+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 1 6 8 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 142

Thread: The Fluoride Thread

  1. Link to Post #101
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Update From Fluoride Action Network:
    "#FluorideLawsuit Update

    Yesterday the court held a status hearing with attorneys for FAN and the EPA. We will be providing a detailed recap soon, but in short:

    -EPA will let the court record stand as is, and put no effort into doing as the Judge recommended to work with FAN attorneys to initiate a systematic review of fluoride's neurotoxicity.

    -The EPA attorney said: "EPA doesn't have the resources right now to meet with the plaintiffs."

    Judge does the following:

    -He put the case in abeyance while he awaits NTP review.

    -He will keep open evidence only for new studies / NTP review.

    -He tells FAN attorneys to re-submit an amended petition with pregnant mothers as plaintiffs to EPA whether EPA is willing to review it or not. Judge will monitor EPA response.

    -He says there is still a chance for more testimony later on any new evidence considered.

    -The next Status Conference will be at 10:30AM (US Pacific time) on November 5th."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Alecs (7th August 2020), Bill Ryan (7th August 2020)

  3. Link to Post #102
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    RFKJr. interviews Connett, FAN's attorney
    Fluoride Action Network
    8/24/20
    "NEW -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interviews FAN's attorney, Michael Connett, about our case in federal court against the EPA over the neurotoxicity of fluoridation chemicals":
    https://www.instagram.com/p/CEKl5DqnMNI

    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 24th August 2020 at 16:52. Reason: embedded the video
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Bill Ryan (24th August 2020)

  5. Link to Post #103
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    TSCA FLUORIDE TRIAL WITNESS SPOTLIGHT
    August 6th, 2020
    http://fluoridealert.org/articles/ts...ess-spotlight/

    "FAN has produced a video series and text summaries featuring commentary taken from the declarations of expert witnesses FAN called to testify in federal court during our recent TSCA trial against the EPA.

    Dr. Howard Hu


    You can read Dr. Hu’s full Declaration for the trial (his qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references) here:
    http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...eclaration.pdf



    Dr. Phillipe Grandjean




    You can read Dr. Grandjean’s full declaration for the trial (his qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references) here:
    http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...eclaration.pdf

    Dr. Bruce Lanphear





    You can read Dr. Lanphear’s full declaration for the trial (his qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references)
    here:
    http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...t-662x1024.png


    Dr. Kathleen Thiessen






    You can read Dr. Thiessen’s full declaration for the trial (her qualifications, opinions, basis for opinions, and references) here:
    http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/...eclaration.pdf "
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Ewan (1st December 2020), Victoria (26th August 2021)

  7. Link to Post #104
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    More experts raising the alarm
    10/89/20
    https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...5-e8835d85b9f3

    "The former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health has joined in the growing chorus of objective experts publicly raising the alarm about fluoridation’s impact on the developing brain.

    Toxicologist and microbiologist, Linda Birnbaum, PhD, co-authored an op-ed appearing in the Environmental Health News this morning with Christine Till, PhD, an associate professor of Psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist, and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019) and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD, and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research. Lanphear is also an award winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science Committees, is a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead Review Panel, and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

    The op-ed entitled, It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development, and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the US "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state that "Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children...

    ...We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake."

    Fluoride Action Network
    Dear Supporter:

    The former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health has joined in the growing chorus of objective experts publicly raising the alarm about fluoridation’s impact on the developing brain.

    Toxicologist and microbiologist, Linda Birnbaum, PhD, co-authored an op-ed appearing in the Environmental Health News this morning with Christine Till, PhD, an associate professor of Psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist, and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada. Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019) and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD, and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research. Lanphear is also an award winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science Committees, is a member of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Lead Review Panel, and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

    The op-ed entitled, It is time to protect kids' developing brains from fluoride highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development, and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the US "to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children," and state that "Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children...

    ...We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake."

    See: https://www.ehn.org/fluoride-and-chi...7#rebelltitem7

    The Op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video on the impact of fluoride on brain development. It was produced by Little Things Matter, a non-profit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Here is their description of the video:

    “Over the past 75 years, health authorities have promoted community water fluoridation to reduce dental caries. Until recently, however, no studies had examined the safety of fluoride in vulnerable populations, like pregnant women and infants. This video describes the history of water fluoridation and new research that found fluoride is toxic to the developing brain.”



    Lanphear's organization also created a printable flyer to educate the general public on "Ways for pregnant women to reduce fluoride exposure," as well as prevent dental decay.



    This deserves to go viral. Please repeatedly share all of these materials far on wide with friends, family, co-workers, fellow campaigners, local officials, and the media. Also consider emailing it to scientists at your local colleges and universities, along with pediatricians and midwives in your community."

    Sincerely,

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

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

    avid (9th October 2020)

  9. Link to Post #105
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Fluoride Action Network
    "The Director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, Casey Hannan, testified under oath during deposition for our #FluorideLawsuit that the CDC has no data that would establish the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite a growing body of evidence showing that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin."

    https://www.facebook.com/FluorideAct...4870914414150/
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Ewan (28th November 2020)

  11. Link to Post #106
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Fluoride Action Network
    From their email update
    11/30/20
    NEW STUDY

    "Despite decades of using fluorosilicic acid to fluoridate communities--usually toxic waste from the fertilizer industry--very few studies have ever been conducted on the chemical, and those that have been conducted found various negative results (contaminated batches, leaching of heavy metals, high corrosiveness, etc).

    A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal "Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis" has found that fluorosilicic acid at the levels found in fluoridated communities induces genotoxicity, contributes to dental fluorosis, causes DNA damage in mesenchymal stem cells, alters bone mineralization, and causes oxidative stress."
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1383571820301686?via%3Dihub"Highlights

    •HIGHLIGHTS
    Fluorosilicic acid is the most used additive for water fluoridation.


    Dental fluorosis can be caused by fluorosilicic acid present in drinking water.


    DNA damage was caused by fluorosilicic acid in mesenchymal stem cells.


    Fluorosilicic acid altered bone mineralization in mesenchymal stem cells.

    DNA damage caused by fluorosilicic acid was attributed to oxidative stress.

