Fluoridation: A 75-Year-Old Blunder

January 25, 2020 -- Seventy-five years ago, dentists convinced government officials to experiment on every Grand Rapids, Michigan, resident without individual informed-consent to prove that (not if) dosing the municipal water supply with untested sodium-fluoride chemicals would decay-proof children’s developing teeth. The experiment failed; but it spread across the country anyway.

Today, tooth decay is an epidemic among Grand Rapids' children.

"The typical child that comes in to us between 3 to 8, 9 years old and they could have anywhere from 3 to 20 cavities," said Dr. Darren Riopelle of Smile One who sees it first hand as a pediatric dentist. "It's a disease. If it's one tooth, it spreads to all the other teeth," reported WZZM

Last year more than 3,000 children in the Grand Rapids area had full mouth rehabilitation surgery under general anesthesia, they reported.

Planned to last 15 years, the 1945 Grand Rapids/Muskegon study ended prematurely after 6 ½ years.  Teeth of most children born into the experiment hadn’t even erupted yet. Muskegon, the planned non-fluoridated comparison city began fluoridating its water in 1951; thereby, negating the experiment. Fluoridationists changed the intent of the study,  further politicizing the experiment, by claiming water fluoridation reduced tooth decay in Grand Rapids by 65% in the 6 1/2 year experiment but failed to share the evidence that rates declined in non-fluoridated Muskegon concurrently.

Additional flaws are detailed In the book “Fluoridation - Errors and Omissions in Experimental Trials.”

Even the CDC admitted in 2001 that "Despite the strengths of early studies of the efficacy of naturally occurring fluoride in community drinking water, the limitations of these studies make summarizing the quality of evidence on community water fluoridation as Grade I inappropriate.”

An American Dental Association (ADA) news release admits, “many communities did not wait for the studies to be completed before starting their own fluoridation efforts.  By 1950, [fluoridation] had the full support of the ADA.”  Pressured by some Wisconsin dentists, the US Public Health Service recommended fluoridation in 1950, first; then the ADA and the American Medical Association followed.   All without safety evidence.

Grand Rapids citizens’ health was untested. But Newburgh NY’s healthy schoolchildren were examined in another 1945 human fluoridation experiment, also cut short prematurely. Newburgh school-kids suffered more bone defects, anemia and earlier female menstruation after 10 years (Journal of the American Dental Association, 1956). These findings were dismissed.

Pre-schoolers, adults and brain effects weren't examined.  Now 400 studies point to fluoride's neurological effects.

In 1951, those Wisconsin dentists strategized (“Proceedings 4^th annual conference of state dental directors”) on how to sell fluoridation using  misinformation and misdirection e.g. “We have told the public it works, so we can’t go back on that.” And “those research people, they can’t get over their feeling that you have to have test tube and animal research before you start applying it to human beings.”

Edward Bernays, the father of public relations, promoted fluoridation, consulting on strategy for the National Institute of Dental Research. “Selling fluoride was child’s play,” Bernays told the author of The Fluoride Deception. Bernays said citizens trust medical authority so he indoctinated doctors to believe in fluoridation without providing valid science and they, in turn, would and did pass that information to their patients, media and legislators - who failed to fact-check.  Modern day fluoridation PR flacks do the same. 

“Rational voices of opposition were suppressed from the start, reported Chemical & Engineering News in 1988. Science justified those fears. Fluoride isn’t a nutrient or required for healthy teeth, as early fluoridationists theorized and has serious side effects, rendering fluoridation unnecessary and harmful.

Valid criticism persists today, i.e. Legal Scholar Rita Barnett-Rose; Historian Catherine Carstairs, Phd; Social Scientist Brian Martin PhD; investigative reporters in Scientific American, Newsweek and ABC-TV.

Harvard Public Health Magazine reported in 2016 that "The [highly respected] Cochrane report also concluded that early scientific investigations on water fluoridation (most were conducted before 1975) were deeply flawed. “We had concerns about the methods used, or the reporting of the results, in … 97 percent of the studies,” the authors noted. 

Likewise, Dr. John Doull, toxicologist and chairman of the 2006 National Research Council's Fluoride Panel which reviewed fluoride toxicological studies told an investigative journalists writing for Scientific American:

     “What the committee found is that we’ve gone with the status quo regarding fluoride for many years—for too long, really—and now we need to take a fresh look. In the scientific community, people tend to think this is settled. I mean, when the U.S. surgeon general comes out and says this is one of the 10 greatest achievements of the 20th century, that’s a hard hurdle to get over. But when we looked at the studies that have been done, we found that many of these questions are unsettled and we have much less information than we should, considering how long this [fluoridation] has been going on. I think that’s why fluoridation is still being challenged so many years after it began. In the face of ignorance, controversy is rampant.”

