure, heart failure, accelerated heart disease, and a multitude of other health problems.

It's important for ourselves, our children, our grandchildren, and our future generations that we have an opportunity to be healthy!

In closing, we thank Andy Anderson and the OMRPWA Board for standing up and protecting their loyal water customers in Boone, Marion, Newton, and Searcy counties. They are seeking an end to the malevolent water fluoridation crisis. Also, we commend FAN's attorney, Michael Connett, because he is doing such a great job handling this case and trying to bring an end to this fiasco.

It is time that the Arkansas state legislators started working for the people of Arkansas. Now is time to repeal mandatory public water fluoridation ACT197 in this state. Fluoride is a toxic poison with all kinds of negative side effects. Remember that some of the same government agencies pushing water fluoridation were also pushing the false covid narrative. The destructive practice of water fluoridation has been used as a lawful means of disposing of those waste by-products that come from fertilizer, steel, nuclear, and aluminum industries. The heinous fluoridation mandate must be stopped!

We must pray that this diabolical plan to harm the people gets exposed because the world is coming together to ban fluoride from their water supply.

Tyranny comes from totalitarian government!

As always, you can find our email articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com. The Search box is a handy tool.

For more information about a topic, just type it into the Search box on our website, and click Enter!

stop fluoride

Securing the blessings of liberty,

Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com

Disclaimer:

Legal Advice is Not Provided

The material in our emails/alerts and on our websites is only intended to provide general information and comment to the public. We make an effort to ensure that the information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites is accurate and timely, but we can't and don't guarantee that. Nor do we guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information contained on websites to which our websites or emails provide links.

Information found in our emails/alerts and on our websites should not be taken as legal advice. Legal matters can be complicated. For assistance with a specific legal problem or question, please contact a knowledgeable lawyer for assistance.

Click here to unsubscribe from our email list(s)."

[onawah]

New Study on Fluoride Toxicity in Poor Glycemic Control & Vit D Deficiency
2/6/23
https://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/43537/?fbclid=IwAR3f7CqsD0L1NCOc0V22UXMWHepKq3x3qzEFaUNwfgZS922ey8_UgwkrMKc

"Vitamin D deficiency in patients with diabetes and its correlation with water fluoride levels.
Author:
Kumar P.; Gupta R.; Gupta A.

Journal Name:
Journal of Water & Health

Publish Date:
January 1, 2023

Volume/Page:
Volume 21, Issue 1, 125–137

Type:
Human Study, Epidemiology
Categories:
Blood, Diabetes, Glucose, Susceptible Populations, Nutritional Status, Vitamin D
ABSTRACT
Chronic exposure to fluoride through drinking water has been linked to insulin resistance and resulting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Here, we aim to study the impact of water fluoride levels on blood glucose and vitamin D levels. A hospital-based study was conducted on diabetic patients (n = 303) at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Raebareli outstation patient department (OPD). The relationship between vitamin D or fasting blood glucose levels (BGLs) with water fluoride levels was estimated through Spearman’s rank correlation. We found a significant negative correlation between water fluoride and vitamin D levels [rs = ?0.777, p-value < 0.001] and a positive correlation between water fluoride and fasting BGLs [rs = 0.178, p-value <0.05]. The participants residing in fluoride-endemic areas (F> 1.5 mg/L) had higher odds of severe vitamin D deficiency (odds ratio: 5.07, 95% CI: 1.9–13.2, p-value = 0.0009). The results demonstrate that vitamin D deficiency and fasting BGLs are significantly associated with water fluoride levels. This study signifies the role of fluoride toxicity in poor glycemic control and derived vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D supplementation and the application of standard household water purification devices are recommended to tackle vitamin D deficiency in fluoride-endemic areas.

Highlights:

Water fluoride levels had a negative correlation with vitamin D deficiency and a positive correlation with blood glucose levels.
Toxic levels of fluoride in drinking water appeared as a risk factor for developing vitamin D deficiency.
Severe vitamin D deficiency and high blood glucose levels were observed in patients from fluoride-endemic areas compared to non-endemic areas.

https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/m_jwh-d-22-00254gf01.png

*Original full-text article online at: https://iwaponline.com/jwh/article/21/1/125/92696/Vitamin-D-deficiency-in-patients-with-diabetes-and

[onawah]

New Study Links Fluoridation To Hypothyroidism In Pregnancy
Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.comhttps://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/2413169?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==
2/12/23
https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/flouridealert/unnamed-2.jpg

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/York-Till-Thyroid-2023-Banner-2.png

“Researchers say healthy thyroid function is crucial for fetal brain development and their latest research may explain earlier findings looking at fluoride and children’s IQ”
Dear Friends:

A new study (Hall, et al., 2023) led by scientists from Toronto’s York University in the journal Science of the Total Environment linked fluoride exposure with an increased risk of hypothyroidism in pregnant women. Fluoridated water was the main source of fluoride in the cohort. The study also looked at a smaller subset of participants with IQ test results in the children and found that mothers who had been diagnosed with hypothyroidism had boys with lower IQ scores than mothers with normal thyroid function.

Entitled, "Fluoride Exposure And Hypothyroidism In A Canadian Pregnancy Cohort", the study discovered that a half-milligram-per liter increase in drinking water fluoride levels–roughly the difference in exposure level between the fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities–was associated with a 1.65 increase in odds of having a diagnosis or meeting criteria for hypothyroidism in pregnancy.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048969722082523

According to one study author, clinical neuropsychologist Christine Till, PhD, “The findings are concerning because hypothyroidism is a known cause of brain-based disorders in children.” (York press release) https://www.yorku.ca/news/2023/02/09/fluoride-exposure-associated-with-hypothyroidism-in-pregnancy-york-study-finds/

The study’s authors say they hope that policy makers will consider this new research when evaluating the safety of community water fluoridation. They say that the fluoride compounds added to tap water are a major source of fluoride exposure for over 200-million people in North America, since approximately four in 10 Canadians and seven out of 10 Americans on public water supplies have fluoridated drinking water.

Women in general are more at risk of developing hypothyroidism, a condition that can lead to symptoms such as fatigue, weight gain and depression. In pregnancy, the demands put on the thyroid system increase substantially, especially in the first trimester when the fetus is solely reliant on maternal thyroid hormones.

The study followed more than 1,500 women participating in a multi-year study called the Maternal Infant Research On Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) study, led by Health Canada to investigate the impact of environmental chemicals on vulnerable populations, including pregnant women and infants.
Women were recruited from 10 cities across Canada, seven of which have fluoridated drinking water.
The study’s authors only included women who reported drinking tap water during pregnancy, and they followed participants throughout pregnancy, and followed their children into early childhood.
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/environmental-contaminants/human-biomonitoring-environmental-chemicals/maternal-infant-research-environmental-chemicals-mirec-study.html

While fluoride’s ability to suppress the thyroid has been known since the 1930s when it was used to treat overactive thyroid–also known as hyperthyroidism–the mechanism by which fluoride may interfere with thyroid function is not entirely clear. The study’s lead author, Meaghan Hall, said that it may interfere with certain enzymes and iodine absorption, which is critical for thyroid hormone production. https://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/thyroid/

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/Hall2023%20F%20%26%20thyroid%2C%20MIREC%2C%20Canada%3B%20graphic%20abstract.jpeg

This study is the strongest to date showing that fluoride causes hypothyroidism, as well as that the mother’s hypothyroidism is associated with lower IQ in the child.

It adds to a growing body of evidence that fluoride exposures from artificially fluoridated water is sufficient to impair thyroid function.
Earlier studies finding an effect were in a study of nearly the entire population of England [Peckham 2015];
https://jech.bmj.com/content/69/7/619
...a large nationally representative sample from Canada using the CHMS survey [Malin 2018]; a case-control study in Iran [Kheradpisheh 2018]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-20696-4
... and in a large sample of children in China where mean water and urine fluoride levels are only slightly higher than in areas with artificial fluoridation [Wang 2020].https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019301370?via%3Dihub

Two studies have not found an association between fluoride at levels relevant to fluoridation and decreased thyroid function, but both suffered limitations that may explain why they did not detect effects [Barberio 2017, Shaik 2019]. The Barberio 2017 study
https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/10/1019
...did not consider iodine intake and the Shaik 2019 study selected only children with optimal iodine intake. The Malin 2018 study https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201830833X?via%3Dihub
...reanalyzed the same sample as Barberio 2017 but controlled for iodine and found that in those with iodine insufficiency fluoride exposure increased hypothyroidism. This could also explain why no effect was found in the Shaik 2019 study that was restricted to only children with optimal iodine intake.

This latest study’s authors also say fluoride levels in tap water may be a more reliable indicator of long-term fluoride exposure than urinary levels, which might better correlate with short-term exposure, they say.

Read the press release from York University:
https://twitter.com/YorkUnews/status/1623706037415997441?s=20&t=R3d51P-_pDw26LDgjimmug

See York’s Twitter Post:https://twitter.com/YorkUnews/status/1623706037415997441?s=20&t=R3d51P-_pDw26LDgjimmug "

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

[onawah]

SUPPRESSED GOVERNMENT REPORT FINDING FLUORIDE CAN REDUCE CHILDREN’S IQ MADE PUBLIC UNDER EPA LAWSUIT
March 15th, 2023
Fluoride Action Network
https://fluoridealert.org/articles/suppressed-government-report-finding-fluoride-can-reduce-childrens-iq-made-public-under-epa-lawsuit/

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)

"The final report of a 6-year National Toxicology Program (NTP) review of fluoride neurotoxicity was blocked from public release by the Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistant Administrator in May 2022 according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). But under an agreement reached in an ongoing lawsuit against the EPA, the report was made public today along with a table of contents.

Also released were comments from external peer-reviewers and internal HHS departments, along with NTP’s responses. The review considered all human studies of fluoride’s effect on the developing brain. Its conclusion confirmed and strengthened the findings from two earlier draft versions released in 2019 and 2020. External peer-reviewers all agreed with the report’s conclusion that prenatal and early life fluoride exposures can reduce IQ.

The report was issued in two parts, a monograph and a meta-analysis. The meta-analysis found that 52 of 55 studies found lower IQ with higher fluoride exposures, demonstrating remarkable consistency. Of the 19 studies rated higher quality, 18 found lowering of IQ. The meta-analysis could not detect any safe exposure, including at levels common from drinking artificially fluoridated water.

Documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show government agencies that promote fluoridation, allied with dental interests, have tried to water down the report. When the NTP held firm, these agencies scrambled to get HHS Assistant Administrator Rachel Levine to block its release. Only one historical example exists of an NTP report being blocked from release, a report on the carcinogenicity of asbestos-contaminated talc. Talc industry groups conducted an aggressive lobbying campaign, including enlisting friendly congresspeople to intervene. FAN was able to force today’s release of the NTP fluoride report by using leverage from the ongoing lawsuit against the EPA.

Fluoridation defenders have falsely claimed draft versions of the report had been “rejected” by a National Academies committee. In fact, the committee recommended that NTP clarify their methods and reasoning for reaching their conclusions because the issue was considered so contentious. The NTP has done that in the report released today. There is now little question that a large body of scientific evidence supports a conclusion that fluoride can lower child’s IQ, including at exposure levels from fluoridated water.

With the release of this NTP report, dental interests may have to rethink their denial of the evidence that fluoridation can reduce children’s IQ.

Please share our press release with your local media contacts and decision makers as soon as possible.

STAY TUNED! We will be sending out additional bulletins on the NTP report in the coming days."

[onawah]

Lead Industry’s Denial Tactics Now Used by Dental Interests
By: Chris Neurath, FAN Science Director
5/4/23
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/2486122?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202023-05-04%20at%207.40.43%20PM.png

" Highlights:
• Similar loss of IQ from fluoride as from lead
• IQ loss seen at doses from fluoridated water
• Same industry denials, personal attacks on scientists
• Industry tactic: blaming the victim
• Fluoride is the new lead, but worse

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) report on the neurotoxicity of fluoride confirms what experts have long been suggesting: that fluoride is the new lead in its ability to lower IQ in children. Over the past five years, experts in toxicology and epidemiology have equated the harm to developing brains from fluoride to that from lead.

NTP Final Report Confirms Similar Loss Of IQ From Fluoride As From Lead

The NTP’s final report on fluoride neurotoxicity supports these experts’ conclusions. NTP found an average loss of 7 IQ points in 55 studies that compared child IQ of a higher fluoride group to that of a lower fluoride group. NTP also conducted a so-called dose-response meta-analysis to look at the relationship between fluoride dose and IQ loss by combining results from many studies at different exposure levels. They found that as water fluoride concentrations rose from 0.0 to 1.5 mg/L (milligrams per liter, equivalent to parts per million or ppm), the average IQ dropped about 6 IQ points. Artificial fluoridation is generally at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L water fluoride, squarely in this range. The loss of IQ at 0.7 mg/L is predicted to be about 3 IQ points.

NTP Finds Loss Of IQ At Doses From Fluoridated Water

The dose-response curve calculated by NTP, which shows how IQ drops as fluoride exposure increases, is shown in their eFigure 17, reproduced here:

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202023-04-27%20at%209.20.22%20AM.png

The graph shows no safe threshold and the slope of the solid line representing the relationship between exposure and loss of IQ is actually steepest in the low exposure range directly applicable to artificially fluoridated water. In the NTP’s own words: “there was no obvious threshold as illustrated by [eFigure 17]”.

The relationship between fluoride and IQ loss can be compared directly to that between lead and IQ as shown in the right-hand graph from a 2005 paper that pooled data from the 7 strongest studies [Lanphear 2005]:

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202023-04-27%20at%209.20.38%20AM.png

The paper and this Lead-IQ graph were largely responsible for the CDC halving its level of concern for child blood lead from 10 to 5 ug/dL (micrograms per deciliter), and for the EPA to declare there was no safe level of lead exposure. But for the strikingly similar fluoride dose-response graph in the NTP report, the fluoridation defenders at CDC deny relevance to artificial fluoridation. The EPA is also beholden to the dental lobby and hired chemical industry consultants to fight against a lawsuit which would require EPA to protect children from loss of IQ from fluoridation.

Experts: Fluoride’s IQ Deficits “On Par With Lead”

Editors from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) described the IQ drop of -4.5 IQ points in one study [Christakis & Rivera 2019]:

“An effect size which is sizable – on par with lead.”

David Bellinger, author of over 400 epidemiology papers on neurotoxic chemicals including over 100 on lead, said [NPR 2019]:

“It’s actually very similar to the effect size that’s seen with childhood exposure to lead.”

Christine Till, leader of a research team that has published rigorous studies of fluoride neurotoxicity funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [Canada CTV 2019]:

“4.5 points is a dramatic loss of IQ, comparable to what you’d see with lead exposure.”

And [Farmus 2021]:

“A 2- to 4-point decrement in PIQ [Performance IQ] may seem like a small difference at the individual level. However, a small shift in the mean of IQ scores at the population level translates to millions of lost IQ points given the ubiquity of fluoride exposure.” (emphasis added)

Philippe Grandjean, editor-in-chief of the journal Environmental Health, and author of over 500 peer-reviewed papers on toxicity of fluoride, lead, mercury, perfluorinated compounds (like PFAS), and other chemicals [Grandjean 2013 book & website]:

“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.”

Dental Groups Use Same Tactics As Lead Industry Used To Defend Lead

Fluoridation advocates, mostly dentists, have been falsely claiming the NTP review did not find evidence of neurotoxicity below 1.5 mg/L water fluoride, or that the evidence below 1.5 mg/L is unclear. Some have even claimed the NTP found a safe threshold at 1.5 mg/L water fluoride. Some fluoridation advocates go so far as to falsely assert there is no evidence fluoride is neurotoxic at any level, or that the only studies finding adverse effects are at levels “far higher” than pregnant mothers and children would get from fluoridated water.

Similar dismissals were made by the lead industry about what was called “low-level” lead exposures more than 30 years ago. The amount and quality of evidence available today showing fluoride causes IQ loss can be compared with what was available for “low-level” lead in 1990. At that time, a review and meta-analysis by Herbert Needleman, groundbreaking medical researcher in childhood lead poisoning, was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) [Needleman 1990]. There were only 12 human studies considered high-quality. It is worth noting that none were of designs considered as high quality as are available now with longitudinal cohort studies of fluoride. Furthermore, the lead studies were in populations with lead levels from 2x to 4x higher than the average childhood lead level at the time and up to 30x higher than average child blood lead levels today. The study children mostly had 30-60 ug/dL blood lead, whereas the average at the time was 15 ug/dL.

Today the average child blood lead is down to 1 ug/dL because of the banning of lead paint and gasoline. Those bans were largely a result of Needleman’s research and his meta-analysis. A typical loss of IQ in the higher-lead-exposure groups compared with the lower-exposure groups was about 4 IQ points [Needleman 1979a]. Compare that to the 7 IQ point loss from fluoride found in the NTP’s meta-analysis. The fluoride studies evaluated by NTP today show greater loss of IQ from a stronger body of evidence than was available for lead at the time of Needleman’s 1990 meta-analysis.

Shoot The Messenger

There was heated controversy at the time over Needleman’s findings on low-level lead and IQ, with the lead industry making many of the same arguments now being made by dental interests with fluoride [Needleman 1979b letters, Needleman 1982, Needleman 2004]. There were even scurrilous personal attacks against Needleman claiming scientific misconduct, but he was always vindicated [Bill Moyers 2002 video, Denworth 2008, Markowitz 2013]. That same lead industry tactic has now been used by dental interests against scientists who have conducted the most rigorous fluoride-IQ studies. But the personal attacks today are worse. With lead, the claims of scientific misconduct were against a single researcher, Needleman. With fluoride, the dental advocates lodged formal complaints of scientific misconduct against all nine members of a research team at five different universities. All five universities completely exonerated the scientists, but their work was severely disrupted by the need to defend themselves against the false accusations, on top of the personal stress that accompanies charges that can wreck a scientific career. The fluoridation advocates that filed the complaints had been advised by their own legal counsel that the accusations were false, yet they filed them anyway.

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202023-04-27%20at%209.48.14%20AM.png

Blame The Victim

The lead industry also tried a tactic of “blaming the victim”, arguing that blood lead was higher in lowIQ children not because the lead had caused the reduction in IQ, but because lowIQ children tended to eat more lead paint chips [Cole 1979]. This was easily proven wrong by Needleman [Needleman 1979b, Needleman 1982, Needleman 2004]. Today, some of the most extreme dentist defenders of fluoride are offering a similar “blame the victim” argument to try to explain away all the studies finding reduced IQ with higher fluoride.

izErKWUAOUs

Jaynath Kumar, the California state dental director who says “my job is to promote fluoridation”, is arguing that in studies in China where fluoride exposures cause high rates of severe dental fluorosis the smarter people move to areas with lower fluoride, thereby reducing the average IQ for the population of unfortunate people who are not smart enough to leave. Not only is Kumar’s “reverse causality” explanation pure speculation, it is easily disproven by the high quality studies in Canada and Mexico City [Green 2019, Bashash 2017]. These were not in areas considered “endemic fluorosis” so there were no high rates of severe dental fluorosis.

The tactics now being used by dental interests to protect the policy of fluoridation are disturbingly similar to those used by the lead industry. They are also the same tactics used by the tobacco, asbestos, chemical, and many other industries making toxic products. Their intent is to delay action for years by manufacturing doubt about the science. A cigarette industry executive famously described this strategy, saying “Doubt is our product” [Brown & Williamson 1969].

If we squander years in debate on fluoride, we risk the same harm to brains of millions of children that resulted from delayed recognition of low-level lead harm. The evidence on fluoride is more than sufficient to begin taking protective action now.

Fluoridation Today Causing More Lost IQ Points Amongst US Children Than Lead

Estimates of the total child IQ points currently being lost due to fluoridated water in the US are greater than those being lost from childhood lead poisoning [Neurath 2020, Neurath 2021].

Fluoride truly is the new lead. Fluoride is causing substantially greater population-wide loss of IQ today than lead. Two-thirds of Americans receive drinking water that has had fluoride added and dental interests are calling for expanding fluoridation. In contrast, lead was banned from paint and gasoline starting in the 1970s and as a result child blood lead levels have steadily declined to a tiny fraction of what they were before the bans. Only about 3% of children today exceed the latest CDC guideline of 3.5 ug/dL. In Needleman’s day almost all children greatly exceeded today’s lead guideline [Pirkle 1994].

To be clear, lead poisoning has not been eliminated. There are still tens of thousands of children who are lead poisoned, especially from old leaded paint or situations such as in Flint, Michigan. There, a switch to corrosive water leached lead from pipes and caused more than a doubling of the percentage of children with blood lead exceeding 5 ug/dL, from 5% to 12% [Zahran 2017, PBS 2017]. As terrible as the Flint case was, it is estimated that only about 500 children had their blood lead raised above the 5 ug/dL level. Compare that to 210 million people with fluoridated water in the US. They are exposed to fluoride which the new scientific evidence suggests is putting each new generation at risk for lowered IQ.

Fluoridation in the US is equivalent to 17,917 “Flints” every year, in terms of harm to kids’ developing brains. That is the number of water systems where fluoride is added.

As the distinguished toxicologist and long-time director of NTP Linda Birnbaum wrote: [Lanphear 2020]:

“When do we know enough to revise long-held beliefs? We are reminded of the discovery of neurotoxic effects of lead that led to the successful banning of lead in gasoline and paint. Despite early warnings of lead toxicity, regulatory actions to reduce childhood lead exposures were not taken until decades of research had elapsed and millions more children were poisoned.”

Fluoride Is The New Lead, But Worse.

Also see these two FAN Bulletins on the NTP fluoride neurotoxicity report:
FAN 2023-03-15
FAN 2023-03-16 "

[norman]

On I.Q. . . . just my own private hunch, tho'

Children's I.Q.s can be reduced by the use of NLP (Neuro-linguistic programming) by their 'teachers' during their early years.

I see it everywhere, but I can't prove it.

[onawah]

New Presentation By Author of Fluoride Neurotoxicity Studies
From: Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.com>
info@fluoridealert.org

"An important new video is now available, featuring a 45-minute PowerPoint presentation and a 15-minute Q&A session with the senior author of several significant fluoride neurotoxicity studies. The event was hosted in May by a community organization from Windsor, Ontario, called Windsor On Watch.

Click here to learn more about Windsor’s fluoridation situation: https://fluoridefreewindsor.com/

The webinar by Professor Christine Till, Ph.D., https://health.yorku.ca/health-profiles/?mid=645764
... focuses on the current state of research on fluoride neurodevelopmental toxicity, including her own landmark studies looking at fetal and infant fluoride exposure.
It also includes a discussion of potential adverse health outcomes associated with fluoride exposure, particularly during early childhood development.

Dr. Till is an award-winning researcher with particular interest in children’s environmental health and is the principal investigator on a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant focused on testing the effects of fluoride exposure during pregnancy on thyroid function and child neurodevelopment.
She’s an adjunct scientist to the Neurosciences and Mental Health Program at SickKids and an associate professor of Psychology at York University.

She is the senior author of several significant fluoride studies, including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019) https://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/34904/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=58b73dd8-cbf7-4d45-a076-5d3f5397076b
...the 2020 study, https://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/35739/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=58b73dd8-cbf7-4d45-a076-5d3f5397076b
...Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort, and the 2018 study
https://fluoridealert.org/studytracker/32334/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=58b73dd8-cbf7-4d45-a076-5d3f5397076b
...Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada.

This hour-long presentation is one of the best opportunities available to hear directly from a scientist who has been on the cutting edge of research investigating the effects of water fluoridation on children’s IQs. Please share this on social media, with friends, neighbors, and family, as well as with your local decision-makers.

Thank you,
Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network"

NOc4XYto8eo

[onawah]

DANISH DATA SUPPORT FLUORIDE BEING TOXIC TO BRAIN DEVELOPMENT
Oct 10, 2023 | By Marianne Lie Becker
https://fluoridealert.org/news/danish-data-support-fluoride-being-toxic-to-brain-development/?fbclid=IwAR2Gw0fhOGutsbhGgbCcgsxFHmEqs-9MLTdmWy-400Bdbdt1pYNHCEzAkK4

"Even an apparently small amount of fluoride transferred from the mother during her pregnancy to the fetus can damage the fetal brain development.

This association has previously been supported by a multitude of studies, but a new study led by Professor Philippe Grandjean, MD, now documents the linkage in a joint study of more than 1500 mother-child pairs from cohorts in North America, now also including births in Denmark.

The fluoride concentrations in Danish drinking water are generally low, but they may be complemented by the ingestion of toothpaste and by drinking certain types of black tea. Although fluoride exposures in the Danish women were comparatively low and similar to Canadian women from non-fluoridated cities, the cohorts overlapped in exposure levels, so that the researchers could generate joint conclusions from all the cohorts.

Meet the researcher
https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/PGrandjean.jpg-682x1024.webp

In addition to Philippe Grandjean, Professor of Environmental Medicine, University of Southern Denmark, the study authors include colleagues from University of Copenhagen, Odense University Hospital, and researchers from the United States and Canada.

ADVICE ON AVOIDING ELEVATED EXPOSURE TO FLUORIDE
Make sure that your community drinking water contains only low fluoride concentrations. If not, consider relying on bottled water that has a confirmed low fluoride level.
Toothpaste containing fluoride are beneficial, as the fluoride will help strengthen the enamel surface of the teeth so that they will be more resistant against caries. However, the toothpaste should not be swallowed, as absorption of the fluoride will provide no benefit at all and could cause harm.
Certain types of tea may contain highly increased fluoride levels. Studies suggest that this is true for some black teas from East Africa often used in commercial teabags, as well as some black teas from China, Sri Lanka and India.
Pregnant women should pay special attention to maintaining a low fluoride exposure.
Through the new study, the researchers have established a valid method that can be utilized for further research into the effects of repeated low doses of psilocybin. The study also lends support to the numerous anecdotal reports of the benefits of microdosing as a therapeutic intervention.

The data were examined using the type of statistics applied by regulatory agencies in Europe and the United States. The calculations showed a so-called benchmark level of about 0.3 mg/L, which suggests that water-fluoride concentrations at many locations may not be safe. In the United States and Canada, fluoride is often added to community drinking water at a concentration of 0.7 mg/L with the intension of protecting against caries. However, this level is higher that the safe level that is suggested by the new study. Some countries add fluoride to table salt, also with the aim of benefitting children’s teeth.

Grandjean says that fluoride is beneficial when it is in contact with the enamel surface of the teeth, but that ingestion of the fluoride does not add any benefit. On the contrary, pregnant women who ingest fluoride will pass it on to the fetus without obtaining any benefit at all. In contrast, the fluoride can reach the highly vulnerable fetal brain and should therefore be minimized or fully avoided.

*Original full-text article online at: https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/sundhedsvidenskab/nyheder/fluor-paavirker-intelligensen "

(Fluoride applied to tooth enamel causes fluorosis, so that study needs more study! :sad:)

[onawah]

New Study: Fluoridated Water Weakens Children's Bones
Broken Arms Doubled in States With Widespread Fluoridatio
10/23/23
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/2864942?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==

"For over fifty years, there have been concerns that fluoridated water and fluoride from other sources may weaken bones and increase the risk of bone fractures. To date, scientific studies have focused on bone fractures in the elderly, especially hip fractures in older women, which are a leading cause of disability and death. This week, the first scientific study of artificial water fluoridation and broken bones in children was published. The article’s title is “Community Water Fluoridation and Rate of Pediatric Fractures” (Lindsay et al 2023).

