1

Experts Confirm Extremely Low Levels of Fluoride Causes IQ Loss in Children

By Stuart Cooper | The Defender

Story at-a-glance:

  • New studies find that fluoride levels four to five times lower than those found in pregnant women in fluoridated communities cause IQ loss for the child and that older women in fluoridated communities have a 50% higher risk of hip fractures.
  • Plaintiffs suing the EPA in federal court over fluoridation’s neurotoxicity have continued to win legal victories and have shared deposition videos exposing CDC and EPA negligence.
  • The former NTP director joined the chorus of scientific and public health experts raising alarms about neurotoxic risk, but the dental lobby responded by doubling their fluoridation expansion efforts.

A landmark study by Grandjean, et al., has been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impair the brain development of the child and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury, or arsenic.

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. The authors stated that even this impact is likely underestimated and:

“These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water-fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2 mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies.

A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California, found a mean UF concentration of 0.74 mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06 mg/L. Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in non-fluoridated communities.

Grandjean, et al.’s study, published in Risk Analysis, was a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the pooled data from the National Institutes of Health-funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada. These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children.

A benchmark dose is used to identify a dose or concentration that would likely cause a defined amount of harm, in this case, a loss of one IQ point.

What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a one IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended the use of such a level.

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.

It is estimated that more than 72% of public drinking water systems in America are fluoridated — thus, millions of pregnant women are currently being exposed to levels of fluoride that have the potential to lower their children’s IQ by at least four points and probably more.

Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm.

If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe.” This is 35 times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for fluoridated communities.

Study submitted to judge in federal fluoridation lawsuit

Michael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, has sent a copy of this BMD analysis to the judge presiding over the case currently in federal court. The Fluoride Action Network is involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit against the EPA seeking to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water because of its neurotoxicity.

A trial was held in June 2020, which featured world-renowned experts testifying in court that fluoridation posed a danger on a par with lead. At the conclusion, the judge stated that we had presented “serious evidence” that presents “serious questions” about the safety of fluoridation, and said, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.”

The judge also noted that the EPA had used an incorrect standard for assessing the available science and offered them a second chance to review it accurately, which they have declined repeatedly.

Since last summer, we have also won several legal victories, including rulings against EPA motions to dismiss the case and a recent ruling in April 2021 granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.

In the written order, the court dismantles the EPA’s arguments one by one, showing that the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, which is a very good sign for our side.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather than restart the multi-year petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

The court will hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity is published, possibly later this year. The judge was also awaiting the release of the benchmark dose analysis mentioned above and at least one additional study due out later in 2021.

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 22 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 Fluoride Action Network will be able to resubmit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made by the judge.

The next court hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific U.S.). To get additional updates and links to view the hearing, follow Fluoride Action Network (FAN) on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our weekly bulletin.

For those wanting to catch up on this precedent-setting trial, we have several resources available for you. First is a 16-minute video featuring our attorney, Michael Connett, providing detailed background on the case and trial. Second, we have a 30-minute interview of Connett by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Third, FAN has a comprehensive database of documents, timelines, media coverage, and materials about the lawsuit on our website.

Damning deposition videos

The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policymakers, 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, policymakers 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, Hannan admits there is no prenatal or early-life benefit from fluoride despite its known neurotoxicity to this same sub-population. In the third video, Joyce Donohue, Ph.D., 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.

These three videos are just a small taste of what was admitted under oath by representatives of the government agencies responsible for protecting the health of Americans.

For example, during the trial we also watched a video of CDC’s Hannan agreeing with the finding that “fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain … and increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” as well as agreeing with the National Research Council finding that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.”

FAN will be able to share much more of this video content with you after a ruling is made in the trial, exposing the failure of these agencies to protect the public from overexposure to fluoride.

Former NTP director warns parents in an op-ed

Along with the avalanche of new peer-reviewed studies showing harm and the lawsuit exposing government negligence, there has been an ever-growing chorus of warnings to the public and opposition to fluoridation from researchers and public health experts. This includes the former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health.

Toxicologist and microbiologist Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., co-authored an op-ed appearing in Environmental Health News with Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, 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 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 EPA’s Lead Review Panel, and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

The op-ed, titled “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 U.S. “to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children,” and state:

“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.”

The op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video on the impact of fluoride on brain development produced by Little Things Matter, a nonprofit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Dr. Till was also recently filmed giving an hour-long “must watch” presentation and Q&A on her fluoride neurotoxicity research.

FAN has compiled quotes (and produced a video) from a variety of experts warning about fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as a list of opinion pieces and journal articles20 warning of harm.

From womb to tomb

An April 2021 study from Sweden found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in postmenopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water. It also found 10% to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis.

The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017. Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L. Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation.

Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models.” The animal findings prompted human studies. This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found an increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure.

It is also consistent with extensive experience from randomized controlled trials done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride.

Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found an increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned. Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density, it simultaneously decreases the bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density.

This ought to have serious implications for the practice of fluoridation. The study’s findings suggest that long-term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of the hip fractures experienced by older people. There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the U.S. per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures. Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death.

About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year.” “Of those who survive, many do not regain their pre-fracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care.

Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives, or leaving them confined to wheelchairs. “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends the US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years.”

Widespread fluoridation in the U.S. might help explain why “Hip fracture rates among the U.S. population are the highest in the world.” Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride.

But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay.

The fluoridation lobby is doubling down

Unfortunately, in response to the abundance of new research, the landmark lawsuit, growing concern in the scientific community, and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled down on their efforts to expand the practice further in an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on the brink of extinction.

The UK and New Zealand are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates. In the U.K., the fluoridation lobby alongside the health secretary, Matt Hancock, is urging the government to take the power over fluoridation from local councils so he can mandate it throughout the country.

While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March, but FAN is tracking it and working with U.K. residents to mount opposition.

In New Zealand, the government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016 but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently – to district health boards.

However, the current government has amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process has defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation, or public input.

Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ, the proposal appears to be moving forward. Learn more in this new video from FAN.

The dental lobby is also targeting large cities in North America. This past summer, a coalition led by Delta Dental worked behind the scenes to pressure the city council in Spokane, Washington, to pass a resolution to fluoridate their drinking water, despite the public voting three times to reject fluoridation. Part of their sales pitch was that COVID was presenting an oral health emergency, to which this would be a solution.

It was eventually revealed that implementation would take at least five years, making their exploitation of the pandemic to sell their fluoridation chemicals apparent. A local citizens group assisted by FAN, Safe Water Spokane, has fought this effort, and as a result, the council has tabled their fluoridation resolution and will study the issue for the next year. Click here to learn more about Spokane.

Calgary, Alberta, is also being threatened with fluoridation despite voting numerous times to reject the practice. After hearing from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health that the practice causes cognitive impairment, the cowardly council decided to put the issue to a public vote this October, rather than make a decision. FAN is working with local campaigners Safe Water Calgary to ensure the public votes “no” on reintroducing fluoridation chemicals.

The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond).

We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision-makers about what is happening. It’s up to us to make this information go viral! It’s up to us to bring it to our elected leaders and demand action! We need your support more than ever. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation.

From 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 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, 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 has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

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

Together, let’s help FAN get to the finish line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the tenth year in a row, 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.

Originally published by Mercola.




Fluorinated Chemicals Affecting More Americans Than Previously Estimated

By Environmental Working Group

A peer-reviewed study by scientists at the Environmental Working Group estimates that more than 200 million Americans could have toxic fluorinated chemicals known as PFAS in their drinking water at a concentration of 1 part per trillion (ppt) or higher. Independent scientific studies have recommended a safe level for PFAS in drinking water of 1 ppt, a standard that is endorsed by EWG.

The study, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology Letters, analyzed publicly accessible drinking water testing results from the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Geological Survey, as well as state testing by Colorado, Kentucky, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Rhode Island.

“We know drinking water is a major source of exposure of these toxic chemicals,” said Olga Naidenko, Ph.D., vice president for science investigations at EWG and a co-author of the new study. “This new paper shows that PFAS pollution is affecting even more Americans than we previously estimated. PFAS are likely detectable in all major water supplies in the U.S., almost certainly in all that use surface water.”

The analysis also included laboratory tests commissioned by EWG that found PFAS chemicals in the drinking water of dozens of U.S. cities. Some of the highest PFAS levels detected were in samples from major metropolitan areas, including Miami, Philadelphia, New Orleans, and the northern New Jersey suburbs of New York City.

There is no national requirement for ongoing testing and no national drinking water standard for any PFAS in drinking water. The EPA has issued an inadequate lifetime health advisory level of 70 ppt for the two most notorious fluorinated chemicals, PFOA and PFOS, and efforts to set an enforceable standard could take many years.

In the absence of a federal standard, states have started to pass their own legal limits for some PFAS. New Jersey was the first to issue a maximum contaminant limit for the compound PFNA, at 13 ppt, and has set standards of 13 ppt for PFOS and 14 ppt for PFOA. Many states have either set or proposed limits for PFOA and PFOS, including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont.

“The first step in fighting any contamination crisis is to turn off the tap,” said Scott Faber, EWG senior vice president for government affairs. “The second step is to set a drinking water standard, and the third is to clean up legacy pollution. The PFAS Action Act passed by the House would address all three steps by setting deadlines for limiting industrial PFAS releases, setting a two-year deadline for a drinking water standard, and designating PFAS as ‘hazardous substances’ under the Superfund law. But Mitch McConnell’s Senate has refused to act to protect our communities from ‘forever chemicals.’”

PFAS are called forever chemicals because they are among the most persistent toxic compounds in existence, contaminating everything from drinking water to food, food packaging, and personal care products. They are found in the blood of virtually everyone on Earth, including newborn babies. They never break down in the environment.

Very low doses of PFAS chemicals in drinking water have been linked to suppression of the immune system and are associated with an elevated risk of cancer and reproductive and developmental harms, among other serious health concerns.

“When we look for PFAS contamination, we almost always find it,” said David Andrews, Ph.D., a senior scientist at EWG and one of the co-authors. “Americans should trust that their water is safe, but far too many communities have water supplies polluted by toxic PFAS chemicals. These are some of the most insidious chemicals ever produced, and they continue to be used. Our analysis was largely limited to PFOA and PFOS, but many more PFAS are found to contaminate drinking water and the entire class of PFAS chemicals is a concern.”

The EPA has identified over 600 PFAS in active use in the U.S. According to the most recent analysis of state and federal data by EWG, 2,230 locations in 49 states are known to have PFAS contamination, including more than 300 military installations.

PFAS contamination has raised alarms among a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress. The PFAS Action Act also includes a provision that would set a two-year deadline for the EPA to establish a national drinking water standard for the two most notorious PFAS chemicals – PFOA, formerly used to make DuPont’s Teflon, and PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard.

The House versions of the National Defense Authorization Act and EPA spending bill also include important PFAS reforms.

“It’s not too late for this Congress to protect us from the growing PFAS contamination crisis,” Faber said.

Published with permission by the Environmental Working Group. 

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is implementing many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.




Scientist Attacked for Fluoridation Facts

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor at York University in Toronto, Canada, has published several damning studies showing fluoride damages the brain and lowers IQ
  • In 2019, Till received the President’s Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) from York University for her research into the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure
  • After giving a lecture at a recent conference that included speakers who question the safety of mercury and vaccines, a group of 14 scientists is calling for an independent review of Till’s work on fluoridation “to determine whether her ‘ideology is being misrepresented as science’”
  • For now, it doesn’t appear as though York University will comply with the call for an independent probe into Till’s research and public statements about water fluoridation
  • Depositions by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials in 2018 have also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also does not have any data showing fluoride intake is harmless to the brain. Meanwhile, more than 400 animal and human studies have found fluoride is neurotoxic and damages the brain

While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, hundreds of studies reveal it’s one of the most harmful public health strategies ever implemented.

Among the many researchers who have published damning fluoride studies is Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor at York University in Toronto, Canada1 who in 2019 received the President’s Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) for her research into the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure.2

That same year, she published research3,4 showing maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy lowered IQ in children. In 2020, Till and her team published another study,5 showing children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in non-fluoridated communities.

She’s also listed as a co-author on several other important fluoride studies published in the last five years. Till’s studies are part of hundreds of studies presented as evidence during the landmark fluoridation trial held in federal court in June 2020, reviewed in “Fluoride on Trial,” and are considered some of the strongest evidence against water fluoridation to date.