Even earlier than that, a  National Institutes of Health (NIH) panel convened to evaluate tooth decay research and reported in  2001

"... the (NIH) panel was disappointed in the overall quality of the clinical data that it reviewed.  According to the panel, far too many studies were small, poorly described, or otherwise methodologically flawed" (over 560 studies evaluated fluoride use).

It seems not much as changed, The Journal of the American Dental Association just reported in 2020 that  abstracts published in dental journals don't always correctly reflect the actual research.

"Approximately one-third of the 75 RCT [Randomized Controlled Trials - the gold standard in research] abstracts published in high-impact dental journals in 2015 with nonsignificant outcomes presented with some form of spin, irrespective of funding type and journal impact factor."

Dental and other groups are celebrating fluoridation, ignoring strong fluoride/brain links,100 years of damning fluoride/kidney  ; thyroid research and evidence that cavity experience and inequities increased in the last 20 years despite widespread fluoridation contributing to US children’s fluoride-damaged teeth (fluorosis)

                                                    END 

Fluoride/Brain Research Alarming, Growing and Ignored

Fluoride/Brain Research is Alarming and Growing 

Gov't Never Studied Brain Effects Before Assuring Fluoridation Safety

Water fluoridation is linked to Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), according to a study in Environment International (December 2019), adding to the growing pile of scientific literature linking fluoride to neurological disorders e.g. lower IQ, Autism, poor memory, dementia, Alzheimer's Disease. Governments failed to determine fluoride's toxic brain effects before declaring fluoridation safe in the early 1900's. So one is left to wonder if fluoridation promoters are protecting their own  political viabiilitly rather than the health of Americans.

Unnecessary fluoride chemicals are added to public water supplies attempting to reduce tooth decay in tap water drinkers.  But evidence shows it's failing

Additionally, a study in the Janurary 2020 concludes: "low-moderate fluoride exposure is associated with alterations in thyroid function that may modify the association between fluoride and intelligence." (Environment International). This was predicted in a July 2019 University of Calgary public health fluoride report  which stated that thyroid disturbances may underlie fluoride effects on the developing brain.

 Also this Canadian report concludes: "There is some new emerging evidence that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be harmful to the brain development of children." 

"Fluoride is presumed to be a cognitive neurodevelopmental hazard to humans," concludes the US HHS's National Toxicology Program's monograph, Systematic Review of Fluoride Exposure and Neurodevelopmental and Cognitive Health Effects (Draft 9/6/2019).

NTP writes: "This conclusion is based on a consistent pattern of findings in human studies across several different populations showing that higher fluoride exposure is associated with decreased IQ or other cognitive impairments in children."

Six Mother-Child studies link fluoride to offspring's lower IQ. Sixty-one studies found elevated fluoride exposure associated with reduced IQ in humans.  Over 400 more fluoride/neurotoxic studies  support its biological plausibility. 

EPA admits that fluoride is a chemical with "Substantial Evidence of Developmental Neurotoxicity." 

At EPA's request, the National Research Council (NRC) reviewed fluoride toxicology research to conclude in 2006, "fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."  EPA was advised to reduce the safe fluoride levels allowed in public water supplies based on NRC guidance. But since NRC's review, hundreds of fluoride/brain studies were published; yet EPA has stil taken no action.

Based on this evidence and more, consumer groups are suing the EPA to recognize fluoride's brain effects when setting safe water fluoride levels now based solely on fluoride's adverse bone and teeth effects. The Trial date is currently set for April 2020.

Government agencies and organized dentistry were irresponsible to instigate fluoridation without brain-safety evidence. Instead, they continue to protect fluoridation and their own carelessness by demanding more research.  Shouldn't that have been done 75 years ago?

The precautionary principle dictates that, at least, pregnant women should be advised to avoid ingesting fluoride. The fetus derives no benefit from fluoride, anyway. Brains don't need fluoride. At best, put fluoride on your teeth not in your brain or the water.

Fluoride is NOT a nutrient or essential for healthy teeth as it was mistakingly assumed to be when fluoridation was introduced in 1945, meaning that consuming a fluoride-free diet will NOT cause tooth decay.

Over 30 studies in the last couple of years ignite even more doubt of fluoridation's safety https://fluoridedangers.blogspot.com/2019/01/fluoride-disparaging-studies-rarely.html

Fluoridation really doesn't make any sense.

