Thursday, June 23, 2022

Babies Most Vulnerable to Fluoride's Neurotoxic Effects

As of January 2022, 74 studies found fluoride lowers IQ -  23 published since 2017  The fetus and formula fed infants are the most vulnerable to fluoride's neurotoxicity. 

These studies are the basis of a current lawsuit against the US EPA which could end the artificial fluoridation program in the US to protect the brains of the fetus and babies. The next court date is September 2022. Counsel for the plaintiffs is Michael Connett, JD, Partner, Waters Kraus & Paul. 

Fluoride from foods and beverages consumed during pregnancy is associated with lower cognitive neurodevelopment in boy babies, even when fluoride is ingested at recommended levels, report researchers Cantoral et al. in Neurotoxicology (December 2021) and funded by the US National Institutes of Health.

Fluoride's adverse neurological effects are backed by hundreds of animal and cell studies.

Few know that fluoride, besides being added to many public water supplies, is in foods and beverages at varying and inconsistent levels – either naturally or from fluoridated pesticides; fluoridated water used in processing; feed regimen of animal products; food storage containers (Teflon-coated containers); and food packaging (migration of perfluorochemicals into food). Too much fluoride is health-harming and indisputable. Topical fluoride application also invites some absorption into the bloodstream.

“Specifically, a 0.5 mg increase in dietary fluoride intake during the third trimester and across pregnancy was associated with a 3.10-points and 3.46-point lower cognitive score in boys, respectively,” reports Cantoral’s team.

“Fluoride is not an essential nutrient and…fluoride ingestion in pregnancy does not strengthen enamel during tooth formation in the fetus but has been associated with increased risk of neurotoxicity, even at optimal exposure levels,” they write.

Cantoral’s team writes that “The National Toxicology Program concluded that fluoride is ‘presumed to be a cognitive developmental hazard to humans’ based upon a growing body of high-quality epidemiological studies conducted in endemic and non-endemic fluorosis areas.”

“These findings suggest that the development of nonverbal abilities in males may be more vulnerable to prenatal fluoride exposure than language or motor abilities, even at levels within the recommended intake range,” they write.

After 77 years of water fluoridation, 70% of US children and adolescents are fluoride-overdosed and afflicted with dental fluorosis (white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth) while tooth decay remains a US epidemic.


Experts who testified in the US Federal Lawsuit  Case No. 17-CV-02162-EMC, challenging water fluoridation safety, that's set to continue in September 2022, include:
1) Kathleen M. Thiessen, Ph.D. a risk assessment scientist at Oak Ridge Center for Risk Analysis in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Dr. Thiessen testified that “The animal data on fluoride neurotoxicity are consistent with the epidemiological data in showing a risk of cognitive deficits at doses of fluoride ingested from fluoridated water.”
2) A Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Phillipe Grandjean is on the faculty of Harvard University and the University of Southern Denmark. He’s received multiple awards throughout his long career for his research on the effects of environmental toxins affecting children and has also been recognized for his advocacy in protecting future generations from the effects of neuro- and developmental toxins.
Dr. Grandjean testified that "… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development."
3) Dr. Howard Hu, from the University of Washington’s School of Public Health, has led international research teams investigating the environmental, nutritional, social, and epi/genetic causes of chronic disease and impaired child development in the USA, Mexico, India, China, and elsewhere around the world.
Dr. Hu advises pregnant women and infants to avoid fluoride ingestion to assure normal brain development (Journal of Pediatrics “Current Best Evidence,” July 2020). He wrote, "Fluoride is not essential for growth and development, a cautious step could be avoidance of fluoridated products and water by women during pregnancy and by infants during the first 6 months of life."
4) Dr. Lanphear is on the faculty at Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, where his research focuses on preventing common diseases and disabilities in children, as well as quantifying the impact of risk factors to children’s health including exposures to heavy metals and chemicals.
An Op-Ed by Dr. Lanphear; Linda Birnbaum, PhD, Former Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences; and Christine Till, PhD, co-author of the JAMA-Pediatrics research article “Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada”  wrote:
“Mounting evidence suggests fluoride may be hampering brain development and reducing kids' IQ. The US needs to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children.”
JAMA Pediatrics Journal editor Dimitri Christakis, MD, said. “I would advise them [pregnant women] to drink bottled water or filtered water because it is not a particularly odious thing to do and actually does reduce the risk,” in a discussion of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study.
Fluoridation was declared safe for 75 years. “Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent,” write Till and Green in “Controversy: The evolving science of fluoride: when new evidence doesn’t conform with existing beliefs.” Till and Green both advise pregnant women to avoid fluoride.
Dr. Till's youtube presentation about her research which garnered intense scrutiny before being published in JAMA-Pediatrics is here