Researchers from Oregon Health & Science University found that US states with a high proportion of their population receiving fluoridated water averaged twice the rate of common types of childhood bone fracture as states with relatively little fluoridation. They also looked at the level of fluoride in the water and found that in the group of states with an average concentration of around 0.7 mg/L – the level used in artificial fluoridation – rates of child forearm fractures were 2.5 times greater than in the group of states with the lowest average concentration, which was about 0.4 mg/L.

The study used nationwide bone fracture data from over 100,000 children aged 4 to 10 years old, at the state level, obtained from insurance records. Water fluoridation information came from CDC public data. The authors concluded, “community water fluoridation proportion by both state and fluoridation levels are associated with the increased rate of fracture in children”.

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202023-10-22%20at%2011.28.23%20AM.png

X-ray image of Both Bone Forearm Fracture (BBFFx).

The largest increase was found in the most common type of childhood bone fracture called a Both Bone Forearm Fracture (BBFFx), an example of which is shown in the x-ray image.

For this type of broken arm, the study’s findings are illustrated by two graphs, drawn from data reported in the paper:

https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/FAN%20Bulletin%20Lindsay%202023%20paper%20F%20child%20bone%20fractures%2C%20ver4%2C%20graphs.png
https://nfg-dm-bee.s3.amazonaws.com/images/fluoridealert/FAN%20Bulletin%20Lindsay%202023%20paper%20F%20child%20bone%20fractures%2C%20ver4%2C%20graphs.png

The graphs show highly significant large-magnitude associations between child forearm fractures and the percent of people fluoridated (left graph) and the average state water fluoride concentration (right graph).

While the study was a relatively simple design, based on state-level rather than individual-level exposure data, it raises new red flags about fluoride’s effect on skeletal development in young children.

FAN’s Michael Connett predicted back in 2012, based on a study in Iowa, that fluoride may increase risk of bone fractures in children [Connett 2012a, Connett 2012b]. The Iowa study found evidence of decreased Bone Mineral Density (BMD) in girls in fluoridated areas, especially cortical bone which is the outer layer that gives structural strength to long bones like those in the forearm. Connett said the finding was: “… particularly significant when considering that reductions in cortical bone density are a key mechanism by which fluoride can increase fracture rates.”

Twenty-one years ago, long before recent higher-quality studies became available, FAN’s Paul Connett made broader predictions of the effects of fluoridated water on bone:

“… the weight of evidence would suggest that it is highly plausible that exposure to water at 1 ppm … over a whole lifetime will damage human bones and ligaments. It is also probable that this damage will at least lead to the sub-clinical symptoms of skeletal fluorosis, possibly arthritis as well as to hip fractures.”

Those predictions from 10 and 20 years ago are being born out. Two years ago the evidence that long-term fluoride exposure increases risk of broken bones in older adults was greatly advanced by a high-quality study from Sweden. Last week’s first-ever study on childhood bone fractures now raises concern that just a few years of exposure to fluoridation, during ages when children’s bones are rapidly growing, may substantially increase rates of childhood bone fractures."

Chris Neurath
Research Director
Fluoride Action Network

[avid]

https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/fluoride-the-poisoned-chalice-in-plain-sight
An amazing interview about research into fluoridation, where and when in UK, and the ramifications of governmental ’deliberately deaf ears’ on our babies, children, and of course our future health.

[norman]

https://www.ukcolumn.org/.../fluoride-the-poisoned...
An amazing interview about research into fluoridation, where and when in UK, and the ramifications of governmental ’deliberately deaf ears’ on our babies, children, and of course our future health.

Thanks, but I can't get the link to work for me. It says '403 Forbidden'.

I found this page by searching, is it the same one ?
https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/fluoride-the-poisoned-chalice-in-plain-sight


(https://www.ukcolumn.org/video/fluoride-the-poisoned-chalice-in-plain-sight)



Mod note from Bill:
Yes, that's it. I fixed the link in the post above.
:thumbsup:


THANKS

I also found it (eventually) on Odysee here:

https://odysee.com/@ukcolumn:9/FluorideThePoisonedChalicewithJoyWarren:e

@ukcolumn:9/FluorideThePoisonedChalicewithJoyWarren:e

[norman]

WAW! . . . utterly startling all the way through and especially the final 3 points she made at the end.

How about this one. She's found that hospital tooth extractions from children (dentists don't do that any more) are higher in fluoridated areas than in non fluoridated areas !

Also, fluoridated water is NOT legally Drinking Water any more, it's medicinal water. She, personally, has had her water bill reduced to just paying for sewage disposal because she has found a way to opt out of paying for medicinal water.

There are lots of things to learn in this video and I knew almost non of them before.

[ExomatrixTV]

1774095066694381685
source (https://twitter.com/JohnKuhles1966/status/1774095066694381685?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1774095066694381685%7Ctwgr% 5E9e4fa7a610bc70162b10628f33c93dd2ee266053%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fprojectavalon.net%2Fforum4%2Fshowthread.php%3F75012-The-Fluoride-Thread)



The Fluoride Deception - Full Length Documentary

eBZRb-73tLc

[onawah]

U.S. Surgeon General Quietly Backpedaled on Water Fluoridation 5 Years Ago, Emails Reveal
4/1/24
By Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/water-fluoridation-us-surgeon-general-stop-support-lower-iq/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20240401

(MANY hyperlinks in the article --not embedded here)

"After decades of pushing water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health accomplishments in U.S. history, the U.S. surgeon general’s office stopped issuing public statements of support after a National Toxicology Program report linked fluoride to children’s lower IQs.
For more than seven decades, U.S. public health officials steadfastly supported water fluoridation, claiming the practice is a key strategy for maintaining and improving dental health.

Even today, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls water fluoridation one of the “ten great public health achievements of the 20th century.”

However, internal email communications shared with The Defender suggest that as early as 2020, officials at the highest levels of the U.S. Public Health Service — the Office of the Surgeon General — were having second thoughts.

“These emails show that despite public statements to the contrary, there is a lot of concern in the federal government about the potential link between fluoridated drinking water and lower IQs,” said Michael Connett.

Connett, an attorney, represents plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The suit seeks to end water fluoridation based on science linking low-level fluoride exposure to lower IQ scores in children.The emails were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request and shared with The Defender by plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

They reveal that in 2020, on the 75th anniversary of water fluoridation, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams declined to make a statement endorsing water fluoridation, despite strong encouragement and behind-the-scenes organizing by his Chief Dental Officer Timothy Ricks.

Adams’ office also stopped Ricks from co-signing, with eight previous chief dental officers, and releasing a letter supporting community water fluoridation and celebrating the anniversary.

The U.S. surgeon general’s public support for water fluoridation has been considered key to boosting water fluoridation since the practice began.

Until 2020, every surgeon general had made oral or written statements supporting water fluoridation, according to the communications among previous chief dental officers — appointees who advise the surgeon general and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on the recruitment and development of oral health professionals.

However, on this important anniversary, Adams’ staff told Ricks the surgeon general was reluctant to make a pro-fluoridation statement because he knew government scientists at the National Toxicology Program (NTP) were about to publish a systematic review of the literature on fluoride and neurotoxicity in children.

The NTP report found that neonatal and childhood fluoride exposure had negative cognitive and neurodevelopmental effects for children.

“One thing these emails demonstrate is what is undiscussed in the public sphere is that the science on fluoridation is very troubling, not just in high doses but at levels applicable to water fluoridation in the U.S.”

“The fact that this concern is being expressed by an office that has historically been very supportive of fluoridation further highlights the serious implications of the NTP’s findings,” Connett said.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, who also held the office under the Obama administration, publicly endorsed water fluoridation in 2016. That was after he officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation the year before from 0.7-1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L after considering “adverse health effects” along with alleged benefits.

The original draft version of Murthy’s revised water fluoridation recommendations included a summary of some research on fluoride’s impact on IQ and other neurological issues with a statement saying further research was needed on the topic and that reducing the recommended levels for water fluoridation maintains benefits yet “reduces the chance of unwanted effects.”

Those statements were not present in Murthy’s final draft.

The Defender could not locate any public statement by Murthy in support of water fluoridation during his current term, which began in March 2021. Murthy’s office did not respond to an inquiry about his latest position on the issue.

The Defender did not receive responses from the offices of Adams or Ricks.

NTP report raised concerns about fluoridation while CDC continues to ‘blindly support’ it, emails show

As the 75th anniversary of water fluoridation approached, Ricks — appointed chief dental officer by Adams — drafted a statement endorsing the water fluoridation for Surgeon General Adams to sign.

However, Rick discovered Adams “didn’t want to sign such a statement because NTP was developing a monograph on fluoride that would undercut our long-standing support,” Ricks wrote in an email to a member of the surgeon general’s office.

In a series of emails over the next several months to the surgeon general’s staff, Ricks rallied the support of previous surgeon generals and chief dental officers for a statement, and attempted to convince the office that the NTP report was flawed or that the findings on fluoride’s neurotoxicity ought not to raise concerns.

The NTP is an interagency program housed at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that investigates environmental toxins to determine if they threaten human health. Scientists there have been studying the neurological effects of fluoride on human health since 2016.

The NTP’s study was launched 10 years after the National Research Council concluded its own multi-year study, which determined fluoride is an endocrine disruptor that can interfere with brain function and mandated further research into the issue.

After years of research, NTP’s report went through multiple rounds of peer review — more than any other publications put out by the NTP, because of the controversial or “sensitive” nature of their findings on fluoride’s neurotoxicity.

Documents obtained through public records requests also later revealed lobbying by the dental industry and coordination with government officials from other agencies within the NIH, including the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), to weaken the conclusions, delay the report or stop its publication went on behind the scenes for several years.

Ricks coordinated with the American Dental Association (ADA) on how to continue to advocate for community water fluoridation in response to the report’s anticipated findings.

In April 2022, when the NTP finally announced it was ready to publish its final report, the ADA and other organizations obtained copies of the report and lobbied federal officials to block its publication.

Dental officials at the CDC, the NIH and the NIDCR pressured HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine to prevent the review from being published.

Levine told the NTP to put the report on hold and send it for another round of peer review.

In March 2023, the draft NTP report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children was finally published under court order. In the process, many officials publicly and privately objected to the review process, which they claimed was politicized by agencies and individuals with a vested interest in water fluoridation.

The report is a key document in the ongoing lawsuit filed by Food & Water Watch, the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and private individuals against the EPA seeking to end water fluoridation.

Arguments in that lawsuit began in June 2020, but it was put on hold pending the publication of the NTP report. The landmark fluoride trial resumed in January of this year and the judge is currently deliberating on his final decision.

While the lawsuit and the political wrangling over the report were ongoing in 2020, Ricks reached out to his colleagues for help getting the surgeon general to maintain the office’s support for water fluoridation.

In an email labeled, “Not for dissemination; keep confidential,” Ricks shared a “bombshell” with former chief dental officers. He told them the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the NTP and the NIDCR had informed the Office of the Surgeon General that the NIEHS/NTP report would “state that fluoride was definitely neurotoxic to children” and the surgeon general would be withdrawing the letter that Ricks had prepared.

Ricks and others planned for the dental officers, without Ricks’ signature, to issue their own letter and share it at the meeting of the ADA. Ricks would privately facilitate wide circulation of the letter, he said.

The impacts of the surgeon general’s decision raised concerns for Ricks. In another email, he worried the public would begin to think that the U.S. Public Health Service no longer backs water fluoridation.

When Ricks received a draft of the NTP report in August 2020, he again reached out to the surgeon general’s office to seek a signature, downplaying the report’s conclusions.

Ricks quoted the NTP report’s new summary statement, which said that at water fluoridation levels typically found in the U.S. “effects on cognitive neurodevelopment are inconsistent, and therefore unclear.”

He highlighted the sentence and contended that uncertainty over whether fluoride damaged cognitive development made it “safe for the Surgeon General to issue a statement of support.”

According to the excerpt highlighted by Ricks, “However, when considering all the evidence … NTP concludes that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans.”

Others at NIH voiced concerns that there would be public pushback, “since there is now preliminary early evidence about potential risks to fluoride.”

Ricks also wrote that the surgeon general indicated he would sign such a document only if he had full backing from both NIH and CDC. He wondered whether then-acting director Lawrence A. Tabak, Ph.D., also a dentist, and Francis Collins, M.D., Ph.D., would support such a letter.

By the end of August, Ricks had given up on the letter. In an email to Deputy Surgeon General Erica Schwartz, he said what he called the “anti-fluoride movement” was “more organized than ever before.”

He added that the NIH was now “on the fence about fluoride” despite the fact that the CDC was “seemingly blindly supporting fluoridation.”

In his last email to Schwartz, Ricks expressed his concern that a “very well put together” video would be aired at the next meeting of the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology.

He also noted that the president of the largest dental public health organization in the U.S. “has contributed to anti-fluoride research.”

Ricks was referring to research published by E. Angeles Martinez Mier, Ph.D., professor and associate dean for Global Engagement at the Indiana University School of Dentistry and former president of the American Association of Public Health Dentistry.

Martinez Mier co-authored an NIH, NIEHS and EPA-funded study published in Environmental Health Perspectives on a group called the ELEMENT cohort in Mexico that found that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower cognitive function in children tested at age 4 and ages 6-12.

That 2017 article is just one of several recent studies that have identified the neurotoxic effects of fluoride exposure on children.

The study Martinez Mier worked on was part of one of four major recent studies on fluoride neurotoxicity done examining birth cohorts, which are considered the “gold standard” of epidemiological studies. In cohort studies, researchers collect epidemiological data during pregnancy and then from children over their lifetimes to study a variety of health outcomes tied to environmental exposures.

A significant body of scientific research has cast doubt on the dental health benefits of ingesting fluoride — and demonstrated negative health consequences of fluoride exposure, ranging from dental and skeletal fluorosis to developmental neurotoxicity.

However, the media, public health officials and even other researchers have until recently systematically discredited anyone, including scientists, who raised concerns about fluoride, going so far as to label them “conspiracy theorists.” "

[onawah]

Fluoridation on Trial/Update
Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.com
May 6, 2024
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3211056?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==

"I know that many supporters are wondering if there are any updates on our federal lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the neurotoxicity of fluoridation chemicals. In short, we’re still awaiting a ruling from the court.

At this point, we could be notified at any moment that the court has made a decision. It could come tomorrow, next week, or possibly take several more weeks; we just don’t know. We’ve been advised that federal rulings can typically take between several weeks and several months to be made, so we have no reason to believe that anything abnormal is occurring with our case. In fact, it’s important to remember that our case spanned almost seven years since our initial court filing in 2017, and it involved hundreds of hours of deposition video, a large number of technical studies, and weeks of in-court testimony and cross examination. It makes sense that the judge would need some time to review the evidence while also continuing to work on other cases before the court.

Rest assured that FAN will promptly notify our supporters when a ruling is made. We’ll send out a bulletin, post on social media, and add an update to our website.

Closing Briefs

On March 1st, attorneys for both parties submitted a joint document to the judge listing the findings of fact for the case. This included facts that are undisputed by both parties, such as that the developing brain in utero and infancy has a heightened vulnerability to toxins. It also included proposed facts from each party, along with either an accompanying note in agreement or a rebuttal from the opposing party.

When our attorneys examined the EPA’s rebuttals, they found what appeared to be multiple factual misrepresentations and errors made by the defendants. Our legal team alerted the EPA to these errors, and some were retracted. However, our attorneys also asked the court if we could submit a final closing brief to address and correct the misrepresentations that remained. On March 11th, the court granted our request, and on March 15th, closing briefs were filed with the court.

Below is the opening paragraph of our closing brief from attorney Michael Connett:

“This Court is confronted with precisely the scenario that Congress had in mind when it enacted the Citizen Petition provision of TSCA: an EPA that has let “bureaucratic lethargy” undermine the appropriate enforcement of TSCA’s 'vital authority' for safeguarding public health.

EPA has known since 2006 that its safe drinking water standards for fluoride are unsafe, but has failed to lower these standards in the 17 years since the National Academies of Science advised it to do so.

EPA’s bureaucratic lethargy has been evident throughout this litigation, with the Agency demonstrating time and again its unwillingness to evaluate the science on fluoride through the normal risk assessment framework it uses to protect Americans from other toxic chemicals.

In its rebuttal, EPA goes so far as to pretend that the hazard level for fluoride neurotoxicity could be as high as 'infinity.'

Congress understood that there is a time and place when a court order under Section 21 is needed to “force EPA’s hand.” That time is now.”

READ THE FULL CLOSING BRIEF: https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/Plaintiffs-Closing-Brief.pdf

Trial Recording

We're also awaiting a ruling by the court on our motion to make the video recording of the second phase of the trial available to the public. As some of you may recall, prior to the start of the second phase of the trial held this February, it was unclear if the trial could be live-streamed via Zoom due to changes in federal court policies post-Covid. At the time, the court was considering recording the trial and making the video public if Zoom wasn't allowed. Ultimately, the trial was live-streamed on Zoom, and while the trial was recorded, the court no longer planned to make the video public. When this was brought up to the judge by our attorney, Michael Connett, after closing statements, the judge didn't appear to oppose the motion, nor did the EPA. So we're hopeful that the public will eventually be able to watch the expert testimony and cross-examination, as well as the closing statements from the second phase of the trial."

Sincerely,
Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

[East Sun]

I hope that someone or a group of people will be held responsible for doing something that
must have been obviously damaging to the health of the public from the very beginning of
its introduction.

It's not like they could not have examined the possibility of damage to people of every age.

And putting floride in toothpast was a mindless thing to do also.

There are unexplainable things that we are hit with all the time. Will we ever find the reasons why
people who are supposed to be responsible make stupid decisions like they were being paid to do
things detrimental to our health?

It's like there is some kind of evil that controls a lot of the people in charge. Sounds crazy but I
have come to believe that that is a real possibility.

[onawah]

The deliberate poisoning of the public via fluoridation really is a very difficult story to follow and comprehend--how it ever could have started and how it could have lasted as long as it has.
In a country like China where everything is under the control of the CCP, and the CCP at the very top is a bunch of very greedy and corrupt old men, or in a country like Italy where the Mafiosos are still very powerful, it's not so difficult to see how morality can go downhill very quickly.
We have been conditioned to think that the leadership in the more democratic countries is much more integral, but more and more every day, that image has been tarnishing.
Evil thrives in darkness, thus the saying "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".
It would seem that too many people have been too distracted for too long from the vital responsibility of vigilance. :sad:
Regardless of the nationality, evil isn't picky and will corrupt any soul that is willing.
The concept of Archons explains quite well how that all works. :evil:


I hope that someone or a group of people will be held responsible for doing something that
must have been obviously damaging to the health of the public from the very beginning of
its introduction.

It's not like they could not have examined the possibility of damage to people of every age.

And putting floride in toothpast was a mindless thing to do also.

There are unexplainable things that we are hit with all the time. Will we ever find the reasons why
people who are supposed to be responsible make stupid decisions like they were being paid to do
things detrimental to our health?

It's like there is some kind of evil that controls a lot of the people in charge. Sounds crazy but I
have come to believe that that is a real possibility.

[wondering]

This is about bleach, not fluoride. Not to derail the thread, but I'm wondering about the effects of bleach. I went to a Health club pool today to do some joint exercises. This is a club associated with a primary hospital in my area. Lovely place, mostly a senior clientele. As I went into,ghe pool area, of course I smelled bleach,mwhich did not surprise me, and even more so in the hot tub@ I showered when I got out of the pool, and again when I got home, washed my hair, put on all fresh clothing...3 hours later I can still get what I think is a whiff of bleach from somewhere. I'm wondering if this contact with bleach for an hour at a time is worth whatever benefit I might get from the movement in water....I would be doing this probably not more than 2-3x a week.
Any input would be welcome.

[onawah]

I stopped exercising in a pool with bleach, and also one with bromide after reading up on how toxic both are, and knowing both can be absorbed through the pores.
If you have access to a healted pool using just salt, that would be safer, or if you have access to a hot tub that doesn't use as much bleach or bromide and is big enough for you to exercise in, that might be another good option. Public facilities generally use a lot more chemicals than more private ones. Or you could always wear a wetsuit! :worried:


This is about bleach, not fluoride. Not to derail the thread, but I'm wondering about the effects of bleach. I went to a Health club pool today to do some joint exercises. This is a club associated with a primary hospital in my area. Lovely place, mostly a senior clientele. As I went into,ghe pool area, of course I smelled bleach,mwhich did not surprise me, and even more so in the hot tub@ I showered when I got out of the pool, and again when I got home, washed my hair, put on all fresh clothing...3 hours later I can still get what I think is a whiff of bleach from somewhere. I'm wondering if this contact with bleach for an hour at a time is worth whatever benefit I might get from the movement in water....I would be doing this probably not more than 2-3x a week.
Any input would be welcome.

[RunningDeer]

This is about bleach, not fluoride. Not to derail the thread, but I'm wondering about the effects of bleach. I went to a Health club pool today to do some joint exercises. This is a club associated with a primary hospital in my area. Lovely place, mostly a senior clientele. As I went into,ghe pool area, of course I smelled bleach,mwhich did not surprise me, and even more so in the hot tub@ I showered when I got out of the pool, and again when I got home, washed my hair, put on all fresh clothing...3 hours later I can still get what I think is a whiff of bleach from somewhere. I'm wondering if this contact with bleach for an hour at a time is worth whatever benefit I might get from the movement in water....I would be doing this probably not more than 2-3x a week.
Any input would be welcome.

This is part article (https://www.health.com/side-effects-of-chlorine-on-your-body-7494539#:~:text=Chlorine can irritate the eyes,also irritate the respiratory system.).



5 Ways Chlorine Affects Your Body Long-Term

Chlorinated water is considered safe when pools have the correct concentration of chlorine. However, some people are more sensitive to chlorine. Chlorine can irritate the eyes, skin, hair, and teeth.

Occasionally swimming doesn't cause significant side effects, but people who swim frequently are more likely to experience chlorine side effects.

Pools with too high chlorine levels and built-up chloramines can also irritate the respiratory system. If you have issues breathing or have intense allergy-like symptoms, ask the pool manager to check the chlorine levels.

It May Cause Dry Skin and Rash

Chlorine and other chemicals in pool water can irritate and dry out the skin. People can't be allergic to chlorine, but you can be sensitive to the chemical and have skin reactions that are actually irritant dermatitis caused by hypersensitivity to chlorine.

Chlorinated water can cause irritating skin symptoms like:

Dry, itchy skin
Red skin
Hives or rash
Eczema or psoriasis flare-ups
Dry skin that triggers acne


It May Lead To Lightened and Dry Hair


Chlorine Doesn't Turn Your Hair Green
Oxidized copper is what turns blonde or white hair green after a swim. Copper sulfate is sometimes added to pools to control algae growth. Copper can also leak into the pool from plumbing or copper ionizer equipment. Chlorine corrodes copper that sticks to the hair, resulting in a similar green-blue color of copper patina.

It May Cause Respiratory Issues

High levels of combined chlorine release chloramines into the water and air, which can be highly irritating. Combined chlorine is chlorine that has bound to germs and waste to disinfect the pool.

Chlorinated pools don't usually cause respiratory problems. However, if a pool has built up high levels of chloramines, you can experience respiratory issues like:

Coughing
Wheezing
Asthma attack
Itchy, runny, or stuffy nose


It May Cause Eye Irritation

Chlorine and other pool chemicals can wash away the thin layer of tears that coat your eyes. As a result, chlorine can cause eye side effects like:

Burning
Itching
Redness
Watery feeling
Dry eyes
Gritty feeling
Blurry vision

It May Lead to Yellow Teeth

Chlorine and other pool chemicals can cause people's teeth to form yellow and brown stains, known as swimmer's calculus. This staining happens because the pH of chlorinated pools is higher than your saliva, which breaks down proteins that protect teeth from straining and tartar build-up. Chlorinated pools can also erode enamel, which makes you more likely to deal with staining.

However, it's unlikely your teeth will turn yellow after visiting your local pool a few times a week. Research shows competitive swimmers and divers—especially those who spend more than six hours a week in the pool—are more likely to develop yellow teeth.

U.S. Masters Swimming recommends brushing your teeth before swimming to help prevent pool chemicals from building up on plaque. After a swim, rinse your mouth with fresh water or fluoride mouthwash to help restore your mouth's pH levels. Brushing may be too harsh on your enamel after a swim.

:heart:

[wondering]

Thanks Natalie and Paula, 🥰 I have just read that ascorbic acid can help neutralize chlorine on the skin....aside from cosmetic issues, the main concern seems to be respiratory irritation although skin irritation can occur. It may just be that I have not been around it for a long time, but I was taken aback by it in general today. More thought to follow as I confer with my Inner Wise Woman! I appreciate your input. How nice to have access to such knowledgeable people!!!!

[RunningDeer]

Thanks Natalie and Paula, 🥰 I have just read that ascorbic acid can help neutralize chlorine on the skin....aside from cosmetic issues, the main concern seems to be respiratory irritation although skin irritation can occur. It may just be that I have not been around it for a long time, but I was taken aback by it in general today. More thought to follow as I confer with my Inner Wise Woman! I appreciate your input. How nice to have access to such knowledgeable people!!!!


https://i.imgur.com/iAECADL.gif
I like your advice, Diane. Listen to your Inner Wise Woman.

Speaking of cosmetic issues & ascorbic acid…every month or so, I make up a new batch of ingredients for my face.

A few squirts of MaryRuth Organics USDA Organic Vitamin A (https://www.amazon.com/MaryRuths-Organic-Vitamin-Support-Serving/dp/B09ZPXMSXC/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8)

A few squirts of Liquid Vitamin C (https://www.amazon.com/Liquid-Vitamin-Drops-Bioactive-L-Ascorbic/dp/B08MFLF7L9/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=liquid+vitamin+c&qid=1701871550&sr=8-6) Drops - (Pure Ascorbic Acid)

A few squirts of MaryRuth Organics Vitamin E (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09NW8YQMK/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1)

Several squirts of DMSO (https://www.amazon.com/DMSO-Dimethyl-sulfoxide-Pharmaceutical-Heiltropfen/dp/B00ZNV5N8U/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8)

Tiny pinch of salt (preservative)

1.5 oz of distilled water

Mix ingredients into a 2 oz amber glass bottle (https://www.amazon.com/Amber-Glass-Bottles-Eye-Droppers/dp/B00V73OA6O/ref=sr_1_3_pp?crid=10OUPWDG0KCNY&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.Y_hCSsHSozzTCCvWxPtn1-iM7TxCQqIhM5pNsxs5fWIYDKS-3wqdzVqpqOck-el8kLpw2FF7lLFp2mWDtAzB6UYsjuN7SbnxsJ9UEVAR48RpEO1e-YPOBEkHoNYO3Bo0m81jIRMbJmZESa0ilaeFYw1_NBz8sLwCPiDP0s5zSlATrOtMJBloQpGt0ANnIvm23sP6vTrCwGDBekI-qRE8_TUCj2u6maOd8WELV3qEKLk.9G_SmxV0RVMFVF85Ouxy96bIJIVxLGbvwqySWeRl0nk&dib_tag=se&keywords=eye+dropper+bottles&qid=1716418673&sprefix=eye+dropper+bottles,aps,135&sr=8-3).

Note: You don't really need salt if you make frequent batches. I happen to have the amber glass bottles on hand. And you don't need DMSO. I happen to have that on hand. As for the number of squirts? I do what you do. I listen to Inner Wise Woman.