                                                        ENDIT

Fluoride's Link to Kidney Disease is 100 Years Old, Researcher Reports

A new study by Mt. Sinai School of Medicine researchers reports fluoride may diminish kidney function; but that’s not new.  A review of nearly 100 years of research shows excess fluoride leads to kidney damage and dysfunction was  published in Human and Experimental Toxicology, by  RW Dammarane in 2018.

Dammarane lists 45 studies which show with certainty that there are toxic effects of excess fluorides on animal kidneys and 21 studies confirm the toxic effects of fluoride on human kidneys.

Dammarane writes, “In humans, fluoride intake of more than 6 mg per day can lead to retention of fluoride in the kidneys.”

Alarmingly, studies already show adults can reach 6.6 mg/day from all sources when their water is fluoridated at “optimal” (0.7 to 1.2 mg/L) levels, according to a  US Health and Human Services 1991 report.  Brewed tea, alone, can contain up to 6 mg/liter of fluoride. (National Academies 1997)

Governments purposely add artificial fluoride chemicals  (e.g. hydrofluosilicic acid, sodium fluoride), at great expense, into drinking water in a failed attempt to reduce tooth decay, especially in the poor.  Despite 74 years of fluoridation and soaring rates of fluoride overdose (dental fluorosis or discolored teeth) “Disparity  has doubled in the past 2 decades”

Children retain more fluoride than adults. They are vulnerable to fluoride as low as 2 parts per million (ppm)  in the drinking water and more prone to develop a sick kidney in adulthood, Dammarane explains. Kidney disease can go undetected until it is very advanced. The US EPA allows fluoride to contaminate public water supplies up to 4 ppm.

Fluoridation protectionists claim the concentration of fluoride chemicals added to drinking water is too low to damage the kidney.  Ignored is that kidney impairment is caused by total fluoride intake from all sources – not just water - and that the kidneys accumulate more fluoride than any other organ in the body.

Fluoride is present in virtually all foods and beverages from pesticide residues and because fluoridated water is used in the processing. Some are naturally high in fluoride e.g. tea and ocean fish.  Fluoride content of some foods are listed here by the USDA.  There is no dispute that too much fluoride damages bones and children’s teeth and children’s intake should be monitored; but it never is.

For decades, government and private agencies express concern for fluoride’s kidney effects but fail to adequately notify the public.

The National Kidney Foundation withdrew its support of water fluoridation citing the 2006 National Research Council fluoride report indicating that kidney patients are more susceptible to fluoride’s bone and teeth-damaging effects.

The American Dental Association reports in its Fluoridation Facts booklet “decreased fluoride removal may occur among persons with severely impaired kidney function who may not be on kidney dialysis.”

A 1990 New York State  Department of Health report alerted bureaucrats that “individuals with renal insufficiency who consume large volumes of naturally fluoridated water at 2 to 8 mg/1 are possibly at increased risk of developing skeletal fluorosis. Studies on the effects of fluoride in individuals with renal insufficiency are needed.” But they haven’t been done.

“Certain populations, such as patients with kidney disease, may be especially sensitive to fluoride exposure,” according to Toxicological Profile for Fluorides, Hydrogen Fluoride and Fluorine, (US Department of Health and Human Services 2003)

US Centers for Disease personnel privately express concern about fluoride’s kidney effects, according to Freedom of Information requests.

In 1980, a Virginia Department of Health toxicologist  wrote in his ignored (and oddly lost report) “Where the kidney is concerned persons with impaired kidney function may suffer from acute fluoride toxicity when consuming water containing as little as 2 ppm fluoride.”

 “The National Kidney Foundation in its ‘Position Paper on Fluoride - 1980’ as well as the Kidney Health Australia express concern about fluoride retention in kidney patients. They caution physicians to monitor the fluoride intake of patients with advanced stages of kidney diseases,” according to “Fluoridation of Drinking Water and Chronic Kidney Disease: Absence of Evidence is Not the Evidence of Absence,” by Schiffli,  published in  Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation 2008

 “A number of prominent scientists including Nobel Prize winners too have warned about inhibition and poisonous activity of fluoride on the kidney and other enzymes, based on their chemical and enzymological research,” Dammarane writes.

Fluoride isn’t a nutrient or required for healthy teeth.  Consuming a fluoride-free diet doesn’t cause tooth decay.  But there is no dispute that ingesting too much fluoride can damage bones and children’s teeth and now possibly kidneys. 