Now, Till is suddenly facing the same “cancel culture” that so many other researchers have faced when they present evidence that challenges industry propaganda and threatens the continuation of a toxic but profitable practice.

Pro-Fluoride Group Calls for Independent Probe

According to October 8, 2020, report6 by CTV News, 14 scientists, referring to themselves as an “International Group of Fluoridation Experts,” have written a letter7 to York University’s board of governors, calling for an independent review of Till’s work on fluoridation “to determine whether her ‘ideology is being misrepresented as science.’” September 21, 2020, letter reads, in part:8

“… Till’s work continues to have sway in the political and public decision making process because it asserts a ‘possibility’ that water fluoridation is dangerous, however dubious the work’s methodology and conclusions.

That ‘possibility’ frightens some elected officials and administrators. We are advised that several United States boards, which oversee water quality, are currently deciding whether to cease community water fluoridation because of concerns advanced by Dr. Till, her students and associates, including that fluoride harms the developing brain …

Dr. Till’s fluoride research conclusions diverge significantly from current research on the safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) … We believe that some or all of Dr. Christine Till’s fluoride publications might well contain significant error …

Therefore, we are acting on our moral duty to make this belief known by asking you to establish an international, independent, expert committee to determine whether our concerns are justified.”

In response to the accusations, Till told CTV News:9

“Our study underwent extensive scrutiny to meet the scientific standards for publishing in the highest-ranking pediatric journal in the world. Policy makers, health professionals and scientists must have access to all high-quality evidence to make informed decisions. It would be unacceptable to censor scientific results because they do not conform to a certain set of beliefs.”

University Defends Scientific Freedom of Its Faculty

September 29, 2020, York University President Rhonda Lenton issued a public reply10 to the letter, stating:

“Over the past few months, several incidents bearing on the academic freedom of members of the York Community have been brought to my attention.

In each case, individuals and groups external to the University have appealed to senior leadership to intercede against faculty members due to statements made, or research published, in the course of their legitimate scholarly activities.

I believe this presents an important opportunity to restate York’s unequivocal support of academic freedom …

We must always defend the right of students, professors and instructional staff to express their views and conduct free inquiry. It is, however, not required that we agree with the content of that speech.

Free expression, especially on controversial topics, is best regulated by vigorous counterspeech. It is not appropriate for the University to decide which side of a particular issue is correct …

As a leading research university, York remains steadfast in its defense of academic freedom. We will not censure any member of our community for their research or their public statements made in the course of their scholarly work within limits prescribed by law and applicable policies governing the responsible conduct of research.”

Till’s Public Statements Questioned

In addition, to questioning Till’s scientific integrity, the group questions the truthfulness of a number of public statements she’s made. That includes the short video featured above, produced by Till and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University11 in Canada.

On a side note, Lanphear is also an invited member of the Council of Fellows of the Collegium Ramazzini12 in Italy, an international scientific academy comprised of physicians and scientists that seeks to increase scientific knowledge of the environmental and occupational causes of disease to protect public health.

The Collegium Ramazzini collaborates with the Ramazzini Institute,13 a nonprofit social cooperative dedicated to independent scientific research into environmental toxins.

You may recall hearing about the Ramazzini Institute in relation to the harms of cellphone radiation — another hotly contested area of research where organizations with vested interests are doing everything they can to smear and dismiss findings showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause physical harm.

Getting back to the video, in it, Till and Lanphear review the history of water fluoridation, research showing fluoride to be toxic to the developing brain, and the implications of an IQ loss of three to five points.

As noted in the video, most people have an IQ score between 85 and 115 points. Only 2.5% of children have an IQ above 130, which is considered gifted. Another 2.5% of children have an IQ below 70, which is considered challenging.

A mere five points drop in IQ, which doesn’t sound like much, actually results in a whopping 57% increase in the number of children who are intellectually and academically challenged, from 6 million to 9.4 million. There’s also a corresponding decrease in those who are gifted, from 6 million down to 2.4 million, and the overall societal impact of this downward slide is tremendous.

“We ask the international, expert, arm’s length committee to consider whether Dr. Till is in a possible conflict of interest as between her duty (to collect and to report research data reliably) and her probable interest (which appears to be to cause and end to community water fluoridation),” the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” write.14

The group also wants the reviewing committee to ascertain whether the video fairly represents Till’s scientific findings, and if not, they call for a “forensic audit into whether public funds meant for research or knowledge translation was used to create the video, and, if so, require those funds to be reimbursed.”15

Why Was Till Singled Out?

For now, it doesn’t appear as though York University will comply with the call for an independent probe into Till’s research and public statements about water fluoridation, but it raises the question of why she was targeted in the first place.

As it turns out, the attack came on the heels of a lecture she gave in September 2020 at the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) conference, held in Nashville, Tennessee. Till gave her presentation virtually, from Canada.

According to September 30, 2020, article16 by Canadian journalist Tom Blackwell, presenters at the event included “a who’s who of the anti-vaccination and COVID-19 conspiracy-theory movements.”

Among the presenters17 receiving “top billing” were Andrew Wakefield, producer of the excellent documentary “1986: The Act,” and Judy Mikovitz, Ph.D., featured in the highly-censored documentary “Plandemic.” Other criticized presenters included Marc Geier and retired chemistry professor Boyd Haley, both of whom have linked vaccines to autism.

According to Blackwell, “Till said she didn’t learn who else was presenting until organizers sent her an agenda two weeks before the event.” Blackwell also reports that, in an interview, Till:

“… stressed that she accepted no payment from the IAOMT, and does back childhood vaccination of the sort her fellow speakers decry … ‘Just because I speak to an organization does not mean I subscribe to the views of the other speakers … To me the invitation to speak is to present our research findings, make them accessible to this group.’”

Fluoride Research

As detailed in “Fluoride on Trial” (hyperlinked above) and many other articles over the past decade, there’s no shortage of scientific evidence showing water fluoridation causes more harm than good. More than 400 animal and human studies have in fact found fluoride is neurotoxic and damages the brain,18 and have been published in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals.

The claim that Till’s research conclusions “diverge significantly from current research” therefore doesn’t hold water. What’s more, depositions by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials, which took place in 2018, have also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and its effects on the brain. During the fluoride trial against the EPA, which took place in June 2020, Michael Connett, an attorney for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) who is leading the lawsuit, asked the EPA to identify all studies that demonstrate or support the neurological safety of prenatal fluoride exposure.

They produced a single study from 1995, in which the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride was assessed in rats. Ironically, this study actually shows that neonatal fluoride exposure is neurotoxic, and EPA scientists confirmed that this was indeed the case.

So, the only study they could find to support safety is actually showing harm. Aside from the 201919,20 and 202021 studies that Till led, the following also implicate fluoride as a neurotoxin that has no place in communal water supplies:

Bashash 201722,23  Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, and the EPA, this study followed pregnant women and their babies for 12 years, measuring the fluoride in their urine, which reveals total exposure, regardless of the source. They found a strong relationship between the fluoride level in mothers’ urine and IQ scores in their children at the ages of 4, and between 6 and 12.
Green 201924  Published in JAMA Pediatrics, this study reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.
Riddell 201925  Published in Environment International, this study found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to non-fluoridated ones.
Malin 201926  Published in Environmental Health, it linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.
Malin 201927  Published in Environment International. A second study by Malin’s team reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride. The CDC funded this study.
Uyghurturk 202028  Published in Environmental Health, it found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in non-fluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019, and Bashash et al, 2017.29,30

As early as 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) looked at the toxicology of fluoride, concluding that, based on the studies available at that time, fluoride poses a threat to the brain.31

Studies have also demonstrated that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor32 that suppresses thyroid function,33,34,35 and this too can lower IQ in offspring if the mother has underactive thyroid function during pregnancy.

Excessive fluoride exposure also causes dental fluorosis, which in turn increases rates of dental cavities.36,37 This alone should be cause for reconsidering water fluoridation, considering it’s a public health strategy aimed at preventing cavities.

The Fight Against Water Fluoridation Continues

Hopefully, FAN’s legal action against the EPA will result in the elimination of fluoride from U.S. water supplies. We still have a ways to go through. As it stands, the judge in the case has asked FAN to allow the EPA to reassess the evidence before he makes a ruling.

According to the judge, the EPA has used the wrong standard to assess the evidence (which, incidentally, means the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” are likely to have made the same mistake when judging the available research).

The judge also noted, on the record, that the evidence presented by plaintiffs raises serious questions about the policy to fluoridate water supplies. If the EPA tries to drag out this process, he is prepared to make a ruling based on the evidence presented.

So, we still have to wait for the conclusion to this groundbreaking trial but, clearly, we are closer than we’ve ever been to see an end to this tragic and unnecessary poisoning of millions of individuals. In the end, researchers like Till may well end up having the last word on the matter.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

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

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

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

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.




Judge Gives EPA One More Chance to Do Its Job and Halt Fluoridation of Drinking Water

By Children’s Health Defense Team

In August, a landmark David-versus-Goliath federal lawsuit brought by citizens against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to end fluoridation of drinking water took another giant step forward. The lawsuit—spearheaded by a coalition of nonprofits and individual citizens—resulted in a two-week trial in June (via video conference) that synthesized the findings of hundreds of studies, including two landmark birth cohort studies funded by the National Institutes of Health. The evidence, which included important admissions from EPA’s own scientists, makes clear that the fluoridation chemicals consumed by over 200 million Americans present an unreasonable risk of neurotoxic effects, including reduced IQ and ADHD symptoms, particularly for babies in the womb and bottle-fed infants. Buttressed by a 2,500-page Citizens Petition and the expert testimony of four internationally recognized scientists, lead attorney Michael Connett asserted that the EPA has been derelict in its duty, spelled out under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), to limit or ban toxic chemicals that pose unreasonable risks—and especially, as this case underscored, risks to the developing brain.

At the close of the June proceedings—during which the EPA shunned its own in-house experts in favor of testimony from unqualified “scientists-for-hire”—presiding Judge Chen chastised the EPA for applying an improper standard of fluoride neurotoxicity and urged the agency to work with the plaintiffs to figure out a solution. Following more foot-dragging from the EPA, the judge, on August 6, issued a new order that propels the still very much alive lawsuit into encouraging but largely uncharted legal territory. Specifically, Judge Chen directed plaintiffs to file a new petition with EPA that incorporates significant scientific developments that have occurred since the original petition’s filing. As for EPA, the judge has urged the agency “to give such a petition due consideration on the merits in light of the substantial scientific evidence proffered at trial”—including the powerful testimony of Philippe Grandjean, MD, Ph.D., Howard Hu, MD, MPH, ScD, Bruce Lanphear, MD, MPH and Kathleen Thiessen, Ph.D. The Court ordered the two parties to report back on November 5 and, in the meantime, is holding the trial record open.

Those who have been following the lawsuit’s progress will enjoy watching an enlightening conversation between legal luminaries Michael Connett and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., which highlights some of the more interesting twists and turns that this groundbreaking legal endeavor has followed. Stay tuned!




The End of Fluoridation Is in Sight

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A collection of some of the strongest fluoride studies in history have recently been published, showing that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk and hazard to all, but to the fetus and infants in particular
  • After a four-year process, a landmark fluoridation trial was held in federal court, and fluoridation’s neurotoxic risk to vulnerable subpopulations was confirmed, along with the U.S. EPA’s failure to take action to protect citizens from these risks
  • The judge has urged the parties to discuss the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, after which the judge will present his final ruling
  • While FAN is taking the lead in court, at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours
  • New educational and advocacy tools are available so you can take action to end fluoridation in your community or state, to immediately protect the most vulnerable

Water fluoridation is one of the biggest public health failures of the 20th century. Despite solid scientific evidence of harm, politics and public relations have kept the practice alive.

Proponents, including the American Dental Association (ADA) and the Oral Health Division of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), have spent millions of dollars on promotion and public relations to sell fluoridation using half-truths, convincing talking points, and diversions.

But fluoridation is also one of the most widely rejected health interventions on Earth, with 95% of the world’s population consuming water from systems that are not fluoridated.

For the past decade, the trend has moved in the direction of communities ending the practice, not starting it. And now, due to an abundance of new research, a landmark lawsuit and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of the Fluoride Action Network and its supporters like you, the practice could be on the brink of extinction.

The Evidence of Harm Is Too Great To Be Ignored

All tissues are important, but the most important organ to protect during fetal and infant development is the brain. Damage occurring to this organ during these early stages of life is permanent and cannot be undone later in life.