:heart:

[Sue (Ayt)]

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Linked to Neurobehavioral Problems

May 23, 2024

In utero fluoride exposure at normal U.S. municipal ranges was associated with increased neurobehavioral problems in young kids, a prospective cohort study of 229 mother-child pairs in Los Angeles suggested.

Women in the 75th versus the 25th percentile for maternal urinary fluoride -- a difference of 0.68 mg/L -- during the third trimester of pregnancy had significantly higher risk of their child having overall behavioral scores in the borderline clinical or clinical range at age 36 months (OR 1.83, 95% CI 1.17-2.86), reported Ashley Malin, PhD, of the University of Florida in Gainesville, and colleagues.

About three-quarters of the U.S. population lives in areas with water fluoridation levels of 0.7 mg/L, which is recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service as optimal for dental health, they noted in JAMA Network Openopens in a new tab or window.

"These findings suggest that there may be a need to establish recommendations for limiting exposure to fluoride from all sources during the prenatal period, a time when the developing brain is known to be especially vulnerable to injury from environmental insults," the researchers concluded.

Exposure to high fluoride levels is well established as adversely affecting neurodevelopment, Malin and colleagues wrote. These findings add to growing evidence that fluoride exposure at lower, U.S.-relevant levels may also be associated with poorer neurodevelopment.

"Specifically, higher prenatal fluoride exposure in Canada and/or Mexico has been associated with lower IQ among children aged 3 to 4 years in Canada and children aged 6 to 12 years in Mexicoopens in a new tab or window, increased symptoms of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) among children aged 6 to 12 yearsopens in a new tab or window, poorer executive function among children aged 3 to 5 yearsopens in a new tab or window, and poorer performance on measures of global cognition among 12- and 24-month-old boysopens in a new tab or window," Malin's group noted.

"This is the first U.S.-based study to examine whether prenatal fluoride exposure is associated with child neurobehavioral outcomes," which helps address the question of generalizability, Malin told MedPage Today in an email.

more at link:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/pediatrics/generalpediatrics/110303

[norman]

https://t.me/HATSTRUTH/5472
HATSTRUTH/5472

[Vangelo]

Government Report Links High Fluoride Exposure With Low IQ Among Children
source: (https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/government-report-links-high-fluoride-exposure-low-iq-among-children)
BY TYLER DURDEN FRIDAY, AUG 23, 2024 - 10:50 PM
Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Exposing children to high levels of fluoride is “consistently associated” with lower IQ, and potentially other neurodevelopmental issues, according to a report by the National Toxicology Program (NTP).

In 2016, NTP started a systematic review of scientific literature to ascertain links between fluoride and cognition. On Aug. 21, it published a report detailing its findings. A total of 72 studies reviewed in the report examined how fluoride exposure affected children’s IQ. Sixty-four of these studies found an “inverse association between estimated fluoride exposure and IQ in children,” meaning higher exposure was linked to lower IQ and vice versa.

“This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher estimated fluoride exposures ... are consistently associated with lower IQ in children,” the report stated. NTP is a unit of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

NTP defined high exposure as drinking water with fluoride concentrations that exceed the 1.5 mg/L limit set by the World Health Organization.

The allowable limits in the United States are different. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a threshold of 0.7 mg/L for fluoride presence in drinking water (including naturally occurring and added fluoride, or fluoridation), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has a limit of 2 mg/L.

As of April 2020, community water systems in the United States supplied water containing 1.5 mg/L or more of naturally occurring fluoride to 0.59 percent of the country’s population, which comes to approximately 1.9 million people, NTP stated. Around 1 million people were supplied water with 2 mg/L or more of naturally occurring fluoride.

“There is also some evidence that fluoride exposure is associated with other neurodevelopmental and cognitive effects in children; although, because of the heterogeneity of the outcomes, there is low confidence in the literature for these other effects,” the report stated.

The studies on children’s IQ reviewed in the report were conducted in 10 countries, including Canada and Mexico. No studies from the United States were included in the review.

Fluoride is a mineral that prevents and repairs damage to the teeth caused by bacteria. In 1945, the United States introduced a community water fluoridation program, which has been considered a successful public health measure.

However, there were concerns that children and pregnant women may ingest fluoride in excess amounts due to exposure to the mineral from a variety of sources, including water, beverages, toothpaste, and teas, the NTP said. This led the program to conduct the current study.

Fluoride Debate
The NTP report follows a study published in May that looked at mother-child pairs from Los Angeles and concluded that prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with “neurobehavioral problems” among children.

Lead investigator of the study Ashley Malin said the results suggest fluoride may negatively affect fetal brain development. She pointed out that there is “no known benefit” of fluoride consumption for fetuses.

“We found that each 0.68 milligram per liter increase in fluoride levels in the pregnant women’s urine was associated with nearly double the odds of children scoring in the clinical or borderline clinical range for neurobehavioral problems at age 3, based on their mother’s reporting,” she said.

In a May 22 statement, the American Dental Association (ADA) said the study was not “nationally representative” and that it did not measure the “actual consumption of fluoridated water.”

“The JAMA study should be considered exploratory. To date, the ADA has seen no peer-reviewed research that would change its long-standing recommendation to the public to brush twice a day with fluoride toothpaste and drink optimally fluoridated water,” the group said.

“Tooth decay is one of the most common chronic diseases among children. There are decades of research and practical experience indicating community water fluoridation is safe and effective in reducing cavities by 25 percent in both children and adults.”

It endorsed community water fluoridation as a “safe, beneficial, and cost-effective” way to prevent dental cavities.

Another study from January found that many parents were exposing children to high amounts of fluoride. When parents used toothpaste for their children aged under 24 months, the fluoride dose was 5.9 to 7.2 times higher than what was recommended, the study found.

[palehorse]

This is about bleach, not fluoride. Not to derail the thread, but I'm wondering about the effects of bleach. I went to a Health club pool today to do some joint exercises. This is a club associated with a primary hospital in my area. Lovely place, mostly a senior clientele. As I went into,ghe pool area, of course I smelled bleach,mwhich did not surprise me, and even more so in the hot tub@ I showered when I got out of the pool, and again when I got home, washed my hair, put on all fresh clothing...3 hours later I can still get what I think is a whiff of bleach from somewhere. I'm wondering if this contact with bleach for an hour at a time is worth whatever benefit I might get from the movement in water....I would be doing this probably not more than 2-3x a week.
Any input would be welcome.

..

It May Cause Dry Skin and Rash

Chlorine and other chemicals in pool water can irritate and dry out the skin. People can't be allergic to chlorine, but you can be sensitive to the chemical and have skin reactions that are actually irritant dermatitis caused by hypersensitivity to chlorine.

Chlorinated water can cause irritating skin symptoms like:

Dry, itchy skin
Red skin
Hives or rash
Eczema or psoriasis flare-ups
Dry skin that triggers acne


It May Lead To Lightened and Dry Hair


Chlorine Doesn't Turn Your Hair Green
Oxidized copper is what turns blonde or white hair green after a swim. Copper sulfate is sometimes added to pools to control algae growth. Copper can also leak into the pool from plumbing or copper ionizer equipment. Chlorine corrodes copper that sticks to the hair, resulting in a similar green-blue color of copper patina.

It May Cause Respiratory Issues

High levels of combined chlorine release chloramines into the water and air, which can be highly irritating. Combined chlorine is chlorine that has bound to germs and waste to disinfect the pool.

Chlorinated pools don't usually cause respiratory problems. However, if a pool has built up high levels of chloramines, you can experience respiratory issues like:

Coughing
Wheezing
Asthma attack
Itchy, runny, or stuffy nose


It May Cause Eye Irritation

Chlorine and other pool chemicals can wash away the thin layer of tears that coat your eyes. As a result, chlorine can cause eye side effects like:

Burning
Itching
Redness
Watery feeling
Dry eyes
Gritty feeling
Blurry vision

It May Lead to Yellow Teeth

Chlorine and other pool chemicals can cause people's teeth to form yellow and brown stains, known as swimmer's calculus. This staining happens because the pH of chlorinated pools is higher than your saliva, which breaks down proteins that protect teeth from straining and tartar build-up. Chlorinated pools can also erode enamel, which makes you more likely to deal with staining.

However, it's unlikely your teeth will turn yellow after visiting your local pool a few times a week. Research shows competitive swimmers and divers—especially those who spend more than six hours a week in the pool—are more likely to develop yellow teeth.

U.S. Masters Swimming recommends brushing your teeth before swimming to help prevent pool chemicals from building up on plaque. After a swim, rinse your mouth with fresh water or fluoride mouthwash to help restore your mouth's pH levels. Brushing may be too harsh on your enamel after a swim.

:heart:
[/INDENT]


When I was a kid I used to spend some days in the local country club pool (several hours playing in water) with my little friends. One day the club's employee end up adding a way more bleach (aka chlorine bleach) to the pool, the result was bad, that day I had my eyes so dried, my foot was peeling skin off, it was not so good to walk I remember well, parents argued with the club policies about bleach, nothing was done as far as I can remember.

Another thing I learned in time, bleach (6% sodium hypochlorite) can be used in autopsy (for both humans and animals) to expose skeletal trauma by removing the soft tissues from the bone. It literally slowly dissolves flesh.

[onawah]

WE WON! Federal Court Rules That Fluoridation Chemicals Pose An "Unreasonable Risk" To HealthYES!
Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.com>
9/24/24
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3535696?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==

https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/a3050e6a-ef0f-412f-818d-84e6cbc34f5a.jpg

"Dear Friends,

History has been made. After 7 years of pursuing legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has just ruled on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in our precedent-setting court case. A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an "unreasonable risk" to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The decision is written very strongly in our favor, and we will share it in its entirety tomorrow. Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the ruling:

"The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children..the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response...One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk."

In this moment, I want to recognize attorney Michael Connett for pursuing this case and leading the effort every step of the way. He's a true superhero to all of us here at FAN. Many other amazing team members were also involved in making this a reality and deserve great appreciation and thanks, including our co-plaintiffs and all of you who donated and spread the word about our case. Take a moment to celebrate this momentous occasion tonight, wherever you are. After 7 years, we all deserve it.

Please stay tuned as we will provide further comprehensive details in a press release and bulletin tomorrow.

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network "

[onawah]

Breaking: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
September 25, 2024
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fluoridation-risk-kids-landmark-decision/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20240925

"A federal judge rejected the EPA’s argument that the exact level at which fluoride is hazardous is too unclear to determine if the chemical presents an unreasonable risk, and ruled the agency must take regulatory action.

In a decision that could end the practice of water fluoridation in the U.S., a federal judge late Tuesday ruled that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an “unreasonable risk” of reduced IQ in children.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore that risk, and must take regulatory action, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California wrote in the long-awaited landmark decision.

More than 200 million Americans drink water treated with fluoride at the “optimal” level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L). However, Chen ruled that a preponderance of scientific evidence shows this level of fluoride exposure may damage human health, particularly that of pregnant mothers and young children.

The verdict delivers a major blow to the EPA, public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and professional lobbying groups like the American Dental Association (ADA), which have staked their reputations on the claim that water fluoridation is one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century and an unqualified public good.

Fluoride proponents refused to reexamine that stance despite mounting scientific evidence from top researchers and government agencies of fluoride’s neurotoxic risks, particularly for infants’ developing brains.

Instead, they attempted to weaken and suppress the research and discredit the scientists carrying it out.

Rick North, board member of Fluoride Action Network, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, told The Defender, “What’s false is the CDC claiming that fluoridation is one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 20th century. What’s true is that ending fluoridation will be one of the 10 greatest health achievements of the 21st century.”

“The judge did what EPA has long refused to do, and that is to apply the EPA standard risk assessment framework to fluoride,” said Michael Connett, attorney for the plaintiffs. “In so doing, the court has shown that the widespread exposure to fluoride that we now have in the United States is unreasonably and precariously close to the levels that we know cause harm.”

The EPA can appeal Tuesday’s decision. The agency told The Defender it is reviewing the decision and has no comment at this time. The U.S. Department of Justice, which represents the EPA in the lawsuit, also said it has no comment.

EPA’s argument ‘not persuasive’

The ruling concludes a historic lawsuit — one that has dragged on for seven years — brought against the EPA by environmental and consumer advocacy organizations like the Fluoride Action Network, Moms Against Fluoridation and Food & Water Watch, along with individual parents and children.

It is the first lawsuit to go to a federal trial under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by Congress in 2016. The TSCA allows U.S. citizens to petition the EPA to evaluate whether a chemical presents an unreasonable risk to public health and should be regulated.

If the EPA denies a TSCA citizen petition — which the agency did when the plaintiffs asked it to reexamine water fluoridation in 2016 — the petitioners are entitled to a “de novo” judicial review of the science without the deference to the agency typically afforded it in legal cases.

Chen’s 80-page ruling, issued six months after closing arguments in February, offers a careful and detailed articulation of the EPA’s review process for chemicals that pose a hazard to human health and evaluates and summarizes the extensive scientific data presented at trial.

Chen wrote, “EPA’s own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level.” He cited a key report issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) National Toxicology Program (NTP), which undertook a systematic review of all available scientific research at the time of publication.

The report “concluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L,” Chen wrote.

The NTP also reported that although there are technical challenges to measuring fluoride’s toxic effects at low levels, “scientists have observed a statistically significant association between fluoride and adverse effects in children even at such ‘lower’ exposure levels,” Chen wrote.

He said that despite recognizing that fluoride is hazardous, the EPA’s defense rested largely on the fact that the exact level at which it is hazardous is too unclear for the agency to determine whether the chemical presents an unreasonable risk.

This argument is “not persuasive,” Chen wrote.


Pregnant women exposed to fluoride in water at levels exceeding the hazard level

The EPA requires a margin of error by a factor of at least 10 to exist between the hazard level for a toxin and the acceptable human exposure level. “Put differently, only an exposure that is below 1/10th of the hazard level would be deemed safe under Amended TSCA, given the margin of error required,” Chen wrote.

That means that even if the hazard level were 4 mg/L — well above the 1.5 mg/L identified by the NTP — the safe level of fluoride exposure would be 0.4 mg/L, well below the current “optimal” fluoride level in the U.S., Chen wrote.

The much lower probable hazard level established by high-quality studies indicates that many pregnant women in the U.S. are already exposed to fluoride in water at levels exceeding the hazard level.

“Under even the most conservative estimates of this level, there is not enough of a margin between the accepted hazard level and the actual human exposure levels to find that fluoride is safe,” Chen concluded.

“Simply put, the risk to health at exposure levels in United States drinking water is sufficiently high to trigger regulatory response by the EPA under Amended TSCA.”

The law dictates that the EPA must take regulatory action, but it does not specify what that action has to be. EPA regulatory actions can range from notifying the public of risks to banning chemicals.

Philippe Grandjean, M.D., Ph.D., adjunct professor in environmental health at Harvard and chair of environmental medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, top researcher on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and expert witness for plaintiffs in the case told The Defender he thought the court’s decision was “well-justified.”

He said the ruling made it incumbent on the EPA to go beyond simply ending water fluoridation.

“EPA will have to consider what to do in the southwestern parts of the country where the fluoride content of groundwater is too high due to minerals in the soil containing fluoride,” he said. “And then there is the question about ingestion of toothpaste.”

The CDC and the ADA did not immediately respond to The Defender’s request for comment.

More than 70 years of controversy

For more than seven decades, U.S. public health officials have steadfastly supported water fluoridation, claiming the practice is a key strategy for maintaining and improving dental health.

Proponents of water fluoridation, with help from the mainstream press, often attempted to cast those questioning fluoride’s benefits and raising concerns about its safety as conspiracy theorists.

The EPA in 1975 recommended adding fluoride to water at an optimal level of 1.2 mg/L for its dental benefits, but recommended a maximum level of 4 mg/L, the ruling said.

As more evidence has emerged about fluoride’s adverse health effects, including skeletal fluorosis, recommended levels were revised.

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, officially lowered the recommended dosage for water fluoridation in 2015 from 0.7-1.2 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L after considering “adverse health effects” along with alleged benefits.

However, evidence that fluoride poses a neurotoxic risk has existed for decades.

In 2017, after the EPA rejected their citizen petition to end fluoridation of drinking water in the U.S. based on evidence of health risks, namely neurotoxicity, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit.

A seven-day trial took place in federal court in San Francisco in June 2020, but Chen put the proceedings on hold pending the release of the NTP’s systematic review of research available on the neurotoxic effects of fluoride.

The NTP sought to publish its report — which consisted of a “state of the science” monograph and a meta-analysis — in May 2022, but dental officials at the CDC and the National Institutes of Health National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research pressured HHS Assistant Secretary for Health Rachel Levine to prevent the review from being published.

The ADA also sought to suppress the report.

Levine told the NTP to not publish the report but to put it on hold and allow for further review.

Plaintiffs submitted documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act exposing this intervention to the court. The revelation prompted Chen to rule that the trial should go forward using the draft report from the NTP.

The trial resumed in January in San Francisco, with arguments presented over the course of two weeks.

The NTP’s monograph was finalized and published last month on its website. The meta-analysis is forthcoming in a peer-reviewed journal.

Connett said that Congress created the citizen petition provision in TSCA as a counterweight to bureaucratic lethargy and as a check on the EPA.

The statute, he said, is a powerful tool for overcoming politicized science.

“When science becomes fossilized in political inertia, the citizen petition provision of TSCA is a very powerful tool for citizens,” Connett said. “Through this case, we have been able to, I think we’ve been able to effectuate what Congress had envisioned with this part of the statute.” "

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.

[ExomatrixTV]

Anti-Flouride in Drinking Water Just Won in Federal Court!:

U8107eIKSqY
Jw3xbtS4vpM
Dr. Hans C. Moolenburgh (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dr.+Hans+C.+Moolenburgh) (who I personally met in Amsterdam) won Fluoride Court Case in The Netherlands 🇳🇱 in 1976 he made many instructional videos how to fight corporations & (local) governments!

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[onawah]

Communities are Responding to Federal Court Ruling on Fluoridation
Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.com
10/2/24

"TAKE ACTION NOW!

Decision-makers and water operators around the country are already taking action in response to last week’s federal court ruling deeming water fluoridation an “unreasonable risk” to the health of children. The ruling provides a very thorough opinion by the federal court, and is based upon extensive scientific research–including a systematic review by the National Toxicology Program–and many hours of expert testimony

Policymakers at the local and state level do not need to wait to take action. The federal government doesn’t mandate fluoridation, and thus local and state decision makers can and should end fluoridation immediately. The ruling and the NTP report provide a firm foundation to do so.

It’s important that water operators, local officials, and media outlets in every single fluoridated community be notified of the ruling as soon as possible. Every day, children in these communities are needlessly being harmed, many without the knowledge of their parents.

Please take some time today to look up the contact information for your 1) water department and/or your utilities director, 2) your local city councilors, 3) your state legislator and state senator, and 4) the news departments for major media outlets in your community. Send each an email asking for them to urgently read the following:

The Fluoride Action Network's press release:

https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/PDF2-TSCA-Victory-press-release-1.pdf

The full ruling:

https://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Court-Ruling.pdf

Don’t wait for someone else to do it or underestimate the impact you could have. Citizens just like you have helped end fluoridation in hundreds of communities over the years, in many cases, simply through educating local officials.

Fluoridation Suspended in Several Communities

The court ruling is already having an impact on fluoridation policy. Over the past week, several water systems have suspended the addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public drinking water directly in response to fluoridation being classified as an “unreasonable risk.”

The first to act was the Yorktown Water District in New York, which provides water to over 50,000 people in the towns of Yorktown and Somers. On Thursday, September 26th, Yorktown Supervisor Ed Lachterman ordered the suspension of fluoridation as a precautionary measure, stating in a press release posted on the town’s website:

“In light of this federal ruling and the long-standing concerns expressed by many Yorktown residents, I have decided to suspend water fluoridation as a precautionary measure. Our priority is the safety and well-being of our community, and we believe it is prudent to pause fluoridation to further assess its potential impacts.”

Lachterman told the local news that the ruling deserved “immediate action.” He was also quoted in The Defender, saying, “We will follow the science and see what happens. There are alternate ways of introducing fluoride to those that need it, and there may end up being a better way to control the dosage than drinking water.”

Yorktown Deputy Supervisor Sergio Esposito added that, “Children are our most precious commodity and need to be protected.”

The decision was also applauded by the superintendent for the town of Somers, who said:

“Removing fluoride from Somers' drinking water would give residents the freedom to choose their own sources of fluoride, ensuring personal control over their health decisions. Additionally, concerns about potential long-term health risks from fluoride exposure support reevaluating its use in public water systems. Somers applauds Yorktown for making this decision.”

The supervisors for both towns said they had received calls from local residents in favor of the suspension. Lachterman said, “Most of the comments have been positive. It’s our responsibility as a town to look after the safety of our children.” Scorrano echoed those sentiments, saying:

“We have received overwhelmingly positive feedback from Somers residents regarding the removal of fluoride from our water supply. In fact, we have also received calls from individuals in other states expressing their support for this decision. [The town] will make a decision that prioritizes the health and well-being of all our residents.”

Yorktown was shortly followed by the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District in Utah, which provides water to over 700,000 residents in the Ogden area. On September 26th, the district put out a statement announcing that they would pause fluoridation due to the court ruling:

“Out of an abundance of caution and to prioritize the public’s health above all else, the addition of fluoride to the drinking water supplied by the district in Davis County, Utah, will be paused. This pause will allow for the National Toxicology Program (NTP), the Department of Health and Human Services, EPA, and other appropriate federal agencies, to conduct a comprehensive review of the safety and efficacy of water fluoridation in light of the new information.”

The general manager of the water district, Scott Paxman, said that while he can pause fluoridation, he cannot legally stop it because it was approved by a voter initiative. He told the local media that when he informed the Utah Division of Drinking Water, they alerted the Attorney General’s office. Paxman said that he was informed that protecting local children from harm by halting fluoridation could result in criminal charges.

This week, the city of Abilene, Texas, suspended fluoridation for 130,000 residents. A statement posted on the city’s website says that the mayor and city manager discussed the issue over the weekend and agreed that a suspension would “do no harm and provide an opportunity for the city council to provide further direction in light of recent court rulings regarding fluoride.”

The city’s statement also said,

“With potential changes to EPA regulations, such as potential adjustments to fluoride levels or the possible introduction of warning labels, the city is pausing fluoridation to ensure compliance with any new health and safety guidelines that may emerge. This temporary suspension is being implemented out of an abundance of caution to safeguard public health…This precautionary step follows a recent California federal court ruling that may result in changes to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recommendations regarding fluoride levels in drinking water.”

More Communities are Likely to Protect Citizens

While they continue to fluoridate for the time being, a number of communities have initiated discussions and hearings following the ruling.

A County Commissioner in Hillsborough, Florida–where Tampa is located and home to over 1.5 million residents–posted the following statement in response to learning about the court ruling:

“I am bringing a motion to remove the ADDITION of Fluoride that Hillsborough County Government spends hundreds of thousands a year on from our children's water supply. No excuses.”

Discussions and hearings are also scheduled this week in communities across the country, in Wisconsin, Indiana, North Carolina, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, and more. State legislators are also taking an interest in the ruling, and FAN is already working with bi-partisan sponsors in multiple states to prepare legislation for the upcoming legislative sessions.
Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network"

[onawah]

Another Blockbuster Fluoridation Report:
No Longer Any Significant Reduction of Cavities
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3560659?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==
https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/Logo.png

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"• Fluoridation’s effectiveness has declined to almost nothing over the past 50 years
• Authoritative review finds less than 4% reduction in tooth decay
• Only about “one quarter of a tooth” reduction
• Stopping fluoridation is now a “No Brainer”: Confirmed risk of lowering child IQ and no significant benefit to teeth. What’s the point?

The Cochrane Collaboration – highly respected for its independent reviews of health interventions – released its updated assessment of Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries yesterday. After a thorough search and review of available studies, it concluded contemporary evidence doesn’t show a reduction in cavities of more than 4%, and there may be no benefit at all. The report said the average benefit was only about “one quarter of a tooth,” which is one cavity in every four children. The review found a large decline in fluoridation effectiveness over the past 50 years. While 1970s studies showed young children in fluoridated areas may have saved as many as 4 cavities in their baby teeth, the most recent study from 2022 found a reduction of only 0.16 decayed teeth. This represents a 25-fold decline in fluoridation effectiveness to an amount so small as to be of questionable clinical or public health value, and likely a net economic loss rather than benefit.

The Cochrane report’s main conclusions were:

“Adding fluoride to water may slightly increase the number of children who have no tooth decay in either their baby teeth or permanent teeth. However, these results also included the possibility of little or no difference in tooth decay.”

“We could not be sure whether adding fluoride to water reduced tooth decay in children’s permanent teeth.”

“We were unsure whether there were any effects on tooth decay when fluoride is removed from a water supply.”

“We were unsure if fluoride reduces differences in tooth decay between richer and poorer people.”

The report identified only 22 studies of acceptable quality in children, and none in adults, highlighting the paucity of high-quality studies of fluoridation effectiveness despite claims by fluoridation promoters that there are thousands of studies, and that its effectiveness has been proven.

The Cochrane review’s literature search cutoff was in 2023, so it did not consider the LOTUS study of over 6 million adults in England, published in January 2024. The LOTUS study was the largest, strongest study of fluoridation effectiveness in adults ever done and found virtually no benefit: a lifetime reduction in decay of only 2%. The LOTUS study authors concluded:

“This study suggests that exposure to optimal water fluoridation between 2010 and 2020 resulted in ‘exceedingly small’ health effects, ‘very small’ reductions in NHS dental service utilization, and no meaningful reduction in social inequalities.” [Moore 2024, p. 7]

An accompanying economic analysis for the LOTUS study found the meager dental bill savings would be worth only about $1 a year per person; not enough to buy a single cup of coffee. Furthermore, the analysis did not consider the capital costs of new fluoridation schemes, let alone the cost of adverse effects like reduced IQ and dental fluorosis.

Fluoridation effectiveness: 50-year decline to almost nothing

https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202024-10-07%20at%205.40.00%20PM.png
https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202024-10-07%20at%205.40.10%20PM.png

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

Although studies from the 1970s found reductions of up to 5 cavities per child, that benefit has declined rapidly, and the most recent study finds fluoridation providing a reduction of only 0.16 carious teeth. That latest study was by Public Health England, which ironically is the same government agency trying to expand fluoridation to all of England.

The Cochrane report described their findings on declining effectiveness (p. 32):

“Data from these UK single time point studies, alongside the results of the review, show a clear reduction in the size of effect with regard to caries measures over time (Figure 5), with the most recent single time point studies showing a mean difference of 0.16 to 0.21 dmft between fluoridated and low-fluoridated/non-fluoridate areas.”

Co-author of the Cochrane review, Dr. Lucy O’Malley PhD, using typical academic understatement, advised:

“Given that the benefit has reduced over time, before introducing a new fluoridation scheme, careful thought needs to be given to costs, acceptability, feasibility, and ongoing monitoring.”

Fluoridation economic cost-benefit: it’s always a loser

On the issue of costs, UK activist David Forrest CEng analyzed the net economic costs/benefits based on a detailed UK Department of Health (DHSC) assessment of costs for a large new fluoridation scheme in northeast England. Forrest found that even DHSC’s optimistic cost-benefit analysis concluded that over the next 40 years, the claimed savings from fewer cavities would barely break even against the capital and operating costs of the fluoridation scheme (DHSC report p. 22), which would amount to almost $800 million. The DHSC’s optimistic assumption was that fluoridation would reduce decay in permanent teeth of all ages by 12%. Forrest points out that with the LOTUS study finding only a 2% reduction in adults and the Cochrane review now finding children have only a 3% reduction in permanent tooth caries, any new fluoridation program would be economic folly and a waste of taxpayer money.