Saturday, January 29, 2022

US Gov't Report Reveals Fluoridation is Futile - Politics Not Science Supports Fluoridation

NIDCR Report Reveals 22 Years of Effort, Money and Fluoridation Failed to Improve Oral Health

Despite increases in public water fluoridation, dental visits, sealants, fluoride varnish applications, and significant financial, training, and program investments, oral health hasn’t improved in 22 years in the US, according to a National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) Oral Health in America Report (December 2021).  Further, there is no dispute that fluoride is neurotoxic, especially to babies' developing brains. Fluoridation promoters would have you believe a little brain poison is worth saving one cavity over a lifetime.

Fluoride chemicals are added to about 70% of US public drinking water supplies ostensibly to prevent tooth decay in tap water drinkers. But after 77 years of fluoridation, 50% of US 6-8 year-olds still have cavities, according to the CDC. Fifty-seven percent of adolescents aged 12-19 years have cavities (Journal of Public Health Dentistry). Seventy percent of US children and adolescents are afflicted with fluoride overdose - dental fluorosis - white spotted, yellow, brown and/or pitted teeth - according to published federal data (NHANES)

Recently, the State College Borough Water Authority in Pennsylvania, made up of scientifically trained professionals representing various aspects of water quality, source water protections, engineering and business management, voted to reject fluoridation unanimously after members read the science and didn't  just rely on outdated and unscientific endorsements.    
They criticized fluoridationists who "misrepresented and discredited the scientific evidence"

US Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy: "Nine out of 10 adults 20 to 64 years of age have had dental caries, a figure that hasn’t meaningfully changed during the past 20 care costs have increased by 30%," reported in the New England Journal of Medicine

The Pew Charitable Trusts  writes: "the nation has failed to reduce the prevalence of untreated tooth decay among certain access to dental care is a persistent factor contributing to oral health inequities among racial and ethnic minorities, low-income individuals, older Americans, rural residents, and other marginalized groups." (February 9, 2022)

America’s shockingly poor dental system, poverty and poor diets are to blame Fluoridation can't fix that."

It’s obvious that Americans need dental care; not fluoride in their drinking water.

NIDCR  reports little improvement since the 2000 US Surgeon General’s Oral Health report revealed “a silent epidemic” and its now-failed Call to Action “to eliminate oral health disparities.”

For example, the NIDCR reports:

·  The military continues to face challenges in meeting recruitment goals and military readiness because of oral health-related issues.
·  Untreated cavities among the poor remain twice that of non-poor. Disparities persist by race/ethnicity status.
·  Primary tooth decay increased in boys aged 6-11 and didn’t change in adolescents’ and adults’ permanent teeth.
·  Untreated decay in permanent teeth shows no progress.
·   In ages 2-11, decayed tooth surfaces increased with a greater impact on boys
·   Four out of 5 Americans aged 6 years and older experience cavities, irrespective of poverty or race/ethnicity status.
·   40% of children have eroded teeth. 