The evidence of neurotoxic harm from water fluoridation has been mounting at an unprecedented rate in recent years, and has quickly become the most urgent reason to end the practice as soon as possible. A cavity can easily be filled, but damage to a child’s brain is permanent.

A large body of government-funded research now indicates that fluoride is neurotoxic and is associated with lowered IQ in children and a significant increase in ADHD diagnosis and related behaviors in children at doses experienced in fluoridated communities. Experts in the field have likened the size of the effect to that from lead.

This includes over 200 animal studies showing that prolonged exposure to varying levels of fluoride can damage the brain, 65 human studies linking moderately high fluoride exposures with reduced intelligence, three human studies linking fluoride exposure with impaired fetal brain development, and seven Mother-Offspring studies linking fluoride exposure during pregnancy to reduced IQ in offspring.

Over the past year, we’ve also seen unprecedented new science from Canada and the USA showing fluoride harms the developing brain from exposures due primarily to artificial water fluoridation at the “optimal level.” Several of these high-quality studies were funded by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (formerly the National Institutes of Health).

Strongest Studies Published Over the Past Year

Seven studies published in 2019 and 2020 are among the strongest yet, and are obviously relevant to water fluoridation as they were conducted in communities with what the ADA considers the “optimal level” of fluoride in drinking water. These include:

  1. Green 2019 — published in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s journal on Pediatrics. It reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.
  2. Riddell 2019 — published in Environment International. It found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.
  3. Till 2020 — published in Environment International. It reported that children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.
  4. Uyghurturk 2020 — published in Environmental Health. It found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019 and Bashash et al, 2017.
  5. Malin 2019 — published in Environmental Health. It linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.
  6. Malin 2019 — published in Environment International. It reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride bodies. The CDC funded this study.

The claims made by proponents of fluoridation that there is only “one or two studies” finding harm, or that they are only from areas with naturally high fluoride levels, are no longer relevant. The scientific evidence can now be considered overwhelming and undeniable. In fact, the level of evidence that fluoride is neurotoxic now far exceeds the evidence that was in place when lead was banned from gasoline.

recent review by Danish scientist, Harvard professor and neurotoxicity expert Philippe Grandjean, MD, DMSc, also concluded that:

“… there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development.”

It should come as no surprise then, that a draft systematic review published in 2020 by the National Toxicology Program of human studies of fluoride’s neurotoxicity concluded that fluoride was a “presumed” neurotoxin based on the large number, quality and consistency of brain studies.

The review identified 149 human studies and 339 animal studies, but did not include the three most recent neurotoxicity-related studies from the York University group (Till 2019; Riddell 2019), or the study showing that women in the U.S. had levels of fluoride in urine high enough to cause damage to the brain of the fetus (Uyghurturk 2020).

While the draft NTP review is equivocal about effects at low exposures, these newest high-quality mother-child studies support a conclusion that artificially fluoridated water causes substantial IQ reductions. This fact was recently echoed in a letter published in Pediatric Research by the co-authors of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride/IQ study, which said:

“Over the past 75 years, health authorities have declared that community water fluoridation-a practice that reaches over 400 million worldwide-is safe. Yet, studies conducted in North America examining the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy were nonexistent.

When a Canadian study reported that higher fluoride exposure in pregnant women was associated with lower IQ scores in young children, critics attacked the methodology of the study and discounted the significance of the results.

Health authorities continued to conclude that fluoride is unequivocally safe, despite four well-conducted studies over the last 3 years consistently linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy with adverse neurodevelopmental effects in offspring …

The tendency to ignore new evidence that does not conform to widespread beliefs impedes the response to early warnings about fluoride as a potential developmental neurotoxin. Evolving evidence should inspire scientists and health authorities to re-evaluate claims about the safety of fluoride, especially for the fetus and infant for whom there is no benefit.” 

FAN Leads the Fight Against Neurotoxins

Since 2000, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has been committed to reducing exposure to fluoride, and even with all of the science firmly on our side, we couldn’t wait for legislators and public health officials to cast aside their entrenched dogma in favor of fluoridation and catch up on the science. Instead, we initiated the legal process to end the practice that today affects more than 200 million Americans.

A little-known provision of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) gave us our opportunity. It offers citizens a way to circumvent the corruption and force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to prohibit or limit the use of toxic substances.

Watchdog groups no longer have to convince the EPA of unreasonable risk; they can now have an objective judge decide based on an independent review of the evidence.

We are also laying the foundation for future TSCA challenges by citizens and environmental groups. For example, because of Judge Edward Chen’s ruling to deny the EPA’s motion to dismiss our case, TSCA law will now be interpreted to allow the EPA to be petitioned to regulate single uses of substances, rather all uses, which was the EPA’s position. This change will make it easier for activists to force the EPA to review the risks of specific chemicals used commercially.

While it has been four years since this effort began in November of 2016 — when the Fluoride Action Network, together with a coalition of nonprofits and individual citizens, presented a petition to the EPA to end the deliberate addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public’s drinking water — it has actually taken 20 years of effort by FAN to bring us to this point.

It took the development of our extensive website in the early days. It took the creation of our comprehensive health database (larger than any government had put together on fluoride’s toxicity).

It took countless submissions to government agencies and the translation of many Chinese neurotoxicity studies and much more. And, after much delay due to government shut downs and Covid-19, our day in court finally arrived.

Trial of the Century

The trial began with an opening statement from the attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Connett. He made the succinct but powerful case that fluoride presents a hazard (threat to the brain); that this hazard is a risk at the doses experienced in fluoridated communities; and that it is an unreasonable risk.

The EPA, represented by lawyers from the Department of Justice, argued that establishing fluoride as a neurotoxic hazard requires a systematic review, which they claimed FAN’s experts didn’t perform.

They also argued that the evidence showing harm from fluoride at the levels found in communities that practice fluoridation wasn’t strong enough to yield action from the EPA. Both of these claims would be disproven by FAN’s experts and attorney during the trial.

This was followed by three days of testimony from FAN’s expert witnesses, all independent and leading scientists whose world-class expertise includes fluoride, neurotoxicity and risk assessments, and whose expertise the EPA has relied on in the past on other toxicants like lead and mercury. The witnesses included (click on links to see their declarations and resumes):

Their testimony was followed by the EPA’s witnesses, two of which were experts-for-hire from the corporate consulting firm Exponent, and one was a risk assessment expert from the EPA.

It was revealed that the EPA paid Exponent approximately $350,000 for their testimony, which was focused primarily on claiming that there was insufficient evidence of harm — something they’re known for doing in every trial, no matter who they’re representing or how strong the science is.

One of their witnesses, Dr. Ellen Chang, has a long history of defending and producing systematic reviews for corporate polluters, including for DOW Chemical’s Agent Orange, Monsanto’s glyphosate, 3M’s PFOAs, and pesticides from Syngenta and Croplife. She also worked for the American Chemistry Council, American Petroleum Institute, and the Manganese Interest Group.

Several paragraphs here couldn’t possibly do the in-depth proceedings of the trial justice, or highlight all of the shocking and incredible statements that were made. I would urge you to read our detailed summaries for each of the trial days.

I would also urge you to visit our TSCA trial overview page, where you can find the basic facts, a timeline of all actions and rulings, links to all of the submissions made by FAN, links to all of the media coverage, and links to the studies we relied upon to make our case. You can also visit our Twitter page, where we provided live tweet coverage of days 3 through 7.

The Judge’s Reaction

After seven days of trial and closing statements from both parties, the judge held off on making a final ruling, but he did make it fairly obvious that he was convinced that FAN fluoride was a neurotoxin and likely posed an unreasonable risk. He said that the EPA had failed to properly assess that risk, and illegitimately turned down FAN’s 2016 petition for TSCA action.

The judge urged the parties to spend the next few weeks discussing the possibility of an amended TSCA petition and assessment by the EPA, or start a new petition and have the EPA conduct a proper review, and leave his final ruling until that is complete. Both parties expressed doubt that such an arrangement would be fruitful, but ultimately agreed to move forward with it and update the court on their progress in the beginning of August.

We Expect the EPA Could Continue to Delay

We don’t expect the overzealous proponents of the fluoridation, including the EPA, CDC and ADA, to roll over without using every avenue possible to save their credibility by protecting fluoridation. They’ve already proven time and again, they have deep pockets and no shame.

Proponents don’t seem to realize that continued promotion will cause an ever-increasing loss of the public’s trust in the agencies that are meant to protect them. Continuing this practice in the absence of sound science — and investing millions of dollars in PR to cover up that fact — will further erode the public’s trust in public health programs.

Right now, the only thing being protected is a failed policy and the reputation of those who refuse to accept that this program has been a massive failure both ethically and scientifically.

Before the trial the EPA had already intimated that they could appeal a ruling in our favor, and that even if we win the appeal the rulemaking process to end fluoridation’s neurotoxic harm could take up to three years. This would mean tens of thousands more children permanently harmed by fluoridation.

This is why, regardless of the ultimate verdict, FAN will continue to need your support. We have forged this precedent-setting path together. Your support, contributions and sharing of our cause and legal case have played a critical role in making this happen, and we thank you. Whether we win or lose this trial, our important education efforts will have to continue.

Please consider investing in an end to fluoridation by making a tax-deductible donation to our work.

Also, please consider signing-up to receive FAN’s email bulletins and following us on FacebookTwitterYouTube and Instagram. We will keep you informed about the latest fluoride research and news, plus give you opportunities help influence fluoride policy in your area and throughout the world.

New Tools and Resources to Educate Leaders About Neurotoxicity

While FAN is taking the lead in court at the federal and state level, and helping campaigners at the local level to educate decision-makers and public health officials, we need your help to spread this educational campaign to every community, including yours. To make the task easier, we have created a number of new educational materials.

First, is our handout on neurotoxicity. We have both a color version along with a black and white version for cheaper bulk printing, as well as a list of the references for this handout that you can combine to make a nice double-sided handout if you so choose. You can also check out our other handouts here.

Second, FAN’s Research Director, Chris Neurath, filmed a Zoom webinar in which he presented detailed evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxin.

He described the rapidly accumulating peer-reviewed science showing that fluoride lowers the IQ of children and increases their risk of neurobehavioral problems like ADHD. He put those studies into perspective in ways we can all understand.

This video a powerful tool for campaigners and parents looking to learn the science and to share it with decision-makers. Neurath’s presentation is about 50 minutes and includes a 30-minute question and answer session that took place at the end. Click here to access the PowerPoint slides used in this presentation.

Help educate your state-level decision makers about the neurotoxic harm caused by water fluoridation. Use our simple automated email system to send Neurath’s presentation to your state legislators and urge them to introduce a bill next session to end the practice throughout your state: Educate Your Legislators NOW.

FAN has also produced a new video series entitled, “Four Game-Changing Studies,” explaining the science behind fluoridation’s neurotoxicity in four short videos featuring Paul Connett, Ph.D. The shorter format makes the content easier to share on social media and easier for local authorities to digest incrementally.




Fluoridated Water May Soon Be Outlawed

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • In 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban water fluoridation in U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
  • Under the TSCA, the EPA evaluates risks from new and existing chemicals and is supposed to act to address any “unreasonable risks” such chemicals may pose to human health and the environment
  • The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting the consumer advocacy group and partners to file a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial
  • Since then, a number of victories have occurred that are moving us closer to the goal of getting fluoride out of U.S. drinking water
  • In September 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request by the EPA to delay the lawsuit’s upcoming trial date of February 3, 2020, instead of maintaining the trial timeline

In 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and coalition partners filed a petition asking the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to U.S. drinking water under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

Under the TSCA, the EPA evaluates risks from new and existing chemicals and is supposed to act to address any “unreasonable risks” such chemicals may pose to human health and the environment.1

However, the EPA has maintained that because fluoride supposedly prevents cavities — a “benefit” that’s been disproven — it justifies adding the chemical to water, even though scientific research shows it poses significant risks.2

The EPA dismissed FAN’s petition, prompting the consumer advocacy group and partners to file a lawsuit challenging the EPA’s denial. Since then, a number of victories have occurred that are moving us closer to the goal of getting fluoride out of U.S. drinking water.

Most recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied a request by the EPA to delay the lawsuit’s upcoming trial date of February 3, 2020, instead of maintaining the trial timeline. According to FAN:3

“Not only does the victory keep the EPA from increasing the cost of the lawsuit by adding more evidence to examine and another expert witness to depose at the last minute, it also adds to the momentum our legal team has gained from four previous legal victories.”