The Cochrane review has found fluoridation’s effectiveness has declined to a level where it would cost much more to add fluoridation chemicals to water than could be offset by cost savings from filling slightly fewer cavities.

Highest quality recent study finds fluoridation ineffective against rampant childhood caries, “baby bottle tooth decay”

One of the last defenses claimed by fluoridation advocates is that the Cochrane review did not look at the most serious cases of tooth decay in young children, which can lead to hospitalization and general anesthesia for treatment. They show photos of mouths filled with horribly decayed teeth as a scare tactic and claim fluoridation can reduce these cases. While the Cochrane review did not evaluate this, it did score the recent CATFISH study (Goodwin 2022) as the highest quality of any studies of fluoridation and decay in young children. CATFISH evaluated rates of general anesthesia for dental extractions and concluded there was no significant difference between fluoridated and non-fluoridated [Goodwin 2022, p. 53].

No longer any reason for fluoridation

Leading fluoridation-promoting organizations like the American Dental Association (ADA) have dismissed the two other recent blockbuster findings, 1) that fluoride can reduce child IQ as determined by the National Toxicology Program, and 2) the US federal court decision that artificial fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk of reducing IQ in children. The ADA continues to claim fluoridation is “safe and effective,” the same refrain they’ve asserted for over 50 years. Hopefully, with the release of the Cochrane review finding fluoridation’s effectiveness has waned to almost nothing, responsible dentists and public health officials will accept that there is no longer a scientific or logical rationale for continuing to promote fluoridation.

FAN’s Research Director, Chris Neurath, commented on the implications of the Cochrane report, “This new evidence allows fluoridation defenders to bow out gracefully. Fluoridation did appear to be effective in the early years, and most of the strongest evidence that it poses a real risk of lowering children’s IQ has emerged in just the past 5 to 10 years. So, fluoridation promoters can honestly say that the science on effectiveness and safety has changed.”

FAN’s Executive Director, Stuart Cooper said, “This Cochrane report, together with the recently released federal court ruling and NTP reporting findings of child IQ loss, means the time is over for fluoridation. It’s been 80 years since the first demonstration trial of fluoridation was proposed at the close of WWII. The scientific evidence has advanced far beyond what was known back then. It’s time for citizens to ask their local officials to look beyond the outdated mantra of 'safe and effective’.

Fluoride Action Network
North Sutton, New Hampshire
info@fluoridealert.org
”

[ExomatrixTV]

10-10-2024: Judge Rules Fluoride In Water Harmful To Human Health! w/ Michael Connett:

wq7zy6glbSg

1:17 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wq7zy6glbSg&t=77s) CORRECTION: Alex Jones warned about the dangers of Fluoride "dumbing down millions (https://rumble.com/v159nyn-dr-russell-blaylock-dumbing-down-society.html)" (Alex's father was a dentist Dr. David R. Jones (https://doctor.webmd.com/doctor/david-jones-d7819541-22e5-40cc-9b91-d8b2b1bd2582-overview)) long before he mentioned: "chemicals in the water that turns the frog gay"** which is a SEPARATE TOPIC (F.F.S.) ... Some chemicals are not dumped directly in to the drinking-water but are a result of big chemical companies dumping it in nature and part of that comes eventually in the tab-water in some areas ... When you study a short highly educational documentary called: "The Fluoride Deception (https://rumble.com/search/all?q=The%20Fluoride%20Deception)" featuring Dr. Russell Blaylock (https://rumble.com/search/all?q=Dr.%20Russell%20Blaylock) who was on Alex Jones Radio shows many times before he made people aware of PFAS (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?121443-The-PFAS-Cover-Up-...-2-Dutch-English-Special-2023-Reports) and other chemicals dumped in nature that are linked to "the frogs research"**.


Dr. Hans C. Moolenburgh (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dr.+Hans+C.+Moolenburgh) (who I personally met in Amsterdam) won Fluoride Court Case in The Netherlands 🇳🇱 in 1976 he made many instructional videos how to fight corporations & (local) governments!

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

**


news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs (http://news.berkeley.edu/2010/03/01/frogs/)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303243 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4303243)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842049)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20194757 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20194757)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122794 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC122794)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586825 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586825)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213589 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4213589)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139484 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7139484/)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11960004 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11960004/)
researchgate.net/publication/8987480_Bisphenol_A_induces_feminization_in_Xenopus_laevis_tadpoles
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8987480_Bisphenol_A_induces_feminization_in_Xenopus_laevis_tadpoles)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?120744-Robert-F.-Kennedy-jr.-May-Run-for-Presidency-Challenging-Joe-Biden-2024) repeatedly suggested that chemicals in water are impacting sexuality of children (https://edition.cnn.com/2023/07/13/politics/robert-kennedy-jr-chemicals-water-children-frogs/index.html)

[onawah]

Fluoride in Drinking Water Poses Enough Risk to Merit New EPA Action, Judge Says
by Dr. Joseph Mercola
October 14, 2024
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2024/10/14/fluoride-drinking-water-epa.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20241014&foDate=true&mid=DM1643946&rid=140419558

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2024/October/PDF/fluoride-drinking-water-epa-pdf.pdf

uM72aS88388

Story at-a-glance
A federal judge ruled that fluoride in drinking water poses unreasonable health risks, requiring EPA action. This decision was based on scientific evidence, including studies linking fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children
Research shows prenatal fluoride exposure is associated with increased neurobehavioral problems in young children, including symptoms of autism spectrum disorder and executive dysfunction
Studies indicate excess fluoride affects thyroid function, leading to larger thyroid glands, increased risk of nodules and disrupted hormone levels in children exposed to high fluoride concentrations
The court considered factors like harm severity, exposed population size and lack of safety margin between hazardous levels and actual exposure in determining fluoride's unreasonable risk
To reduce fluoride exposure, use certified water filters, choose fluoride-free dental products and be aware of fluoride content in foods and beverages like tea

A federal judge has made a landmark ruling that could significantly impact water fluoridation practices across the U.S.1 After a thorough review of scientific evidence, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California concluded that fluoride in drinking water at current levels poses an unreasonable risk to human health.

This decision, based on a preponderance of evidence, requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to initiate a regulatory response. The case, brought by several advocacy groups and individuals, challenged the EPA's previous denial of a petition to regulate fluoride under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Judge Chen's ruling is particularly noteworthy because it marks the first time a court has independently evaluated the risks of water fluoridation without deferring to the EPA's judgment. This decision could lead to new regulations on fluoride in your drinking water, addressing long-standing concerns about its impact on public health.

The Science Behind the Ruling
Central to the court's decision was the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) systematic review of fluoride's effects on neurodevelopment and cognition.2 This comprehensive analysis, which underwent multiple rounds of peer review, examined 72 human studies on fluoride exposure and IQ in children.

The NTP Monograph concluded that the majority of these studies, including 18 of 19 high-quality studies, found an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children.3

"Although the NTP’s systematic review was not intended to define a safe lower dose, the information it compiled provides strong evidence that water fluoridation as done in the US by adding fluoride to a concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) is very likely to be lowering the IQ of at least some children," Chris Neurath, science director at Fluoride Action Network (FAN), said in a news release.4

Further, according to the NTP report, "This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher estimated fluoride exposures (e.g., as in approximations of exposure such as drinking water fluoride concentrations that exceed the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride) are consistently associated with lower IQ in children."5

This scientific foundation played a crucial role in the judge's determination that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to human health, especially to the cognitive development of children.

Prenatal Fluoride Exposure Linked to Neurobehavioral Problems
University of Florida researcher Ashley Malin described the NTP report as "the most rigorously conducted report of its kind."6 However, Malin and colleagues also revealed alarming connections between prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavioral issues in young children. Their research, the first of its kind in the U.S., focused on a cohort of predominantly Hispanic women and their children.7

The study found that higher maternal urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy were associated with increased risk of neurobehavioral problems in offspring by age 3. Specifically, for every 0.68 mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride, there was nearly double the odds of total neurobehavioral problems being in the borderline clinical or clinical range.

These findings are particularly concerning given that the fluoride levels observed in the study participants were typical of those living in fluoridated communities across North America. The study's results paint a troubling picture of how prenatal fluoride exposure affects children's development.

Women with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy tended to rate their children higher on overall neurobehavioral problems and internalizing symptoms. This included increased emotional reactivity, anxiety and somatic complaints, such as pain, headaches and gastrointestinal issues, by age 3 years. Higher maternal urinary fluoride levels were also associated with increased symptoms of autism spectrum disorder.8

These findings align with research from Canada, which found that exposure to fluoridated drinking water throughout pregnancy was linked to symptoms of executive dysfunction in children aged 3 to 5 years, including poorer inhibitory control and decreased cognitive flexibility.9

Mechanisms Behind Fluoride's Neurotoxic Effects
Animal studies have shed light on the mechanisms underlying the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavioral development. Research on rats exposed to low fluoride levels during gestation and early life revealed altered neurobiochemical markers of oxidative damage, glutamate metabolism and acetylcholinesterase activity. These changes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

Additionally, prenatal fluoride exposure adversely affects neurodevelopment and cognition by causing mitochondrial dysfunction, blocking cellular repair processes and disrupting synaptic function. It's worth noting that even at low levels, prenatal fluoride exposure suppresses maternal thyroid gland activity, contributing to cognitive and neurobehavioral problems in offspring.10

Excess Fluoride Affects Thyroid Function
A study conducted in Tianjin, China also examined the effects of fluoride exposure on children's health.11 The researchers measured fluoride levels in both drinking water and children's urine to assess exposure. Many areas add supplemental fluoride, leading to varying exposure levels across the population.

Researchers found that children living in areas with high fluoride concentrations in drinking water had significantly larger thyroid glands and an increased risk of thyroid nodules and abnormalities.12 For every unit increase in water fluoride, thyroid volume increased markedly. Children exposed to high levels had about twice the thyroid volume compared to those in low exposure areas.

The study also found that excessive fluoride intake disrupted normal thyroid hormone levels, particularly reducing levels of free T3. These findings suggest that fluoride exposure may interfere with children's thyroid function through multiple mechanisms, including altering iodine storage and release in the thyroid gland.

This disruption of thyroid hormones during critical developmental periods could have lasting impacts. The researchers noted that fluoride affects the activity of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) by inhibiting thyroid acid cyclase, explaining some of these effects.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride was also associated with lower IQ scores in school-age children. Compared to children in low exposure areas, those living in regions with high fluoride in drinking water scored significantly lower on IQ tests. The researchers found a negative correlation between urinary fluoride levels and intelligence scores. Children exposed to higher levels were more likely to have average IQ scores, with fewer scoring in the higher IQ ranges.13

The study suggests fluoride may cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain, causing learning and memory deficits. Accumulated fluoride may also result in nerve damage in the central nervous system and alter cognition, behavior and neuropsychiatric function.

Assessing Fluoride’s Risk to Your Health
The court's analysis focused on several key factors to determine the risk posed by fluoride. First, the severity of the harm — reduced IQ in children — was deemed significant. Even small decrements in IQ have substantial impacts on educational attainment, employment status, productivity and earned wages.14

Second, the court considered the size of the exposed population, which includes over 2 million pregnant women and their babies in the U.S. annually. Overall, about 200 million Americans drink fluoridated water.15 The frequency and duration of exposure were also noted, as fluoride ingestion occurs daily through drinking water and food prepared with fluoridated water.

Importantly, the court found there is an insufficient margin of safety between the levels at which fluoride is considered hazardous and the actual exposure levels in U.S. drinking water. This lack of a safety margin was another important factor in the judge's decision that fluoride’s risk is unreasonable and requires regulatory action.16

This ruling has significant implications for your and your family's health, particularly if you live in an area with fluoridated water. The court's decision highlights the risks of long-term, low-level fluoride exposure, especially for pregnant women and young children. While the ruling doesn't immediately change water fluoridation practices, it does require the EPA to take action to address these risks.

This could lead to changes in fluoridation levels, additional warnings or the phasing out of water fluoridation. As a consumer, it’s important to be aware of fluoride exposure from various sources, including drinking water, dental products and foods prepared with fluoridated water.

Practical Steps to Reduce Your Fluoride Exposure
While the court has ordered the EPA to initiate a rulemaking process, the specific actions the agency will take remain to be seen. The EPA has several options, ranging from requiring warning labels to banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water. As this process unfolds, you can take steps to reduce your fluoride exposure.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water, using a high-quality water filter certified to remove fluoride is one option to consider. Also opt for fluoride-free dental products, and be aware that certain foods and beverages like black and green teas may also contain significant fluoride. For infants, breastfeeding is the best option, as breastmilk contains little, if any, fluoride.

If this isn't possible, using filtered, fluoride-free water to reconstitute formula is important to reduce early-life exposure.

Choosing the Right Water Filtration System
When considering water filtration options to remove fluoride, you have several choices. Reverse osmosis,17 deionizers and activated alumina absorption media are effective at reducing fluoride levels. Distillation, though not technically filtration, also removes fluoride. However, common carbon filters like PUR and Brita, as well as water softeners, do not filter out fluoride.

For comprehensive protection, consider installing a high-quality, whole-house water filtration system. Ideally, filter water both at the point of entry and at exit points like showers and kitchen sinks. This approach is particularly important when preparing infant formula. Each filtration method has its pros and cons:

Reverse osmosis (RO) removes about 80% of fluoride along with other contaminants, but requires regular maintenance to prevent bacterial growth. A tankless RO system with a compressor may be your best option, though professional installation might be needed.

Ion exchange filters remove dissolved salts and soften water but may have issues with bacterial contamination. They're often combined with carbon filters for better results. Granular-activated carbon filters are common in countertop and undercounter systems. They effectively remove organic contaminants and chemicals like chlorine and pesticides. However, they may not be as effective against hydrogen sulfide and require regular replacement.

For optimal fluoride removal, consider combining a granular-activated carbon filter with bone char,18 which has shown excellent results in studies. Whatever system you choose, ensure it fits your needs and budget while providing effective fluoride reduction. Keep in mind, too, that achieving optimal oral health and cavity prevention shouldn't involve drinking fluoridated water or using toothpaste containing fluoride.

Natural Approaches to Dental Health
While your toothbrush and fluoride-free toothpaste are essential tools, they're far from the sole options for dental care. Various natural substances, including the foods you consume, play a significant role in enhancing not only your dental health but also your overall well-being.

Focus on a nutrient-dense diet rich in vitamins and minerals that support tooth and gum health. Consider natural antimicrobial agents like coconut oil pulling or herbal rinses to promote oral hygiene without the risks associated with fluoride exposure.

By taking these steps to reduce fluoride exposure and embracing natural dental care practices, you protect your health while still maintaining strong, healthy teeth. Stay informed, make conscious choices about your water and dental products, and remember that overall health begins with what you put into your body — including the water you drink and the products you use daily.

Mechanisms Behind Fluoride's Neurotoxic Effects
Animal studies have shed light on the mechanisms underlying the association between prenatal fluoride exposure and neurobehavioral development. Research on rats exposed to low fluoride levels during gestation and early life revealed altered neurobiochemical markers of oxidative damage, glutamate metabolism and acetylcholinesterase activity. These changes have been implicated in the pathophysiology of neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism.

Additionally, prenatal fluoride exposure adversely affects neurodevelopment and cognition by causing mitochondrial dysfunction, blocking cellular repair processes and disrupting synaptic function. It's worth noting that even at low levels, prenatal fluoride exposure suppresses maternal thyroid gland activity, contributing to cognitive and neurobehavioral problems in offspring.10

Excess Fluoride Affects Thyroid Function
A study conducted in Tianjin, China also examined the effects of fluoride exposure on children's health.11 The researchers measured fluoride levels in both drinking water and children's urine to assess exposure. Many areas add supplemental fluoride, leading to varying exposure levels across the population.

Researchers found that children living in areas with high fluoride concentrations in drinking water had significantly larger thyroid glands and an increased risk of thyroid nodules and abnormalities.12 For every unit increase in water fluoride, thyroid volume increased markedly. Children exposed to high levels had about twice the thyroid volume compared to those in low exposure areas.

The study also found that excessive fluoride intake disrupted normal thyroid hormone levels, particularly reducing levels of free T3. These findings suggest that fluoride exposure may interfere with children's thyroid function through multiple mechanisms, including altering iodine storage and release in the thyroid gland.

This disruption of thyroid hormones during critical developmental periods could have lasting impacts. The researchers noted that fluoride affects the activity of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) by inhibiting thyroid acid cyclase, explaining some of these effects.

Exposure to high levels of fluoride was also associated with lower IQ scores in school-age children. Compared to children in low exposure areas, those living in regions with high fluoride in drinking water scored significantly lower on IQ tests. The researchers found a negative correlation between urinary fluoride levels and intelligence scores. Children exposed to higher levels were more likely to have average IQ scores, with fewer scoring in the higher IQ ranges.13

The study suggests fluoride may cross the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in the brain, causing learning and memory deficits. Accumulated fluoride may also result in nerve damage in the central nervous system and alter cognition, behavior and neuropsychiatric function.

Assessing Fluoride’s Risk to Your Health
The court's analysis focused on several key factors to determine the risk posed by fluoride. First, the severity of the harm — reduced IQ in children — was deemed significant. Even small decrements in IQ have substantial impacts on educational attainment, employment status, productivity and earned wages.14

Second, the court considered the size of the exposed population, which includes over 2 million pregnant women and their babies in the U.S. annually. Overall, about 200 million Americans drink fluoridated water.15 The frequency and duration of exposure were also noted, as fluoride ingestion occurs daily through drinking water and food prepared with fluoridated water.

Importantly, the court found there is an insufficient margin of safety between the levels at which fluoride is considered hazardous and the actual exposure levels in U.S. drinking water. This lack of a safety margin was another important factor in the judge's decision that fluoride’s risk is unreasonable and requires regulatory action.16

This ruling has significant implications for your and your family's health, particularly if you live in an area with fluoridated water. The court's decision highlights the risks of long-term, low-level fluoride exposure, especially for pregnant women and young children. While the ruling doesn't immediately change water fluoridation practices, it does require the EPA to take action to address these risks.

This could lead to changes in fluoridation levels, additional warnings or the phasing out of water fluoridation. As a consumer, it’s important to be aware of fluoride exposure from various sources, including drinking water, dental products and foods prepared with fluoridated water.

Practical Steps to Reduce Your Fluoride Exposure
While the court has ordered the EPA to initiate a rulemaking process, the specific actions the agency will take remain to be seen. The EPA has several options, ranging from requiring warning labels to banning the addition of fluoride to drinking water. As this process unfolds, you can take steps to reduce your fluoride exposure.

If you live in an area with fluoridated water, using a high-quality water filter certified to remove fluoride is one option to consider. Also opt for fluoride-free dental products, and be aware that certain foods and beverages like black and green teas may also contain significant fluoride. For infants, breastfeeding is the best option, as breastmilk contains little, if any, fluoride.

If this isn't possible, using filtered, fluoride-free water to reconstitute formula is important to reduce early-life exposure.

Choosing the Right Water Filtration System
When considering water filtration options to remove fluoride, you have several choices. Reverse osmosis,17 deionizers and activated alumina absorption media are effective at reducing fluoride levels. Distillation, though not technically filtration, also removes fluoride. However, common carbon filters like PUR and Brita, as well as water softeners, do not filter out fluoride.

For comprehensive protection, consider installing a high-quality, whole-house water filtration system. Ideally, filter water both at the point of entry and at exit points like showers and kitchen sinks. This approach is particularly important when preparing infant formula. Each filtration method has its pros and cons:

Reverse osmosis (RO) removes about 80% of fluoride along with other contaminants, but requires regular maintenance to prevent bacterial growth. A tankless RO system with a compressor may be your best option, though professional installation might be needed.

Ion exchange filters remove dissolved salts and soften water but may have issues with bacterial contamination. They're often combined with carbon filters for better results. Granular-activated carbon filters are common in countertop and undercounter systems. They effectively remove organic contaminants and chemicals like chlorine and pesticides. However, they may not be as effective against hydrogen sulfide and require regular replacement.

For optimal fluoride removal, consider combining a granular-activated carbon filter with bone char,18 which has shown excellent results in studies. Whatever system you choose, ensure it fits your needs and budget while providing effective fluoride reduction. Keep in mind, too, that achieving optimal oral health and cavity prevention shouldn't involve drinking fluoridated water or using toothpaste containing fluoride.

Natural Approaches to Dental Health
While your toothbrush and fluoride-free toothpaste are essential tools, they're far from the sole options for dental care. Various natural substances, including the foods you consume, play a significant role in enhancing not only your dental health but also your overall well-being.

Focus on a nutrient-dense diet rich in vitamins and minerals that support tooth and gum health. Consider natural antimicrobial agents like coconut oil pulling or herbal rinses to promote oral hygiene without the risks associated with fluoride exposure.

By taking these steps to reduce fluoride exposure and embracing natural dental care practices, you protect your health while still maintaining strong, healthy teeth. Stay informed, make conscious choices about your water and dental products, and remember that overall health begins with what you put into your body — including the water you drink and the products you use daily."

(Ad for Dr. Mercola's new book follows)

Sources and References
1, 14, 16 Food & Water Watch V. U.S. EPA September 24, 2024
2, 3 National Toxicology Program, NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopment and Cognition August 2024
4 EIN Presswire August 21, 2024
5 NTP Monogr. 2024 Aug 8 NTP-MGRAPH-8. doi: 10.22427/NTP-MGRAPH-8
6 AP News August 22, 2024
7, 8, 9, 10 JAMA Network Open May 20, 2024;7(5):e2411987
11, 12, 13 Nutrients. 2024 Sep; 16(17): 2913
15 The Hill September 25, 2024
17 FAN, Top 10 Ways to Reduce Fluoride Exposure
18 Membranes (Basel). 2021 Nov; 11(11): 868, Abstract

[ExomatrixTV]

Montreal 🇨🇦 Is PHASING OUT FLUORIDE After Federal Judge RULES IT’S A NEUROTOXIN In Historic Lawsuit!:

A federal judge has recently ruled that fluoride is a neurotoxin in a huge historic lawsuit and because of this Montreal 🇨🇦 will now be phasing out fluoride for the west island by 2025! In this video Dan Dicks of Press For Truth covers the latest news on the pushback that’s happening to water fluoridation in cities all over the world!
v5gymgt/?pub=ir01b

[mountain_jim]

copying here


https://x.com/KanekoaTheGreat/status/1852887027601293579

1852887027601293579

KanekoaTheGreat
@KanekoaTheGreat

NEW: @RobertKennedyJr announces, "On January 20, the Trump White House will recommend that all U.S. water systems eliminate fluoride from public drinking water."

In September 2024, a federal court ruled against the EPA in a lawsuit over fluoride in water, noting, "There is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States."

Kennedy added, "Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. President @realDonaldTrump and First Lady @MELANIATRUMP are committed to making America healthy again."

Video:
@JeffereyJaxen

[onawah]

Trump White House Will Advise on Fluoride
November 4, 2024
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2024/11/04/trump-white-house-will-advise-on-fluoride/

(That would be a good start...)

https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/11/pic-of-RFK-and-Trump-during-rally-2024.jpg

" Trump White House will advise that fluoride be removed from the country’s water supplies on January 20, 2025.
Trump says RFK Jr.’s proposal to remove fluoride from public water ‘sounds OK to m
Check out the article from Gateway Pundit:https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/11/rfk-jr-says-trump-admin-will-advise-u/

RFK Jr. Says Trump Admin Will Advise U.S. Water Systems to Remove Fluoride from Tap Water on Day One

From the article:

“On January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water,” Kennedy wrote. “Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease.”

Kennedy added that Donald and Melania Trump want to “Make America Healthy Again.”

The removal of fluoride is both legal and scientific based on a September 24, 2024 ruling by United States District Judge Edward M. Chen.

So, America has had a great victory over a highly toxic substance known as fluoride that was FORCED into our municipal water supply! Fluoride is hazardous to our health! Most of the fluoride that’s added to our drinking water is in the form of fluorosilicates, also known as fluosilicic acid (fluorosilicic acid, H2SiF6), and sodium salt (sodium fluorosilicate, Na2SiF6).

This chart includes some of the specific human health risks associated with fluoride:

Acne and other dermatological conditions

Arterial calcification
and arteriosclerosis

Bone weakness and risk of fractures

Cancer of the bone, osteosarcoma

Cardiac failure

Cardiac insufficiency

Cognitive deficits

Dental fluorosis

Diabetes

Early puberty in girls

Electrocardiogram abnormalities

Harm to the fetal brain

Hypertension

Immune system complications

Insomnia

Iodine deficiency

Lower fertility rates

Lower IQ

Myocardial damage

Neurotoxic effects, including ADHD

Osteoarthritis

Skeletal fluorosis

Temporomandibular joint disorder (TMJ)

Thyroid dysfunction

Check out Secure Arkansas’ previous article from Sept. 2024: Federal Lawsuit Victory over U.S Water Fluoridation:
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2024/09/25/federal-lawsuit-victory-over-u-s-water-fluoridation/
Here is the court ruling on our lawsuit against EPA:
https://static.securetherepublic.com/State-Documents/Arkansas/BLj0v6C44U-court-ruling---food-and-water-watch-vs-epa-re-fluoride-2024.09.24.pdf
Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC Document 445 Filed 09/24/24 (80 pages)

Some excerpts from the above ruling:

From Page 15

b. Key finding

30. The hazard identification step of the hazard assessment here is satisfied; exposure to the chemical fluoride is associated with the adverse effect of reduced IQ in children, and particularly in boys

From pages 79 and 80

IV CONCLUSION OF LAW

121. Plaintiffs have proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that water fluoridation at the level of 0.7 mg/L – the prescribed optimal level of fluoridation in the United States – presents an “unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, including an unreasonable risk to a potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulation under the conditions of use.” 15 U.S.C. § 2620(b)(4)(B)(ii).

122. The Court thus orders the Administrator to initiate rulemaking pursuant to Subsection 6(a) of TSCA. See id. §§ 2605(a), 2620(a).

123. The Court defers ruling as to whether Plaintiffs are entitled to recovery of their costs of suit and attorneys and expert witness fees. Parties are ordered to submit a proposed supplemental briefing schedule regarding costs and fees within two weeks of the date of this order.

Defendant shall respond two weeks thereafter. The Court will take the matter under submission unless it orders a hearing.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in Plaintiffs’ favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 24, 2024 ______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Judge Chen wrote in his 80-page ruling Tuesday, September 24, 2024:

“If there is an insufficient margin, then the chemical poses a risk.”

The following is from Fluoride Action Network (FAN):
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976
https://fluoridealert.org/content/we-won-federal-court-rules-that-fluoridation-chemicals-pose-an-unreasonable-risk-to-health/

WE WON! Federal Court Rules That Fluoridation Chemicals Pose An “Unreasonable Risk” To Health

History has been made. After 7 years of pursuing legal action against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the risk posed to the developing brain by the practice of water fluoridation, the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has just ruled on behalf of the Fluoride Action Network and the plaintiffs in our precedent-setting court case. A U.S. federal court has now deemed fluoridation an “unreasonable risk” to the health of children, and the EPA will be forced to regulate it as such. The decision is written very strongly in our favor, and we will share it in its entirety tomorrow. Below is an excerpt from the introduction of the ruling:

“The issue before this Court is whether the Plaintiffs have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the fluoridation of drinking water at levels typical in the United States poses an unreasonable risk of injury to health of the public within the meaning of Amended TSCA. For the reasons set forth below, the Court so finds. Specifically, the Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children..the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response…One thing the EPA cannot do, however, in the face of this Court’s finding, is to ignore that risk.”