    Abstract
    Excess fluoride in water can produce changes in tooth enamel mineralization and lead to diseases such as dental or skeletal fluorosis. The present study aimed to assess the genotoxic effects, oxidative stress, and osteoblastic mineralization induced by fluorosilicic acid (FA) in murine bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (BM-MSCs). BM-MSCs were isolated from the femurs and tibias of rats and cultured under standard conditions. Cells exposure occurred for 3, 7, 14, and 21 days to different concentrations of FA (0.6-9.6 mg/L). Cytotoxicity was observed in 14 and 21 days of exposure for all concentrations of FA (cell proliferation below 60 %), and for 3 and 7 days, in which the proliferation was above 80%. Alkaline comet assay results demonstrated significant increased damage at concentrations of 0.3-2.4 mg/L, and the micronucleus test showed increased rates for micronucleus (1.2-2.4 mg/L) and nuclear buds (NBUDs) (0.3-2.4 mg/L) (P < 0.05/Dunnett’s test). An alkaline comet assay modified by repair endonuclease (FPG) was used to detect oxidized nucleobases, which occurred at 0.6 mg/L. The oxidative stress was evaluated by lipid peroxidation (TBARS) and antioxidant activity (TAC). Only lipid peroxidation was increased at concentrations of 0.6 mg/L and 1.2 mg/L (P < 0.001/Tukey’s test). The osteogenesis process determined the level of extracellular matrix mineralization. The mean concentration of Alizarin red increased significantly in 14 days at the 0.6 mg/L concentration group (P < 0.05/Tukey’s test) compared to the control group, and a significant difference between the groups regarding the activity of alkaline phosphatase (ALP) was observed. Unlike other studies, our results indicated that FA in BM-MSCs at concentrations used in drinking water induced genotoxicity, oxidative stress, and acceleration of bone mineralization.

    Keywords
    dental fluorosisfluorosilicic acidgenotoxicitymesenchymal stem cellsoxidative stress, osteogenesis"
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Ewan (1st December 2020)

  13. Link to Post #107
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,424
    Thanks
    51,361
    Thanked 18,844 times in 2,378 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Dark Waters

    Inspired by the true story of Robert Bilott, an attorney who took on the DuPont company in an environmental suit exposing a decades-long history of chemical pollution in drinking water.

    During the film references are made to The Manhatten Project where certain discoveries were made, not the first time I've seen reference to TMP in connection with fluoride - may have been connected with the decision to flouridate America's water.

    Dark Waters Trailer

    How Dupont poisoned the world

    NYT-The-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to Ewan For This Post:

    onawah (4th December 2020)

  15. Link to Post #108
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    From Fluoride Action Network's email update today 12/3/20

    "If you could ask representatives of the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) about the safety of fluoridation under oath, what would you ask them? Our lawyers had that opportunity during depositions for our TSCA case in federal court, and today we will reveal a couple of shocking examples of what they said.

    Damning Deposition Videos from the TSCA Trial

    The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policy makers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation's safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong. Instead of verifying any of these claims, policy makers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation's watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation.

    Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of "safe and effective" is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the Director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children:


    In this second video, Joyce Donohue PhD, a scientist from the EPA's Office of Water, admits that the EPA's current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out-of-date and should be updated in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years:
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    AlaBil (4th December 2020), avid (4th December 2020), Ewan (4th December 2020), pueblo (4th December 2020)

  17. Link to Post #109
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    NTP Fluoride Neurotoxicity Review
    From Fluoride Action Network's email update today
    12/12/20
    https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...k_UmyHn8cvISBI

    "The NTP's review was initiated in 2016 in response to a nomination from FAN. It is expected to be finalized early in 2021 and it will be up to FAN and our supporters to finish what we started, by using this groundbreaking review to call on regulatory and health agencies to cease fluoridation immediately.

    Fundraising Update

    GOOD NEWS! One of our super angels will double all donations today up to a total of $1000! "

    A Deep Dive Into The NTP Fluoride Neurotoxicity Review
    89 views•Dec 10, 2020
    fluoridealert
    5.42K subscribers
    "There is very strong evidence that at exposures to fluoridated water occurring right now in the United States, children are being harmed." - Chris Neurath, FAN Research Director.

    "This 30 minute presentation takes an extended look into the scientific literature on fluoride's neurotoxicity currently under systematic review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP). Chris Neurath, FAN Research Director offers comments on the NTP review and shows, through a benchmark-dose analysis, that fluoride is a neurotoxic risk to children, in utero and in infancy, at exposure levels seen in fluoridated communities."

    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Constance (13th December 2020), Ewan (12th December 2020)

  19. Link to Post #110
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Natl Academy Sciences/FLUORIDE’S NEUROTOXICITY FINDINGS
    THE NAS STRENGTHENS FINDINGS ON FLUORIDE’S NEUROTOXICITY
    Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | February 16, 2021
    http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_2-16-21/

    "The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), a non-profit group dedicated to education on fluoride’s toxicity, finds that the National Academies of Sciences’ (NAS) recent peer-review of the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) revised report, strengthens the NTP’s conclusion that “fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans” lowering the IQ of children.
    http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/....9-16-2020.pdf

    FAN agrees with the NAS that the NTP should place “more emphasis” on the “marked consistency” of the evidence:

    “… 44 of the 46 studies … indicate an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ. Those results highlight the marked consistency in the current epidemiologic literature on fluoride and childhood IQ.”
    FAN adds that its own analysis indicates 15 of the 17 highest quality lower-dose studies most relevant to water fluoridation demonstrated the same “marked consistency” as did higher-exposure studies.

    FAN agrees with the NAS that NTP should not make definitive statements about fluoride’s effects at low doses until a “dose-response” analysis has been performed. This has been falsely interpreted by fluoridation defenders to imply that that lower doses are not neurotoxic!

    In reality, the best human studies (Bashash 2017, 2018; Green 2019; Till 2020) have found neurotoxic harm to occur at current exposure levels for people living in fluoridated communities. When FAN and others have used the methods advocated by the NAS they predict asafe reference dose (RfD) which is extremely low. A pre-print study by Grandjean et al. report a very low safe reference dose needed to protect the fetus. FAN’s analysis confirms their conclusion.

    As far as exposure to the fetus or the bottle-fed infant is concerned, we believe, as with lead, there is “no safe level” for exposure to fluoride.

    The NAS made numerous technical suggestions to improve the “clarity” of the document. FAN agrees these would improve and strengthen the NTP report, but they are unlikely to alter the NTP’s conclusion that fluoride is a “presumed” developmental neurotoxicant.

    According to Paul Connett, FAN director, “There is enough scientific evidence to conclude that both pregnant women and parents’ bottle-feeding infants, be warned to avoid fluoride. The only responsible thing now is for U.S. regulatory bodies to halt their support of water fluoridation. An immediate moratorium should be imposed so that no further damage is done to the mental development of children while further investigations are conducted.” "

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

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

    avid (17th February 2021), Constance (17th February 2021), Ewan (10th April 2021)

  21. Link to Post #111
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    American Dental Association (ADA) spins false narrative about National Academies (NASEM) review of NTP monograph
    From: Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
    4/8/21

    "Before diving into the NASEM review and what it really says, for those interested in the lawsuit FAN is currently trying to determine the genesis and legal status of a short unsigned statement purportedly from the NTP about its monograph which appeared in an EPA submission in the TSCA trial on Feb 22. We will give updates when we can.

    The ADA’s false claims about the NASEM review

    On February 11, the ADA issued a press release giving its response to the 2nd NASEM review. The ADA’s response is typical of the way the ADA has responded to any evidence of harm from water fluoridation for over 50 years. They simply state that “white is black.”