Journalists must stop being fearful of providing their readers with the truth about fluoride’s toxic effects to some people instead of protecting fluoride, fluoridation and fluoridationists,

Further, it’s clear that water fluoridation concentration has nothing to do with an individual’s fluoride dose from all sources. There is no dispute that too much fluoride is health-damaging Fluoridation is an outdated public health blunder that needs to stop

                                                 END

30+ Fluoride-Disparaging Studies Ignite More Doubts of Fluoridation Safety

Poorly done pro-fluoride studies are widely publicized but never fact-checked. Fluoride disparaging studies are ignored. Even more studies link fluoride to brain, kidney, thyroid, bone, vascular damage and more. Are health reporters letting us down or just unable or unwillling to decipher science?  Is organized dentistry or advertisers pulling their strings? Are legislators too concerned with their own political viability than the truth?  Follow the Money.

Fluoride chemicals added to public water supplies, fluoridation, is touted as a safe tooth-decay preventive. However, a growing body of research shows fluoridation can cause harm. Here are headlines you have been deprived of:

Fluoride Linked to ADHD (Environment International (2018)

Fluoride Linked to Underactive Thyroid Gland

(Environment International 2018)

Fluoride Linked to Lower IQ

(Environmental Health Perspective 2018)

Fluoride can do Neurologic Damage in Utero

(Neurotoxicity 2017)

ADHD Symptoms Linked to Early-Life Exposure to Fluoride (Environment International 2018)

Fluoride Linked to Thyroid Dysfunction in  Iodine-deficient Adults (Environment International 2018)

·                 More studies you should be aware of:

1)  "Childhood fluoride exposure was associated with atherosclerotic biomarkers." (Environmental Research 2019) 
         

2) “The risk of brain damage from low-fluorine exposure cannot be ignored” (Chemosphere April      2019)

3) “Fluoride could be considered an environmental kidney toxicant.” (Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2018) 

4) "Viral infection and fluoride toxicity as contributors to chronic kidney disease.” (International Urology and Nephrology 2018 )

      5) “Exploring the role of excess fluoride in chronic kidney disease: A review”  (Human andExperimental Toxicology 2018)

-     6)  “Positive correlation exists between fluorosis and thyroid functional.” (The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 2018)

      7)    “Systematic review suggests a positive correlation between excess fluoride and hypothyroidism" (Indian Journal of Dental Research 2018) 

-     8) “Fluorosis is associated with a higher incidence of OPLL"  [a spinal cord disease] (Neurology India 2018)

      9) Fluoride included in “Environmental chemical exposures and neurodevelopmental impairments in children” (Pediatric Medicine 2018

      10)  "Long-term high intake of fluoride can cause skeletal fluorosis in patients with diabetes insipidus" Zhongguo Gu Shang (2017)

      11)  "A relatively large proportion of fluoride intake is retained in the body in weaned infants." (British Journal of Nutrition 2019)

·     12)  Fluoride linked to poor memory. “The study may support the hypothesis that excess fluoride in drinking water is neurotoxic.” (American Journal of Medicine and Medical Science 2018)

·     13)  "Fluorosis is more common in adults with lifetime exposure to water fluoridation than those with no exposure" Community Dentistry & Oral Epidemiology 2018)

·     14) Editorial (Fluoride 2018) “Fluoride-induced Developmental Disorders and Iodine Deficiency Disorders as Examples of Developmental Disorders Due to Disturbed Thyroid Hormone Metabolism”

·     15) Fluorosis is linked to Anemia (Current Science 2018)

·     16) Fluoride could be implicated in Alzheimer’s Disease (International Journal of                     Molecular Sciences 2018) and 

      17)  Fluoride could be implicated in Dementia (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 2019)

      18) Fluoride contributes to degenerative eye diseases such as cataracts, age related macular degeneration (AMD) and glaucoma, (International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health March 2019),

     18) Federal data  shows that 65% of American children now have some degree of dental fluorosis with 30% afflicted with moderate and severe fluorosis (Journal of Dental Research – Clinical & Translational Research March 2019).

More here: October 2018; August 2018; May 2018; February 2018
More human/fluoride studies here: 
Fluoridation chemicals, hydrofluosilicic acid, can also adversely affect the environment. A trucking company was fined $250,000 for a crash that spilled 8,000 litres of fluoridation chemicals all over the highway and the driver, killing him, sending 28 to the hospital, injuring first responders, and harming the nearby ecosystem: http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/fluorosilicic-fine-250000.ontario.pdf

A 2019 Sandy, Utah, accidental overfeed of fluoridation chemicals into the water supply seriously sickened residents, damaged pipes and lowered property values.  Public officials were unprepared and/or uneducated about how to deal with the problem. 

Many fluoridation chemical accidents prove fluoridation can't be guaranteed as safe. 