In this moment, I want to recognize attorney Michael Connett for pursuing this case and leading the effort every step of the way. He’s a true superhero to all of us here at FAN. Many other amazing team members were also involved in making this a reality and deserve great appreciation and thanks, including our co-plaintiffs and all of you who donated and spread the word about our case. Take a moment to celebrate this momentous occasion tonight, wherever you are. After 7 years, we all deserve it.

In closing:

Since the Federal court has ruled that fluoride is toxic and affects IQ, there is no reason for the Arkansas Department of Health (ADH) and the legislators to drag there feet any more. Legislators and ADH, please do your job and remove the fluoride before Donald J Trump has to do it come January 20, 2025.
No Fluoride.
No Mandate.
Let’s Make America Healthy Again"


Securing the blessings of liberty,
Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com

[onawah]

Florida Surgeon General Advises Communities to End Fluoridation
Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.com
11/23/24
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3649887?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==
https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_Na4k_EIUeN_qYvq7Th8cSkLMJ_63FwQSy_iQGntM4z4uC9AzzhQ7tN1BSWAdRAJzf2J0b276zlCZdYrVKZlQ7NU8zLy6ZpI PSi5cjE3_r-A_EM6KqKSbQYl=s0-d-e1-ft#https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/Logo.png

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"Florida's State Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, held a press conference on Friday, November 22nd to announce that his office is advising all communities within the state to stop adding fluoridation chemicals to the public drinking water due to the neurotoxic risk the practice poses to the developing brain. Dr. Ladapo has both a medical degree and a PhD in health policy from Harvard and is a professor of medicine at the University of Florida, where his focus is on reducing health risks for low-income and disadvantaged populations.

He was joined at the press conference by Florida dentist Claire Stagg, DDS, MS, and Ashley Malin, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of epidemiology at the University of Florida's College of Public Health. Dr. Malin was the lead author of a study published in May in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that found that children of mothers living in fluoridated Los Angeles, California had double the odds of several neurobehavioral problems compared to mothers with lower fluoride exposures. Funding for the study was provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and it was the 10th consecutive NIH-funded study in humans finding adverse effects of fluoride on children’s developing brains.

Dr. Ladapo credited the Fluoride Action Network's (FAN) recent victory in federal court and the judge's ruling that water fluoridation "poses an unreasonable risk to human health" for bringing the issue to his attention. This led Dr. Ladapo to investigate the science further, including the National Toxicology Program's systematic review, published in August, which found that there is consistent, substantial, and high-quality evidence from diverse birth cohort groups in 5 different countries confirming that fluoride is comparable to lead in its ability to lower IQ and impair brain development in children.

During the press conference, Dr. Ladapo explained that for much of his career he "supported this practice," but after reviewing the science, he "was appalled" by the amount of evidence showing "that fluoride is neurotoxic" and the evidence of side-effects having "been in the [scientific] literature for many years."

Dr. Ladapo provided the following advisory:

“[Fluoridation] is public health malpractice, and so we are issuing guidance to every community, every municipality, every county in Florida to stop adding fluoride to their community water systems. And I will tell you that the data that we have, the studies that we have, primarily are focused on pregnant women and children, those are clearly the most sensitive and vulnerable populations for fluoridation in terms of these adverse neuropsychiatric effects. But I personally, in my family, we’ve pulled back in terms of sources of fluoride because we’re concerned about the effects in adults also.”

He went on to directly counter misinformation being spread by the American Dental Association (ADA) and other pro-fluoridation special interest groups:

"So the typical criticism has been that these studies were in countries like China or India where, say the naturally occurring amounts of fluoride are much higher than what we have here in the United States. Well, it turns out that in fact that wasn’t true. So in the last five or six years there have been several studies that have been published, Dr. Malin has actually published some of these studies, in communities in Canada, also in the United States, where levels of fluoride are actually quite similar to the levels that we have here in this state and in this country. And these studies have actually found the same findings – that moms and children exposed to higher levels of fluoride have experienced adverse neurologic and neuropsychiatric effects."

His office has provided formal guidance for citizens, decision makers, and water treatment employees to better understand his office's recommendation, and will provide a tool on their website so Florida residents can look up their address to determine whether fluoridation chemicals are added to their water.

Click below to watch the full press conference:
Th8rRXf5B6c

Dr. Ladapo's announcement was followed by a statement from Dr. Malin, who said:

"Now I first want to say that although this issue has become politicized recently, I really don’t view this as a political issue. I view this as a human rights issue and a public health issue and one that is separate from other public health issues that are currently being highlighted in the media and political sphere. As Dr. Ladapo mentioned, in the last seven years there have been numerous high-quality, rigorously conducted, prospective pregnancy and birth cohort studies in North America showing that chronic, relatively low prenatal fluoride exposure levels are associated with poor neurodevelopmental outcomes, including reduced IQ, more symptoms of ADHD, and declines in executive function. While these studies have been conducted among populations based in Canada and Mexico, the fluoride concentrations that these pregnant women were exposed to are similar to those encountered among pregnant women in fluoridated US communities.

In September a federal judge in San Francisco made a ruling in the fluoride trial against the EPA that stated that fluoride and drinking water at the current recommended level of .7 milligrams per liter poses an unreasonable risk of hazard to child IQ because there is not enough of a margin of safety between the hazard level and the exposure level that is added to community drinking water. The ruling stated that the EPA’s default is for there to be a factor of 10 between the hazard level and exposure level due to variability in human sensitivities. Based on the NTP’s report, the hazard to child IQ exists at 1.5 milligrams per liter. Therefore, according to the EPA standard, the exposure level for fluoride in community drinking water would need to be set at 0.15 milligrams per liter or lower to create enough of a margin of safety to protect child IQ."

Dr. Malin's statement was followed by a brief statement from Dr. Stagg and a Q&A session.

The Fluoride Action Network applauds the actions of Dr. Ladapo, Dr. Malin, and Dr. Stagg, and we echo Dr. Ladapo's sentiments when he said, "I can’t imagine why anyone who was a leader in a community would not want to reduce the amount of fluoride while promoting dental health through other methods. I just can’t understand why someone would not reach that conclusion."

FAN is currently working with state-level decision makers around the country to keep this momentum moving forward towards drinking water policy that protects all residents, including the fetus and infants. Please share this advisory with your local and state officials.

A transcript of the entire press conference and Q&A, along with shorter video clips, can be viewed on the FAN website:
https://fluoridealert.org/content/florida-surgeon-general-advises-florida-communities-to-stop-fluoridation/

Thank you,

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network"

[norman]

A few years ago I bought a box of reel to reel tapes with very old recordings. Sadly, someone had re recorded goon shows over many of them but I found short bits at the ends of them where the goon show had ended and re recording had stopped, so the original was still there. These chunks of original recordings were almost always the radio news briefings after a program had ended ( because they were at the ends of the tapes )


Among them was this one about fluoride in the water. Compared with the other stuff in this thread it's trivial, but novel. For a sound hunter like me it's a shiny object in the mud, and why I bought the reels of tape in the first place, but that's just me.


mp3

Fluoridation is simple, safe and efficient (https://app.box.com/s/k0uhbuxbvt00zuj31cmke5b275u3ydqc)

[onawah]

Explosive Evidence on Toxic Fluoride has been Buried by the Government for Years…
November 24, 2024
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2024/11/24/explosive-evidence-on-toxic-fluoride-has-been-buried-by-the-government-for-years/

(I stopped taking baths and only take very short showers [with a filter] since our water was fluoridated in Arkansas. Fluoride is absorbed by the pores in the skin, so soaking in hot fluoridated water is a bad idea, and filtering it out is very difficult and expensive. How nice it will be when that toxic waste is no longer in the tap water, and it looks like it won't be long now.Though it's still just one of many dangerous toxins being dumped in the land, air and water, it's one of the worst. )

"Act 197 of 2011 mandated the forced fluoridation of all of Arkansas’ public water supplies servicing more than 5,000 people.

This was both unethical and unjust…and it is time for the legislators to admit that they were misinformed.
Senior Federal Judge Edward Chen recently ruled that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to children

From this Fluoride Action Network article Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children:
https://fluoridealert.org/content/federal-court-rules-that-water-fluoridation-poses-an-unreasonable-risk-to-children/

The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S.


After a precedent-setting 7-year legal battle in federal court, an historic ruling by the United States District Court of the Northern District of California has ordered the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take regulatory action to eliminate the “unreasonable risk” to the health of children posed by the practice of water fluoridation.

We’re so glad for this… especially since the risk of toxic fluoride has been known for over 80 years!

Way back in 1997, in our very own state, letters of warning (including evidence) about the risk and dangers of water fluoridation were sent by Stan Sobel to then-Arkansas-Governor Mike Huckabee, along with leading Senators and Representatives.

See the two revealing letters here:
https://static.securetherepublic.com/State-Documents/Arkansas/jecezvw1d6-letter-from-stan-sobel-to-gov-mike-huckabee---sen-boozman---rep-hogue-re-dangers-of-water-fluoridation-jan-1997.pdf
1997 Letter to Gov. Mike Huckabee, Senator Boozman, and Representative Hogue (the U.S. Government knew about the potential for Fluoride’s impact on the Central Nervous System as early as 1944 during the Manhattan Project)
https://static.securetherepublic.com/State-Documents/Arkansas/mTk3siotIE-letter-from-stan-sobel-to-sen-tim-hutchinson---rep-asa-hutchinson---re-dangers-of-water-fluoridation-feb-1997.pdf
1997 Letter to Senator Tim Hutchinson and Rep. Asa Hutchinson

Mr. Sobel worked as an aeronautical engineer for Boeing and NASA. He worked on NASA’s Apollo project and assisted in getting the first men, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Jr., and Michael Collins, on the moon.
In his letters, Sobel also called upon Governor Mike Huckabee to take a stand against water fluoridation back in 1997… but Huckabee didn’t answer the call. And you wonder why the government can’t be trusted…
What will his daughter Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders do about this?

To correct this cover-up by the government, Gov. Sanders can use her Executive Power to halt the fluoridation of Arkansas’s public water supplies. That way, this wouldn’t even need to go through the legislative session. And come January 2024, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., along with President Trump, will request that the country ban water fluoridation.

Here’s another document from December 1996 that also mentions the Manhattan Project of 1944 (note: many of those related documents are classified):
Memo from the Dept. of the Army for the U.S. Medical Command at Fort Sam Houston Texas regarding the Environmental Assessment for Fluoridation of Fort Detrick Drinking Water
https://static.securetherepublic.com/State-Documents/Arkansas/mTk3siotIE-letter-from-stan-sobel-to-sen-tim-hutchinson---rep-asa-hutchinson---re-dangers-of-water-fluoridation-feb-1997.pdf
Interesting. Remember, Nazi Germany used fluoride in the water to make their people more docile…

And think about this: Dr. J. William Hirzy, EPA scientist, said,
If Fluoride gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant
If Fluoride gets into the river, it’s a pollutant
If Fluoride gets into the lake, it’s a pollutant
But, If Fluoride goes straight into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant! Isn’t this amazing?

Why does America rank LAST in health care outcomes among high-income countries? Is our poisonous drinking water harming our health? How do we expect to be healthy under these circumstances? Fluoride is a highly toxic waste product that’s put into our drinking water, and that complicates good health outcomes. Moreover, our country has the highest rates of preventable and treatable deaths and the highest infant and maternal mortality rates.

Did you know that 98% of western Europe has rejected water fluoridation, and Israel stopped mandatory fluoridation back in 2014?
Why is America so slow to stop mandating fluoridation? Other countries have put their people first in clean drinking water, and it’s high time that Americans are put first regarding our water.

Thankfully, Senate Bill 2 has recently been proposed to STOP and REPEAL water fluoridation in Arkansas.
htArkansas Senator Clint Penzo and Senator Bryan King, along with Rep. Matt Duffield and Rep. Aaron Pilkington, have answered the call and are leading the charge to make Arkansas healthy again!

Read Arkansas Senate Bill 2 here: https://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/Home/FTPDocument?path=%2FBills%2F2025R%2FPublic%2FSB2.pdf

For An Act To Be Entitled

AN ACT TO REPEAL THE STATEWIDE FLUORIDATION PROGRAM;
TO REMOVE THE MANDATE FOR WATER SYSTEMS TO MAINTAIN A FLUORIDE CONTENT; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Arkansas Legislators, we are calling upon you to support Senate Bill 2. Please vote YES on it.

From the Ft. Smith Southwest Times Record: Bills introduced to end fluoride requirement in Arkansas drinking water. This article mentions Senate Bill 2 and Senate Bill 4. The only real solution is Senate Bill 2 that will repeal Act 197 of 2011. Passing Senate Bill 4 would be going against the Federal Court ruling that states:

“The Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (“mg/L”) – the level presently considered “optimal” in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children…the Court finds there is an unreasonable risk of such injury, a risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.”

“In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States…Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to, e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages.”

You’ll note that the article mentions “naturally occurring fluoride”… but what’s being added to our public water systems is NOT that. It’s toxic waste!

Also, the article does not mention the federal court ruling of September 24, 2024 about fluoride posing an unreasonable risk to children. Why? Could they have been bought off by their deep state advertisers? This is nothing more than half-truth and misinformation put out by the liberal press…

Under Arkansas Department of Health Final Rules, there are four items (identified in the bullet items below) that cover fluoridation that must be changed to reflect the Federal Judge ruling of Case 3:17-cv-02162-EMC :
Bottled Drinking Water
Fluoride Policy
Public Water Systems
Water Operator Licensing

What many people don’t realize is that fluoride is cumulative in our bodies, and it has also been shown to cause chromosomal damage!
It has long been a harmful source of contamination, so legislation is required for us to move forward and stop ingesting this poisonous chemical known as fluoride.

This is vital
Let’s work to get this toxic substance — fluoride — out of our drinking water so we can live a healthier life.

Secure Arkansas wants to highlight doctors that have proven that fluoride is dangerous to human health, so here is an explosive speech given by Dr. Phyllis J. Mullenix, PhD. Watch and listen as she discusses the toxicity of water fluoridation at IAOMT 2009 Las Vegas.

If you’re seeking information on fluoridation, this is a great place to look! The powerful information brought forth by Mullenix is life changing! She published a highly informative work on the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats from Pub Med in 1995. Mullenix is a highly qualified doctor and has served as a neuro toxicologist at Boston Children’s Hospital.

Also, see this from October 29, 2024: VIDEO: Review Of The Evidence Presented In The Fluoride Lawsuit On The Risk Of Fluoride Neurotoxicity.
eou_UMhHlm4

Regarding the recent court ruling: the following link provides a complete list of all of the documents presented in United States District Court. Northern District. California for Case 3:17-cv-0c162. On November 20, 2024, the Court hereby ENTERS judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants (EPA):

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.310380/gov.uscourts.cand.310380.452.0.pdf
Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law — Document #445
District Court, N.D. California
Docket Number: 3:17-cv-02162

Citation: Food & Water Watch, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 3:17-cv-02162, (N.D. Cal. Sep 24, 2024) ECF No. 445
Date Filed: September 24th, 2024, 4:21 p.m. PDT
Uploaded: September 24th, 2024

So, what’s going on around the country?

Florida is taking action. See this article written by Fenit Nirappil and Dan Diamond of the Washington Post:

Florida surgeon general calls for halting fluoride in water, echoing RFK Jr.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/11/22/florida-fluoride-water-rfk-jr-surgeon-general/

The top health official of the nation’s third-largest state called Friday for a halt to adding fluoride to Florida’s water, citing controversial studies that suggest the widely hailed public health practice poses a risk to developing brains.

Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo issued a recommendation citing “the neuropsychiatric risk associated with fluoride exposure, particularly in pregnant women and children,” and noting the availability of alternative sources of fluoride in toothpaste and mouthwash.

And see this by Carla Bayron and the FOX13 news staff:
https://www.fox13news.com/news/florida-surgeon-general-announcing-new-guidance-water-treatment

Florida surgeon general says fluoride shouldn’t be added to drinking water: ‘Public health malpractice

From the article:
WINTER HAVEN, Fla. – Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo announced new guidelines on Friday, advising that all cities and counties statewide stop adding fluoride to drinking water.

Dr. Ladapo spoke at a news conference in Winter Haven, which made headlines last week after the city announced that fluoride will no longer be added to its water supply by the end of the year.
Be sure to watch the short news video at the beginning of their news article.

This information from Fluoride Action Network (FAN) covers the complete press conference of Florida’s State Surgeon General, Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD, in which he advises communities to end fluoridation. This FAN article has the complete transcript of the press conference.
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3649887?recipient_id=xT_Qn1HMJ0vPKUofLV71nA||b2FrbG9nbWFuQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==
From the article:

During the press conference, Dr. Ladapo explained that for much of his career he “supported this practice,” but after reviewing the science, he “was appalled” by the amount of evidence showing “that fluoride is neurotoxic” and the evidence of side-effects having “been in the [scientific] literature for many years.”

Dr. Ladapo provided the following advisory:

“[Fluoridation] is public health malpractice, and so we are issuing guidance to every community, every municipality, every county in Florida to stop adding fluoride to their community water systems. And I will tell you that the data that we have, the studies that we have, primarily are focused on pregnant women and children, those are clearly the most sensitive and vulnerable populations for fluoridation in terms of these adverse neuropsychiatric effects. But I personally, in my family, we’ve pulled back in terms of sources of fluoride because we’re concerned about the effects in adults also.”

The EPA, FDA, CDC, etc. have been using fraudulent data and bad science in order to dump the toxic industrial fluoride waste products into public water supplies for years. The lies have caught up to them in the recent US District Court win by Fluoride Action Network: Federal Court Rules That Water Fluoridation Poses an “Unreasonable Risk” to Children.
https://fluoridealert.org/content/federal-court-rules-that-water-fluoridation-poses-an-unreasonable-risk-to-children/
The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate the risk, in a decision that could end the use of water fluoridation chemicals throughout the U.S.

Lastly, you may read Secure Arkansas’ article regarding the recent Sept. 2024 federal ruling on fluoride here:

Federal Lawsuit Victory over U.S Water Fluoridation!
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2024/09/25/federal-lawsuit-victory-over-u-s-water-fluoridation/

In closing: Arkansas legislators, please pass Arkansas Senate Bill 2 to repeal Act 197 to remove forced fluoridation of the public water supplies in Arkansas. This will comply with the federal court ruling of September 24, 2024. It will also get Arkansas ready for January 20, 2025:
RFK Jr. says fluoride is ‘an industrial waste’ linked to cancer, diseases and disorders.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/03/health/rfk-jr-fluoride-science/index.html

“On January 20, 2025 the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water. Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease,” Kennedy, a former independent presidential candidate, wrote in a social media post.

A federal judge in September 2024 ordered the US Environmental Protection Agency to take additional measures to regulate fluoride in drinking water because of a possible risk that higher levels of the mine

Dr. Ashley Malin, assistant professor in the Department of Epidemiology in the University of Florida’s College of Public Health and Health Professions, told CNN in an email that “protecting vulnerable populations from environmental toxicants is a nonpartisan matter that should remain informed by the current state of the science.”

“I think that health effects of fluoride on young children, particularly in the realm of neurodevelopment have been sufficiently studied such that it has now been identified that a hazard to child IQ is present. However, I would argue that more research is needed to better understand impacts of chronic low level fluoride exposure on adult health outcomes because that research is scarce,” Malin said

Securing the blessings of liberty,"

Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com

[onawah]

We've Reached the Tipping Point For Fluoridation
Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.com> https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3663329?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==
12/2/24
https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/Logo.png[
(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"This time last year I made a video promising that 2024 would be “one of the most important years in fluoridation history,” but particularly for the fluoride-free movement and for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). I called it “The Perfect Storm” coming to end water fluoridation.

https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/Screen%20Shot%202024-12-02%20at%202.28.20%20PM.png

I think we can all agree that 2024 lived up to those promises in a big way. As you can see from the Google data on searches for “fluoride,” together we’ve awoken the world to the dangers of water fluoridation on a scale never seen before.

As you know, none of this was accidental. What we witnessed was the culmination of over two decades of diligent work by FAN staff, volunteers, organizers, and professionals, as well as over two decades of passionate support from so many of you.

We've reached the tipping point. Here's what happened in 2024:

The largest study ever conducted on the effectiveness of fluoridation found essentially no reduction in tooth decay, no reductions in social inequalities, no reductions in missing teeth, and a net economic loss from the practice.

The first government-funded study looking at pregnant women living in a U.S. fluoridated community was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). It found a doubling of neurobehavioral problems for children born to mothers exposed to higher fluoride levels in optimally fluoridated Los Angeles, CA

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) published their systematic review after 8-years, finding a "large body" of evidence that fluoride exposure is "consistently associated with lower IQ in children."

After our 7-year-long legal battle in federal court against the EPA over the neurotoxicity of fluoridation, the court ruled that there is “substantial and scientifically credible evidence” establishing that water fluoridation “poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” The ruling requires the EPA to take regulatory action to eliminate this risk.

The legal victory brought unprecedented media attention to FAN and to the dangers of water fluoridation. It made ending fluoridation a nationally discussed issue, gaining attention from decision makers at all levels of government, including the incoming presidential administration, and generated a wave of communities suspending or ending fluoridation that continues to grow with each day.

The Cochrane Collaboration published an updated assessment on the efficacy of water fluoridation. It found that effectiveness has declined to almost nothing over the past 50 years.

The Surgeon General of Florida--joined by other scientific and medical professionals--became the first state health official to hold a press conference calling for all communities to end fluoridation due to the health risks.
2025 will mark FAN’s 25th anniversary. It could very easily also mark one of the last years of water fluoridation globally. We’re that close. But the pro-fluoridation lobby isn’t giving up. Remarkably, they’re continuing to follow their old playbook of doubling down in support of the practice. We can’t let up now. Our victories this past year put us in a position where the future of fluoridation is now in our hands

Over the next four weeks, we’ll be providing detailed updates about the unprecedented media coverage we’ve received, the wave of communities responding to the court victory, feature new interviews with the FAN team, share new deposition video clips from the lawsuit, reveal more documents uncovered with the Freedom of Information Act, share exciting state legislative updates, and much more.

Of course, we’ll also be sharing what’s to come in 2025. Please stay tuned, because I think you'll find the content we share to be incredibly informative and useful.

**Please note that some corporations match tax deductible donations made by their employees to some non-profits. FAN qualifies for this program. Here is the information to provide your corporate finance staff: the parent body for FAN is the American Environmental Health Studies Project, Inc. (EIN#: 62-1599535)
Thank you for your support"

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

[Ratszinger]

Most of the cases of too much fluoride are from places like CO. where it was discoverd the water from nature had way too much in it to be healthy. It was CO that was why and how they discovered that fluroide in the water prevented tooth decay. Few children from CO had the decay seen in the rest of the nation. Turned out to be the water but they have to reduce that calcium fluoride from nature by quite a bit to make it safe to drink. In other states with no calcium fluoride from nature where tooth decay was bad in children they added fluoride. Personally I feel they should add what nature gives us in the way of calcium fluoride in safe amounts or parts per million but beurocrats got involved and poison sludge that happened to have a lot of stanous or sodium flouride in it was bought for way cheap and they did tests and concluded it worked just as well as calcium flouride and began using that. I don't think in the we bits they are using in the water that they are poisoning people but plenty of people still drink the water right out of the mountains in areas where they take in way too much and in those cases it's nature poisoning those people not man.

[onawah]

States & Communities Lashing Out at Water Fluoridation
December 8, 2024
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2024/12/08/states-communities-lashing-out-at-water-fluoridation/

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2024/12/pic-of-Industrial-waste-in-your-water-The-toxic-truth-behind-water-fluoridation.jpg

"Secure Arkansas believes that it’s high time to reveal more history and corruption behind the industrial toxic waste called fluoride that is being dumped into our drinking water supply and is poisoning people all across the country.

Our own state of Arkansas is working to rid our population of this dangerous chemical: see our previous article, which mentions legislation to repeal the fluoride mandate.

Utah is working to end water fluoridation.

Portland, Oregon has refused water fluoridation time and time again.

Kentucky legislators have introduced bills to end water fluoridation mandates.

Approximately 20 communities have halted water fluoridation since the federal ruling about the toxicity of fluoride came out in September of this year. These include Winter Haven, Florida; Clearfield, Pennsylvania; and Tomahawk, Wisconsin.

Sixty other communities are voting and discussing the harmful effects of water fluoridation and what to do about this problem.

Other states need the opportunity to hear this important information as well, so they can help Make America Healthy Again.

As reported in the Wall Street Journal, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has denounced fluoride as an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neuro-developmental disorders, and thyroid disease.

Talking about backlash, the Wall Street Journal says, “We have a forest fire.”

In addition, here in Arkansas, Andy Anderson, Chairman of Ozark Mountain Regional Public Water Authority (OMRPWA) said, in explaining about his district:

“The Board made the decision NOT to mandate. The Board would not and WILL NOT comply with the water fluoridation mandate, and that is unanimous. Before the fluoridation mandate was proposed or made into law, many of our systems already had problematic naturally-occurring fluoride and other contaminants in their water, so we joined together to build OMRPWA to get uncontaminated water. Some customers said they would not pay their monthly water bills if we ever added industrial toxic waste fluoride. None of our systems serve 5,000 and would not have come under the fluoridation mandate. All 18 systems in the district were — and are — opposed to fluoridation.”

Arkansas’ Act 197 of 2011 mandated the forced fluoridation of all of Arkansas’ public water supplies servicing more than 5,000 people.

Water districts — let’s get behind the legislation to repeal Act 197 of 2011!

Among the many whistleblowers on the toxicity of fluoride and water fluoridation is highly qualified and experienced doctor, Phyllis Mullenix, PhD. She is our main go-to person about this topic.

For many decades, Dr. Mullenix has been exposing alarming information about fluoride and the harm it can cause, and more states are beginning to listen, as noted in the bullet points at the beginning of this article.

You’ll see mentioned in the image below: Dr. P. Mullenix was Head of the world’s first Toxicology Department in a dental research institution UNTIL…
she published a paper that fluoride was neurotoxic.

So, what in the world happened?
https://static.securetherepublic.com/State-Documents/Arkansas/obeCXVdvF7-pic---slide-of-phyllis-mullenix-phd-and-harold-hodge-phd-and-jack-hein-phd.png

Here is Dr. Mullenix’s bio:

DR. PHYLLIS J. MULLENIX, Ph.D. is a pharmacologist and toxicologist by training. She graduated from the Truman State University (Zoology — magna cum laude). Her Postdoctoral Training was as a Research Fellow, Environmental Medicine, The John Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, Baltimore.

In the 1980s, Dr. Mullenix was Head of the Toxicology Department at the Forsyth Dental Center (now known as the Forsyth Institute), a world renowned dental research institution affiliated with the Harvard Medical School, where she led the investigation into the neurotoxicity of fluoride using sensitive computer pattern recognition systems. She was invited to start Forsyth’s Toxicology Department because of her expertise in neurotoxicology. In addition, she was a Research Associate in Psychiatry at the Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Boston.

For 20 years, while at the Harvard School of Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital, and Forsyth Dental Infirmary for Children, her research focused on the development of screening procedures for neuro-behavioral disruption caused by perinatal exposure to drugs and environmental pollutants such as lead, radiation, and fluoride. She led the investigation into the neurotoxicity of fluoride using sensitive computer pattern recognition systems and has maintained a private consulting practice for over 30 years dealing with a variety of toxic exposures and related litigation.