    The ADA claimed that the NASEM report mirrored its own claims that there have been few studies of fluoride neurotoxicity and those studies are “unreliable”, “conflicting”, and “subject to widespread interpretation” (ADA News, Feb 11, 2021).

    This ADA claim is the exact opposite of what both NASEM and the NTP have concluded. NTP found almost 500 studies of neurotoxicity, over 150 of which were in humans. NASEM urged NTP to highlight the fact that 44 out of 46 human IQ studies showed “marked consistency” in finding adverse effects. The NTP rated 29 of the human studies high quality. NASEM quibbled about the quality ratings of a few of them, but never said the studies were “unreliable” or “conflicting”. The NTP clearly stated that there were a great number of studies, including higher quality studies, and that the studies’ “consistency” and “robustness” were the reasons NTP reached a conclusion rating of presumed hazard. Here is how NTP explained their conclusion:

    The NTP conclusion that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans is supported by the extent, consistency, and robustness of the effect in the available data in children. Seventeen of the 19 lower risk-of-bias studies reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children across multiple populations. Meta-analyses conducted at the recommendation of NASEM based on their review of the September 6, 2019 draft monograph provide further support for the hazard conclusion of presumed (NASEM 2020). [emphasis in original; revised NTP monograph 2020, p 71]

    What the NASEM review actually said about the NTP monograph’s conclusion

    Most importantly, the NASEM review did not challenge the scientific basis of the NTP’s presumed hazard conclusion. The NASEM committee’s recommendations on specific issues, when considered altogether, would not lead to any change in the presumed hazard conclusion, and if anything, they would strengthen it rather than weaken it. The NAS review even suggested ways the evidence could be used to more strongly support its conclusion, and urged NTP to be as clear as possible about why it had reached its conclusion.

    Here is an example of how NASEM applauded the NTP’s meta-analyses and emphasized how they support a conclusion of presumed hazard:

    Evaluation of the Meta-Analysis

    The committee found the meta-analysis to be a valuable addition to the monograph and acknowledges the tremendous amount of work that was required. The meta-analysis applied standard, broadly accepted methods, and the data shown in Figure A5-1 and the related evaluations are especially informative (NTP 2020a, p. 235). As noted in the revised monograph, 44 of the 46 studies represented in that figure had effect estimates to the left of zero—results that indicate an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ. Those results highlight the marked consistency in the current epidemiologic literature on fluoride and childhood IQ. The subgroup analyses also add considerable strength to the monograph.” [emphasis added; NASEM 2021, p 11]

    NASEM did, however, strongly castigate NTP for continuing to include claims that the evidence at exposures below 1.5 mg/L were “inconsistent” and “unclear”. NASEM said that NTP had not done any rigorous dose-response analyses so should not offer any conclusions about what dose may or may not be low enough to avoid neurotoxic harm:

    Drawing conclusions about the effects of low fluoride exposures (less than 1.5 mg/L) would require a full dose–response assessment, which would include at a minimum more detailed analyses of dose–response patterns, ... [and numerous other analyses] ... Those analyses fall outside the scope of the NTP monograph, which focuses on hazard identification and not dose–response assessment. Given the substantial concern regarding health implications of various fluoride exposures, comments or inferences that are not based on rigorous analyses should be avoided. [emphasis in original; NASEM 2021, p 14]

    FAN agrees with NASEM that the NTP should not be making pronouncements about the impacts of low levels of fluoride without a formal risk assessment based on a dose-response analysis. If NTP had followed this NASEM suggestion they would have eliminated a key weakness of both drafts of the NTP’s monograph: the flawed notion that there is a threshold in the quality of evidence at 1.5 ppm. Such a threshold does not exist.

    Indeed, FAN used the data gathered by NTP from dozens of higher quality human studies and applied the types of rigorous dose-response analysis methods cited by NASEM and commonly used by EPA. FAN found that the evidence for loss of IQ at exposures below 1.5 mg/L is at least as strong as that for the studies above 1.5 mg/L. FAN’s dose-response analysis also found the highest quality studies showed IQ loss from exposures at and below 0.7 mg/L, the current level for artificial water fluoridation in the USA. Other dose-response assessments have also found a substantial risk of IQ loss from exposures at or below 0.7 mg/L (Hirzy et al 2016; Grandjean et al 2020, preprint).

    Another example of the ADA’s deceptive descriptions of the NTP systematic review arises in a wildly out-of-context quote they use that describes an NTP 2016 report on just animal studies, rather than the much more comprehensive NTP 2020 report that found the human evidence was much stronger than the animal evidence. The ADA quotes a reference to the 2016 animal review finding a “low-to-moderate level of evidence” in animal studies, and misapplies that to the large body of human evidence that is the foundation of the current NTP review. Furthermore, even if there were only “low-to-moderate” animal study evidence and no human studies existed, with other chemicals the NTP has often considered such evidence sufficient to conclude they pose a presumed hazard.

    Paul Connett, PhD
    Director
    Fluoride Action Network"

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

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

    Constance (9th April 2021), Ewan (10th April 2021), Icare (9th April 2021), Journeyman (10th April 2021), mountain_jim (28th April 2021)

  23. Link to Post #112
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    UPDATE From Fluoride Action Network
    4/9/21
    (Yesterday's bulletin posted just above. I did not embed all the hyperlinks, but this article should be posted on FAN's webisite in a day or two at: http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/)

    "*Three important hyperlinks in yesterday's bulletin are no longer working properly. We have updated those links in this version, and added a few more. Thanks for your patience.

    American Dental Association spins false narrative about National Academies (NASEM)
    review of National Toxicology Program Monograph

    Before diving into the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine's (NASEM) review and what it really says, for those interested in the lawsuit FAN is currently trying to determine the genesis and legal status of a short unsigned statement purportedly from the National Toxicology Program (NTP) about its monograph which appeared in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submission in the TSCA trial on Feb 22. We will give updates when we can.

    The ADA’s false claims about the NASEM review

    On February 11, the American Dental Association (ADA) gave its response to the 2nd NASEM review. The ADA’s response is typical of the way the ADA has responded to any evidence of harm from water fluoridation for over 50 years. They simply state that “white is black.”

    The ADA claimed that the NASEM report mirrored its own claims that there have been few studies of fluoride neurotoxicity and those studies are “unreliable”, “conflicting”, and “subject to widespread interpretation” (ADA News, Feb 11, 2021).