Carstairs 2015 wrote: “some of the early fluoridation studies had methodological problems which may have exaggerated their benefits" and "there are still questions about how effective water fluoridation is at preventing dental decay and whether the possible risks are worth the benefits."

Dental Therapists could alleviate the dental access problem; but the politically powerful American Dental Association (ADA) lobbies against their legalization, according to the W K Kellogg Foundation and Wendell Potter

NIDCR admits vitamin D deficiency is a cavity risk. But the ADA turned this nutritional deficiency into a profitable fluoride drug treatment (Nutrients 2021). Forty-two percent of Americans are vitamin D deficient.  None are fluoride-deficient. Fluoride, like all drugs, has side effects.

Politics, not science, supports fluoridation as evidenced by the ADA's lobbying the US National Toxicology Program to conclude fluoridation is not neurotoxic when the science says it is. Adverse health effects, outside of the oral cavity from ingested fluoride, are not within the purview of dentistry, according to the California Board of Dental Examiners4433/

Further, dentists are advised to "propagandize" fluoridation information. "Complete knowledge of the detailed scientific literature is not a prerequisite," according to the Journal of the American Dental Association

Few know that fluoridation chemicals aren't natural, but are lead- and arsenic-laced waste products of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing (hydrofluosilicic acid or sodium fluoride) which often requires adding an acid-neutralizing chemical to the water such as sodium hydroxide.

Artificial fluoridation is outdated, unscientific, ineffective, politically motivated, harmful and must cease across the US

Hundreds of studies support 76 human studies which show fluoride damages babies' developing brains. Prominent scientists urge you protect babies' brains from fluoride

These studies are the basis of a current lawsuit against the US EPA to lower allowable fluoride contaminant levels in drinking water,  The next court date is September 2022. Counsel for the plaintiffs is Michael Connett, JD, Partner, Waters Kraus & Paul. 

Many fluoridation reviews consistently found fluoridation studies faulty. For example:

Chairman of the US National Research Council's Report on Fluoride (2006)

New York State Communities which have stopped or rejected fluoridation are:  Suffolk, Nassau & Rockland counties, the capital city of Albany, Elba, Naples, Levittown, Canton, Corning, Johnstown, Oneida, Carle Place, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, Riverhead, Central Bridge Water District, Homer, Ithaca, Rouses Point, Pulaski, Romulus, Amsterdam, Walden and Manhasset.

NYS Dept of Health statistics show there is no correlation between the fluoridation rate of a county and tooth decay rates:                                                                   

The ADA prioritizes political advocacy over scientific credibility. according to the Fluoride Action Network (FAN),  "For example, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first proposed regulating fluoride as a contaminant in drinking water, the ADA asserted that no such regulation was necessary, and that a federal regulation would 'undermine the efforts of the dental profession and government in promoting fluoridation of community water supplies," writes FAN Director, Paul Connett, PhD.

More information about scientific reviews which  report fluoridation studies are faulty. For example:

2001 -- An NIH panel reviewing tooth decay research 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.

"If the current weak trend of caries research in the United States continues, history will be harsh on all of us for our failure to use our knowledge and resources to reduce, if not eliminate, the burden of one of the world's most prevalent diseases," wrote Amid Ismail, BDS, Professor, University of Michigan School of Dentistry in a report to the panel.

2001 -- The CDC reports: "The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel  and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries." 

2003 -- When members of the 2000 York Review of fluoridation found their work was being misrepresented by fluoidationists, they corrected the misreporting by writing a statement,What the 'York Review' on the fluoridation of drinking water really found. "We were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide....The evidence about reducing inequalities in dental health was of poor quality, contradictory and unreliable."

2006 -- Chairman of the National Research Council Report on Fluoride Toxicity (Toxicologist John Doull) wrote: "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 US 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."