The first test Dr. Mullenix was asked to perform at the Forsyth Dental Center was a test related to neurotoxicity of fluoride. The person who asked her to perform this test was Dr. Harold C. Hodge, one of the founders of the Society of Toxicology.

Since that time, Dr. Mullenix has conducted additional research related to fluoride including one study which was published in Pub Med in 1995: Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats.

She was subsequently fired. (More on this in the interview linked below.)

Mullenix is considered to be the world’s foremost expert on the neurotoxicity of fluoride compounds.

Dr. Mullenix’s academic appointments, professional positions held, teaching experience, awards, honors, and many published scientific research articles to her name are numerous.

Because of her expertise, Dr. Mullenix is very busy publishing research, presenting at conferences, and meeting a large number of other obligations. But she has generously offered to discuss the issue of pre-natal and post-natal fluoride neurotoxicity and its relationship to ADD/ADHD and other neurological conditions.

As mentioned above, Mullenix was relieved of her position as Head of the Toxicology Department at Forsyth Dental Center.

Very worthy to note is this: What Dr. Mullenix presented at a seminar to the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR) that, in reality, sounded the death knell of her career was that:

“The fluoride pattern of behavioral problems matches up with the same results of administering radiation and chemotherapy [to cancer patients]. All of these really nasty treatments that are used clinically in cancer therapy are well known to cause I.Q. deficits in children. That’s one of the best studied effects they know of. The behavioral pattern that results from the use of fluoride matches that produced by cancer treatment that causes a reduction in intelligence.”

Needless to say, they didn’t want to keep her on after she exposed the truth about fluoride. Then, not long after, apparently following her dismissal, the Forsyth Institute received a quarter-million dollar grant from the Colgate company.

Coincidence or reward?

To learn more (including mention of the Manhattan Project), read the transcript of an interview of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix by Dr. Paul Connett that addresses Dr. Hodge, Dr. Hein, and the history here:

Fluoride & the Brain: An Interview with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix

Next, the image below shows a 2021 publication on “How the ADA Corrupted Science to put Fluoride into Standards of Care.” The publication in a peer reviewed medical journal — Nutrients, 2021- How a Nutritional Deficiency Became Treated with Fluoride — points out that Hodge was key to promoting fluoridation (see page 10 of 16):

The second co-author, Hodge, was the ADA go-to-scientist on fluoride issues who submitted a letter to the US Senate Hearings in support of creating NIDR and who received an honorary ADA membership. The technical report was described in JADA as “the WHO … approving water fluoridation”.

https://static.securetherepublic.com/State-Documents/Arkansas/W7cfass3VY-pic---slide-of-how-the-ada-corrupted-science-to-put-fluoride-into-standards-of-care.png

JADA= Journal of the American Dental Association

WHO= World Health Organization

NIDR= National Institute of Dental Research

Standards of Care are benchmarks that determine whether professional obligations have been met for a patient.

So, for water fluoridation — and we are talking about industrial toxic waste fluoride — to be adopted into the Standards of Care was malicious.

No longer will we be deceived or misled by the propaganda put out by our government, *the National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), the American Dental Association (ADA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), or the World Health Organization (WHO).

*The National Institute of Dental Research (NIDR), renamed the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) in 1998, is a branch of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and was created in 1948 under President Harry Truman.

It was the NIDR’s so-called “research” that led to the development of adding toxic waste chemicals known as fluoride for community water fluoridation.

How in the world can anyone believe that industrial toxic waste is beneficial for us, to the point that they would ADD it into our public water supplies?

Fluoride is NOT safe nor effective, and never has been… and yet, the CDC names community water fluoridation one of the 10 greatest health achievements in the 20th century. The CDC also funds and supports infrastructure in states to promote water fluoridation.
.
In closing, remember: follow the money.

Stay tuned — we will be releasing more information about this and also what’s happening in Utah…

As always, our articles may be viewed on our website at: https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas "

Securing the blessings of liberty,
Secure Arkansas
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com

[onawah]

Federal Judge Declares Fluoride in Drinking Water an “Unreasonable Risk” and Cities Respond by Demanding Immediate Action
12/20/24
https://icandecide.org/press-release/federal-judge-declares-fluoride-in-drinking-water-an-unreasonable-risk-and-cities-respond-by-demanding-immediate-action/

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

"As undeniable evidence mounts that fluoride harms children’s brains, a historic ruling by a federal judge—and a report the government tried desperately to bury—may finally end the practice of adding this toxin to America’s drinking water.

For over two decades, scientists have warned about the harmful effects of fluoride exposure on the developing brain. Since 63% of the U.S. has fluoride in its drinking water, this is a critical issue affecting millions of Americans! Unfortunately, government agencies like CDC—along with the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics—dismissed concerns and stubbornly continued to champion water fluoridation.

This all changed last month with a pivotal court ruling. But, first, some background: In 2016, the NIH’s National Toxicology Program (NTP) was charged with analyzing the large volume of studies on fluoride’s neurotoxicity. Shortly after, an advocacy group sued the EPA in a bid to force it to remove fluoride from drinking water. Knowing that a report from NTP was forthcoming, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen stayed the case until the report’s release. Little did he know how long he would have to wait.

Not only did it take NTP six years to complete the report, but when it was ready to publish in May 2022, officials at CDC and HHS betrayed their duty to the American people by trying to suppress the report! Ultimately, it took another year and a court order from Judge Chen for the report to be released. As HighWire viewers may have suspected, the report did not bode well for water fluoridation.

This September, with the NTP report finally in hand, Judge Chen made his historic ruling: “[T]he Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (‘mg/L’) – the level presently considered ‘optimal’ in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.” He concluded:

[T]here is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States. And this risk is unreasonable under Amended TSCA.

The court then ordered the EPA to “to engage with a regulatory response,” but the even better news is that many townships aren’t waiting to protect their kids from this toxic exposure. Abilene (TX), Hillsboro (OR), Lebanon (OR), Yorktown (NY), and Winter Haven (FL) have already decided to end, or forego starting, fluoridation in the wake of the Court’s ruling, and many other communities, including Lyndon (WA), Monroe (WI), Naples (FL) and Tampa Bay (FL), are considering the same. Visit the Fluoride Action Network: https://fluoridealert.org/take-action/activist-toolkit/
...for materials you can use to demand action in your city.

Congratulations to the legal team, with a special kudos to current Siri & Glimstad partner Michael Connett who has focused on fighting the fluoride issue, and the plaintiffs, for this landmark win that will have a lasting impact on the health of all American children! For more details, watch The HighWire interview with Connett:
https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/epa-loses-historic-fluoride-case/ "

[Ratszinger]

I have to wonder if the Judge doesn't own huge amounts of stock in a bottled water company.

[East Sun]

It is dissapointing that our Govt. is not in our best interest when it comes to our health.
What could be wrong about not putting flouride in our drinking water.

If it affects childrens brains it affects adults brains also and other health related physical and
mental issues.

[Ratszinger]

To me its not something that should just be done to everyone it is something people should have a choice over, to do or not to do. They should be given all the facts, shown what nature provides, which is calcium flouride not the sludge and waste products known sas stannous or sodium flouride and besides all this it is the stannous flouride that stains all the tooth colored filliings dentists want to push these days yet they use it in water and toothpastes anyway! That has never made sense to me! It's a money trap too because then it gives them the excuse to tell you you need your teeth cleaned and of course that isn't free. If people were given the choice how many do you think would say, "Oh I'll tell you what? Go ahead and give me the sludge waste product!" ?

[truthseek]

... Just a tidbit of aside info: my grandfather (born in 1899) was a genius chemist and ran a sugar refinery (CSM) in The Netherlands at age 21. He was actively involved in protecting his workers and community during nazi occupation of Holland througout WW II.

He was very much aware of how the "real" nazis experimented with fluoride in the concentration camps to control people and make them docile. He later gave many public talks on the subject after the war.

Much has happened to the world since that time. It is very obvious to those having dared to travel down the rabbit hole, how that deep state agenda has continuously attempted to evolve to present day.

I do believe however there is a strong flow in the right direction with the steady exposure to truth. These current debates on fluoride are a good step forward.

Happy Holidays!

[onawah]

"The U.S. government is POISONING Americans with Fluoride" Michael Connett | Redacted News
Redacted
2.58M subscribers
Dec 30, 2024

"The federal court has finally ruled that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to our health. So then why is it still in our drinking water? Will the incoming Trump administration finally put an end to all of that?"

vZvuwjpsidU

[onawah]

EPA Files Notice of Appeal
Fluoride Action Network
1.18/25
<mail@networkforgood.com>
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3797762?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==

https://d2dgo7ivtbkyn1.cloudfront.net/images/fluoridealert/a3050e6a-ef0f-412f-818d-84e6cbc34f5a.jpg

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.
This is simply wrong: "As Europe has long recognized, there are far safer and more effective ways of using fluoride for dental health than adding it to everyone's tap water."--There are NO safe ways to use fluoride for dental health, at all! Natural fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth, and the industrial runoff, fluorisilliac acid, a toxic waste from the fertilizer industry which is what is actually used in tap water, toothpaste, etc. is hardly safe or effective either. [/U].)

"This afternoon, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California that they plan to appeal the federal court ruling that water fluoridation "poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children." The notice from the EPA did not offer an explanation or justification for their decision, which was made only three days before a new EPA administrator and presidential administration enters office. So far, the EPA has also chosen not to respond or make a statement to media outlets.

It's important to note that the EPA's decision has no binding effect on the incoming administration and EPA administrator, who could independently assess the ruling and the science behind it and choose not to pursue an appeal. This could happen as soon as day one of the new administration.

The decision is a continuation of the EPA's reluctance to admit they have failed to protect the public adequately from this pollutant for over 50 years. During the fluoride trial, the EPA showed that they view fluoridation chemicals as a protected pollutant when it was revealed that they radically departed from their own guidelines when assessing the hazard fluoridation poses. The court gave the EPA a second chance to properly assess the neurotoxic side effects of fluoridation, but they failed to do so.

Throughout the trial, the EPA continuously filed motions in an attempt to slow and prolong the proceedings. They also opposed the court's resumption of the trial in 2024, asking for further delay after the trial had already been in abeyance for several years waiting for the National Toxicology Program's systematic review of fluoride neurotoxicity. The NTP's report was censored in 2022 by the U.S. Health and Human Services Assistant Secretary Admiral Rachel Levine at the behest of the dental-lobby and those regulators they could influence.

These attempts by outgoing EPA and HHS administrators to delay and obstruct the creation of rules protecting the public will only result in harm to hundreds of thousands of additional children, particularly those whose families are unable to afford expensive reverse osmosis or distillation filtration of their tap water. As the court stated, over 200 million U.S. residents, including 2 million pregnant women and 300,000 exclusively bottle fed infants are exposed to fluoridated water on a daily basis.

Lead attorney for FAN and our co-plaintiffs in the case, Michael Connett, stated:

“The EPA has just announced it will be appealing the Court's order which requires the EPA to take regulatory action to protect the public from fluoridation's neurological risks. This is part of EPA's longstanding pattern of ducking its head in the sand and avoiding any action that would challenge the fossilized status quo on fluoride.

It is important, however, to note that EPA's decision today has no binding effect on the incoming administration. It can undo this decision on day one, or anytime thereafter.

The Court's order provides the new administration a clear legal pathway to ban fluoridation, which would bring the US in line with the vast majority of Europe.

As Europe has long recognized, there are far safer and more effective ways of using fluoride for dental health than adding it to everyone's tap water.

To protect future generations of Americans, the incoming administration can and should independently review the research on fluoridation and give incoming regulators who aren't captured by special interests the opportunity to reconsider this decision.

Stay tuned for more updates,

Stuart Cooper

Executive Director

Fluoride Action Network "

[onawah]

Fluoridation Banned in Utah!
March 27, 2025
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2025/03/27/fluoridation-banned-in-utah/

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)
"Congratulations, Utah! You have banned fluoridation and protected your residents there!
At 4:00 pm on Thursday, March 27, 2025, Utah’s Governor Cox signed the bill HB81 entitled “Fluoride Amendments” to ban fluoridation chemicals that were being fed into their public water systems.
The ban is set to go into effect in early May.
Here is an image of the first page of HB81:
https://static.securetherepublic.com/State-Documents/Arkansas/Mq8yLTMCUL-pic-of-hb81-utah-first-page-of-bill-that-bans-fluoridation-there-3-27-2025.jpeg

Utah has now become the first state to ban fluoride, but it won’t be the last state to do so!

States must individually remove water fluoridation. It’s time that states take responsibility!

Why was fluoridation banned? Because arsenic and other contaminants were found in the fluoridation chemicals at levels that are clearly NOT safe!

The American Dental Association and other dental health organizations might as well hush their mouths regarding their insufficient arguments promoting fluoridation because heavy metals have been found in the toxic fluoride chemicals!

People have now wised-up about ingesting this highly toxic poison into their bodies!

Fluoride toxicity is a concern of the public.

Arsenic and lead are both classified as hazardous substances and are regulated under multiple environmental laws due to their toxicity, persistence, and bioaccumulation risks!

Be sure to read Secure Arkansas’ last alert: Just How Toxic is the Fluoride Product?
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2025/03/20/just-how-toxic-is-the-fluoride-product/

Metals and other contaminants that are found in fluoridation chemicals, like a high percentage of arsenic, are being exposed. Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFS) has harmful contaminants in it, including (but not limited to) arsenic AND lead.

We want to remind you that the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) for arsenic and lead is ZERO!

For example, in the 2012 analysis: arsenic revealed 63.7 ppm in the raw additive
and a lead content of 22.2 ppm.

2013 analysis: Arsenic = 67.8 ppm

2018 analysis: Arsenic = 69.7 ppm


This IS shocking and totally unacceptable, dear readers! So, a high arsenic content is common to hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFS).

Here’s the proof in the chemical analysis! See the following from Dr. Phyllis Mullenix’s critical report for the state of Utah:

Here are the Certificates of Analysis (COAs) for Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFS) that were performed by a state certified independent laboratory covering 3 different years — 2012, 2013, and 2018. All HFS samples were NSF Standard 60 certified.

It’s time to clean up our public water supply systems all across the United States and not let them stay a hazardous waste disposal system for these chemically contaminated fluoride products.

We will be looking at some of the top fluoride manufacturers soon:

Mosaic Company – One of the largest producers of fluorosilicic acid (H₂SiF₆), a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production, which is commonly used in municipal water fluoridation. Mosaic is a major supplier to water treatment facilities across North America. The Mosaic Company is headquartered in Tampa, Florida, USA.

— Is Mosaic Company the manufacturer of the toxic fluoride product that was tested in Utah to have arsenic and other contaminants (added into the public water supply)? Secure Arkansas believes they are…

J.R. Simplot Company – Manufactures fluorosilicic acid, a compound widely used in water fluoridation. The J.R. Simplot Company, a major agribusiness based in Boise, Idaho.

Solvay – A global chemical company that manufactures various fluoride-based compounds, including sodium fluoride (NaF) and sodium fluorosilicate (Na₂SiF₆), which are also used in water fluoridation and industrial applications. Solvay has a strong presence in both the water treatment and dental fluoride markets. Solvay is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. Solvay maintains a significant presence in North America, operating multiple manufacturing sites across the United States. Notable locations include:

Augusta, Georgia: Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, LLC, located at 3702 Clanton Road. syensqo

Baltimore, Maryland: Solvay USA LLC, situated at 3440 Fairfield Road. syensqo

Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Solvay USA LLC, located at 1275 Airline Highway. syensqo

Green River, Wyoming: A soda ash production facility that completed its coal phase-out initiative in February 2024. Solvay

Pasadena, Texas: An alkoxylation unit built within LyondellBasell’s Equistar Chemicals facility, operational since 2015. manufacturing-journal.net

Additionally, Solvay has announced plans to construct a new facility in Augusta, Georgia, aimed at producing materials for electric vehicle batteries, expected to be operational in 2026.

More on this topic coming soon!

Other states will want to ban fluoride also."

Securing the blessings of liberty,
securetherepublic.com/arkansas
info@securetherepublic.com

[onawah]

Chaos at the CDC
4/3/25
https://securetherepublic.com/arkansas/2025/04/03/action-alert-for-arkansas-and-chaos-at-the-cdc/

"See this article: HHS layoffs gut CDC oral health division:
https://www.beckersdental.com/clinical-leadership-infection-control/hhs-layoffs-gut-cdc-oral-health-division/
Some snippets:


The CDC’s oral health department was essentially shut down as part of the HHS Department’s layoffs that began April 1, STAT reported.

A CDC employee reportedly told STAT that virtually every employee had been eliminated from the organization’s oral health division.

The CDC's Oral Health Division is being wiped out, and possibly the Chief Dental Officer, too? We hope so.
Finally... We believe that this crooked division is part of the deep state that plagues Americans. The money is cut off, too. The CDC receives the majority of its funding from U.S. taxpayer dollars allocated through the federal budget and that's billions of dollars used wastefully.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is calling for stringent transparency at the CDC. He wants to create a new agency called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA).

This old, bloated oral health division had become too large, too powerful, and too controlling! They were supposed to be overseeing infectious diseases, so HHS is making them get back in their lane. Most of the heads of this division are NOT making a real difference, and they need to go, along with their huge salaries.
These people in the CDC neglect Americans and feed off corporations. They don't even have a toxicologist to properly analyze fluoridation products. Not taking a better stance on fluoridation and standing by while the American population is ingesting and being poisoned with toxic heavy metals is only one example of neglect!

Thank goodness that Utah became the first state to ban fluoride in public drinking water with the law, signed by Governor Cox on March 27, 2025, that prohibits the addition of fluoride to their public water systems, and it clearly prohibits municipalities from enacting their own ordinances requiring or permitting fluoridation. So, this great law will go into effect on May 7, 2025.

And now we are seeing that the Miami-Dade County Commission voted to remove fluoride from its water supply! It was reported by CBS News Miami on April 1, 2025. Ladapo, the state’s surgeon general, cited several studies showing the risks associated with the toxic practice of fluoridating in November, 2024. The Florida legislators are also considering a bill to ban water fluoridation statewide.

Moreover, Florida's Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo issued guidance advising local governments to stop adding fluoride to their community water supplies, citing concerns about potential neurodevelopmental risks, particularly in children, and calling community water fluoridation a "public health malpractice". (Please click and read Ladapo's guidance statement above.)

In Timberville, Virginia, the town council unanimously voted to stop adding fluoride to their water supply! They are a hub for the agricultural industry. The treasurer said, "We won’t be adding fluoride to the water for health reasons and to save money."

And with seven other states, including Arkansas' three bills, SB468 AND SB613 and SB2 that have legislation in play to deal with the fluoride crisis, we expect to see change.

In Arkansas, SB2 was voted on April 3 by the entire Senate to be extracted and brought back up to be able to go through the Senate Health Committee again. All the bill says is simply this: "Arkansas Code § 20-7-136 is repealed."

So, there's a whole lot of shakin' going on!
We are now seeing all of the lies and propaganda, touting the so-called "benefits" of fluoridation additives in the water for DECADES, being dismantled and crumbling right before our eyes!
Cheers! Here's to OUR health!"

Securing the blessings of liberty,

info@securetherepublic.com

[onawah]

EPA and CDC Initiate Federal Action on Fluoridation
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3937300?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==
Fluoride Action Network
4/8/25

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)

"As the practice of water fluoridation currently faces unprecedented opposition and rejection at both the local and state levels following our recent victory in federal court and the publication of the National Toxicology Program’s review of fluoride neurotoxicity, federal officials have now dealt it another major blow.

Last night, at a joint press conference held in Salt Lake City at the University of Utah, U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin highlighted their concerns about fluoridation and announced initial actions their respective agencies will take to address known and potential side-effects of the practice.

During his presentation, the HHS Secretary condemned fluoridation and called on state legislators to pass laws banning it, reflecting a major positive change within HHS leadership on this issue. He went on to say:

“In the era of fluoridated toothpaste and mouthwash, it makes no sense to have fluoride in our water. The evidence against fluoride is overwhelming. In animal models and in human models we know that it causes IQ loss. Profound IQ loss. And it’s dose-related. So the more fluoride you get, the higher the levels in your drinking water and your urine, the more likely it is you’ll lose IQ, and also other neurological injuries like ADHD. Science indicates that it affects kidney health, it affects liver health, it causes hypothyroidism, and it causes osteoarthritis. Women who are more exposed have up to 50% more hip fractures than women who are unexposed. It causes fluorosis in between 40-80% of our kids. It makes no sense to have it in our water supply.”

Secretary Kennedy officially announced that he will direct the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to take two immediate steps: 1) stop recommending fluoridation in communities nationwide, and 2) convene a community preventative services task force made up of independent health experts to study fluoridation and make new recommendations, which should include a new “optimal” level.

The current “optimal” level of 0.7 ppm is neither a law nor a regulation but only a recommendation that most states and municipalities choose to follow. Moreover, the CDC’s prior endorsement of fluoridation and their recommendations have historically had a major influence on state and local decision makers during debates on whether to continue or ban the practice, so a change to CDC policy will have a significant and widespread effect as more elected officials can point to updated guidance to support the case for ending it.

As evidence of how seriously the new administration is taking the issue, they have already initiated action to stop the CDC’s promotion of fluoridation. This past week, the CDC’s Division of Oral Health, the main promoter of water fluoridation in the U.S. government, was completely dissolved. This was the CDC department that named fluoridation as "one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 21st Century." The Chief Dental Officer role was also eliminated, and 17% of staff were laid off at the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR), another main promoter of water fluoridation.

After the HHS Secretary made his announcements, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin spoke, sharing that Kennedy met with him as soon as he was confirmed, and the first priority they discussed was protecting the public from water fluoridation. He pointed out that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires the EPA to review each national primary drinking water regulation at least once every six years and revise them, if appropriate. This is the process that EPA uses to develop maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs), which limit the levels of potentially harmful contaminants--such as fluoride--that water treatment operators can have in public water supplies. The current MCL for fluoride is 4.0 ppm and the MCLG is 2.0 ppm. While the EPA did publish a poorly conducted review of fluoride in July of 2024 that made no changes, it did include a note that regulations ought to be reassessed again once the federal court made a ruling and the NTP published their review, two events that have since occurred.

Zeldin announced that the EPA will use this process to “expeditiously review new scientific information on potential health risks of fluoride in drinking water," adding that "When this is completed, we will have an updated foundational scientific evaluation that will inform the agency’s future steps," which will likely include a new MCL and MCLG.

Read EPA 's Press Release: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-will-expeditiously-review-new-science-fluoride-drinking-water

Watch the full press conference below:
N0y_Io1QGaQ

The Federal Lawsuit
An official response by the EPA to the federal court ruling was not provided during the press conference. The EPA under the previous administration filed a notice of intent to appeal but have yet to file an actual appeal or a brief justifying their position. The EPA has until this Friday (April 11th) to either file their appeal or file for an extension. Inaction will let the ruling stand and require the EPA to initiate the TSCA rulemaking process to eliminate the health hazard posed to children by fluoridation. It's important to note that even if the EPA does follow through with an appeal later this week, it can still be rescinded at any point by EPA officials.


It's our belief, based on our experience with the EPA, that while the ruling is bullet-proof and can stand up to appeal, the EPA has had a long-standing history of delaying any action on the issue of adequately regulating fluoridation, and their letter of intent to appeal is just an unscientific continuation of that policy. We've called on Zeldin and the new EPA administrators to let the ruling stand without appeal.

I also want to note that while the ruling gives the EPA the ability and justification to promulgate rules banning the use of fluoridation chemicals in public water supplies under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and could justify Zeldin lowering the MCL unilaterally, the EPA's announced approach of using the SDWA to reassess fluoridation doesn't conflict with the court ruling. Instead, it offers a second avenue to potentially achieve the same result concurrently.

Stay tuned! We'll provide an update on the TSCA ruling once the Friday deadline arrives.

Why Didn't They Just Ban Fluoridation?

Just days before the election in November, Kennedy posted a message on Twitter stating that "on January 20, the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water." In that Tweet, he tagged FAN attorney Michael Connett and shared a link to Connett's interview with Jefferey Jaxen. This post was seen by at least 24 million people, and President Trump later confirmed to reporters that he would support such an advisory. However, this was misreported by media outlets that Kennedy and Trump would unilaterally ban fluoridation on day one, a promise they never made and a policy that FAN wouldn't support since executive orders carry little scientific weight or long-term influence and can so easily be overturned by future administrations. We've already won the fluoridation debate overwhelmingly with the science, so there's no benefit to politicizing the issue with federal mandates or dictates.

FAN tried to correct the media misstatements in many interviews, and our representatives reached out to the new administration, suggesting ways in which the federal government could move forward with a science-based approach that would produce a more permanent solution. This included, 1. EPA promulgating rules under TSCA based on our lawsuit victory, 2. ending the CDC's promotion of fluoridation, 3. HHS ending fluoridation grants and funding, 4. EPA using the 6-year review process to reassess the MCL for fluoridation, and 5. CDC changing their fluoridation recommendations and providing new advice to communities based on modern research rather than politics.

At this point, I want to note that FAN has always been and will continue to remain a non-partisan organization. We’ve also always been a single-issue organization. We don’t take a position on any other issue or ideology; our goal is to end water fluoridation. That was our promise 25 years ago when FAN was founded, and that remains our promise today. We’ve also promised to do so grounded in science, bringing only the strongest, most credible research to the forefront of any discussion on fluoridation. We've worked to inform every presidential administration and their CDC/EPA/FDA administrators since FAN's inception, with now being no different.

For some years, RFK has been following FAN’s work and has made it publicly known. He’s shared our work in his social media posts, he’s interviewed Michael Connett, and the nonprofit he founded, Children's Health Defense, has consistently reached out to FAN for information and quotes on fluoridation for their news coverage on the issue. He understands our issue, and we've worked with him just as we've worked with other environmental, civil rights, and community leaders such as Ralph Nader, Erin Brockovich, and Rev. Bernice King.

While January 20th passed without action from the Trump administration on fluoridation, now only two and a half months after that date:

The CDC is going to convene an independent task force to start the process that could and should lead to a new science-based advisory on fluoridation, as opposed to the current CDC advice based on politics and corrupted by dental-lobby influence.

The CDC is no longer going to promote fluoridation or recommend that communities practice it, and the CDC's primary lobbyists for fluoridation, the Oral Health Division and the NIDCR Chief Dental Director are now gone.

The EPA is going to use the 6-year review process under the SDWA to reassess the MCL/MCLG for fluoride.

The Secretary of HHS has called on state legislators and local decision makers to pass laws prohibiting fluoridation.
So while I know supporters are eager to see a quick end to fluoridation, we're clearly seeing immediate action that keeps our movement on track to produce lasting change based on the most credible science and following the accepted federal processes to do so.

Does This Mean The Battle Is Over?

In short, no. If the EPA chooses to move forward with an appeal, we'll have to defend the ruling in court. If the EPA chooses instead to promulgate rules based on the ruling, FAN will need to provide public comment and serve as a watchdog throughout the process. As the EPA moves forward with the reassessment process, FAN will have to provide public comment and submit credible research for consideration. As the CDC convenes their task force, FAN will have to provide information and guidance to the committee. FAN will have to continue our work to ensure that hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars is no longer spent by HHS on fluoridation infrastructure and pro-fluoridation public relations campaigns. And if HHS sends out an advisory to communities setting the "optimal" level at or near 0.0 ppm, we'll have to continue our work organizing and assisting campaigns at the state and local level to ban the practice. FAN will also continue to communicate with the new FDA/HHS/EPA administrators additional ways to adequately regulate fluoride to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from overexposu

So let us all take a moment to celebrate these major victories and pat ourselves on the back for the significant and meaningful progress we've all made together over the past 25 years. Then, it's time to prepare to work harder than ever to follow through on our promise to create a world safe from fluoride. We're almost there!"