    This ADA claim is the exact opposite of what both NASEM and the NTP have concluded. NTP found almost 500 studies of neurotoxicity, over 150 of which were in humans. NASEM urged NTP to highlight the fact that 44 out of 46 human IQ studies showed “marked consistency” in finding adverse effects. The NTP rated 29 of the human studies high quality. NASEM quibbled about the quality ratings of a few of them, but never said the studies were “unreliable” or “conflicting”. The NTP clearly stated that there were a great number of studies, including higher quality studies, and that the studies’ “consistency” and “robustness” were the reasons NTP reached a conclusion rating of presumed hazard. Here is how NTP explained their conclusion:

    The NTP conclusion that fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans is supported by the extent, consistency, and robustness of the effect in the available data in children. Seventeen of the 19 lower risk-of-bias studies reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores in children across multiple populations. Meta-analyses conducted at the recommendation of NASEM based on their review of the September 6, 2019 draft monograph provide further support for the hazard conclusion of presumed (NASEM 2020). [emphasis in original; revised NTP monograph 2020, p 71]

    What the NASEM review actually said about the NTP monograph’s conclusion

    Most importantly, the NASEM review did not challenge the scientific basis of the NTP’s presumed hazard conclusion. The NASEM committee’s recommendations on specific issues, when considered altogether, would not lead to any change in the presumed hazard conclusion, and if anything, they would strengthen it rather than weaken it. The NAS review even suggested ways the evidence could be used to more strongly support its conclusion, and urged NTP to be as clear as possible about why it had reached its conclusion.

    Here is an example of how NASEM applauded the NTP’s meta-analyses and emphasized how they support a conclusion of presumed hazard:

    Evaluation of the Meta-Analysis

    The committee found the meta-analysis to be a valuable addition to the monograph and acknowledges the tremendous amount of work that was required. The meta-analysis applied standard, broadly accepted methods, and the data shown in Figure A5-1 and the related evaluations are especially informative (NTP 2020, p. 235). As noted in the revised monograph, 44 of the 46 studies represented in that figure had effect estimates to the left of zero—results that indicate an association between higher fluoride exposures and lower IQ. Those results highlight the marked consistency in the current epidemiological literature on fluoride and childhood IQ. The subgroup analyses also add considerable strength to the monograph.” [emphasis added; NASEM 2021, p 11]

    NASEM did, however, strongly castigate NTP for continuing to include claims that the evidence at exposures below 1.5 mg/L were “inconsistent” and “unclear”. NASEM said that NTP had not done any rigorous dose-response analyses so should not offer any conclusions about what dose may or may not be low enough to avoid neurotoxic harm:

    Drawing conclusions about the effects of low fluoride exposures (less than 1.5 mg/L) would require a full dose–response assessment, which would include at a minimum more detailed analyses of dose–response patterns, ... [and numerous other analyses] ... Those analyses fall outside the scope of the NTP monograph, which focuses on hazard identification and not dose–response assessment. Given the substantial concern regarding health implications of various fluoride exposures, comments or inferences that are not based on rigorous analyses should be avoided. [emphasis in original; NASEM 2021, p 14]

    FAN agrees with NASEM that the NTP should not be making pronouncements about the impacts of low levels of fluoride without a formal risk assessment based on a dose-response analysis. If NTP had followed this NASEM suggestion they would have eliminated a key weakness of both drafts of the NTP’s monograph: the flawed notion that there is a threshold in the quality of evidence at 1.5 ppm. Such a threshold does not exist.

    Indeed, FAN used the data gathered by NTP from dozens of higher quality human studies and applied the types of rigorous dose-response analysis methods cited by NASEM and commonly used by EPA. FAN found that the evidence for loss of IQ at exposures below 1.5 mg/L is at least as strong as that for the studies above 1.5 mg/L. FAN’s dose-response analysis also found the highest quality studies showed IQ loss from exposures at and below 0.7 mg/L, the current level for artificial water fluoridation in the USA. Other dose-response assessments have also found a substantial risk of IQ loss from exposures at or below 0.7 mg/L (Hirzy et al 2016; Grandjean et al 2020, preprint).

    Another example of the ADA’s deceptive descriptions of the NTP systematic review arises in a wildly out-of-context quote they use that describes an NTP 2016 report on just animal studies, rather than the much more comprehensive NTP 2020 report that found the human evidence was much stronger than the animal evidence. The ADA quotes a reference to the 2016 animal review finding a “low-to-moderate level of evidence” in animal studies, and misapplies that to the large body of human evidence that is the foundation of the current NTP review. Furthermore, even if there were only “low-to-moderate” animal study evidence and no human studies existed, with other chemicals the NTP has often considered such evidence sufficient to conclude they pose a presumed hazard.

    Paul Connett, PhD
    Director
    Fluoride Action Network "
    Last edited by onawah; 10th April 2021 at 02:05.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Alecs (8th June 2021), Ewan (10th April 2021), mountain_jim (28th April 2021)

  25. Link to Post #113
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Federal Fluoridation Lawsuit Update
    Fluoride Action Network via salsalabs.org
    4/27/21
    from: Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org

    "Good news! Last Thursday, the Judge granted Plaintiffs’ motion to add additional standing evidence into the case, which should help fully satisfy the Judge’s prior concerns on this issue and ensure that the case is resolved on the merits. The Judge also made clear that he is very keen to read the National Toxicology Program’s finalized report on fluoride's neurotoxicity, which is expected sometime later this year, as well as other new science on the issue, including an upcoming pooled analysis of the NIH-funded birth cohort studies. In order to consider this new science, the Judge discussed having a “phase 2 trial” where Plaintiffs and EPA can introduce additional expert testimony on the NTP report and other developments. The next status hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30AM (Pacific US).

    While the plaintiffs believe they have already presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that fluoridation poses an unacceptable risk, they appreciate the seriousness with which the Judge is taking the case, and his commitment to having the science govern the result.

    Since its formation in 2000, the Fluoride Action Network has believed that when scientists and the public learn of the poor science underpinning water fluoridation, that the practice would fall under its own weight. That belief has steadily grown as more and more scientific research has shown the dangers fluoride poses to a number of tissues including the teeth, the bone, the kidneys, the endocrine system and particularly the brain. All of this science we have meticulously cataloged in our health database and shared with visitors to our website. But this educational exercise has not been a simple matter – against us every step of the way has been an entrenched lobby, including both dental interests and the public health bureaucracies in largely English speaking countries – who refuse to give up this practice. For them fluoridation has always been and always will be “safe and effective." No amount of science will change their minds. Given a level playing ground they would be laughed out of court. Hitherto, they have had the power to convince the world that "black is white." But now we are actually in court and it is a level playing field!

    In light of this, the Judge’s keen interest in following the science has been, and remains, a welcome development. Although he didn’t say it, the Judge’s comments suggest that he doesn’t want to hear any more obfuscation from EPA in lieu of science, and that they can’t win this case by simply appealing to their authority.

    Thank you,

    Paul Connett, PhD
    Director
    Fluoride Action Network"
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Alecs (8th June 2021), Ewan (28th April 2021), mountain_jim (28th April 2021)

  27. Link to Post #114
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Judge Issues Written Court Order Dismantling EPA Arguments
    Mid-year Mini-fundraiser Begins Today
    From: Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
    info@fluoridealert.org https://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_6-8-21/

    "Judge Edward Chen has issued his written court order following the April 22nd hearing for our federal litigation against the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Court awarded plaintiffs yet another big legal victory, granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.