The fifth Victory Moves Water Fluoridation Ban Closer to Reality

The court’s ruling denying the EPA’s request to delay the trial is the fifth victory in the TSCA lawsuit. Four notable victories have already occurred, beginning on December 2017, when a court denied the EPA’s initial motion to dismiss the case.

A second victory occurred just weeks later when the EPA attempted to block FAN from obtaining internal EPA documents and using new research on fluoride’s toxicity in the trial. Stuart Cooper, FAN’s campaign director, explained:

“Two and a half weeks later, on February 7, 2018, we won a second major legal victory. This time, the EPA tried to put up another roadblock by limiting the scope of discovery. In other words, EPA worked to prohibit our attorneys from obtaining internal EPA documents, and to prohibit our experts from relying upon recently published studies.

… Had the EPA prevailed we would have been prohibited from including any new fluoride neurotoxicity study published after our petition was submitted in November 2016, including the landmark U.S. government-funded 12-year study by Bashash et al. published in September 2017.”

The court again denied the EPA’s motion, which meant the 12-year study could be used in the case. “This study is critical in demonstrating that fluoride is neurotoxic and has no place in the public water supply,” Cooper added. The study in question showed that higher exposure to fluoride while in utero is associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in childhood, both at the age of 4 and 6-to-12 years.4

The study involved 299 pairs of women and their babies. Mexico does not fluoridate their drinking water, but the study participants were exposed to fluoride via fluoridated salt and varying levels of naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water.

While previous studies have used measurements of fluoride levels in drinking water to estimate a population’s exposure, the featured study used urine samples — in both the mothers and their children — to determine fluoride exposure.

The researchers then compared fluoride levels with each child’s intelligence, assessed using the General Cognitive Index (GCI) of the McCarthy Scales of Children’s Abilities at age 4 and again between the ages of 6 and 12 years using the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI).5

While the children’s fluoride levels at ages 4 and 6-to-12 were not associated with their intelligence, the study found that exposure that occurs prenatally was linked to lower intelligence scores. In fact, women with higher levels of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy were more likely to have children with lower intelligence.

Specifically, every 0.5 milligrams per liter increase in pregnant women’s fluoride levels was associated with a reduction of 3.15 and 2.5 points on the children’s GCI and WASI scores, respectively.

Third and Fourth Victories Leading to Landmark Trial

After the EPA lost its request to block FAN attorneys from obtaining internal documents or using pertinent new research in the trial, the agency then objected to sharing internal documents or allowing employees to be deposed about EPA’s fluoride safety standards. In October 2018, a court again ruled against the EPA, stating that this internal information had to be shared.6

“The EPA’s documents and correspondence relating to the specified studies are relevant to the ultimate issue the Court must decide — whether the ingestion of fluoride in drinking water causes neurotoxic harm,” the ruling stated.7

In the fourth victory, which occurred on April 2019, the court ordered the EPA to produce additional documents and scientists for deposition.8 With the fifth victory denying the EPA’s attempt to delay the trial for 65 days, the lawsuit is scheduled to begin as originally scheduled on February 3, 2020.

In November 2019, the National Toxicology Program’s (NTP) draft review of fluoride’s neurodevelopmental effects on humans is set to be released, and the EPA had attempted to use this as a reason to delay the trial, but the judge disagreed. FAN’s attorneys, in a brief response to the EPA’s request for a delay, stated:9

“EPA has been aware of the NTP’s … monograph for the entirety of this litigation. EPA is not only a member of NTP’s Executive Committee but provided comments to the NTP about the review prior to the review’s commencement in late 2016. At no point, however, during the 2+ years of this litigation has EPA expressed any concern that the NTP review could affect the scheduling of this case.”

The NTP’s research report on the effects of fluoride on learning and memory in animals was released in July 2016 and found a low to moderate level of evidence suggesting exposure to fluoride at concentrations higher than 0.7 parts per million (ppm) may have adverse effects on learning and memory.

The exposure level of 0.7 ppm is the recommended level for water fluoridation in the U.S., and the review found “very few studies assessed learning and memory effects” in animals at exposure levels near 0.7 ppm.10 However, as noted by FAN’s Cooper:

“ … [I]t is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm — which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride.

For example, it is well-known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans. Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals to tease out effects.”

Don’t Sacrifice Your Brain for Your Teeth

A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study published in JAMA Pediatrics found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ.11 As reported by FAN:12

“They found that a 1 mg per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls. When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women’s fluid intake, they found lower IQs in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders.”

The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date. Anticipating the controversy the findings would generate among public health agencies, fluoride proponents and the media, extra data checks were undertaken prior to publishing. FAN noted:13

“Making the publication of this study even more impactful is that it is accompanied by an editor’s note, a podcast featuring the journal’s editors, and an editorial from world-renowned neurotoxicity expert Dr. David Bellinger. This reaction by the JAMA editors shows just how important the study is, as most studies in their journal don’t receive this treatment.

For the first time in his career, the editor of Pediatrics included an editorial note, knowing fluoridation proponents would attack the study without justification. He noted the study’s rigor, triple-checking of the data, and definitive nature of the evidence.”

More than 300 studies have shown fluoride’s toxic effects on the brain,14 including a 2006 National Research Council review that suggested fluoride exposure may be associated with brain damage, endocrine system disruption, and bone cancer.15

In 2012, Harvard researchers also revealed that children living in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas16 and suggested high fluoride exposure may have an adverse effect on children’s neurodevelopment.

Drinking fluoridated water, which poses risks to your brain and overall health when ingested, makes little sense, especially since any benefits it provides to your teeth occur from topical exposure. When you drink fluoridated water, 99% of the fluoride goes down the drain and into the environment.17

If you want fluoride for your teeth, use fluoridated toothpaste — don’t drink fluoridated water, trading your brain health for your teeth. That being said, I don’t recommend fluoridated toothpaste either, as there are ways to keep your teeth healthy that don’t involve neurotoxic agents like fluoride.

How to Keep Your Teeth Healthy — Without Fluoride

Fluoride is not the answer to healthy teeth. A comprehensive oral care plan should include addressing your diet, reducing your net carb (total grams of carbohydrates minus your grams of fiber) intake and, if needed, taking nutritional supplements that support your oral health, such as vitamins C and K2, and coenzyme Q10.

Regular brushing (with fluoride-free toothpaste) and flossing are also important, as are regular professional cleanings with a mercury-free biological dentist.

Considering there are many studies showing fluoride’s toxicity, the Precautionary Principle, which states that preventive measures should also be put in place to avoid exposure if there’s evidence of a substance causing harm, should be put into place — and the EPA should take action to remove this toxic chemical from drinking water.

Let’s hope that come February 2020, FAN and partners get their sixth victory in the form of fluoridated water finally being outlawed.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

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

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

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

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Donate Today!

Read more great articles at mercola.com




Short Film Reveals the Lunacy of Water Fluoridation

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Research links fluoridated water consumption to endocrine dysfunction, hypothyroidism, ADHD and reduced IQ
  • Many water authorities do not use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid — a toxic waste product of the fertilizer industry that is frequently contaminated with heavy metals and other toxins
  • 97 percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate, and data show non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as fluoridated areas

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has hailed water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century. Beginning in 1945, it was claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a safe and effective way to improve people’s dental health. Over the decades, many bought into this hook, line, and sinker, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The featured film, “Our Daily Dose,” reviews some of this evidence. As noted in the film’s synopsis:

“Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue. Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day.”

Share This Film With Those Still Sitting On the Fence on Fluoride!

The film may not offer many brand new revelations to those of you who are already well-informed about the history and documented hazards of fluoride.

It was primarily created as an educational vehicle aimed at those who may not be aware of these issues, or who might not yet be entirely convinced that drinking fluoride isn’t a good thing. So PLEASE, share this video with all of your friends and family who are on the fence on this issue, and ask them to watch it. It’s only 20 minutes long, but it packs a lot of compelling details into those 20 minutes.

Understanding how fluoride affects your body and brain is particularly important for parents with young children, and pregnant women. It’s really crucial to know that you should NEVER mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water for example, as this may overexpose your child to 100 times the proposed “safe” level of fluoride exposure for infants!

If your child suffers from ADD/ADHD, drinking fluoridated water may also worsen his or her condition. Ditto for those with under-functioning thyroid. So please, do share this video with your social networks, as it could make a big difference in people’s health.

Fluoride Is Both an Endocrine Disruptor and a Neurotoxin

Scientific investigations have revealed that fluoride is an endocrine-disrupting chemical,1 and a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and lowers IQ in children.2 It has been implicated as a contributing factor in the rising rates of both attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)3,4 and thyroid disease.

Indeed, fluoride was used in Europe to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients as late as the 1970s, and reduced thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05 to 0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).5

For Over 50 Years, Fluoride Levels Were Too High, Government Admits

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure, and in April 2015, the US government admitted that the “optimal” level of fluoride recommended since 1962 had in fact been too high. As a result, over 40 percent of American teens show signs of fluoride overexposure6 — a condition known as dental fluorosis. In some areas, dental fluorosis rates are as high as 70 to 80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.

So, for the first time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water7,8,9 by 40 percent, from an upper limit of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L. The HHS said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10 years to assess whether they were correct about this new level being protective against dental fluorosis. But just what is the acceptable level of harm in the name of cavity prevention?

A number of studies10,11,12,13 have shown that children with moderate to severe dental fluorosis score worse on tests measuring cognitive skills and IQ than peers without fluorosis — a clear revelation highlighted in the film, as some still insist that dental fluorosis is nothing more than a cosmetic issue.

The Price We Pay for Cavity Prevention

According to the film, the CDC estimates water fluoridation decreases dental decay by, at most, 25 percent. Recent research14,15 however, suggests the real effect may be far lower. Based on the findings of three papers assessing the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay, the researchers concluded that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth.

If that’s the case, then why are we still jeopardizing our children’s long-term thyroid and brain health by adding fluoride to drinking water?

Fluoride — like many other poisons — was originally declared safe based on dosage, but we now know that timing of exposure can play a big role in its effects as well. Children who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive very high doses and may be affected for life as a result of this early exposure.

Fluoride can also cross the placenta, causing developing fetuses to be exposed to fluoride. Considering the fact that fluoride has endocrine-disrupting activity, this is hardly a situation amenable to the good health of that child. It’s important to realize that fluoride is not a nutrient. It’s a drug, and it’s the ONLY drug that is purposely added directly into drinking water.

This route of delivery completely bypasses standard rules relating to informed consent, which is foundational for ethical medical practice. What’s worse, there’s no way to keep track of the dosage. And no one is keeping track of side effects.

Infants Severely and Routinely overdose on Fluoride

According to the recent Iowa Study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC, infants and young children are being massively overdosed on fluoride. This study, which is the largest U.S. study conducted measuring the number of fluoride children ingest, concluded that:

  • 100 percent of infants receiving infant formula mixed with fluoridated tap water get more than the allegedly safe dose of fluoride. Some formula-fed infants receive 100 times the safe level on a daily basis
  • 30 percent of 1-year-olds exceed the recommended safe dose
  • 47 percent of 2- to 3-year-olds exceed the safe dose

Most Water Authorities Use Toxic Waste Product, Not Pharmaceutical Grade Fluoride

As stated, fluoride is a drug, and research into the health effects of fluoride are based on pharmaceutical grade fluoride. However, a majority of water authorities do not even use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid, or hexafluorosilicic acid — toxic waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which are frequently contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, and other toxins.

This is a key point that many fluoride proponents fail to address when arguing for its use. Indeed, holding elected officials accountable for procuring proof that the specific fluoridation chemical used actually fulfills fluoride’s health and safety claims and complies with all regulations, laws and risk assessments required for safe drinking water, has been a successful strategy for halting water fluoridation in a number of areas around the U.S.

While the idea of hiding toxic industrial waste in drinking water would sound like a questionable idea at best to most people, it was welcomed by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 1983 letter, Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, wrote:

“… In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water, and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them…”

Data and Science Do Not Support Water Fluoridation

Ninety-seven percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate their water, and data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) show that non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as the U.S.,16 where a majority of water is still fluoridated. If fluoride were, in fact, the cause of this decline, non-fluoridating countries should not show the same trend.

Clearly, declining rates of dental decay are not in and of themselves proof that water fluoridation actually works. It’s also worth noting that well over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, contaminating and polluting the environment.