Sincerely,
Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

[onawah]

That Fluoride Added to Your Town Water to ‘Prevent Cavities?’ The EPA Says It’s Hazardous Waste
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
4/24/25
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/fluoride-drinking-water-prevent-cavities-epa-hazardous-waste/?utm_source=luminate&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20250424

(Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here.)

( The unchecked addition of poisonous hydrofluorosilicic acid in public water for years all over the US is a shocking example of how uninformed and/or apathetic American citizens have become, and how corrupt Congress has become, with so many elected "leaders" obviously on the take from industries that are knowingly doing harm to humans and to the environment for the sake of profit. )

"After Utah last month became the first state to ban water fluoridation, local water managers now face a dilemma: How should they dispose of the remaining fluoride?
Mainstream media, dental associations, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other proponents of water fluoridation repeatedly state that the “miracle mineral” fluoride is a “naturally occurring” mineral.
But the fluoride added to town water supplies is far from natural.
Naturally occurring fluoride is calcium fluoride. The fluoride added to water is the byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production, sold off by chemical companies to local water departments across the country.
The byproduct comes in the form of hydrofluorosilicic acid, which is used by most large cities to fluoridate their water.
Hydrofluorosilicic acid is considered a hazardous substance and must be disposed of following strict environmental regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Scott Paxman, general manager of the Weber Basin Conservancy District, which provides water to over 700,000 Utah residents, told The Defender that he reached out to the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to inquire about fluoride disposal.
DEQ told Paxman that once the May 7 deadline to end fluoridation in Utah kicks in, any water districts that still have fluoride in their facilities will be subject to regulation as generators of hazardous waste — requiring them to follow an expensive and time-consuming set of regulatory requirements to get rid of their hydrofluorosilicic acid.
Paxman said he was outraged that his water conservancy district would be classified as a hazardous waste generator. “We aren’t hazardous waste generators,” he said. “We are just middlemen.”
He said that for years, water operators in Utah had been raising concerns about the hazards of the acid that they saw firsthand in their facilities and the health risks they and the public faced from fluoride exposure.
Water operators like Paxman were active in the campaign to end fluoridation in Utah, he said. Now they were not getting the guidance they needed to dispose of the chemicals.
‘They have no idea how toxic this stuff is’
Paxman said DEQ’s first suggestion was that the water districts run out the fluoride by stepping up the feed rates of fluoride into the water. The agency pointed out that they could go as high as 4 milligrams per liter (mg/L) — which is the current maximum contaminant level (MCL) enforceable by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The 4 mg/L maximum contaminant level was challenged in the recent landmark lawsuit against the EPA for failing to appropriately regulate the chemical. The EPA lost, and the judge in the case directed the agency to enact new regulations. The EPA is appealing the ruling.
Four mg/L is the level at which fluoride causes skeletal fluorosis, a debilitating condition that causes skeletal deformities. The judge in the federal lawsuit ruled that at 0.7 mg/L, water fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk to children’s health, because evidence shows it leads to reduced IQ.
Paxman said when he saw that suggestion, he realized, “Oh my God, they have no idea what they are talking about. They have no idea how toxic this stuff is.”
Other ideas floated by DEQ included selling the leftover hazardous waste to other states still fluoridating, or returning it to Thatcher Chemical, the industrial chemical distributor that sold them the so-called miracle mineral.
Better guidelines needed for handling, disposing fluoride as hazardous chemical
Paxman has worked with input from fluoride toxicity expert Phyllis Mullenix, Ph.D., and DEQ to develop better guidelines that have since been shared with water operators.
“Since this is a hazardous chemical, with elevated levels of arsenic, lead, mercury and chromium, it must be handled and disposed of as a hazardous chemical, as state and federal regulations require,” Paxman wrote in an email to colleagues.
Operators must legally continue fluoridation until May 7, when they will “mothball” all systems — disconnecting them, shutting down power and winterizing them.
Then they will hire a hazardous waste cleanup company like Clean Harbors to clean up the rest — pumping out their tanks and disposing of the hydrofluorosilicic acid at a hazardous waste facility. He anticipates it will cost his facility alone about $125,000.
Paxman said that at Weber Basin, they have lowered the levels from the recommended 0.7 mg/L to the minimum requirement of 0.5 mg/L out of concern for public safety.
Paxman’s concerns about the hazardous chemical reflect concerns long raised by scientists, even within the regulatory agencies.
In 2000, Dr. William Hirzy, the senior vice president of the EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists and Professionals, said:
“If this stuff gets out into the air, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the river, it’s a pollutant; if it gets into the lake it’s a pollutant; but if it goes right into your drinking water system, it’s not a pollutant … There’s got to be a better way to manage this stuff.”
Other cities, including Branson, Missouri, that voted to end water fluoridation have raised similar concerns that disposing of fluoride will be expensive, because it is hazardous waste.
So-called ‘miracle mineral’ also contains other heavy metals
Unlike the fluoride in toothpaste, fluoridation chemicals are not of pharmaceutical-grade quality. They are unpurified industrial byproducts collected in the air pollution control systems of fertilizer production systems.
The industry formerly allowed these byproducts to vent into the air until it was compelled to mitigate them.
The phosphate industry collects the fluoride gas in a “wet scrubber,” and the resulting hydrofluorosilicic acid liquid is put into storage tanks and shipped to water departments.
In declarations made as part of the fluoride lawsuit, all three major producers of fluorosilicic acid, Mosaic, Solvay and Simplot confirmed that they have never done safety or effectiveness studies on the FDA chemicals they sell for water fluoridation.
Mosaic also noted that the market for their chemicals is “in large part based on the endorsement of fluoridation of public drinking water sources by the American Dental Association and other human health, professional or scientific groups.”
The chemicals are known to contain elevated levels of certain contaminants, including arsenic.
Recently, Mulllenix said, producers of water fluoridation compounds have moved their operations to China, where there is even less regulation — which means more dangerous conditions for workers and more contaminated material.
According to the EPA, by 2019, well over half of the water fluoridation chemicals were imported from China.
Mullenix said she has been frustrated for years by the fact that public health policy makers and public health departments “have totally turned a blind eye to the chemical.”
“They gave no attention to what’s going to happen if you have an overfeed, how do you dispose of the chemical if it’s spilled or leaked? They paid no attention to that or to what the chemical really was,” she said.
This posed a serious problem for water operators. She has worked for years advising workers injured at work handling hydrofluorosilicic acid or sodium fluoride, which smaller communities sometimes use to fluoridate their water.
Mullenix said regulations control only the contaminant level for fluoride itself — which extensive research, including her own, has shown to be a neurotoxicant. The regulations don’t account for other heavy metals present in the acid. “What about the arsenic MCL?” she asked, “What about the lead?”
Unseen risks in the technical process of fluoridating water
Paxman said fluoridating water isn’t as simple as turning a switch on or off, and it’s not cheap, despite what the regulatory agencies told water operators in Utah when they began fluoridating the water in the early 2000s.
Davis County spent tens of millions of dollars to build ten water fluoridation stations, he said. “And we found out very quickly that you don’t fool around with the fluorosilicic acid that we feed into the tanks. It’s super, super corrosive and it off-gases, even from the sealed polyethylene tanks.”
He said the gases etch the glass, corrode the door frames and all of the electronics. It also impacts the health of the operators, he said, who complain of migraines and other health issues when they have to enter the fluoride facilities on a regular basis.
After one of their operators in 2012 was hospitalized when he inhaled fumes during the delivery of hydrofluorosilicic acid from Thatcher, Weber Basin began periodically contracting a state-certified external lab to analyze the chemicals provided, so they could check the contaminant levels themselves and compare them to the company’s claims.
The certificates of analysis show that the shipments of fluoride that then go into the water system regularly have extremely high levels of arsenic and sometimes lead or other metals.
A comparison of the certificates of analysis provided by Thatcher and those done by an independent lab also showed discrepancies between what the company certified and what was in the fluoride that Weber received, which had higher levels of antimony, arsenic, cadmium and other metals.
He also said that the systems have a complex technology in place to measure the amount of fluoride going into the water, but that the dose of fluoride in water inevitably varies. “We have maintained the 0.7 level, but that’s an average,” he said. The actual levels are always “bouncing all over the place,” depending on water flow rates.
He said this is a challenge for fluoridation systems all across the country, and it means that sometimes fluoride levels in drinking water are over the 0.7 mg/L recommended dosage — which is the level that already poses a risk to children’s health
Accidents, cover-ups, corruption and lack of accountability ‘happening everywhere’
Fluoride accidents and overfeeds happen regularly, according to the Fluoride Action Network, which tracks publicly recorded accidents on a webpage. Accidents range from a small, 10-gallon spill in 2012 in Connecticut to an incident in New Orleans in 2008, where the fluorosilicic acid ate through its storage tanks and then through a concrete containment tank.
To avoid a “catastrophic mix of toxic chemicals,” the environment department discharged nearly half a million gallons of the toxic acid into the Mississippi River.
In the city of Sandy, Utah, in 2019, a malfunctioning pump in the water fluoridation system released undiluted hydrofluorosilicic acid into the water in 2019, affecting 1,500 households, institutions and businesses and sickening over 200 people.
An investigation revealed that officials failed to notify the public for 10 days and that fluoride was detected in the drinking water at 40 times the recommended levels.
Fifth-grader Max Widmaier drank that over-fluoridated water in school and soon after spiked a high fever, developed tics, had severe emotional swings, and had developmental regression so severe that at one point he lost the ability to put together sentences, his mother, Jenny Widmaier, told The Defender.
Medical records shared with The Defender showed that after Max was exposed to the over-fluoridated water, he had high levels of several heavy metals in his blood. Several months of intense therapies and strict dietary changes eventually helped Max to recover.
However, Jenny said, Max has essentially no memory of the entire year and to this day cannot be exposed to any fluoride — even food cooked in fluoridated water — without a severe reaction.
The family received no compensation from the city.
Lorna Rosenstein, executive director of Waterwatch of Utah, told The Defender that Sandy was just one of the accidents in Utah in recent years.
In 2007, an estimated 1,500 gallons of hydrofluorosilicic acid was released in a tank rupture at a treatment plant in Salt Lake County, Deseret News reported.
In North Salt Lake in 2014, a feeder pump malfunctioned, and 140 gallons of hydrofluorosilicic acid spilled from the drinking water well house out to the curb and gutter and into the storm drain, according to documents Rosenstein obtained via public records requests.
She has been holding water officials, politicians, and health agency officials accountable for their actions regarding fluoride for years through her public records requests and public advocacy.
Rosenstein said the rules, violations, accidents, cover-ups, corruption and general lack of accountability that kept fluoridation going in Utah are happening everywhere.

Related articles in The Defender
Utah Becomes First State to Ban Fluoride in Public Drinking Water
Utah Set to Become First State to End Water Fluoridation for All Residents
Breaking: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin. "

[onawah]

Florida Governor Bans Water Fluoridation Across the State
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
June 17, 2025
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2025/06/17/florida-governor-bans-water-fluoridation.aspx?ui=8d3c7e22a03f5300d2e3338a0f080d2da3add85bca35e09236649153e4675f72&sd=20110604&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1ReadMore&cid=20250617&foDate=true&mid=DM1762230&rid=318308925

https://media.mercola.com/ImageServer/Public/2025/June/PDF/florida-governor-bans-water-fluoridation-pdf.pdf

"Story at-a-glance
Florida became the second U.S. state to ban water fluoridation after Governor DeSantis signed legislation calling it "forced medication" without informed consent; the ban takes legal effect July 1, 2025 — that’s when public water systems must stop adding fluoride and state regulators can begin enforcement
A National Toxicology Program review of 72 studies found consistent evidence that fluoride exposure lowers children's IQ scores and impairs cognitive development
Multiple states including Ohio and Texas are considering similar bans while federal agencies reevaluate fluoride recommendations under new leadership
Research links fluoride to thyroid dysfunction and neurological harm, with doses as low as 2 to 5 milligrams daily affecting hormone regulation
Many European countries rejected water fluoridation decades ago; 98% of Western Europeans now drink non-fluoridated water

Florida just became the second U.S. state, after Utah, to ban fluoride in public drinking water. Governor Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law, ending a decades-old public health policy that once promised to protect teeth but now faces mounting criticism for threatening neurological and endocrine health. Roughly 63% of Americans currently drink fluoridated water, meaning millions could soon be reevaluating how safe their water really is — and what's really in it.1

Fluoride was added to municipal water systems starting in 1945, based on the idea that ingesting small amounts could reduce cavities. But data now shows the risks outweigh the benefits, particularly for infants and children. Excess fluoride has been linked to thyroid suppression, lower IQ and neurodevelopmental disorders — issues that go far beyond cavities.

Countries across Europe have already moved away from fluoridation. The U.S. is lagging behind, clinging to outdated protocols while evidence mounts that mandatory exposure does more harm than good. As this movement grows, it's important to understand what's driving these bans and how the science supports them.

atzSOmh_kHY

Florida's Fluoride Ban Draws National Attention
As The New York Times reported, on May 15, 2025, DeSantis signed legislation that bans the addition of fluoride to public water systems throughout the state of Florida.2 DeSantis referred to fluoridation as "forced medication," arguing that the public deserves the right to informed consent when it comes to what's added to their drinking water. This policy change echoes broader public resistance to public health mandates following COVID-era controversies.

The bill DeSantis signed on May 15, 2025 (SB 700, part of the "Florida Farm Bill") takes legal effect on July 1, 2025. That is the date when public water systems statewide must stop adding fluoride, and state regulators can begin issuing compliance orders and penalties.

•The law was introduced amid growing skepticism of government-run health interventions — This ban is part of a broader national movement fueled by leaders like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., U.S. secretary of health and human services, and Lee Zeldin, who leads the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Kennedy has publicly called for all U.S. states to eliminate fluoride from drinking water. DeSantis' position reflects this new wave of political health independence, where bodily autonomy has become a rallying cry in matters of public policy.

•There are safer, individualized alternatives — According to DeSantis, the issue isn't about whether fluoride helps teeth. It's about removing mandatory exposure through municipal water. This line of reasoning appeals to parents, caregivers and individuals who want more control over how and when fluoride enters their or their children's bodies.

•More states are considering similar bans, and federal policy could change — Ohio and Texas are now weighing their own anti-fluoride legislation.

Meanwhile, Zeldin announced that the EPA is reevaluating its fluoride recommendations, and Kennedy planned to tell the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop endorsing community water fluoridation altogether. These announcements suggest that what began as a state-level move could soon reshape federal policy.

My Open Letter to the American Dental Association (ADA)
In an open letter, I urged the ADA to discontinue supporting water fluoridation, based on research linking fluoride exposure to reduced IQ scores, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and thyroid dysfunction. I argued that emerging research no longer justifies this practice continued endorsement reflects outdated science, not best practices.

•Compelling evidence links fluoride to neurological and hormonal damage — Multiple modern studies, many of them high-quality human trials, show clear links between fluoride exposure and reduced intelligence in children. A systematic review in JAMA Pediatrics found that fluoride negatively impacts children's IQ, for instance.3

•Fluoride has negative effects on thyroid function — Fluoride was once used medically in the 1950s in both Europe and South America to lower thyroid hormone levels in people with overactive thyroid, or hyperthyroidism.

That usage relied on a daily fluoride dose as low as 2 to 5 milligrams (mg) — levels many people already consume today if they live in fluoridated regions.4 Even modest intake, over time, interferes with thyroid hormones that regulate metabolism, energy and mood.

•Countries around the world have already rejected water fluoridation — About 98% of people living in Western Europe now drink non-fluoridated water. Nations including Germany, France, the Netherlands and Sweden have completely banned the practice. Instead, they rely on education, dietary improvements and fluoride-free oral hygiene products to support dental health without risking neurological harm.

Largest Review yet Confirms Fluoride Lowers IQ in Children
Published by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in August 2024, an extensive review assessed 72 studies that investigated the link between fluoride exposure and children's intelligence levels. It also included animal and mechanistic studies to better understand how fluoride impairs cognition. The review found consistent evidence of harm, particularly in children exposed to higher levels of fluoride through drinking water or other environmental sources.5

•Researchers found strong evidence of lower IQ scores in fluoride-exposed children — Eighteen of the 19 highest-quality studies showed that children exposed to elevated fluoride levels scored lower on IQ tests.

These results held across different countries, cultures and types of study design, which adds weight to their validity. The review specifically highlighted three prospective cohort studies, which also found significant negative effects on children's cognitive development.

•The higher the fluoride, the worse the cognitive outcomes — The researchers found a clear pattern: as fluoride exposure increased, IQ scores decreased. Children living in areas with drinking water fluoride concentrations above 1.5 mg/L — the World Health Organization's maximum safe level — were consistently more likely to show lower intellectual performance.

•IQ risks apply even in the U.S. due to total fluoride exposure, not just water levels — The review emphasized that children in the U.S. often exceed "safe" fluoride levels even if their water supply meets federal guidelines. That's because fluoride doesn't just come from drinking water. It's also found in toothpaste, processed food, tea and other sources.

While most of the strongest evidence comes from high-exposure regions, the cumulative intake from multiple sources means that U.S. children, especially those in areas with natural fluoride over 1.5 mg/L, are not exempt from risk.

Simple Steps to Reduce Your Fluoride Exposure and Protect Your Brain
You don't need to wait for your state to pass a law to start protecting yourself and your family from fluoride. If you're concerned about how this chemical affects brain development, thyroid health or long-term cognitive performance, as the evidence clearly shows, you have real, practical options.

Whether you live in a fully fluoridated area or just want to eliminate unnecessary exposure, here's how to take control of what you and your children drink every day. These five steps will help you minimize fluoride in your water, food and dental products, while also supporting better overall health:

1.Switch to a fluoride-filtering water system at home — Fluoride isn’t easy to filter out. Common filters like Brita or PUR won’t do the job. Also, while reverse osmosis has been the standard for removing fluoride for years, it has significant drawbacks, such as wasting water and removing healthy minerals from the water.

Similarly, bone char technology requires the water to be acidic to work properly. So, be sure to install a high-quality filtration system designed to remove fluoride. If you can, consider a whole-house filtration system to catch fluoride at every point of use, including your kitchen sink, bathtub and shower.

2.Use fluoride-free toothpaste and dental products — Most mainstream toothpastes are loaded with fluoride. You're not just brushing your teeth with it, you're also absorbing it through your gums and swallowing trace amounts. That adds up over time. Look for fluoride-free toothpaste and skip the fluoride mouthwashes and gels altogether. The cavity protection you're looking for comes from mechanical brushing, not chemical exposure.

3.Prepare infant formula with filtered water — If you're formula feeding your baby, this one's important. Tap water in fluoridated areas often contains levels high enough to affect a newborn's brain development.

Use only fluoride-free, filtered water, especially during those early developmental months. Breastfeeding is still the best option whenever possible, as breastmilk contains virtually no fluoride and supports healthier gut and immune system development.

4.Watch for hidden sources in your food and drinks — You might not realize that fluoride is also found in everyday items like black and green tea, processed chicken and canned soup. Tea leaves naturally absorb fluoride from the soil, and mechanical processing of poultry often leaves residues on the meat.

5.Stay informed and rethink the fluoride conversation — Most people were taught that fluoride is essential for healthy teeth, but the truth is, modern research is clear: swallowing fluoride exposes you to risks with no benefit. Use this as an opportunity to take back control. The more informed you are, the better choices you can make for your health and your family's future.

FAQs About Fluoride in Drinking Water
Q: Why did Florida ban fluoride in public water?

A: DeSantis signed a law banning fluoride in municipal water, calling it "forced medication" and emphasizing the right to informed consent. The decision aligns with a growing movement across the U.S. questioning the safety and necessity of water fluoridation, especially as studies now link it to neurological and thyroid harm.

Q: Is there scientific evidence that fluoride lowers IQ?

A: Yes. A 2024 report by the National Toxicology Program reviewed 72 studies and found that 18 of the 19 highest-quality studies showed fluoride exposure was consistently associated with lower IQ scores in children. The effect was seen even at levels close to or below what many Americans consume in fluoridated areas.

Q: Does fluoride affect thyroid function?

A: It does. Historically, fluoride was used therapeutically in Europe and South America to suppress thyroid activity in people with overactive thyroid conditions. Modern research confirms that daily intake of 2 to 5 mg, well within what many people consume, interferes with thyroid hormones involved in metabolism, energy and mood.

Q: What are safer ways to maintain good oral health without fluoride?

A: Brushing regularly with fluoride-free toothpaste, eating a nutrient-dense diet and staying hydrated with filtered, fluoride-free water are effective ways to support oral health without the risks tied to systemic fluoride exposure. Regular visits to a biological dentist are also important.

Q: How do I reduce my family's fluoride exposure?

A: Start by installing a water filtration system designed to remove fluoride. Use fluoride-free toothpaste and avoid using unfiltered tap water when preparing infant formula. Be aware that black and green teas, as well as some processed foods, also contain fluoride."

+ Sources and References
1, 2 The New York Times May 15, 2025
3 JAMA Pediatr. 2025 Mar 1;179(3):282-292
4 Fluoride Action Network Endocrine System Effects of Fluoride April 19, 2024
5 National Toxicology Program, NTP Monograph on the State of the Science Concerning Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopment and Cognition August 2024

[onawah]

Fluoridation Lawsuit Update - EPA Granted "Final" Extension
EPA Is Granted Fourth Extension to Make Appeal Decision
Fluoride Action Network <mail@networkforgood.com>
7/3/25
https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforgood.com/emails/3961282?recipient_id=To8POlDLgOv5ZiLbbfWtFA||b25hd2FoQGdtYWlsLmNvbQ==

"Ten months ago, in September of 2024, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) won a historic 8-year-long legal battle in federal court against the EPA over the neurotoxicity of water fluoridation. The court ruled that fluoridation of water at 0.7 mg/L–the level considered “optimal” by proponents of fluoridation–“poses an unreasonable risk to reduced IQ in children,” and the risk is “sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response.” Read the full court ruling.

The ruling doesn’t require the EPA to review the safety of fluoridation, as some proponents of the practice have incorrectly stated. The nearly decade-long trial was the safety review, and fluoridation failed. The court used its authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to officially classify fluoridation chemicals as an unreasonable health hazard, triggering a federal law requiring the EPA to initiate a process to eliminate the risk. The EPA ought to have immediately started the rulemaking process last fall to promulgate new regulations banning the sale and use of fluoridation chemicals for water treatment purposes in an effort to protect public health as quickly as possible. However, that's not what the agency has done.

The court gave the EPA a deadline of mid-January to decide if they planned to appeal the ruling. On January 17th, several days before the appeal deadline and only three days before a new EPA administrator and presidential administration entered office, the EPA filed a Notice of Intent to Appeal. While this notice is the first step in the appeals process, it’s important to point out that it does not necessarily mean the ruling will be appealed. A notice of intent can act as a placeholder to essentially delay the appeal deadline to give the losing party more time to make a decision.

Once a notice of appeal has been filed, it marks the beginning of the time period within which the appellant must file a formal brief with their written arguments. If a brief isn’t filed by the deadline, then the lower court’s ruling stands. Also, the new EPA administrator is not bound by the previous administrator’s intent to appeal, and it can be withdrawn at any point in time, even if a brief is eventually filed.

Fourth Extension

So far, the EPA has not filed a brief. Instead, they have asked for four separate deadline extensions since April. The first deadline was April 11th, but just three days prior to it, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced that the agency was concerned about fluoridation’s safety and would be re-examining the allowable level of fluoride in drinking water due to the large body of government-funded research linking the practice to developmental neurotoxicity.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted a new deadline of May 11th, then extended the deadline to June 11th. The EPA then asked for an additional 14-day extension to June 25th, this time giving a reason for their inaction, revealing the following:

“The Solicitor General has not yet authorized appeal in this case…Additional time is warranted to allow the Solicitor General to make that decision, as well as to allow the government to prepare and finalize an opening brief if an appeal is authorized.”

One of the roles of the Solicitor General’s office is to determine whether or not the government will appeal a lower court ruling. This note by the EPA indicates that the former Solicitor General, Elizabeth Prelogar, never authorized an appeal despite having four months to do so. It also means that the EPA filed its Notice of Appeal without knowing if it would ever get approval since Prelogar left her position in January. A new Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, was confirmed on April 4th, and the EPA’s note indicates that he too has not approved an appeal after three months of consideration. The EPA’s motion also states that they have not even started drafting their appeal brief.

The US Court of Appeals has given the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until mid-July to file their brief. According to our legal counsel, this is the last extension the court will allow.

Interview With Michael Connett

FAN’s attorney, Michael Connett, was recently interviewed for 15 minutes on the popular news show Redacted about the joint announcement by the EPA and CDC in April to re-assess fluoridation guidelines based on the weight of the evidence showing harm. Watch the interview :"

jl-FcW_pGpc

Stuart Cooper
Executive Director
Fluoride Action Network

[onawah]

Tell AG Bondi and EPA Administrator Zeldin to Drop EPA’s Appeal in the Decision Against Fluoride
July 16, 2025
Action Alert
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community/tell-ag-bondi-and-epa-administrator-zeldin-to-drop-epas-appeal-in-the-decision-against-fluoride/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=advocacy&utm_id=20250716

From: team@childrenshealthdefense.org
"On September 24, 2024, the U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in Food & Water Watch, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al. filed in 2017. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen wrote in his decision that “fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) – the level presently considered ‘optimal’ in the United States – poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.”

However, last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received a fourth extension in its appeal of the 2024 decision. The agency is now set to appeal the ruling on July 18. According to the Fluoride Action Network, the “EPA still can, and should, decide not to pursue an appeal and let Judge Chen’s ruling stand that fluoridation presents an unreasonable neurotoxic risk to children.”

The Fluoride Action Network reports that over 600 studies have confirmed that fluoride exposure can damage the brain:

Over 300 animal studies show that prolonged exposure to varying levels of fluoride can damage the brain.
85 human studies link fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence.
Over 60 animal studies report that mice or rats ingesting fluoride have an impaired capacity to learn and/or remember.
12 studies (7 human, 5 animal) link fluoride with neurobehavioral deficits.
Three human studies link fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development.
11 mother-offspring studies link certain levels of fluoride in the urine of pregnant women to reduced IQ in their offspring.

Take Action Now! : https://childrenshealthdefense.org/community/tell-ag-bondi-and-epa-administrator-zeldin-to-drop-epas-appeal-in-the-decision-against-fluoride/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=advocacy&utm_id=20250716

Simply complete the action to reach Administrator Lee Zeldin.

You can also send a message to Attorney General Pamela Bondi. Create your own message or use the following suggested copy:

I urge you to stop extending the appeals process in the federal court case on the neurotoxicity of fluoridation chemicals (Food and Water Watch v. EPA). There is a large volume of government funded peer-reviewed science linking fluoride exposure to brain damage, endocrine system disruption, kidney disease, and potential liver damage to children. The EPA needs to stop pursuing an appeal and abide by Judge Chen’s ruling that fluoridation presents an unreasonable neurotoxic risk to children.