    This order is significant for several reasons: it strengthens our standing in the eyes of the Court, it shows the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, and it sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather then restart the multi-year petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

    The court will continue to hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program’s monograph is published, as well as at least two additional studies expected to be published later this year. Included will be a benchmark dose analysis (used for dose-response analyses to support chemical risk assessments and regulatory actions) on the Mexican and Canadian cohorts (Bashash, 2017, 2018; Green, 2019 and Till, 2020) showing that harm is caused at fluoride levels in drinking water much lower than 0.7ppm. Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22nd status hearing the Judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, "As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence."

    The court order indicated that once the Judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the petitioners (FAN) will be able to re-submit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made.

    The next status hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30AM (Pacific US).

    READ THE COURT ORDER

    We Need Your Help!

    The stakes are high, as our TSCA case could be our best chance to end fluoridation in the United States, leading to a domino-effect around the world. While this ruling gave us another important legal victory (one of many, which is a good sign), it could potentially increase our expenses if the proposed "second phase" of the trial takes place. Rather than scramble at the last minute to raise funds, with your help now we can make sure we have the funding necessary for our expert witnesses to prepare for additional depositions and testimony in court. This last hurdle will be a critical moment for us since it will focus on a politicized NTP report and a game-changing benchmark dose analysis showing harm at very low levels.

    It has taken more than 20 years of effort from FAN to bring us to this point. It took the development of our extensive website in the early days. It took the creation of our comprehensive health database (larger than any government had put together on fluoride’s toxicity). It took countless submissions to government agencies and the translation of many Chinese and other foreign language studies, and much more. None of this could have happened without wonderful supporters like you. We have forged this precedent-setting path together. Your continued support, contributions, advocacy work, and sharing of our cause and legal case has also played a critical role in making this happen, and we thank you.

    It's also important to note that our work together won’t end with the judge’s decision. Whether we win or lose this trial, our important education efforts will have to continue to ensure the ruling influences public policy. To this end, we are in the middle of a major upgrade of our website in an effort to make our huge data-base more accessible and easier to use. We are also constantly expanding our educational and advocacy work, targeting federal agencies, state legislatures, and countless local councils and electorates debating the issue. As more science has been published showing harm from fluoridation, the dental lobby has doubled their lobbying efforts, and so must we.

    These developments, along with our mini trial funding needs, is why today we are launching our semi-annual fundraiser. If you are as excited as we are about the upcoming finale to the trial and the opportunity to have our website's resources and tools at your fingertips like never before -- both the culmination of over two decades of work -- then please consider contributing directly to these efforts. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation."
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Alecs (8th June 2021), Ewan (27th June 2021), mountain_jim (8th June 2021)

  29. Link to Post #115
    UK Avalon Member Journeyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    9th September 2020
    Language
    English
    Posts
    1,170
    Thanks
    5,291
    Thanked 9,202 times in 1,145 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Can anyone recommend a fluoride free toothpaste here in the UK?

  30. Link to Post #116
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    VIDEO: Fluoride/IQ Study Author Presents Findings
    From Fluoride Action Network <info@fluoridealert.org> via salsalabs.org
    info@fluoridealert.org
    6/26/21

    "One of the most important videos on fluoride and fluoridation -- at least over the past year or so -- is an hour-long presentation and Q&A from this past March, hosted by the Wisconsin Environmental Health Network. The presentation is by Professor Christine Till, PhD on her landmark studies looking at fetal and infant fluoride exposure. She is an award-winning researcher, adjunct scientist to the Neurosciences and Mental Health Program at SickKids, and associate professor of Psychology at York University.

    Dr. Till is lead author of several significant fluoride studies, including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study (Green 2019), the 2020 study, Fluoride exposure from infant formula and child IQ in a Canadian birth cohort, and the 2018 study, Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada.



    Please share this video with neighbors and local decision makers. Even the most skeptical ought to find it informative and difficult to refute.

    Thank you,

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

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

    Ewan (27th June 2021)

  32. Link to Post #117
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Updates on the Fight to End Water Fluoridation
    by Dr. Joseph Mercola
    July 03, 2021
    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...9-5c2827bf6b82



    STORY AT-A-GLANCE

    Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), provides promising updates on the historic lawsuit that FAN filed against the U.S. EPA to end water fluoridation
    The judge hearing the case plans to review two things before making a decision: the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) final review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity when it comes out, along with a benchmark dose study (BMD) that was recently published on fluoride’s effects on IQ levels
    This landmark study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ in children by one point
    A Swedish study published in April 2021 found that rates of hip fractures among postmenopausal women were higher in regions with higher levels of fluoride in drinking water
    The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline
    If you’re concerned about the health effects of fluoride, please support FAN with your tax-deductible donation today; Mercola.com will match your donation, dollar for dollar, up to $25,000, during Fluoride Awareness Week

    It’s Fluoride Awareness Week here at Mercola.com, and I spoke with Paul Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), for the occasion. Connett has been instrumental in catalyzing the movement to remove fluoride — which is neurotoxic — from water supplies in the U.S. as well as internationally, and he shared some exciting updates that have us moving closer to a post-water-fluoridation world.

    First up is an update to the historic lawsuit that FAN filed against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in federal court. In 2016, FAN and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

    The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting FAN’s lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Although the EPA filed a motion to dismiss the case, the motion was denied by the court in 2017.1 The trial was held in June 2020, and while the judge has yet to make a final ruling,2 it’s moving in a positive direction.

    “We had a recent hearing in which the judge denied the latest effort by the EPA to get the case dropped,” Connett said in our interview. “He's ruled in our favor several times now on key decisions. What he made clear is he's very interested in the science of this issue. He wants to wait before he makes his ruling.”

    Judge Plans to Review New Fluoride Study Showing IQ Reduction
    The judge hearing the case plans to review two things before making a decision: the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) final review on fluoride’s neurotoxicity when it comes out, along with a benchmark dose study (BMD) study that was recently published on fluoride’s effects on IQ levels.

    “So, half of what the judge wants to see has come out,” Connett said. Dr. Philippe Grandjean, an internationally known expert in environmental epidemiology, with ties to both Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Southern Denmark, is the EPA’s go-to person on mercury’s neurotoxicity3 and he has warned about the risks of exposing children to neurotoxicants during early life and in utero.

    Grandjean and colleagues just published a landmark study showing that exposure to very low levels of fluoride during pregnancy impairs the brain development of the child.4 The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point.

    Not only do the findings suggest that water-fluoride recommendations meant to protect pregnant women and children should be revised,5 but they show that there’s significant risk even at current fluoridation levels. Connett said:

    “What they found, they would predict a lowering of IQ in children if the pregnant mother's urine was at 0.2 milligrams per liter … To put that into perspective, the average in north California and in Canada, two studies, is between 0.8 and one part per million. So in other words … four to five times more.

    So you could predict (because this is a linear relationship), the average loss of IQ for children born in the United States, if their mother drinks fluoridated tap water, is going to be between four and five points, and that's massive when you look at the impact on a whole population. Massive.”

    As Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign director, previously stated, “It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.”