Source: KK Cheng et.al. BMJ 2007.17 Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.

Ending Fluoridation Will Be the Greatest Public Health Achievement of the 21st Century

Despite the fact that the scientific evidence does not support fluoridation, those who question or openly oppose it are typically demonized and written off as crazy conspiracy theorists. Many fluoride supporters claim the science of fluoridation was “settled” some 50 years ago — effectively dismissing all the revelations produced by modern science!

To defend their position, they rely on outdated science, because that’s all they have. You’d be extremely hard-pressed to find modern research supporting water fluoridation.

Indeed, as noted in the film, ending water fluoridation will be one of the greatest public health achievements of the 21st Century, and I for one will not stop until that happens. To learn more about why water fluoridation runs counter to good science, common sense and the public good, please see the following video, which recounts 10 important fluoride facts.

The Best Cavity Prevention Is Your Diet

The best way to prevent cavities is not through fluoride, but by addressing your diet. One of the keys to oral health is eating a traditional diet or real foods, rich in fresh, unprocessed vegetables, nuts, and grass-fed meats. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, you prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay in the first place.

According to Dr. Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development:18 “We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10 percent of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay.”

Other natural strategies that can significantly improve your dental health are eating plenty of fermented vegetables, and doing oil pulling with coconut oil. Also make sure you’re getting plenty of high-quality animal-based omega-3 fats, as research suggests even moderate amounts of omega-3fats may help ward off gum disease. My favorite source is krill oil.

On May 19 to 26, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

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

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get To The Finish Line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the eighth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Read more great articles at mercola.com




Two Major Legal Victories in Federal Court Case to End Water Fluoridation

Story at-a-glance

  • Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is among a coalition of environmental, medical and health groups suing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban artificial water fluoridation
  • FAN has recently won two major legal victories, defeating efforts by the EPA to dismiss the case and limit the evidence that can be considered
  • Legal experts say the lawsuit will be precedent setting and increase other challenges to EPA chemical rules by environmental watchdog groups

By Stuart Cooper | mercola.com
Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network

In November 2016, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) together with a coalition of organizations and private citizens, including Food & Water Watch, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine & Toxicology, and Moms Against Fluoridation, presented a petition1 to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calling on the agency to exercise its authority to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to the public’s drinking water supplies under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

FAN’s petition was made on the grounds that a large body of animal, cellular and human research shows that fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen in fluoridated communities, and included over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing these health risks.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) allows individuals to petition the EPA to regulate and prohibit the “particular use“ of a chemical if the petitioner can show that it presents an unreasonable risk to the general public or susceptible subpopulations. TSCA specifically gives the EPA the authority to prohibit drinking water additives.

However, in an attempt to put up an unreasonable roadblock the EPA dismissed our petition based on a questionable interpretation of Congress’s recent amendments to TSCA. In response, FAN and our coalition partners filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California legally challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition.

It also prompted the Natural Resources Defense Council to file an amicus brief challenging EPA’s strained interpretation of the law.2Since challenging the EPA in court, a lot has happened to move us closer to a successful outcome. We have won our first two battles in federal court, new government-funded research has been published which strengthens our case, and our day in court has been scheduled.

Two Legal Victories as EPA Tries to Dismiss Case and Limit Evidence

The EPA’s motion to dismiss FAN’s petition was heard November 30 by federal Judge Edward M. Chen, of the Northern District Court of California in San Francisco. Our attorney, Michael Connett, argued the motion on behalf of FAN. Only days before Christmas, the judge gifted us our first legal victory. December 21, 2017, Chen denied the EPA’s motion3 to dismiss the case. This ruling was covered by Reuters4 and various legal and regulatory journals.

Two and a half weeks later, on February 7, 2018, we won a second major legal victory. This time, the EPA tried to put up another roadblock by limiting the scope of discovery. In other words, EPA worked to prohibit our attorneys from obtaining internal EPA documents, and to prohibit our experts from relying upon recently published studies. According to Chen:5

The text of the TSCA, its structure, its purpose and the legislative history make clear that Congress did not intend to impose such a limitation in judicial review of Section 21 citizen petitions. The Court therefore DENIES the EPA’s motion.”

Connett noted:6 If you look at the legislative history, Congress wanted a robust mechanism for citizen oversight over EPA. This court’s decision highlights for environmental groups that Congress created a powerful tool. Had the EPA prevailed we would have been prohibited from including any new fluoride neurotoxicity study published after our petition was submitted in November 2016, including the landmark U.S. government-funded 12-year study7 by Bashash et al. published in September 2017. This study is critical in demonstrating that fluoride is neurotoxic and has no place in the public water supply.

New Government-Funded Research Links Fluoride to IQ Loss

It is difficult to overstate the importance of this new study,8 published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, linking fluoride levels in the urine of pregnant women with lower measures of intelligence in their children. This is especially true because it was funded by the following U.S. agencies: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA. As noted by the authors:

In this study, higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old.”

The authors from several universities in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico followed over 300 mother-child pairs in Mexico City for a 12-year period. They found a strong relationship between the mothers’ exposure to fluoride (as measured in their urine) and lowered IQ in their offspring at 4 and again at 6 to 12 years of age. The urine levels of the pregnant woman in the study were the same as is found in pregnant women in the U.S. (0.5 to 1.5 mg/Liter, or ppm). At these levels the authors reported a staggering loss of six IQ points.

Related Article: Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L. Studies have found that adults in the U.S. have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L, which is what caused the five to six IQ-point difference in the children of the study mothers.

Furthermore, the study was very carefully conducted by a group of researchers who have collectively produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.

The lead investigator of this study, Dr. Howard Hu from the University of Toronto, commented on the quality of the study in the Canadian National Post,9 “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children.”

This new study thus helps to confirm the health risks described in our petition, and will be an invaluable piece of evidence for our attorneys as they develop our case over the next year.

It has also inspired a FAN campaign called Moms2B Avoid FluorideWe launched the campaign in April to advise pregnant women to avoid fluoride, particularly fluoridated water, because of the potential for harm to the brain of the fetus. With your help, we can educate the next generation of parents, so they can take action to avoid fluoride exposure during this critical time in the development of their child.

Donate Today

The Next Step — Discovery and Our Day in Court

The judge has scheduled the trial for the beginning of August 2019. This gives the FAN legal team less than 16 months for pretrial procedures. Thanks to the court’s recent ruling, we have the right to obtain various internal documents from the EPA through a process known as “discovery,” which will last up through November. We will also have the right to depose EPA’s experts under oath.

Our legal team will also be recruiting our own expert witnesses for the trial, including experts in developmental neurotoxicology, endocrinology, epidemiology, toxicology and risk assessment. According to Connett, “These experts will be needed to explain how fluoride affects the brain and how the levels that Americans now ingest in fluoridated areas are in the range at which harm can occur, particularly among vulnerable populations.”

Fluoride Lawsuit Opens Door to More Citizen Petitions; Attorneys Urge Industry to Help EPA

According to legal experts who’ve been quoted in related news coverage, FAN’s lawsuit will likely be precedent setting in determining how the court deals with citizen petitions for chemical regulation under TSCA going forward. Experts have also said our case is likely to inspire an increase in the filing of citizen petitions and lawsuits by environmental, animal welfare and public health watchdog groups to compel the EPA to enact safer regulations on toxic chemicals.10

Watchdog groups no longer have to convince the EPA of unreasonable risk; they can now have an objective judge decide based on an independent review of the evidence. Because of Chen’s ruling to deny the EPA’s motion to dismiss our case, TSCA law will now be interpreted to allow the EPA to be petitioned to regulate single uses of substances, rather all uses, which was the EPA’s position. This change will make it easier for activists to force the EPA to review the risks of specific chemicals used commercially.

In response to our success, some attorneys for industry have publicly called on industry groups to follow and help defend the EPA’s position (or lack of action on regulating toxic chemicals).11 But we will continue on, and will keep our focus on providing the Court with the best available evidence on the risks of adding industrial fluoride chemicals to over 200 million Americans’ water supply.

TSCA Lawsuit Timeline and Media Coverage

You can learn more about our lawsuit against the EPA using these additional resources available on our website and updated regularly:

Invest in an End to Fluoridation

FAN has been the leading educational and advocacy organization campaigning to end the reckless practice of water fluoridation throughout the world for over 17 years. We are up against governments with huge budgets to defend outdated policies, special interests with big money, ill-informed professional bodies and a largely oblivious media, which keeps the public, and itself, in the dark on the issue.

With each passing year, our effort gets more and more urgent because of the continuing revelations of the dangers posed to our children, especially with respect to the development of their brains. The latest example is the September 2017 Bashash study12 — the most important fluoride/IQ study to date — which we discuss above.

There are now over 220 animal studies13 that link fluoride exposure to the disruption of various aspects of brain function, over 40 studies14 that show fluoride interferes with the ability of animals to learn and remember and 52 human studies15 that have associated exposure to fluoride with loss of IQ. And some of the best of these studies have been carried out at doses exceeded by many children in fluoridated communities.

Related Article: Fluoride Has Been Proven To Be Toxic and It’s Still Being Added to YOUR Water

Using standard risk assessment techniques, former U.S. EPA risk assessment specialist William Hirzy, Ph.D., has shown that 1.4 mg/day is associated with a lowering of IQ by five IQ points in one well-conducted Chinese study16 (Xiang et al., 2003a2003b).

We cannot allow this practice to continue to harm the public. With your support, we can make ending water fluoridation the greatest public health achievement of the 21st century. Our historic lawsuit offers both a significant opportunity for an end to the practice, as well as an opportunity for you to play a key role in making it happen.

Please consider investing in our efforts by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network, a project of the American Environmental Health Studies Project.

Donate Today

On May 20 to 27, 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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get to the Finish Line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the eighth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Read more great articles at mercola.com




Toxic to Your Brain, yet They’ve Spun This Story for 70 Years That It’s Safe and Necessary

Video Source: Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • Over the past 18 years, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has facilitated the removal of fluoride from the water supplies of hundreds of communities in North America, Canada and Europe
  • FAN has filed an historic lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under a provision in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
  • Under this TSCA statute, the judge may not defer to the EPA but must weigh the evidence brought forth in trial. If the judge finds there’s an unreasonable risk, he has the authority to order EPA to begin proceedings to eliminate the risk of fluoride in drinking water
  • Earlier this year, EPA tried to limit the scope of what FAN could bring to the court’s attention. Its motion was denied, and FAN will be able to request internal documents, submit interrogatories to EPA and depose EPA experts

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

In this interview, Paul Connett, PhD, toxicologist, environmental chemist and the founder FAN, Fluoride Action Network (FAN), an organization that has fought to remove toxic fluoride from water supplies across the world, provides an important and exciting update on FAN’s progress during this past year.  FAN is an organization that has fought to remove toxic fluoride from the water supply across the world.

Over the past 18 years, FAN has helped hundreds of communities around the US, Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, Israel and New Zealand fight the reckless and unethical practice of water fluoridation.

Unprecedented Lawsuit Against EPA

In November 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The petition included more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health, including more than 180 studies published since 2006 showing fluoride causes neurotoxic harm and reduces IQ.

Related Article: Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

“Under the TSCA, the EPA has authority to ban the uses of chemicals that present unreasonable risks to the general public or to susceptible subpopulations. We’ve brought this case on the grounds that adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water presents an unreasonable risk to the general public, especially to some susceptible subpopulations,” Connett explains.

In its February 27, 2017, response,1 the EPA claimed the petition had failed to “set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride.” Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides citizens with the ability to challenge an EPA denial in federal court, which is where we are now.

“Water fluoridation needs to end,” Connett says. “The United States needs to follow the path of Europe and take fluoride out of the water supply. Those who want it can get it in toothpaste and dental products, which gives everyone the right to choose whether they want to use fluoride or not.

We can apply fluoride in a targeted fashion to the one tissue of the body that stands to benefit — the teeth — and keep it away from everywhere else, particularly to the brain. The focus of our lawsuit is on fluoride’s effects on the brain, for which there is a large and growing body of research.”

Federal Judge to Assess Fluoride Hazards

The current White House administration has vigorously opposed federal regulatory actions and has already reversed many of the environmental safety precautions previously established. This raises serious questions with regard to fluoride, because even if the lawsuit against the EPA turns out to be successful, the Trump administration could easily do something to eliminate its impact. While this is certainly a risk, Connett explains the importance of this historic case.