           More human studies from 2018 – 2019   
   

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. says Stop Fluoridation

January 09, 2019

U.S. Water Fluoridation: A Forced Experiment that Needs to End

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

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

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ.

The fluoride chemicals added to drinking water are unprocessed toxic waste products—captured pollutants from Florida’s phosphate fertilizer industry or unregulated chemical imports from China. The chemicals undergo no purification before being dumped into drinking water and often harbor significant levels of arsenic and other heavy metal contamination; one researcher describes this unavoidable contamination as a “regulatory blind spot that jeopardizes any safe use of fluoride additives.”

Dozens of studies and reviews—including in top-tier journals such as The Lancet—have shown that fluoride is neurotoxic and lowers children’s IQ. Fluoride is also associated with a variety of other health risks in both children and adults. However, U.S. officialdom persists in making hollow claims that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial, choosing to ignore even its own research!

A multimillion-dollar longitudinal study published in Environmental Health Perspectives in September, 2017, for example, was largely funded by the National Institutes of Health and National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences—and the seminal study revealed a strong relationship between fluoride exposure in pregnant women and lowered cognitive function in offspring.

Considered in the context of other research, the study’s implications are, according to the nonprofit Fluoride Action Network, “enormous”—“a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.”

According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.

A little history

During World War II, fluoride (a compound formed from the chemical element fluorine) came into large-scale production and use as part of the Manhattan Project. According to declassified government documents summarized by Project Censored, Manhattan Project scientists discovered early on that fluoride was a “leading health hazard to bomb program workers and surrounding communities.” In order to stave off lawsuits, government scientists “embarked on a campaign to calm the social panic about fluoride…by promoting its usefulness in preventing tooth decay.”

To prop up its “exaggerated claims of reduction in tooth decay,” government researchers began carrying out a series of poorly designed and fatally flawed community trials of water fluoridation in a handful of U.S. cities in the mid-1940s. In a critique decades later, a University of California-Davis statistician characterized these early agenda-driven fluoridation trials as “especially rich in fallacies, improper design, invalid use of statistical methods, omissions of contrary data, and just plain muddleheadedness and hebetude.”

As one example, a 15-year trial launched in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1945 used a nearby city as a non-fluoridated control, but after the control city began fluoridating its own water supply five years into the study, the design switched from a comparison with the non-fluoridated community to a before-and-after assessment of Grand Rapids. Fluoridation’s proponents admitted that this change substantially “compromised” the quality of the study.

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

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

In 2015, Newsweek magazine not only agreed that the scientific rationale for putting fluoride in drinking water was not as “clear-cut” as once thought but also shared the “shocking” finding of a more recent Cochrane Collaboration review, namely, that there is no evidence to support the use of fluoride in drinking water.

Bad science and powerful politics

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

… death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease.

The research assembled by the book’s authors includes studies on fluoride biochemistry; cancer; fluoride’s effects on the brain, endocrine system and bones; and dental fluorosis. With regard to the latter, public health agencies like to define dental fluorosis as a purely cosmetic issue involving “changes in the appearance of tooth enamel,” but the International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology (IAOMT)—a global network of dentists, health professionals and scientists dedicated to science-based biological dentistry—describes the damaged enamel and mottled and brittle teeth that characterize dental fluorosis as “the first visible sign of fluoride toxicity.”

The important 2017 study that showed decrements in IQ following fluoride exposure during pregnancy is far from the only research sounding the alarm about fluoride’s adverse developmental effects. In his 2017 volume, Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix, John D. MacArthur pulls together hundreds of studies linking fluoride to premature birth and impaired neurological development (93 studies), preelampsia (77 studies) and autism (110 studies).

The book points out that rates of premature birth are “unusually high” in the United States. At the other end of the lifespan, MacArthur observes that death rates in the ten most fluoridated U.S. states are 5% to 26% higher than in the ten least fluoridated states, with triple the rate of Alzheimer’s disease. A 2006 report by the National Research Council warned that exposure to fluoride might increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.

The word is out

Pregnancy and Fluoride Do Not Mix shows that the Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Harvard’s National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Toxicology Program all are well aware of the substantial evidence of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity, yet no action has been taken to warn pregnant women. Instead, scientists with integrity, legal professionals and the public increasingly are taking matters into their own hands.

A Citizens Petition submitted in 2016 to the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act requested that the EPA “exercise its authority to prohibit the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water supplies.” This request—the focus of a lawsuit to be argued in court later in 2019—poses a landmark challenge to the dangerous practice of water fluoridation and has the potential to end one of the most significant chemical assaults on our children’s developing bodies and brains.

“© January 9, 2019 Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.