    The trial is moving along in a positive direction, but they’re not out of the woods yet. Connett noted that there is evidence from confidential sources that pressure has been put upon the NTP, so there is concern that their findings could be whitewashed. “Once again, we might be confronted with the best science being nullified by political interference,” he said.

    Expert Research Highlights Fluoride’s Dangers to Children
    One of the experts who testified during the trial was Dr. Bruce Lanphear, who is known as “the EPA's ‘go-to man’ on lead's neurotoxicity, and his work shaped their lead standards.”6 Lanphear’s JAMA Pediatrics study, published in 2019, found that every 1 mg/L increase in fluoride in Canadian pregnant women’s urine was linked to a 4.5-point decrease in IQ in their male children.7

    The study is one of several NIH-funded studies8 that Connett believes will be key to the case. “Fabulous methodology, the best methodology to date,” Connett said. Other NIH-funded studies include:

    •In a study of 213 Mexican mother-child pairs, higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)9

    •Babies fed formula mixed with fluoridated water had IQs that were lower than babies fed formula mixed with nonfluoridated water, and researchers noted, “Consumption of formula reconstituted with fluoridated water can lead to excessive fluoride intake.”10

    According to Connett, “So the only difference was whether these children got fluoridated tap water in their formula when they were babies. A staggering 13 IQ points dropped, staggering.”

    •In a study of 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico, higher prenatal exposure to fluoride, in the range of exposure levels reported for pregnant women in other areas, was associated with lower cognitive function in the children at ages 4 and 6 to 12 years.11

    The collective exposure of children to fluoride in drinking water is a major public health threat. Going back to Grandjean’s study showing that even very low exposures to fluoride in utero are toxic, Connett explained:

    “He [Grandjean] said, right now the damage to children's brains in the United States is probably greater for fluoride than it is for lead, arsenic and mercury. Now he's not saying that atom for atom fluoride is more toxic than lead, mercury or arsenic …

    He's just saying, if you look at what's happening today, fluoride is doing more damage to our kids’ brains than these other well-known neurotoxic substances, lead, mercury and arsenic. The reason of course is the exposure. There are millions of children that are being exposed to fluoridated tap water on a daily basis. Millions of pregnant women.”

    Damaging People From ‘Womb to Tomb’
    It’s not only children who are at risk from fluoride’s adverse effects. A Swedish study published in April 2021 found that rates of hip fractures among postmenopausal women were higher in regions with higher levels of fluoride in drinking water.12

    In this case, the fluoride was naturally occurring in the water at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L, making their total exposures similar to those of women living in regions with artificial water fluoridation. While rates of all types of bone fractures were elevated in areas with higher fluoride in drinking water, the link to hip fractures was particularly strong. Connett said:

    “So they worked out their individual exposure to fluoride and, low and behold, they found that postmenopausal women drinking the same range of fluoride concentration that we have in fluoridated communities in the United States had a 50% increased prevalence of hip fracture.

    As you know, hip fracture is very serious. We have about 300,000 hip fractures in the elderly in the United States and 30% of those women who get those hip fractures are dead within a year. Many of them do not regain an independent existence …

    Hip fractures are a very serious issue for elderly people. So we may be damaging people from womb to tomb. Damaging the fetus and then damaging our bones over a lifetime, which has fatal consequences when you reach old age.”

    FAN Catches Head of CDC’s Oral Health Division in a Lie
    The CDC’s Division of Oral Health is still actively promoting water fluoridation, and the CDC just recently gave a large grant to Mississippi to do so, Connett said. “Now let me explain who they are,” he said, referring to the Division of Oral Health:

    “There's only about 30 people who are interested in teeth, and they're nearly all dentally trained, and they work hand in hand with the ADA [American Dental Association]. So they're a self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of supporting fluoridation, and they heavily influence local decisions. So, although the federal government doesn't accept responsibility for it, they're encouraging communities to do it …

    This Oral Health Division has worldwide influence.
    There's not a day that goes by that somebody, some doctor, some dentist, some public health official, some politician says that fluoridation is one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century. So enormous influence, but no responsibility for harm.”

    CDC’s Oral Health Division is primarily made up of those trained in dentistry — not specialists looking at the effects of fluoride on the brain and body. “Let's have a group at the CDC that promotes fluoridation based upon what they think it does for teeth, and let's have another group of people that, regardless of promotion, is looking very carefully at all the evidence which indicates harm to the bone, to the brains and so on,” Connett said.

    FAN also caught Casey Hannon, director of the CDC’s Division of Oral Health in a lie. According to Connett, “He said, ‘These NIH-funded studies were done at levels much higher than the water fluoridation programs.’ Absolute nonsense. They were done either at doses equivalent to what people in fluoridated communities get, or they were actually done in fluoridated communities themselves.”

    This prompted FAN and over 100 professionals to write a letter to the new CDC director, Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “We weren't after punishment of Casey Hannon, the head of the Oral Health Division. We were after a change of policy. He's only doing what all the previous heads of the Oral Health Division have done, which is to promote fluoridation as being safe and effective, safe and effective, safe and effective.”

    FAN is hopeful that with a new person in the position, being informed about the latest fluoridation/IQ studies, positive changes will continue. Already, they’ve gotten a response from Dr. Karen Hacker, the director of CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.

    “The important point for us is that we've now got engagement at the CDC above the Oral Health Division. We don't get these platitudes about how wonderful it [fluoridation] is for teeth,” Connett said.

    Help End the Practice of Water Fluoridation
    The level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

    “Fluoride is following the same trajectory as lead,” Connett said, “because basically, whether or not you found a neurotoxic effect for lead was simply a function of how well designed your study was. The better your study was designed, the more likely you were to find that lead was lowering IQ. The same thing is happening with fluoride.”

    If you’re concerned about the health effects of fluoride, please support FAN with your tax-deductible donation today. Mercola.com will match your donation, dollar for dollar, up to $25,000, during Fluoride Awareness Week.
    How will FAN use the funds? They’re expecting a mini trial to come up soon, and they’ll need to provide expert witnesses to give commentary on the final version of the NTP report and the BMD analysis. They’re also revamping their website, FluorideAlert.org, to make it easier for people to use and access information (especially for those who do so via cell phone).

    “We have the largest health database in the world, bigger than many governments, maybe all governments, on the health effects of fluoride. We want to make that more accessible,” Connett said. FAN also uses funding to help communities end water fluoridation or keep it out of their cities:

    “Right now, Spokane [Washington] is trying to keep fluoridation out, I think for the fourth time. Calgary is trying to put it back in … They're claiming that tooth decay has gone up dramatically in Calgary since they stopped fluoridation, and that’s simply not true.

    … our mission is to get this information to as many people as possible, so with their help we can take this information to the power structures. We're doing it in federal court and we're doing it with our website. Right now, we're doing it by engaging with people at the CDC above its Oral Health Division.”

    On a practical level, if you live in an area with fluoridated water, you can protect your health by filtering your water. While Connett travels to a natural spring to collect pure water every few weeks — the ideal solution — this won’t be possible for many people.