“One of the reasons we are excited about having this case now in federal court is that it takes this issue away from the federal health agencies, which have really been unable to get past the dogma on this issue.

Here, we have a federal judge who’s going to look at the evidence. What’s powerful about this TSCA statute, is it commands that the judge not defer to the EPA. The judge can’t simply say, ‘It’s good enough for the EPA, it’s good enough for me.’ The language in the statute says that it is to be a de novo proceeding, meaning without deference to the federal agency.

Not only that, but we had a lengthy argument earlier this year where EPA tried to limit the scope of what we could bring to the court’s attention. The judge denied that motion. We are going to be able to get discovery against the EPA. We’re going to be able to request internal documents. We’re going to be able to submit interrogatories to them and depose their experts.

It’s going to be a nice fact-finding mission for us, in addition to having an opportunity to have the best evidence presented by the best experts before this federal judge. If the judge agrees with us [and] finds that there’s an unreasonable risk, he has the authority to order EPA to begin proceedings to eliminate the risk of fluoride in drinking water. That would be a truly historic and unprecedented situation. We really are excited about the potential that this case brings.”

Help Fund Legal Action to End Water Fluoridation

The trial date has been set for August 2019. While Michael is recruiting experts to testify in this case FAN continues its campaign to educate the public of fluoridation’s dangers, especially the threat it poses to the developing brain.

In May FAN launched an urgent campaign to warn women to avoid fluoride during pregnancy in response to a major US government funded study which found a strong correlation between fluoride exposure during pregnancy and lowered IQ in offspring (Bashash et al, 2017 and Thomas et al, 2018).

The government and the media should be issuing these warnings but they aren’t. So FAN – a relatively small non-profit organization – has taken on this huge task itself. Please help fund this important campaign by making a tax-deductible donation to FAN.

Legal Expectations

FAN’s contention in this case is that adding fluoride chemicals to drinking water presents an unreasonable health risk. If the court agrees, the judge would order EPA to initiate a rule-making proceeding to eliminate that risk. And, while the judge cannot tell the EPA exactly what to do, the most obvious solution that would eliminate this risk would be to no longer add fluoride to drinking water.

Now, there are many powerful organizations that still support water fluoridation, including the American Dental Association (ADA), which supports not only fluoridation but also mercury fillings. The ADA has become quite notorious for ignoring the risks of toxic substances. With that in mind, Connett suspects that if FAN wins the case, there will be a rash of lobbying and pressure on the EPA to find a way to address the problem without actually banning fluoridation outright.

“We can cross that bridge when we get to it, but the EPA potentially could consider lowering the fluoride levels even further,” he says. “But I think, really, if the judge finds that there’s unreasonable risk, the one real solution that fixes the problem is just banning fluoridation. That’s what the United States should be doing …

Western Europe demonstrates to us that this is possible. Countries like the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland, they used to fluoridate some of their water supplies, but they decided to end the practice. Western Europe shows us that we can do it here as well.

When you couple the new research linking low-level fluoride exposures to adverse effects on the brain with the fact that we now know you don’t need to swallow fluoride for the one benefit it may provide, then it makes no sense to be forcing hundreds of millions of people to swallow this every day — not just through their water supply, but also through the foods and beverages that our water is used for.”

Water Fluoridation Gives False Appearance of Dental Care

One of the reasons why it’s so important to eliminate water fluoridation is because this chemical is very difficult to remove. You can remove some or a significant amount using distillation, reverse osmosis and special filtration media, but the vast majority of water filters that people have access to will not remove fluoride. So, you might filter your water, thinking you’ve purified it, but you haven’t eliminated one of the most significant hazards.

A primary target population for fluoridation is low-income communities, on the grounds that they have less access to dentists and are therefore in greater need of dental care. However, water fluoridation in no way, shape or form addresses this very real need. Adding fluoride chemicals to the drinking water is not dental care. As noted by Connett, “It’s an illusion of dental care.” What’s worse, low-income populations are also more likely to suffer the ill effects of fluoride, as few can afford to buy expensive water filtration systems.

“There’s plenty of reason to believe that lower income populations will be more vulnerable to fluoride’s toxicity, because we know that good nutrition and healthy diets are critical to making one less susceptible to fluoride’s toxicity,” Connett says. “Having inadequate levels of calcium, vitamin C, vitamin D, protein — those are things we know can cause you to be more susceptible to suffering harm from fluoride.

We know that deficient nutrient intakes are more common in low-income populations, as well as certain diseases, like kidney disease and diabetes. Both of which make one more susceptible to fluoride toxicity, [yet] lower income populations are the very population targeted with fluoridation campaigns today. It’s a very problematic situation.”

What’s Motivating the Promoters of Fluoridation?

Considering the evidence against fluoride, you might wonder what the motivation for the promoters might be. Just what incentives do the ADA and other industries have for continuing to promote it? One major factor is simply organizational and political inertia. Fluoride has been vigorously promoted as a health promoting tactic for decades. It’s extremely difficult for those organizations to now change their tune and admit they were wrong this whole time, and have actually caused people harm.

In the early days of water fluoridation, there were of course political and financial incentives. Chris Bryson’s book, “The Fluoride Deception,” reveals the role the war-making industries in the U.S. — the aluminum, steel and bomb industry in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s — and their role in funding fluoride research.

“They had every interest in the world to not find fluoride to be harmful at low levels, because they were exposing workers and communities to fluoride pollution,” Connett says. “They were the very people funding a lot of the key early research to explain how fluoride affects human health.

I think you had a corruption of the science early on in this issue. But the question of ‘Why do we fluoridate water?’ Honestly, it’s a hard question. It’s a complex question. I think there are a lot of people who absolutely and genuinely believe it’s a good thing.”

One of the most encouraging developments we’re now seeing is the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding much-needed studies looking at how fluoride affects the brain at low levels. The first NIH-funded paper was published last fall by a team of researchers from the University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard and Indiana University. In the past, most of these kinds of safety studies were done by ardent pro-fluoridation advocates.

“There was a pretty vigorous suppression of scientific dissent in the early days of fluoridation. Today, we’re seeing the emergence of independent researchers who now have the means to study this issue. We’re starting to see the emergence of a more vigorous academic debate. I think that’s a really important development … that will help us get out of the politics,”Connett says.

Related Article: Fluoride Has Been Proven To Be Toxic and It’s Still Being Added to YOUR Water

How Fluoride Affects Your Brain and Thyroid

As noted by Connett, there are more than 50 human population studies that have linked elevated fluoride levels with neurological effects, particularly lower IQ. More than 200 animal studies also support this link, showing fluoride has adverse effects on the brain, including detrimental effects on learning and memory. The evidence quite clearly shows that fluoride is a neurotoxin. The evidence also shows fluoride is an endocrine disruptor.

The question is at what doses do such effects occur, and how do these doses vary based on individual susceptibility? According to Connett, the evidence suggests brain effects occur at doses that are very close to what many Americans are getting on a daily basis.

More than 20 papers have found effects of fluoride exposure on IQ at around 2 parts per million (ppm), and in the U.S., the recommended fluoride level in water is 0.7 ppm. “It’s within the factor of 3. That’s a pretty small margin,” Connett notes, because you’re also getting it from other foods and beverages, plus fluoridated toothpaste.

Fluoride also affects your thyroid gland. In fact, in the ’50s and ’60s, fluoride was used as a drug to lower thyroid activity in patients with overactive thyroid.

By adding fluoride to water, it may be lowering thyroid function in people with normal or underactive thyroid, leading to hypothyroidism or subclinical hypothyroidism, which carries a range of significant health effects, including obesity, heart disease and depression. We also know that suboptimal thyroid functioning during pregnancy can affect a child’s cognitive development, so this may actually be one of the mechanisms by which fluoride affects the brain.

Fluoride Also Harms Your Teeth and Bones

Systemic fluoride also damages teeth, causing staining and pitting of the enamel known as dental fluorosis. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 58 percent of American adolescents now have some form of dental fluorosis.

“Tens of millions of kids now have dental fluorosis, which is a visible sign of overexposure,” Connett says. “Which begs the question, ‘If fluoride is affecting the tooth-forming cells and causing this visible effect, what is it doing to the tissues in the body that we can’t see?’ [The high rate of fluorosis today] highlights that we’re getting way more fluoride than was ever envisioned by the proponents of fluoridation back in the ’40s and ’50s.

When they started fluoridation back in the 1940s and ’50s, the proponents of the policy … stated that they wanted to keep the level of dental fluorosis in the population to no more than 10 to 15 percent of children, and only in its mildest forms. Beyond that [it] would be a public health issue, they said. Fast-forward 70 years to where we are today, and you have 58 percent of American adolescents … with dental fluorosis.

We are far past the level that the proponents — not the opponents — considered permissible and acceptable when the policy began.

We really need to take a step back and look at this and say, ‘Is there any need whatsoever to be supplementing every person’s daily intake of fluoride by adding it en masse to water supplies and, with it, all our processed foods and beverages?’ There’s simply no need, because it’s so easy to get fluoride. If you want it, you just … buy toothpaste with fluoride in it.”

As for your bones, fluoride has somewhat paradoxical effects. While it tends to increase the density of trabecular bone in the spine, it decreases the bone density in cortical bone, which is more prevalent in the appendicular skeleton such as leg and arm bones, as well as the hip.

And, while the density might be increased in certain types of bone, the new bone structure is structurally inferior bone that is more prone to fracture. “I think U.S. health authorities were premature to dismiss concerns about fluoride’s effects on the bone. I think that remains a substantial concern with the current exposures,” Connett says.

On May 20 to 27, 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 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the FAN and visit the links below:

  • Like FAN on Facebook, follow on Twitter and sign up for campaign alerts.
  • 10 Facts About Fluoride: Attorney Michael Connett summarizes 10 basic facts about fluoride that should be considered in any discussion about whether to fluoridate water. Also see 10 Facts Handout (PDF).
  • For more history, science and details about the betrayal of the public trust involved with the promotion of fluoridation, order the book “The Case Against Fluoride” authored by Paul Connett, James Beck and H. Spedding Micklem.
  • 50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation: Learn why fluoridation is a bad medical practice that is unnecessary and ineffective. Download PDF.
  • Health Effects Database: FAN’s database sets forth the scientific basis for concerns regarding the safety and effectiveness of ingesting fluorides. They also have a Study Tracker with the most up-to-date and comprehensive source for studies on fluoride’s effects on human health.
  • FDA/Fluoride Files: The documents in this section show the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has never approved fluoride supplements as safe and effective.

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get to the Finish Line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the eighth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Read more great articles at mercola.com




Unprecedented Lawsuit Could End Water Fluoridation in US Based on Neurotoxicity Studies

By Stuart Cooper Campaign Director, Fluoride Action Network | mercola.com

The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), along with a coalition of environmental and public health groups has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in response to their denial of our petition under Section 21 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) seeking a ban on water fluoridation.

We believe this lawsuit is an unprecedented opportunity to end the practice once and for all in the U.S., and potentially throughout the world, based on the well-documented neurotoxicity of fluoride. You may read the official complaint here. According to FAN’s attorney and adviser, Michael Connett:

“This case will present the first time a court will consider the neurotoxicity of fluoride and the question of whether fluoridation presents an unreasonable risk under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

And, in contrast to most other legal challenges of Agency actions, TSCA gives us the right to get the federal court to consider our evidence ‘de novo’ — meaning federal courts are to conduct their own independent review of the evidence without deference to the EPA’s judgment.”

Industry, legal and environmental observers following the EPA’s implementation of the new TSCA law have pointed out that a lawsuit1challenging the EPA’s denial of our petition would provide a test case for the agency’s interpretation that petitioners must provide a comprehensive analysis of all uses of a chemical in order to seek a restriction on a particular use.

Legal experts have suggested the EPA’s interpretation essentially makes the requirements for gaining Agency action using section 21 petitions impossible to meet, making the outcome significant for all U.S. residents and public health or environmental watchdog groups.

Related Article: EPA Fluoride Levels Far Exceed Those Shown to Cause Nerve Damage to Kids

Lawsuit Background: EPA Served With Citizen’s Petition

On November 22, 2016, a coalition including FAN, Food & Water Watch, Organic Consumers Association, American Academy of Environmental Medicine, International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation and several individual mothers, filed a petition calling on the EPA to ban the deliberate addition of fluoridating chemicals to the drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The petition includes more than 2,500 pages of scientific documentation detailing the risks of water fluoridation to human health.The full petition can be accessed here, a shorter eight-page summary here and our press release here.

