+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 7 8 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 145

Thread: The Fluoride Thread

  1. Link to Post #121
    Avalon Member I am B's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th January 2021
    Posts
    341
    Thanks
    1,622
    Thanked 3,006 times in 337 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Thank you so much! A thousand thanks and then a thousand more, I really appreciate!

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to I am B For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Ewan (27th August 2021)

  3. Link to Post #122
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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/sho...=1#post1423799
    Quote Posted by I am B (here)
    Thank you so much! A thousand thanks and then a thousand more, I really appreciate!
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Dennis Leahy (2nd December 2021), Ewan (27th August 2021), I am B (28th August 2021), mountain_jim (21st March 2022), ThePythonicCow (29th August 2021)

  5. Link to Post #123
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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. )
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Dennis Leahy (2nd December 2021), Ewan (23rd November 2021), mountain_jim (2nd December 2021)

  7. Link to Post #124
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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/...8-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
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Dennis Leahy (2nd December 2021), Ewan (3rd January 2022), mountain_jim (2nd December 2021), wondering (2nd January 2022)

  9. Link to Post #125
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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... "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (2nd January 2022), Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (3rd January 2022), mountain_jim (21st March 2022), wondering (2nd January 2022)

  11. Link to Post #126
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Here's What Happened At Yesterday's Lawsuit Status Hearing
    1/19/22
    Fluoride Action Network via salsalabs.org
    https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...8-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
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (20th January 2022), Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (21st March 2022), mountain_jim (21st March 2022)

  13. Link to Post #127
    UK Avalon Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th September 2020
    Language
    English
    Posts
    1,171
    Thanks
    5,295
    Thanked 9,212 times in 1,146 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    They pushed this through amidst the height of covid lockdown hysteria:

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...?ocid=msedgdhp

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...among-children

    Looks like they'll get their way...

  14. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Journeyman For This Post:

    avid (4th June 2022), Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Brigantia (22nd March 2022), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (21st March 2022), mountain_jim (21st March 2022), onawah (21st March 2022)

  15. Link to Post #128
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,435
    Thanks
    51,899
    Thanked 18,950 times in 2,388 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Quote Posted by Journeyman (here)
    They pushed this through amidst the height of covid lockdown hysteria:

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknew...?ocid=msedgdhp

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...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!

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    avid (4th June 2022), Bill Ryan (21st March 2022), Brigantia (22nd March 2022), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Journeyman (22nd March 2022), onawah (21st March 2022), Peace in Oz (22nd March 2022)

  17. Link to Post #129
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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/...XReTXXrBnr_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_st...=pdf&v=current

    Hawaii - https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessi...ls/SB2732_.HTM

    Iowa - https://www.legis.iowa.gov/publicati...815&q=fluoride

    Thank you."
    Click here to watch the Youtube version of this presentation:
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (4th June 2022), Bill Ryan (12th January 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023)

  19. Link to Post #130
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    2022 Fluoride Action Network Update
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    6/26/22
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...rid=1531335951


    Source: https://www.bitchute.com/video/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 [bones contain it].

    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.

    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, [by] the mercury people [and the drug industry]."

    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
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Bill Ryan (12th January 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (27th June 2022), Johnnycomelately (26th June 2022), mountain_jim (27th June 2022)

  21. Link to Post #131
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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


    "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... "

    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (13th October 2022), Bill Ryan (12th January 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), DNA (1st November 2022), mountain_jim (13th October 2022)

  23. Link to Post #132
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    BIG NEWS! The Court Rules In Favor Of Our Motion
    From Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
    10/31/22



    "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/tsc...f-cc3bf306f87e

    For more information on the NTP's Review, click here: https://fluoridealert.org/researcher...f-cc3bf306f87e

    Thank you for your continued support"

    Stuart Cooper
    Executive Director
    Fluoride Action Network
    https://fluoridealert.org/?eType=Ema...f-cc3bf306f87e
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    amor (1st November 2022), avid (1st November 2022), Bill Ryan (12th January 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), DNA (1st November 2022), Ewan (12th January 2023)

  25. Link to Post #133
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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.networkforg...3PQlHtrc-jYuCI

    Watch the trial live on Zoom using the login below:
    https://fluoridealert.org/news/inter...swgfHgfqnkdbWE
    https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1619911861...
    Webinar ID: 161 991 1861
    Password: 912881
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (18th January 2023), Bill Ryan (12th January 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (12th January 2023), Franny (7th February 2023)

  27. Link to Post #134
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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/arkans...-case-hearing/



    "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)."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (18th January 2023), Bill Ryan (18th January 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (18th January 2023), Franny (7th February 2023)

  29. Link to Post #135
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    New Study on Fluoride Toxicity in Poor Glycemic Control & Vit D Deficiency
    2/6/23
    https://fluoridealert.org/studytrack...22ey8_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.



    *Original full-text article online at: https://iwaponline.com/jwh/article/2...h-diabetes-and
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (7th February 2023), Bill Ryan (7th February 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (7th February 2023), Franny (7th February 2023), Mari (16th March 2023)

  31. Link to Post #136
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    New Study 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




    “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/scienc...48969722082523

    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...k-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-cana...rec-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/



    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/scienc...370?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/scienc...33X?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...pDw26LDgjimmug

    See York’s Twitter Post:https://twitter.com/YorkUnews/status...pDw26LDgjimmug "

    Sincerely,

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

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

    avid (13th February 2023), Bill Ryan (17th March 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (13th February 2023), Sue (Ayt) (13th February 2023)

  33. Link to Post #137
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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/s...r-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."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (16th March 2023), Bill Ryan (17th March 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (16th March 2023)

  35. Link to Post #138
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Lead Industry’s Denial Tactics Now Used by Dental Interests
    By: Chris Neurath, FAN Science Director
    5/4/23
    https://fluoridealert.dm.networkforg...dtYWlsLmNvbQ==



    " 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:



    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]:



    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.



    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.



    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 "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (5th May 2023), Bill Ryan (14th October 2023), Dennis Leahy (5th May 2023), Ewan (5th May 2023), Sue (Ayt) (5th May 2023)

  37. Link to Post #139
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,893
    Thanks
    9,940
    Thanked 55,021 times in 8,167 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    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.
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  38. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to norman For This Post:

    avid (5th May 2023), Bill Ryan (14th October 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ernie Nemeth (5th May 2023), Ewan (5th May 2023), onawah (29th June 2023)

  39. Link to Post #140
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,208
    Thanks
    47,680
    Thanked 116,091 times in 20,639 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    New 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/studytrack...6-5d3f5397076b
    ...the 2020 study, https://fluoridealert.org/studytrack...6-5d3f5397076b
    ...Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort, and the 2018 study
    https://fluoridealert.org/studytrack...6-5d3f5397076b
    ...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"

    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Bill Ryan (14th October 2023), Dennis Leahy (14th October 2023), Ewan (30th June 2023)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst 1 7 8 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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