2015 -- After reviewing all available fluoridation studies, the independent and trusted UK-based Cochrane group of researchers could not find any quality evidence to prove fluoridation changes the "existing differences in tooth decay across socioeconomic groups." Neither could they find valid evidence that fluoride reduces adults' cavity rates nor that fluoridation cessation increases tooth decay.

Fluoridation may reduce cavities in children (2 primary teeth or 1 permanent tooth). But Cochrane cautions these studies have "high risk of bias" and were mostly done before preventive measures were widespread, e.g. fluoridated toothpaste and sealants.

2015 -- Newsweek reports that scientists, who were assigned to review fluoridation research, are shocked at the lack of valid fluoridation-supporting evidence. Government agencies have a long history of minimizing reviews critical of fluoridation science.

2016 -- Sicca, et al. analyzed thirty systematic reviews on tooth decay prevention, from 2002 – 2015, and report “there is not sufficient evidence to determine whether the use [of] water fluoridation has a significant impact in the reduction of caries.” (Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry)


Saturday, December 18, 2021

Dentistry Treats Vitamin D Deficiency With Nonessential Fluoride Drugs for Profit

Vitamin D Deficiency, Not Fluoride Deficiency, Causes Cavities, Dentist/Researcher Reveals 

American Dental Association (ADA) internal documents reveal how it influenced the world to ignore a preponderance of evidence proving vitamin D can prevent tooth decay in order to promote nonessential fluoride so dentists could profit, reports Philippe P. Hujoel, PhD, DDS, Professor, Oral Health Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Washington (Nutrients December 2021).

Hujoel writes, “The ADA was a worldleading organization and its governing bodies worked through political channels to make fluoride a global standard of care for a disease which at the time was viewed as an indicator of vitamin D deficiencies.” The ADA scientific council endorsed vitamin D for 15 years but reversed its decision in 1989.  
The evidence suggests that professional organizations of clinical specialists, such as the ADA, have the power to create standards of care which ignore key evidence and consequently can harm public health, reports Hujoel.

It seems the rich and powerful ADA uses legislators, the media and water engineers for its own political viability and financial gain to manipulate the public into believing fluoride is an essential tooth nutrient - which it isn't. Artificial fluoridation is based more on politics and deception than science. 

Vitamin D deficiency, now common in US adults and children, is also more prevalent in the same groups suffering the most tooth decay.

Many current studies link vitamin D deficiency to more cavities.

After 77 years of water fluoridation, intending to dramatically reduce tooth decay, 70% of US children are fluoride-overdosed, afflicted with dental fluorosis (discolored teeth). Yet, tooth decay is epidemic. Like all drugs, fluoride has adverse side effects.

Vitamin D, an essential nutrient, is free via sunlight exposure; fluoride is a huge money maker.

ADA’s Seal of Approval is paid for reports CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta).

“ADA governing bodies had several channels of influence to put fluoride experts on authoritative writing panels who globalized the now conventional wisdom of ignoring and dismissing the evidence of the role of nutritional deficiencies in dental disease etiology,” writes Hujoel. 

“It did not matter that the professional organization had a self-evident conflict of interest; topical fluoride applications in dental offices were revenue-generating procedures, vitamin D prescriptions were not,” writes Hujoel.

Hujoel explains that vitamin D was shunned to knock competition from physicians.

With its success in suppressing vitamin D supplementation, the dental guild went on to dismiss other dental-related deficiencies such as vitamin C for gingival bleeding, according to Hujoel.

He concludes, “Public health may well depend on looking at professional societies no different than the way we look at the pharmaceutical industry— conflicted organizations with a power to shape conventional wisdom based on fragile evidence. This historical analysis adds to the evidence that professional societies should serve their members and be kept at arm’s length from research agendas, disease definitions, clinical practice guidelines, and public health policies.” 

The powerful politics of the ADA is well documented as explained here and here and here.

Buried on its website but rarely, if ever, shared with the public, the ADA admits science shows (under "dental caries") Vitamin D deficiency is linked to more cavities.  