We presented the FDA with a large body of human and animal evidence demonstrating that fluoride is a neurotoxin at levels now ingested by many U.S. children and vulnerable populations. We also presented the agency with evidence showing that fluoride has little benefit when swallowed and, accordingly, any risks from exposing people to fluoride chemicals in water are unnecessary.

We believe an impartial judge reviewing this evidence will agree that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk. On February 27, 2017, the EPA published their response.2 In their decision, the EPA claimed:

“The petition has not set forth a scientifically defensible basis to conclude that any persons have suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of exposure to fluoride in the U.S. through the purposeful addition of fluoridation chemicals to drinking water or otherwise from fluoride exposure in the U.S.”

As many independent scientists now recognize, fluoride is a neurotoxin.3 The question, therefore, is not if fluoride damages the brain, but at what dose. While EPA quibbles with the methodology of some of these studies, to dismiss and ignore these studies in their entirety for methodological imperfections is exceptionally cavalier, particularly given the consistency of the findings and the razor-thin margin between the doses causing harm in these studies and the doses that millions of Americans now receive.

EPA’s own Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment highlights the importance of having a robust margin between the doses of a chemical that cause neurotoxic effects and the doses that humans receive. FAN presented the EPA with over 180 studies showing that fluoride causes neurotoxic harm (e.g., reduced IQ), pointing out that many of these studies found harm at levels within the range, or precariously close to, the levels millions of American children now receive.

Typically, this would be a cause for major concern. But, unfortunately, the EPA has consistently shied away from applying the normal rules of risk assessment to fluoride — and it has unfortunately continued that tradition with its dismissal of our petition.

Fortunately, the TSCA statute provides citizens with the ability to challenge an EPA denial in federal court. For too long, EPA has let politics trump science on the fluoride issue (see examples). FAN welcomes having these issues considered by a federal court, where scientific evidence has a better chance of being weighed objectively.

To accompany our lawsuit, FAN is offering a new DVD and a comprehensive campaign flash drive package. The DVD features the video, “Fluoride and the Brain,” in which Michael Connett explains that fluoride’s ability to lower IQ in children is just the tip of an iceberg of over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic.

We have also made a comprehensive collection of campaign and educational videos available on a single flash drive for a limited time. It also includes our EPA petition and supporting documentation. This is a must-have for every fluoride-free campaigner’s toolkit.4  Another must-have is the book “The Case Against Fluoride,” by environmental chemist and toxicologist Paul Connett, Ph.D., which contains a comprehensive science-based argument for the end to artificial water fluoridation.

Winning this lawsuit will require a full team effort, and we want you to feel a part of that team and a part of this moment in history. Please consider playing a larger role in this potentially fluoridation-ending lawsuit by making a tax-deductible contribution.

New Study Quantifies Fluoride’s Potential to Lower IQ in Children

Since submitting our citizen’s petition to the EPA, we have learned even more about the threat to the next generation. Some children in the U.S. may be consuming enough fluoridated water to reach doses of fluoride that have the potential to lower their IQ, according to a research team headed by William Hirzy, Ph.D., a former senior scientist at the EPA who specialized in risk assessment and published an important risk analysis in the journal Fluoride last year.5

Current federal guidelines encourage the addition of fluoride chemicals into water supplies to reach 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Hirzy followed EPA risk assessment guidelines to report: “The effect of fluoride on IQ is quite large, with a predicted mean 5 IQ point loss when going from a dose of 0.5 mg/F/day to 2.0 mg F/day.”

Related Article: Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

Many children in the U.S. commonly consume these levels of fluoride within this range from all sources (i.e., water, food, dental products, medicines and air pollution). Hirzy explains the significance of this study:

“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride. Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.

One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day. Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.”

Dr. Bill Osmunson, FAN’s interim director, noted that this risk analysis adds further weight to the petition submitted to the EPA by FAN and other groups in November to ban the addition of fluoride chemicals to drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances Control Act.

FAN’s Persistence Pays Off: US Government Funding Neurotoxicity Studies

FAN progress isn’t limited to the legal world. Our relentless effort to get the U.S. government to take fluoride’s neurotoxicity seriously is also beginning to pay off in other ways. For many years, American regulatory and research agencies have failed to finance studies seeking to reproduce the many studies undertaken abroad that have found harm to the brain (over 300).

When toxicologist and pharmacologist Phyllis Mullenix, et al., published their groundbreaking animal study6 on fluoride and animal behavior in 1995, she was fired from her position as chair of the toxicology department at the Forsythe Dental Center. That sent a chilling message to U.S. researchers — research on fluoride toxicity is a “no-go” area. But that is changing. Now, with the U.S. government funding several important toxicology studies, this should encourage other Western researchers to get involved:

There is a new National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded fluoride/brain study.7 Our Canadian friends are extremely excited by this research funding to Christine Till and Ashley Malin, the co-authors of the important study that found a correlation between fluoridation and increased ADHD rates in the U.S.8 This could definitely be one of the most important developments in water fluoridation to date.

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) is in the process of completing a rodent study using low levels of fluoride exposure. However, we have concerns over the consultation process NTP had prior to when this study was undertaken (see “Vigilance Still Needed” at end of this article).

Dr. Philippe Grandjean, Harvard School of Public Health, is leading an ongoing study of fluoride and intelligence among a group of schoolchildren in China. Grandjean published the preliminary results of this study in the January-February 2015 issue of Neurotoxicology & Teratology.9

A National Institute of Environmental Health (NIEHS)-funded human epidemiological study titled “Prenatal and Childhood Exposure to Fluoride and Neurodevelopment” is investigating the relationship between fluoride and IQ among a cohort of children in Mexico. A summary of the study10 is available online.

An NIEHS-funded animal study, “Effects of Fluoride on Behavior in Genetically Diverse Mouse Models,” is investigating fluoride’s effects on behavior and whether these effects differ based on the genetic strain of the mouse. The principal investigator of the study is Dr. Pamela Den Besten. A summary of her study11 is available online.

The NIH is funding a study investigating the impact of fluoride on the timing of puberty among children in Mexico. This study is pertinent to the assessment of fluoride’s impact on the pineal gland’s regulation of melatonin. The preliminary results of the study were presented at the 2014 Independent School Entrance Examination ISEE conference and can be accessed online.12

Though not funded by the U.S. government, Jaqueline Calderón Hernandez, Ph.D., Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico, is currently working with Diana Rocha-Amador, Ph.D., on three studies on fluoride neurotoxicity:

1.An examination of the cognitive effects from fluoride in drinking water

2.Estimating the global burden of disease of mild mental retardation associated with environmental fluoride exposure

3.Investigating the impact of in utero exposure to fluoride (via drinking water) on cognitive development delay in children

Rocha-Amador is also examining the impact of fluoride on thyroid hormone levels in pregnant women, and published a fluoride/IQ study in 2007.13

Vigilance Still Needed

We still have to be vigilant to make sure that those determined to protect the fluoridation program don’t skew the results. For example, it is worrying that the NTP specified that an animal study should be conducted at 0.7 ppm — which is a ridiculous provision for an animal study on fluoride. For example, it is well-known that rats need a much higher dose of fluoride in their water to reach the same plasma levels in humans.

Moreover, it is standard practice in toxicology to use much higher doses in animals to tease out effects. To conduct experiments on animals at expected human doses would require a huge number of animals, which would be cost prohibitive. These studies also raise a significant question for those who continue to promote fluoridation in local communities and legislatures around the world.

“What primary scientific studies (not bogus reviews conducted by pro-fluoridation agencies) can you cite that give you the confidence to ignore or dismiss the evidence that fluoride damages the brain as documented in over 300 animal and human studies (including 50 IQ studies)?”

As shown by its support for these new neurotoxicity studies, our own government has acknowledged the risk fluoride poses to our children. If proponents cannot provide an adequate scientific answer to this question, then fluoridation should be halted immediately, and should under no circumstances be initiated.

National Fluoridation Stats Show Tipping Point Has Been Reached

Progress is also being made on the political front. U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) fluoridation statistics for the U.S. have been released for 2014,14 and they show exactly why the fluoridation lobby has been pouring more money and resources into promoting the practice and fighting our efforts: WE ARE WINNING!

For the first time in nearly 40 years, the percentage of the U.S. population served by community water systems receiving fluoridated water decreased, from 74.6 percent to 74.4 percent. The percentage of the U.S. population receiving optimally fluoridated water (natural and artificial) also decreased, from 67.1 percent to 66.3 percent. Also decreasing:

  • The number of water systems providing fluoridated water (natural or artificial)
  • The number of water systems adding fluoride
  • The number of water systems providing naturally “optimal fluoride” levels

Momentum Continues to Build Thanks to Citizens Like You

More than 460 communities throughout the world have ended existing fluoridation programs or rejected new efforts to fluoridate either by council vote or citizen referendum since 1990. Since January 2016 alone, we’ve confirmed that at least 33 communities with nearly a million collective residents voted to end fluoridation, bringing the number of victories since 2010 to at least 225 communities,15representing approximately 6.5 million people.

Most of these victories were the result of citizens organizing local campaigns and voicing their opposition to public officials, with many working in coordination with FAN or using our materials to educate their neighbors and local decision makers about the serious health risks associated with the practice. Some of the latest victories in the U.S. and abroad include:16

Kennebunk, Kennebunkport and Wells Water District, Maine (30,000) Mackay Regional Council, Australia (124,724)
Albuquerque, New Mexico (157,428) Gladstone Regional Council, Queensland, Australia (73,335)
Newport, Oregon (10,120) Bedford, England, U.K (166,252)
Bedford Regional Water Authority, Virginia (25,000) Wakefield, England, U.K. (77,500)
Guilford Township, Pennsylvania (26,000) Cornwall, Ontario, Canada (46,340)
Whakatane, New Zealand (37,000) La Ville de Trois-Rivieres, Quebec, Canada (135,054)

Help us continue this momentum by supporting the efforts of FAN, and by joining or initiating your own local campaign to end artificial water fluoridation. FAN would like to thank Dr. Mercola for his continued support and generosity in raising our awareness of the risks from overexposure to fluoride.

From June 11 to 18, 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 EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the FAN and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get to the Finish Line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! So I am stepping up the challenge. I’m proud to announce for the seventh year in a row now, a portion of sales up to 25,000 will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Read more great articles at mercola.com




Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

By Alex Pietrowski | Waking Times

Ostensibly, the purpose of adding the fluoride to public drinking water supplies is to improve dental health in the community, yet even the U.S. Government had to modify this claim by lowering the national fluoride levels in 2015, citing increases in dental fluorosis.

In 2012, a major Harvard study found that public water fluoridation poses a risk to the developing intelligence of children, essentially lowering the IQ of those in communities with public water fluoridation. This study invigorated the public debate on this issue, yet, fluoridation continues, despite the known risks, and all the while, scientific evidence continues mounts in the case against fluoride.

A new study published in December of 2016 by the International Society of fluoride Research in New Zealand, entitled, Developmental neurotoxicity of fluoride: a quantitative risk analysis 379 towards establishing a safe daily dose of fluoride for children, concludes that lowered IQ is indeed a risk for children whom consume uncontrollable dosages of fluoride in public water supplies.

“The information now available supports a reasonable conclusion that exposure of the developing brain to fluoride should be minimized, and that economic losses associated with lower IQ’s may be quite large. ” [Source]

The research team involved in the study was headed by William Hirzy, PhD, a former US EPA senior scientist who specialized in risk assessment. He offers the following explanation of the significance of this particular study:“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride.

“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride.

Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.

Applying two different, standard risk analysis techniques used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to published data on the impact of fluoride exposure in children shows that daily intakes in excess of about 0.05 mg of fluoride may result in depressed intellectual capability. This calculation involved using safety factors designed to protect the most vulnerable child.

One well-conducted Chinese study indicated that children exposed to 1.4 mg/day had their IQ lowered by 5 IQ points. Current average mean daily intakes among children in the United States are estimated by EPA to range from about 0.80 mg/day to 1.65 mg/day.

Fluoride may be similar to lead and mercury in having no threshold below which exposures may be considered safe.” [Source]

The study can be read in its entirety, here, and is worth sharing with anyone still on the fence about the so-called benefits of fluoridated drinking water.