    Because fluoride is a very small molecule, it’s difficult to filter out once added to your water supply, but reverse osmosis filtration is effective for fluoride removal.

    The simplest, most effective and most cost-effective strategy is to not put fluoride in the water to begin with, but while we work to end water fluoridation, you do not want to expose yourself or your family to fluoride, so be sure to find a fluoride-free source of pure drinking water



    On June 28 to July 4, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There's no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a "chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”



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

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

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

    Together, Let's Help FAN Get to the Finish Line
    This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our helpSo, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the tenth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation."

    - Sources and References

    1 Fluoride Action Network, Trial Fact Sheet
    2 Fluoride Action Network, TSCA Trial
    3 Fluoride Action Network, The TSCA Trial, Day 3, June 11, 2020
    4, 5 Fluoride Action Network June 8, 2021
    6 Earth Justice July 2, 2018
    7 JAMA Pediatrics August 19, 2019
    8 Fluoride Action Network, Appendix C, The NIH-Funded Studies
    9 Environ Int. 2018 Dec;121(Pt 1):658-666. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.017. Epub 2018 Oct 10
    10 Environment International January 2020, Volume 134
    11 Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Sep 19;125(9):097017. doi: 10.1289/EHP655
    12 Environmental Health Perspectives April 6, 2021
    Short

    ­
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Ewan (4th July 2021), mountain_jim (3rd July 2021), Victoria (26th August 2021)

  34. Link to Post #118
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    THE CDC IS IGNORING FLUORIDE-BRAIN STUDIES: URGE CONGRESS TO HALT FUNDING TO ORAL HEALTH DIVISION
    Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | August 25, 2021
    https://fluoridealert.org/content/bu...MGgMYnVZhVfdCA
    (Hyperlinks in the article not embedded here)

    "On May 3, 2021, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sent a letter signed by over 100 professionals to the new Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Rochelle Walensky, asking for an objective internal review of the fetal and infant neurotoxicity science.

    On June 15, 2021, Dr. Karen Hacker sent an email reply.

    On June 23, 2021, FAN responded by requesting a meeting between Hacker and a collection of world leading fluoride neurotoxicity experts.

    On July 15, 2021, Dr. Hacker responded to our meeting request, expressing interest in a meeting, but asking us to follow up at a later date due to COVID being a higher priority for her office at the moment.

    On August 4, 2021, FAN sent a reply agreeing to follow up in several months, but pointing out that the CDC is blatantly ignoring our warnings about the new science on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and is currently utilizing many resources to promote, fund, and expand fluoridation programs in the US. We have asked her to suspend these promotional programs and direct staff–not involved with COVID–to initiate a review of the neurotoxicity science on fluoride.

    How You Can Help!
    We’re making progress, but to keep this pressure on the CDC we are utilizing a multi-step strategy with which we need your help. In June, we asked all of you to use our automated email system to send our original letter to the CDC along to your Congressional members in the hopes of generating pressure on the CDC to respond. It worked, as thousands of letters were sent to Congress and the CDC replied back just a few days later.

    Today we are beginning a new campaign to end the funding of the Division of Oral Health at the CDC because their promotion of fluoridation is harming future generations. Money is the only language government agencies seem to understand.

    Please join us in asking our Congressional representatives to deny federal funding to the CDC’s Oral Health Division in their next operating budget until the CDC:
    Ends all promotion of fluoridation, and
    Agrees to send warnings to the most vulnerable populations to fluoride’s toxicity: pregnant women and bottle-fed infants. That these warnings be spread through TV and Radio advertisements, pediatricians and the WIC program.
    If the CDC does not come up with assurances that these steps will be taken, we urgently request Congress to follow up with hearings with CDC officials so that they can explain why they are not willing to take these reasonable and important steps to protect our children.

    Every email counts, and with your help and some patience I’m confident we can get the attention of Congressional staff and possibly members. We must. The stakes are too high for our children and future generations to be ignored any longer.

    SEND THE LETTER TO CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS+--https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/congressdefundfluoridationpromotion/index.html?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=2e86f5e0-39d9-4336-a84b-323503b09b0d

    For an even greater impact you can also send a personal email or (even better) a hardcopy letter to your Congressional representative
    https://fluoridealert.salsalabs.org/...b-323503b09b0d
    and your Senators
    https://www.senate.gov/senators/sena...b-323503b09b0d
    expressing your concerns about the unscientific and biased nature of the Oral Health Division’s promotion of fluoridation, and calling for an end of federal fluoridation funding.

    We greatly appreciate your continued support and efforts to end water fluoridation throughout the world.

    Thank you,

    Stuart Cooper
    Campaign Director
    Fluoride Action Network
    See all FAN bulletins online http://fluoridealert.org/about/archi...fan-bulletins/
    Last edited by onawah; 26th August 2021 at 17:50.
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    Ewan (26th August 2021), Victoria (26th August 2021)

  36. Link to Post #119
    Avalon Member I am B's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th January 2021
    Posts
    339
    Thanks
    1,619
    Thanked 3,000 times in 335 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    Hello fellow avalorians. The fluoride thing has been something in the back of my head (pun intended) for a long while now. When I was a kid, at school, we'd be made gargle fluoride every once in a while for "dental health". I already saw there was something crooked (I'm funny today) there back then, specially because we didn't do that often at all.
    Now, despite living in an underground water rich area, most (all) of the countless natural fountains in my area, dating back to the first iberian civilisations, have been closed for, again "health reasons". I have a neighbouring friend with a well at his place, so I have the clean water supply almost covered, but I'd also like a way to cleanse, if I happen to accidentally get it from other sources, like the salt Bill mentioned. (we have it here too)

    I'm afraid this could have been answered a thousand times, but for the love of mine I've been skimming through the forum a few times already, trying to use the search tool and all, but I can't manage to find whats the best and easiest solution for cleansing oneself. Or at least nothing definitive, if there is any.

    I've read about iodine, some species and teas, and I'm thinking about borax too. Is that it?

    Thank you very much!

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

    Ewan (26th August 2021), Victoria (26th August 2021)

  38. Link to Post #120
    United States Avalon Member onawah's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th March 2010
    Language
    English
    Posts
    22,190
    Thanks
    47,631
    Thanked 115,973 times in 20,621 posts

    Default Re: The Fluoride Thread

    There are some good protocols listed here (beyond the obvious: https://cleanersofterwater.com/fluor...science-based/
    as follows:
    "Boron (Borax)
    Boron’s element has been shown to help with skeletal fluorosis and is crucial for healthy bones and joints.

    According to research, ingesting 5-6 mg daily is the best for arthritis prevention even in old age.

    It is found in several organically grown foods, including several nuts, particularly hazelnuts, almonds and peanuts, apricots, grapes, prunes, dates, chickpeas, kidney beans, and lentils.

    Now, some people may prefer to supplement their diet to ensure sufficient daily boron intake. Among the most popular supplements: Borax, a rare but naturally occurring mineral that comprises boron and functions as a difluoride that leaches fluoride from the human body.