Fluoridation gives dentistry “political viability” was admitted in a 1981 Journal of the  American Dental Association article. (“Fluoridation Election Victory: A Case Study for Dentistry in Effective Political Action”)

ADA is cited in this 2002 article admitting "It is important for pregnant women to receive sufficient amounts of nutrients, including calcium, protein, phosphorous and vitamins A, C and D." 

"This review aims to provide comprehensive evidence of how Vitamin D levels should be considered to promote good oral health, and to summarize how Vitamin D Deficiency may hamper oral development and its role in certain oral conditions." (Nutrients 2020)

High doses of vitamin D during pregnancy improved tooth enamel in offspring. (New York Times 2019)


Wednesday, October 27, 2021

See How Fluoridationists Mislead and Misinform the Public, Legislators and Dental Professionals, as well

Using their titles and degrees more often than science, fluoridationists often say:

1) Fluoride is natural - The truth is that the most-used fluoridation chemicals are not natural calcium fluoride but instead are never safety-tested hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium fluoride which “has not been found by FDA to be safe and effective” 

 2) Fluoridation reduces disparities - It doesn’t. For example, "Despite significant financial, training, and program investments, US children's caries experience and inequities continued to increase over the last 20 years," according the American Journal of Public Health (2017).

3) CDC proclaims fluoridation is 1 of the 10 Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century - CDC also reports, “The prevalence of dental caries in a population is not inversely related to the concentration of fluoride in enamel and a higher concentration of enamel fluoride is not necessarily more efficacious in preventing dental caries.”

 4) There are hundreds or thousands of studies prove fluoridation safety - There are not. In fact, the studies CDC lists as proving safety actually don’t

 5) Fluoridation is safe for every human for their entire lifetimes - That has never been proven. Fluoride, neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth is a drug with side effects – the most egregious is fluoride’s neurological effects. Fluoride’s kidney effects are 100 years old and its thyroid effects well documented. 

So, after 76 years of fluoridation which was supposed to drastically reduce tooth decay, save money and put dentists out of business with a minimum of adverse side effects (mild dental fluorosis): 

 • 70% of US children and adolescents are afflicted with dental fluorosis – much of it moderate/severe – creating a lucrative new cosmetic dentistry business for dentists.

• Tooth decay is epidemic, according to the American Association of Pediatric Dentists 

• In 1950 there were 42 dental Schools. Now there are 68

• 16,555 were enrolled in dental school in 1969-70. Now 25,995 are enrolled, the most ever. 

• Dental spending reached a historic high of $136 billion, according to the American Dental Association 

• Dental hospital emergency room visits doubled from 1 million in 2000 to 2.2 million in 2012, costing 1.6 billion dollars annually. 

• More dentists and dental groups now oppose fluoridation. For example, the IAOMT, the IABDM, these dentists. 378 dentists listed here. More are opposed but fear speaking out .

Organized dentistry is one of the richest and most powerful special interest groups.  Fluoridation is their sacred cow. Most dentists prefer to treat the water of; but not the teeth of low income folks.  Eighty percent of dentists refuse Medicaid patients. 

Americans are fluoride-overdosed and dentist deficient. 74 million Americans don't have dental insurance and, many of those that do, can't afford dentistry's out-of-pocket expenses

According to the CDC, oral health disparities persists: 

"Among working-age US adults, over 40% of low-income and non-Hispanic Black adults have untreated tooth decay. Untreated oral disease has a large impact on quality of life and productivity:

  • Over 34 million school hours were lost in the United States in 2008 because of unplanned urgent dental care.
  • Over $45 billion is lost in productivity in the United States each year because of untreated oral disease.
  • Nearly 18% of all working-age adults, and 29% of those with lower incomes, report that the appearance of their mouth and teeth affects their ability to interview for a job.
Politic$, not science, supports fluoridation.  Follow the Money!

                                   END FLUORIDATION