As part of this lawsuit, the EPA was petitioned and asked to protect children nine years ago yet the agency has done nothing but delay the process in coordination with the special interest groups that have promoted fluoridation for decades without verifying safety. Every day, approximately 200 million Americans have fluoride intentionally added to their drinking water, including over two million pregnant women and over 300,000 exclusively formula-fed babies who are being overexposed to fluoridated water.

Please do what previous administrations have failed to do: listen to the science, protect our children, and help to restore public trust in the EPA.

Join us in speaking up to end EPA’s plan to appeal Judge Chen’s landmark September 2024 decision that fluoride poses an unreasonable risk to children. The EPA must address this risk.

Thank you for taking action,

The Children’s Health Defense Team "

[onawah]

‘Magic Bullet’: Sugar Industry Falsified Science to Sell America on Fluoride
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
September 30, 2025
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sugar-industry-falsified-science-to-sell-america-fluoride-kelloggs-ada-study/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20250930

(Podcast and hyperlinks in the article not embedded here )

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/sugar-industry-cereal-science-fluoride-800x417.jpg

"A new study reveals the sugar industry has manipulated fluoride science since the 1930s — exaggerating benefits, concealing risks and steering attention away from sugar’s role in tooth decay. The findings show that industry influence shaped fluoridation policies, raising urgent questions about the public health guidance that persists today.

The sugar industry has manipulated scientific research on fluoride since the 1930s — exaggerating its benefits, suppressing concerns about serious side effects and shifting attention away from sugar’s role in tooth decay, according to a study published Monday in the journal Environmental Health.

Internal sugar industry and dental organization documents, analyzed by the study’s author Christopher Neurath, detail how the sugar industry helped shape the public health policies that, for decades, touted fluoride as a “magic bullet” against tooth decay.

The documents also show how the tobacco and chemical industries later adopted those tactics.

Neurath, research director for the American Environmental Health Studies Project, told The Defender that his research builds on work by Dr. Cristin Kearns. Kearns revealed how the sugar industry paid scientists to downplay links between sugar and heart disease and promote saturated fat as a risk factor.

The sugar industry — and the industrial food industry as a whole — “have played a huge role in manipulating not just the science, but the policy,” Neurath said of his findings. “I think this helps to show they are likely culprit No. 1 in the chronic disease epidemic.”

Controversy over water fluoridation exploded after plaintiffs won a landmark lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in September 2024. The ruling — now on appeal — compels the agency to set new rules for regulating fluoride in water because fluoride poses an “unreasonable risk” to children’s neurodevelopment.

Since then, numerous communities — and two states — have decided to stop fluoridating their water.

The “Make Our Children Healthy Again” strategy report, published earlier this month under the direction of U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., called on the EPA to review new science on fluoride’s potential health risks. The report also instructed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to update its water fluoridation recommendations.

Despite the scientific findings exposing fluoride’s dangers, public health officials and pro-fluoride organizations like the American Dental Association (ADA), as well as most legacy media organizations, remain committed to the narrative that water fluoridation is safe, effective and necessary.

Neurath’s study traces the sugar industry’s influence on fluoride policy back nearly 100 years, through major research institutions, the ADA and U.S. government programs.

“Chris Neurath’s new article shows how the sugar industry used fluoridation as a smoke screen — a tactic that raises troubling questions about the science that supported it,” Dr. Bruce Lanphear, an expert on the neurotoxic effects of environmental chemicals at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, told The Defender.

“These findings make it imperative for dentists, physicians and public health authorities to urgently re-examine the risks and benefits of fluoridation,” he said.

Lanphear is the principal investigator in one of the seminal cohort studies linking maternal exposure to fluoridated water to cognitive deficits in their children.

Industry established ‘Sugar Fellowship’ to investigate fluoride in 1930s

The sugar industry began its campaign to shift attention away from sugar’s effects on dental health in the 1930s, when it funded the Sugar Fellowship, held by chemist Gerald Cox at the Mellon Institute of Industrial Research.

“The Sugar Fellowship was intended to produce evidence that would exonerate sugar from causing tooth decay (dental caries) or failing that, find ways to reduce caries without restricting sugar consumption,” Neurath wrote.

Cox studied the impact of sugar consumption on cavities in rats. In 1939, his flawed experiments — sometimes showing more decay in fluoride groups — led him to propose adding fluoride to drinking water.

Cox wrote major portions of a 1952 National Research Council report on the prevention of cavities that emphasized fluoride’s role. He never disclosed his links to the sugar industry.

That work gave the industry its “magic bullet” against tooth decay, Neurath said.

ADA agrees to ‘cooperate’ with sugar industry

In the decades that followed, the sugar industry quietly worked behind the scenes to use Cox’s flawed science to drive public health policy.

In the 1940s, it created the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF).

In 1944, Fice Mork, son of the president of the New York State Dental Society, left his position as public relations counsel for the ADA to become SRF’s public relations consultant.

That year, Mork and Robert Hockett, who directed SRF from its founding until 1953 — when he left to work for the tobacco industry — met with ADA executives who agreed to “cooperate” with SRF.

According to Neurath, Mork and Hockett persuaded the ADA to reverse its position on cavities. Instead of blaming cavities on nutritional deficiencies like excessive sugar consumption and vitamin D deficiency, the ADA began to promote fluoride as a solution for cavities.

Mork and Hockett organized a 1944 symposium for thousands of dentists, without disclosing that SRF was funding the event.

“The symposium was an opening salvo in a public campaign to promote fluoride and fluoridation as the solution to prevent tooth decay,” Neurath wrote. The “founding fathers of fluoridation” gave presentations on its benefits, according to Neurath.

SRF paid to print and mail 100,000 copies of the symposium proceedings to every dentist in the U.S., and also to pediatricians, public health officials and dental schools.

Mork and Hockett also met with the new editor of the Journal of the American Dental Association, Harold Hillenbrand, who agreed to “unofficially” inform Hockett about the positions of various people inside the ADA regarding the policy shift toward fluoride.

Hillenbrand later became the executive director of the ADA and held the position until 1970.

Kellogg’s teams up with dental industry to promote fluoride

During that same period, an executive from Kellogg’s — maker of sugary cereals — became chair of the ADA committee that set its dental health policy. The organization stopped pushing to reduce sugar consumption and started pushing fluoride.

Philippe Hujoel, DDS, Ph.D., a professor at the University of Washington whose own research exposed conflicts of interest regarding fluoride at the ADA, said Neurath’s revelations “add a substantial number of details on how organizations hide/obscure/protect their internal deliberations, their internal conflicts of interest.”

He added:

“Maybe more importantly, his report documents in detail the long, difficult, and arduous process of trying to uncover what happens behind the walls of confidentiality of organizations. The amount of work done by Chris is astounding.

“Reading Chris’s article, I was reminded of a quote by Alberto Brandolini, a Programmer: ‘The amount of energy necessary to refute bull**** is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.’ Chris’s work suggests it may be several orders of magnitude bigger.”

Hillenbrand was one of the first dentists to be elected to the Institute of Medicine (IOM), which raises questions about other IOM appointments, according to Hujoel.

“One wonders about all the other appointments at this Institute of Medicine and to what extent these appointments are partly responsible for the current diabetes epidemic,” he said.

Dentists ‘largely unaware’ of how sugar industry manipulated science

Neurath told The Defender that the sugar industry’s deceptive tactics have been going on for so long that many dentists and public health officials who embrace the use of fluoride are “largely unaware of any industry manipulation of the science.”

“The sugar industry very consciously targeted dentists,” he said. “They went to the top of the dentistry profession and got the ADA on board,” and the leaders of the ADA “hid the fact that they were essentially cooperating with the sugar industry from practicing dentists.”

The sugar industry also targeted dental schools and universities, Neurath said.

At Harvard School of Public Health, Fredrick Stare championed the idea that water fluoridation would prevent cavities. He founded Harvard’s Department of Nutrition largely with donations from the sugar industry and Big Food, according to Neurath.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/is-fluoridation-really-safe.jpg
Extracted from one of Fredrick Stare’s hundreds of weekly syndicated newspaper column articles. Credit: Christopher Neurath.

Neurath also reveals evidence that the industry influenced the National Institutes of Health National Caries Program, funded by Congress and launched in 1971 to fight tooth decay. He said the policy agenda for the program used language written by the International Sugar Research Foundation, the SRF’s successor organization.

Sugar industry, Big Food suppress facts on fluoride’s dangers

Today, the influence of the sugar industry is embodied in the giant food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola, the largest purveyor of sugar globally. Neurath said it is “almost the equivalent of the sugar industry today.”

In 2003, Coca-Cola donated $1 million to the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, which has a “long-standing policy of promoting water fluoridation.”

More recently, as evidence emerged linking water fluoridation to reduced IQ in children, industry-backed scientists have gone on the attack.

Sugary food and beverage corporations, including Coca-Cola and Kellogg’s, contributed tens of millions of dollars to the National Academies of Science, Engineering & Medicine, which interfered with the publication of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) seminal report linking fluoride to neurotoxicity in children.

As lobbyists within the ADA were working with government officials to block the release of the NTP report, a German organization, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), published its own review of the science.

The review found “no cause for concern,” according to the press release that accompanied its publication, and has been touted by fluoridation promoters in their claims that water fluoridation is safe.

ILSI was founded by a vice president of Coca-Cola and has been funded by the beverage maker “along with a long list of major companies in the sugary foods, processed foods, infant formula, chemical, pesticide, oil and pharmaceutical industries,” Neurath said.

Documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests by plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA revealed that the Oral Health Division of the CDC — the agency largely responsible for promoting fluoridation at the governmental level — privately met with the ILSI researchers for help in counteracting the NTP’s findings.

The ongoing struggle over water fluoridation

The ADA, together with organizations like the American Fluoridation Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics, continues a national campaign to push water fluoridation as safe and effective.

The organizations are quoted in The New York Times and proudly send pro-fluoridation representatives across the country to intervene when communities debate changing their water fluoridation policies.

Government records requests show that these activities include coordinating behind the scenes with government officials — in ways that violate rules of federal grants — and bullying local officials who raise concerns.

The evidence on fluoride’s benefits has changed, and proof of its harms to children’s health is substantial, Neurath told The Defender.

In October 2024, an updated Cochrane Review concluded that adding fluoride to drinking water provides very limited, if any, dental benefits, especially compared with 50 years ago.

Overwhelming scientific research shows that fluoride’s benefits to teeth are topical, not the result of ingesting fluoride. Research also shows that ingesting fluoride is linked to behavioral issues, disruption of thyroid functioning and disruption of the gut microbiome.

Numerous recent studies have shown fluoride’s links to reduced IQ and other neurodevelopmental issues in children.

Many major professional medical organizations have quietly dropped their previous long-term support for water fluoridation. These include the American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Physicians, and the American College of Preventive Medicine.

The ADA did not respond to The Defender’s request for comment on the study. "

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin.


Related articles in The Defender
Breaking: Fluoride in Water Poses ‘Unreasonable Risk’ to Children, Federal Judge Rules
Profanity-laced Emails, Misuse of CDC Funds: How Big Fluoride Tries to Prevent Towns From Removing Fluoride
Lobbyists for Pediatricians and Dentists Dig in on Water Fluoridation
Exclusive: NTP Scientific Director Tells The Defender What He Couldn’t Tell the Court
A Top HHS Official Blocked Release of Long-Delayed Fluoride Toxicity Review, Internal Emails Reveal

[Bluegreen]

Toothpaste Made With Your Hair Repairs Tooth Enamel, Scientists Discover

Toothpaste made with hair could repair damaged teeth and stop the early stages of decay, a new study has found.

Scientists at King's College London discovered keratin, a protein found in hair, skin and wool that is often used in reparative shampoos, can also help with teeth.

"We think this is a game changer, an industry-mover to introduce keratin as an actual product within our daily use to protect and heal your tooth enamel without even realising," said Dr Sherif Elsharkawy, from King's Faculty of Dentistry, Oral & Craniofacial Sciences.


http://e3.365dm.com/25/08/1600x900/skynews-dr-sherif-elsharkawy_6995171.jpg?20250819115413
Dr Elsharkawy

"If you have a small defect, it would heal itself without you even realising."

Many tooth problems come from damaged enamel, which does not regenerate - once it is lost, it is gone forever.

When the keratin mixes with the minerals in saliva, it produces a protective coating to mimic the structure and function of natural enamel.

Fluoride toothpastes and fluoride added to drinking water are currently relied on to slow enamel erosion but keratin-based treatments were found to stop it completely.

"Keratin offers a transformative alternative to current dental treatments," said Sara Gamea, PhD researcher at King's College London and first author of the study.

The toothpaste will look and feel just like standard fluoride paste, with a minty flavour and foaming texture but instead contain enough keratin for daily use.

"The aim is that we want this to be affordable and reach the public," said Dr Elsharkawy.

Published 19th August 2025 by Mickey Carroll – Sky News
https://news.sky.com/story/toothpaste-made-with-hair-naturally-repairs-tooth-enamel-scientists-discover-13414542

[onawah]

DOD, Dentists: No Truth to Warren’s Claim that RFK Jr.’s Plan to End Water Fluoridation ‘Threatens Military Readiness’
by Brenda Baletti, Ph.D.
November 12, 2025
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/no-truth-warren-claim-rfk-jr-plan-end-water-fluoridation-threatens-military-readiness/?utm_source=cc&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=defender&utm_id=20251112

(It's beyond belief that fluoridation is still regarded by some as a debatable issue, but typical of Elizabeth Warren's foolishness to pretend that it really is. :facepalm:)

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/elizabeth-warren-rfk-jr-fluoridation-800x417.jpg

"Sen. Elizabeth Warren claimed last week in a press release that U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s reported plan to direct the CDC to stop recommending water fluoridation “threatens military readiness.”
But according to a memo the DOD sent Warren, and reported by the Military Times, there are currently no service members classified as non-deployable due to dental problems.

Warren, ranking member of the Subcommittee on Personnel for the Senate Armed Services Committee, in May sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth making similar allegations that military dental health “will further suffer as a direct result of Secretary Kennedy’s plans.”

She cited 2011 data from the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) reporting that dental decay was one of the major reasons that military personnel get classified as “non-deployable.” The military later directed the DOD to fluoridate water at facilities serving 3,300 people or more by 2016.

“Our military is already falling short on delivering high quality dental care for our service members, and Secretary Kennedy’s fluoride crusade is threatening to worsen this crisis and hurt our military’s ability to deploy where they’re needed,” Warren said in last week’s press release. “Our government should be focused on improving dental health access for our service members, not pushing anti-science conspiracies.”

Emily Hilliard, press secretary for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, called the claims “false and politically motivated.”

Hilliard told The Defender, “The Secretary is focused on restoring public trust in health policy by following current science, not outdated narratives or bureaucratic talking points.”

Dr. Hardy Limeback, professor emeritus in the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Toronto, told The Defender he thinks Warren is attacking Kennedy’s reported plans “in order to gain political points for herself without actually looking at the science.”

“Calling RFK Jr.’s policy ‘pushing anti-science conspiracies’ is in itself antiscience and political,” Limeback said.

DOD last week updated Warren on military dental health

According to a memo the DOD sent Warren before she issued her press release, and reported by the Military Times, there are currently no service members classified as non-deployable due to dental problems, also some are considered “not medically ready to deploy.”

DOD officials said dental emergencies account for 20% to 30% of all injuries not related to combat. However, Limeback said these statistics exist even though most members have access to water fluoridation on military bases.

He said that existing dental problems are often attributable to “chronic dental disease — missing, fractured, decayed teeth and teeth infected with gum disease, not related to the status of fluoride in the water.”

Between 2014-2024, the percentage of troops with the worst levels of dental health decreased from 8.3% to 6.3%, and the percentage of troops with the best dental health also dropped — from 48.9% to 44.8%, according to the memo.

Defense officials also told Warren there is no clear evidence that fluoridation of drinking water alone is responsible for improved military dental readiness.

They noted that some military installations purchase water from non-DOD water providers and that many military members live off base.

They also cited factors including access to care, disease patterns, diet, oral hygiene practices and regular dental preventive care that can impact an individual’s dental health and readiness.

Officials also said the short-term impact of removing fluoride may be negligible, but cited DOD reports showing it may be associated with increased rates of dental decay in the long run.

A Pentagon spokesperson told The Defender the agency plans to follow up with Warren directly regarding her press release from last week.

‘Our military deserves the very best oral health support we can provide,’ but that doesn’t mean water fluoridation

Dentist Dr. Griffin Cole, a member of the board of directors of the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, said Warren neglected to mention there are no randomized clinical trials showing that ingesting fluoride benefits dental health or reduces cavities.

Limeback similarly said there is “no proof that fluoridation works to help adults reduce dental disease.” He cited a 2024 Cochrane review of evidence for water fluoridation efficacy that found “no eligible studies that report caries outcomes in adults.”

“By ignoring the growing body of scientific evidence showing the potential adverse effects of fluoride ingestion, Senator Warren continues to repeat outdated claims from conventional dentistry,” Limeback said.

Cole said:

“Our military deserves the very best oral health support we can provide, which includes education on preventive care, access to hydroxyapatite-based toothpastes, and nutrient-rich food options that truly support long-term dental health. It also means ending the use of mercury-amalgam fillings and providing metal-free alternatives that are safer and more biocompatible. These actions will ensure our servicemen and servicewomen receive the best possible support for their oral health and overall well-being.

“Eliminating fluoride from drinking water will not increase dental emergencies but rather help prevent a range of potential systemic health problems. Secretary Kennedy should be commended for taking decisive action to end this outdated and unproven practice.”

Limeback said improving the diets of military personnel — by doing things like reducing sugar intake — will “go a long way” to reducing the number of dental issues.

Hilliard also noted that fluoride is the only chemical added to drinking water that does not treat the water for purification. “Fluoride is added to water for the purpose of medication: i.e., to reduce tooth decay, a non-waterborne disease,” she said.

She also noted that the CDC now concedes that fluoride’s predominant benefit to teeth comes from topical contact with the outside of the teeth, not from ingestion, and noted that emerging research has “raised valid concerns about ingestion, including potential links to thyroid issues, gut microbiome disruption, and lower IQ, warranting open scientific review.

Water fluoridation one of military health policies that lacks evidence of effectiveness

Pam Long, director of Children’s Health Defense Military Chapter and Army Veteran of the Medical Service Corps, told The Defender that even if fluoride were beneficial, military members often deploy to regions that do not have fluoridated water and that “there is no scenario” where mission planning would consider water quality as an obstacle to deployment.

“For a politician to imply that American military members cannot defend this country and our allies without perfect conditions conveys an image of weakness to our enemies,” she said.

Long said fluoride has been shown to be neurotoxic. “Secretary Kennedy has demonstrated decisive leadership to remove it from drinking water after decades of other people in positions to take action failed to remove it.”

She said other military health policies lack scientific evidence to back them up. For example, she said, “The mandated influenza vaccine has negative efficacy — more harm than benefit. The influenza vaccine increases infection risk of all other respiratory viruses by 65%. Units with mass influenza vaccination prior to a deployment will see a degradation in readiness. Healthy soldiers will become sick.”

The anthrax vaccine is also still mandated for training and overseas deployments, she said, even though “there is no evidence that any country has developed or utilized a weapon to disperse anthrax.”

“Secretary Kennedy is the greatest threat to the status quo in non-evidence-based health recommendations,” she said.

Related articles in The Defender

FDA Cracks Down on Unapproved Fluoride Supplements for Kids
Pentagon Ends Flu Vaccine Mandate for Reservists, But Not Active Duty Troops
Breaking: New Cochrane Review Finds Water Fluoridation Has Minimal Effect on Dental Health
Breaking: New Study Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children Sparks Renewed Calls to End Water Fluoridation

Brenda Baletti, Ph.D., is a senior reporter for The Defender. She wrote and taught about capitalism and politics for 10 years in the writing program at Duke University. She holds a Ph.D. in human geography from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a master's from the University of Texas at Austin. "

[triquetra]

It's also possible that fluoride may contribute to or exacerbate behavioral problems such as ADHD by way of pineal gland calcification. Despite its diminutive size, your pineal gland tends to accumulate significant amounts of fluoride, which eventually causes it to calcify.

Besides ADHD-like symptoms, pineal calcification may also play a role in Alzheimer's and bipolar disease. According to Frank Granett, director of clinical pharmacy operations at Behavioral Center of Michigan Psychiatric Hospital:15


The greatest risk of pineal calcification of all is decreased spiritual function, both every night during sleep, and at the end of one's life (as well as any NDEs).

All capacity for any kind of meaningful meditation can also be stripped away when the function of the pineal gland is disrupted in this way.

There is no other reason to force it on humanity under the guise of dental health.

(what's much better for dental health is eliminating artificial sugars from the diet, but that can't work, because those need to be forced on society, particularly on those of lower social classes, with less money, for different reasons)

Anyone moving to a region that does not fluoridate their drinking water, that stops using fluoridated toothpaste, that stops their dentist from giving them fluoride treatments at cleanings, and who *also* has been attempting deep meditations since they did exactly the opposite, will notice a striking difference in their results from one end of the gamut to the other.

Once the body is given a chance to undo the damage (this can also be accelerated by "shattering" the calcification using frequency-based resonance), the spirit body is once again free to travel as needed, and another soul has a chance to help out in the battle unfolding (right now) on the spiritual plane.

You owe it to yourself, your loved ones, and all the good people you know are out there in the world, to do all that you can. It is remarkable that the pedestal of "science as religion" has built an army of hyper-rationalists so successfully, that any "science-oriented" story can be woven and the army will rally to that banner.

[onawah]

There are Spooky 2 settings that can help with eliminating fluoride.
Spirulina is helpful in decalcifying the pineal gland. See sentence in bold letters here:

I almost hesitate to post this info yet again, but hopefully it will bear repeating, so here goes...
Though I haven't tried the turpentine or hydrogen peroxide methods yet, I'm still pretty happy with my fresh aloe vera gel regimen, which is very gentle and has kept me going, even at 68 and still dealing with multiple issues from the deadly SV40 polio vaccine I received as a child, and a NDE when in my 20s, after being hit by a drunk hit and run driver, which put me in the hospital for 5 months with multiple injuries and a lifelong limp.
I learned about using fresh aloe gel in the 90s from one of my live foods gurus, Youkta:
iFQQ8RbC3bI
...wife of Viktoras Kulvinskas, who was co-founder of the Hippocrates Institute with Anne Wigmore:
http://www.viktoras.org/
...AND author of Survival into the 21st Century, now in it's 27th year:
http://www.viktoras.org/#!survival-in-the-21st-century

Youkta died in 2007, which came as a great shock to everyone who knew her.
I think it was because when she and Viktor moved to their land in the Costa Rican jungle, she was no longer able to get fresh aloe vera in the amounts that she had been relying on when living in the US.
She was exposed to some very toxic chemicals when she was a teenager, and she told me in confidence that, even though she meditated and exercised like a fanatic (she was a world class belly dance and yoga teacher) and her diet was very pure (mostly live, raw, sprouted and fermented foods, lots of Supergreen algae, etc.) ... she thought it was the aloe that was keeping her alive.
She bought about 60 lbs of aloe every month and used a pound of it in a smoothie in the AM and another in the PM.
(Viktor would use it sometimes too, but he was more into wheat grass juice, which Youkta was allergic to. )
I knew them for 5 years when they were facilitating a women's live foods and healing festival on their land in Arkansas crystal country.
And that was when I started using aloe as well, though it wasn't until later that I began to use it faithfully every day (about a pound per day in my morning smoothie).
(I buy it from Aloe Labs in Harlingen, Texas, which will ship a minimum of 25 lbs anywhere in the US.
The shipping costs more than the aloe itself, but the cost goes down dramatically the more you buy per shipment, so if you can get a little buying club together and buy 200 lbs at a time, its worth the effort. (It stores well even without refrigeration if you keep it cool and dry and with good air circulation). You can buy it more cheaply in Mexican markets, but Aloe Labs grows it organically, which is worth the extra money, to me. You can grow it yourself, of course, but this is a special variety that is for consumption, and the leaves are huge, from about 1-4 lbs. each.)
It's actually pretty reasonable when you look at all the benefits--a safe and natural source of stable oxygen, prevents and relieves inflammation, anti-viral, anti-fungal, anti-bacterial, keeps the colon clean, pulls out heavy metals, and much more.

Another long time staple for me has been Spirulina, which I first learned about when I was attending classes at the late Dr. Christopher Hills' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hills
...intentional community, University of the Trees, in Boulder Creek, CA.
He did a lot of the initial research into algae for the Western market and started Light Force company which sold what was probably the best Spirulina available for a long time in the US.
(There is a new company now following in that tradition, called Biolumina, and I think their Spirulina is probably the best available today. I've just started taking it and the first time I tried it, my body went "WOW"!:high5: http://bioluminaspirulina.com/
Spirulina has been well established as the most nutritious food on the planet, and you only need a little to make a difference ( I use a tablespoon a day).
It's great for decalcifying the pineal gland and for dealing with radiation and heavy metals and much else.

I like taking a holistic approach with whole superfoods, though I also take plenty of supplements as well.
Fermenting vegies and making my own kefir with raw goat milk are some of the newer additions to my diet, and are proving very beneficial.
(Caution: fermented vegies will clean you out like crazy! :boom: :lol:)

I want to get back into doing more sprouting which I used to be devoted to, such as growing wheat grass, sunflower and pea sprouts in trays of soil, clover in glass jars, etc.
I sprout mung, chia and flax seeds regularly, but I miss those green sprouts-- they are so full of vitality!

Here's to health and to all those health warriors out there!!:sun: :clapping::blackwidow:
What's life without it? :nod:

Update: Forgot to mention that fresh aloe vera smoothies and blue green algae (Spirulina is one form) were a daily part of the diet at the Hippocrates Health Institute, where they treated many "hopeless" cases of people at death's door due to cancer, Aids, lupus, etc. The majority of them recovered.



It's also possible that fluoride may contribute to or exacerbate behavioral problems such as ADHD by way of pineal gland calcification. Despite its diminutive size, your pineal gland tends to accumulate significant amounts of fluoride, which eventually causes it to calcify.

Besides ADHD-like symptoms, pineal calcification may also play a role in Alzheimer's and bipolar disease. According to Frank Granett, director of clinical pharmacy operations at Behavioral Center of Michigan Psychiatric Hospital:15


The greatest risk of pineal calcification of all is decreased spiritual function, both every night during sleep, and at the end of one's life (as well as any NDEs).

All capacity for any kind of meaningful meditation can also be stripped away when the function of the pineal gland is disrupted in this way.

There is no other reason to force it on humanity under the guise of dental health.

(what's much better for dental health is eliminating artificial sugars from the diet, but that can't work, because those need to be forced on society, particularly on those of lower social classes, with less money, for different reasons)

Anyone moving to a region that does not fluoridate their drinking water, that stops using fluoridated toothpaste, that stops their dentist from giving them fluoride treatments at cleanings, and who *also* has been attempting deep meditations since they did exactly the opposite, will notice a striking difference in their results from one end of the gamut to the other.

Once the body is given a chance to undo the damage (this can also be accelerated by "shattering" the calcification using frequency-based resonance), the spirit body is once again free to travel as needed, and another soul has a chance to help out in the battle unfolding (right now) on the spiritual plane.

You owe it to yourself, your loved ones, and all the good people you know are out there in the world, to do all that you can. It is remarkable that the pedestal of "science as religion" has built an army of hyper-rationalists so successfully, that any "science-oriented" story can be woven and the army will rally to that banner.