    Naturally, most people know borax as a multipurpose cleaner and detergent booster. Multiple online sources state that you could mix between 1/32 into 1/4 tsp of pure borax using a quarter gallon (1 litre) of water and sip that cocktail in tiny portions during the day. A pinch of sea salt is known to bring even more outstanding results.

    Yet, we want to distance ourselves from these claims, not because we feel that borax won’t help with fluoride detoxification.

    We do not like to make false statements regarding the purity of any arbitrary borax product taken from the supermarket. Not all of them are of food-grade quality.

    In the borax research, test subjects were treated with 300 to 1,100 milligrams of borax each day for three weeks with excellent results. However, the scientists concluded that “further studies are essential to (...) determine whether high doses of borax can be administered to individuals over an elongated period without causing subtle negative effects to liver and kidneys”.

    The FDA has announced borax is prohibited for use in foods. The European Chemical Agency has categorized the mineral as reprotoxic.

    What happens if you got a boron overdose?

    In excess, boron can have detrimental effects, inhibits lots of enzymatic activities in the human organism. How much is too much? According to a study, unwanted side effects can begin to happen in the lower gram range, which is many, many times greater than what you may ingest with a regular diet - even if you add a supplement.

    Tamarind
    Too much fluoride can cause metabolic disorders. So, it is excellent that in a 2012 research, scientists discovered that tamarind leaf powder served to revive lipid, carbohydrate, and antioxidant metabolism in rats exposed to elevated levels of fluoride in drinking water.

    Another research -- this time with people -- has demonstrated that tamarind ingestion (10g daily) contributes to a substantial increase in fluoride excretion through urine.

    Tamarind has been used in Ayurvedic medicine for centuries. Pulp, bark, seeds, leaves, and fruits could be turned into teas, teas & spices, tinctures, and extracts.

    Remove Fl from Your System
    Curcumin (Turmeric)
    Curcumin gives the spice turmeric its yellow colour. Additionally, it is referred to as an anti-inflammatory powerhouse.

    What’s more, when ingested in large enough dosages, it appears to have a neuroprotective effect. In an experiment with rats, curcumin supplementation has been shown to decrease the toxicity of fluoride and its brain-damaging consequences significantly.

    Other studies have demonstrated that curcumin treatment is very likely to protect your kidneys from injury due to fluoride overload and stop genotoxic effects, meaning harm caused to a genetic material like DNA. Damaged genetic material leads to mutations and possibly cancer.

    Our Recommendation: Add raw garlic or turmeric/curcumin powder into your foods, smoothies, and juices.

    Iodine
    Iodine is essential for our bodies. It plays a significant role in cell metabolism and is required for the production of thyroid hormones. Supplementation with iodine contributes to increased urinary excretion of fluoride.

    What’s more, fluoride in drinking water is not as toxic when accompanied by adequate iodine intake.

    Simultaneously, it would be best to watch out because a lot of iodine can do more damage than good. Especially people who have a preexisting thyroid disease have a higher chance of developing a thyroid disorder. The same holds for the elderly, infants, and fetuses.

    In general, the suggested daily amount of iodine intake for adults is 150 μg.

    If you find it challenging to reach this threshold, consider adding more sea fish and sea vegetables -- think kelp or wakame --to your diet. Other iodine-rich foods include eggs, beans, and potatoes. As a last resort, take a look at iodine supplements that are widely available and relatively cheap.

    Vitamin C
    A study with Fluorosis patients indicates that, even in excessive dosages, vitamin C doesn’t influence urinary fluoride excretion.

    However, compared to curcumin, vitamin C may help stop your kidneys from being harmed by an excessive amount of fluoride intake.

    The best natural vitamin C sources? Try kale, acerola, broccoli, kiwis, lemons.

    Selenium + Zinc
    In an animal study, selenium is an “antidote representative against fluorosis,” protecting mice’s brains against the side effects of sodium fluoride in their drinking water.

    What’s more, another study indicates that research rats exposed to fluoride drinking water with a blend of sodium selenite and zinc sulfate (contains selenium) can counteract kidney damage.

    Interestingly enough, both antioxidants are more effective when administered together than alone.

    Great sources for selenium are brazil nut and more or less all sorts of sea fish and meat.

    Zinc can also be found in nuts, meat, and fish, and that seeds.

    Calcium + Magnesium
    Typically Between 70 to 90 per cent of the fluoride which you ingest is consumed in your intestines. The precise percentage depends upon the kind of fluoride. For highly soluble sodium fluoride, nearly 100 per cent is consumed.

    The good news is that it is possible to lower this percentage by adding more calcium and magnesium to your diet. Lower magnesium and calcium intake contribute to enhanced fluoride absorption.

    Where to find calcium and magnesium? Avocado, seeds, nuts, fish, whole grains, bananas, and leafy greens.

    fluoride detox
    Chelation Therapy?
    The Objective of A chelation treatment is the detoxification of heavy metals. Fluoride, however, is a salt. Whether chelation has some effect on fluoride content in the body, we don’t know. We could not find any scientific study for or against it.

    Liver Cleanse?
    Among the many functions of the liver is to break down toxic substances. It’s the primary organ for the detoxification of our bodies. However, if so-called “liver cleanses” actually help with fluoride detox remains to be shown.

    Saunas?
    Dry Saunas are likely to release sodium fluoride stored in fatty tissues. But according to our study, there’s not any such thing as fluoride in adipose tissue.

    Detox Side Effects
    Many online sources state that detoxing from fluoride can cause symptoms such as headaches and sluggishness. Naturally, they may talk from personal experience. At least we could not find any scientific data to support these claims.

    Nonetheless, it makes excellent sense to drink loads of un-fluoride water when detoxing to ensure that all excess fluoride with flushed out."

    Quote Posted by I am B (here)
    Hello fellow avalorians. The fluoride thing has been something in the back of my head (pun intended) for a long while now. When I was a kid, at school, we'd be made gargle fluoride every once in a while for "dental health". I already saw there was something crooked (I'm funny today) there back then, specially because we didn't do that often at all.
    Now, despite living in an underground water rich area, most (all) of the countless natural fountains in my area, dating back to the first iberian civilisations, have been closed for, again "health reasons". I have a neighbouring friend with a well at his place, so I have the clean water supply almost covered, but I'd also like a way to cleanse, if I happen to accidentally get it from other sources, like the salt Bill mentioned. (we have it here too)

    I'm afraid this could have been answered a thousand times, but for the love of mine I've been skimming through the forum a few times already, trying to use the search tool and all, but I can't manage to find whats the best and easiest solution for cleansing oneself. Or at least nothing definitive, if there is any.

    I've read about iodine, some species and teas, and I'm thinking about borax too. Is that it?

    Thank you very much!
    Each breath a gift...
    _____________

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

    avid (26th August 2021), Ewan (26th August 2021), I am B (26th August 2021)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 1 6 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