Final Thoughts

Water fluoridation is medication without consent, yet people tolerate this abuse from government in many parts of the world without a full understanding of the negative effects of fluoride toxicity. The struggle to stop public water fluoridation is winnable at the community level, though, and every year, the grassroots movement against it grows.

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com and Offgrid Outpost, a provider ofstorable food and emergency kits. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (Former EPA Senior Scientist Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com. It may be re-posted freely with proper attribution, author bio, and this copyright statement.

Read more great articles at Waking Times.




Short Film Reveals the Lunacy of Water Fluoridation

Video Source: Jeremy Seifert

By Dr. Mercola | mercola.com

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has hailed water fluoridation as one of the top 10 public health achievements of the 20th century.

Beginning in 1945, it was claimed that adding fluoride to drinking water was a safe and effective way to improve people’s dental health. Over the decades, many bought into this hook, line and sinker, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

The featured film, “Our Daily Dose,” reviews some of this evidence. As noted in the film’s synopsis:

“Filmmaker Jeremy Seifert lays out the dangers of water fluoridation informatively and creatively, highlighting the most current research and interviewing top-tier doctors, activists, and attorneys close to the issue.

Through thoughtful examination of old beliefs and new science, the film alerts us to the health threat present in the water and beverages we rely on every day.”

Share This Film With Those Still Sitting On the Fence on Fluoride!

The film may not offer many brand new revelations to those of you who are already well-informed about the history and documented hazards of fluoride.

It was primarily created as an educational vehicle aimed at those who may not be aware of these issues, or who might not yet be entirely convinced that drinking fluoride isn’t a good thing.

So PLEASE, share this video with all of your friends and family who are on the fence on this issue, and ask them to watch it. It’s only 20 minutes long, but it packs a lot of compelling details into those 20 minutes.

Understanding how fluoride affects your body and brain is particularly important for parents with young children, and pregnant women.

It’s really crucial to know that you should NEVER mix infant formula with fluoridated tap water for example, as this may overexpose your child to 100 times the proposed “safe” level of fluoride exposure for infants!

If your child suffers with ADD/ADHD, drinking fluoridated water may also worsen his or her condition. Ditto for those with underfunctioning thyroid. So please, do share this video with your social networks, as it could make a big difference in people’s health.

Fluoride Is Both an Endocrine Disruptor and a Neurotoxin

Scientific investigations have revealed that fluoride is an endocrine disrupting chemical,1 and a developmental neurotoxin that impacts short-term and working memory, and lowers IQ in children.2

It has been implicated as a contributing factor in the rising rates of both attention-deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD)3,4 and thyroid disease.

Indeed, fluoride was used in Europe to reduce thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients as late as the 1970s, and reduced thyroid function is associated with fluoride intakes as low as 0.05 to 0.1 mg fluoride per kilogram body weight per day (mg/kg/day).5

Related Article: Fluoride Has Been Proven To Be Toxic and It’s Still Being Added to YOUR Water

For Over 50 Years, Fluoride Levels Were Too High, Government Admits

Children are particularly at risk for adverse effects of overexposure, and in April 2015, the US government admitted that the “optimal” level of fluoride recommended since 1962 had in fact been too high.

As a result, over 40 percent of American teens show signs of fluoride overexposure6— a condition known as dental fluorosis. In some areas, dental fluorosis rates are as high as 70 to 80 percent, with some children suffering from advanced forms.

So, for the first time, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) lowered its recommended level of fluoride in drinking water7,8,9 by 40 percent, from an upper limit of 1.2 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.7 mg/L.

The HHS said it will evaluate dental fluorosis rates among children in 10 years to assess whether they were correct about this new level being protective against dental fluorosis.

But just what is the acceptable level of harm in the name of cavity prevention?

A number of studies10,11,12,13 have shown that children with moderate to severe dental fluorosis score worse on tests measuring cognitive skills and IQ than peers without fluorosis — a clear revelation highlighted in the film, as some still insist that dental fluorosis is nothing more than a cosmetic issue.

The Price We Pay for Cavity Prevention

According to the film, the CDC estimates water fluoridation decreases dental decay by, at most, 25 percent. Recent research14,15 however, suggests the real effect may be far lower. Based on the findings of three papers assessing the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay, the researchers concluded that water fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth.

If that’s the case, then why are we still jeopardizing our children’s long-term thyroid and brain health by adding fluoride to drinking water?

Fluoride — like many other poisons — was originally declared safe based on dosage, but we now know that timing of exposure can play a big role in its effects as well. Children who are fed infant formula mixed with fluoridated water receive very high doses, and may be affected for life as a result of this early exposure.

Fluoride can also cross the placenta, causing developing fetuses to be exposed to fluoride. Considering the fact that fluoride has endocrine-disrupting activity, this is hardly a situation amenable to the good health of that child. It’s important to realize that fluoride is not a nutrient. It’s a drug, and it’s the ONLY drug that is purposely added directly into drinking water.

This route of delivery completely bypasses standard rules relating to informed consent, which is foundational for ethical medical practice. What’s worse, there’s no way to keep track of the dosage. And no one is keeping track of side effects.

Infants Are Severely and Routinely Overdosed on Fluoride

According to the recent Iowa Study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the CDC, infants and young children are being massively overdosed on fluoride. This study, which is the largest U.S. study conducted measuring the amount of fluoride children ingest, concluded that:

  • 100 percent of infants receiving infant formula mixed with fluoridated tap water get more than the allegedly safe dose of fluoride. Some formula-fed infants receive 100 times the safe level on a daily basis
  • 30 percent of 1-year-olds exceed the recommended safe dose
  • 47 percent of 2- to 3-year-olds exceed the safe dose

Related Article: New Evidence Links Fluoride (In Our Drinking Water!) to Increasing Cases of ADHD

Most Water Authorities Use Toxic Waste Product, Not Pharmaceutical Grade Fluoride

As stated, fluoride is a drug, and research into the health effects of fluoride are based on pharmaceutical grade fluoride. However, a majority of water authorities do not even use pharmaceutical grade fluoride; they use hydrofluosilicic acid, or hexafluorosilicic acid — toxic waste products of the phosphate fertilizer industry, which are frequently contaminated with heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury, cadmium, lead, and other toxins.

This is a key point that many fluoride proponents fail to address when arguing for its use. Indeed, holding elected officials accountable for procuring proof that the specific fluoridation chemical used actually fulfills fluoride’s health and safety claims and complies with all regulations, laws, and risk assessments required for safe drinking water, has been a successful strategy for halting water fluoridation in a number of areas around the U.S.

While the idea of hiding toxic industrial waste in drinking water would sound like a questionable idea at best to most people, it was welcomed by the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In a 1983 letter, Rebecca Hanmer, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, wrote:

“… In regard to the use of fluosilicic acid as a source of fluoride for fluoridation, this Agency regards such use as an ideal environmental solution to a long-standing problem. By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water utilities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them…”

Data and Science Do Not Support Water Fluoridation

Ninety-seven percent of Western European countries do not fluoridate their water, and data collected by the World Health Organization (WHO) show that non-fluoridating countries have seen the exact same reduction in dental cavities as the U.S.,16where a majority of water is still fluoridated. If fluoride were in fact the cause of this decline, non-fluoridating countries should not show the same trend.

Clearly, declining rates of dental decay are not in and of themselves proof that water fluoridation actually works. It’s also worth noting that well over 99 percent of the fluoride added to drinking water never even touches a tooth; it simply runs down the drain, contaminating and polluting the environment.

Source: KK Cheng et.al. BMJ 2007.17 Rates of cavities have declined by similar amounts in countries with and without fluoridation.

Ending Fluoridation Will Be the Greatest Public Health Achievement of the 21st Century

Despite the fact that the scientific evidence does not support fluoridation, those who question or openly oppose it are typically demonized and written off as crazy conspiracy theorists. Many fluoride supporters claim the science of fluoridation was “settled” some 50 years ago — effectively dismissing all the revelations produced by modern science! To defend their position, they rely on outdated science, because that’s all they have. You’d be extremely hard-pressed to find modern research supporting water fluoridation.

Indeed, as noted in the film, ending water fluoridation will be one of the greatest public health achievements of the 21st Century, and I for one will not stop until that happens. To learn more about why water fluoridation runs counter to good science, common sense, and the public good, please see the following video, which recounts 10 important fluoride facts.

The Best Cavity Prevention Is Your Diet

The best way to prevent cavities is not through fluoride, but by addressing your diet. One of the keys to oral health is eating atraditional diet or real foods, rich in fresh, unprocessed vegetables, nuts, and grass-fed meats. By avoiding sugars and processed foods, you prevent the proliferation of the bacteria that cause decay in the first place.

According to Dr. Francesco Branca, Director of WHO’s Department of Nutrition for Health and Development:18 “We have solid evidence that keeping intake of free sugars to less than 10 percent of total energy intake reduces the risk of overweight, obesity and tooth decay.”

Other natural strategies that can significantly improve your dental health are eating plenty of fermented vegetables, and doing oil pulling with coconut oil. Also make sure you’re getting plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, as research suggests even moderate amounts of omega-3 fats may help ward off gum disease. My favorite source is krill oil.

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Read more great articles at mercola.com




Study Proves Fluoride Does Not Promote Dental Health – US Teeth “Significantly” Worse than UK

us-teeth-uk-teeth

By Claire Bernish | Natural Blaze

Blowing the pro-water-fluoridation argument out of the water, a new study by Harvard and University College London just found Brits — notoriously crooked smiles and all — actually have better dental health than people in the United States. No, seriously.

Related Article: Other Nations Avoid This Like the Plague, Yet the US Shamelessly Peddles It

Despite a water fluoridation rate of 66%, and 74% for those who rely on a public source, Americans’ dental health simply doesn’t match up to that of their British counterparts — where only 10% of supply contains fluoride.

“Contrary to popular belief, our study showed that the oral health of U.S. citizens is not better than the English, with Americans having significantly more missing teeth,” said the study’s lead author, Dr. Richard Watt, Professor in Dental Public Health, Dept. of Epidemiology and Public Health, at UCL.

There is a longstanding belief in the United States that the British have terrible teeth, much worse than U.S. citizens. This view dates back at least 100 years, with toothpaste adverts extolling the virtues of American smiles.

Contemporary examples of this belief in popular U.S. culture range from The Simpsons to the popular Hollywood character Austin Powers and his repugnant smile.

Related Article: New Landmark Study: ‘No Evidence’ Water Fluoridation Prevents Cavities

Researchers looked to data on thousands of people in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and the English Adult Dental Health Survey and found the “mean number of missing teeth was significantly higher in the U.S.,” at 7.31 versus 6.97 in England. The numbers are striking for juveniles, as 12-year-old Britons with missing or filled teeth averaged 0.7, while U.S. 12-year-olds averaged 1.3. With fluoridated water being touted as the reason for outstanding dental health in the U.S., the results of this study certainly call such boastful claims to task.

In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found rates of dental fluorosis — “caused by long-term ingestion of fluoride during the time teeth are forming” and characterized by white spots in its mildest forms, to “staining andpitting in the more severe forms” — increased from 1999-2004 (the year of its study data) over previous numbers in the period from 1986-1987. This happened despite the original goal of fluoridation in the 1930s of decreasing the dental fluorosis rate.According to the CDC’s web page on Community Fluoridation:

Water and processed beverages (e.g. soft drinks and fruit juices [note: food processed using fluoridated water is listed elsewhere]) can provide approximately 75% of a person’s fluoride intake […]You should know the fluoride concentration in your primary source of drinking water, especially if you have young children.

With all this fluoride consumed in the U.S., one would expect the Harvard/UCL study to have dramatically different findings — if fluoridated water were actually doing what the government purports. Though the study did not factor in rates of fluoridation — and indeed was “not able to explore in depth potential explanations for [its] findings” — the comparison is certainly worth consideration.

“Water fluoridation was implemented before statistics had been compiled on its safety or effectiveness,” Stephen Peckham, Director and Professor of Health Policy at Kent University’s Centre for Health Service Studies, told the Guardian. “You can’t really confidently say that water fluoridation is either safe or effective. There is a problem where the evidence is seen as either totally in favor or totally negative, and it’s more murky than that.”

Doubts, as the Guardian pointed out, certainly abound, as experts and researchers have cited studies finding correlations to fluoridated water supplies and bladder cancer, bone cancer in boys, hyperthyroidism, hip fractures, and lower IQ in children.

Related Article: New Evidence Links Fluoride (In Our Drinking Water!) to Increasing Cases of ADHD

“It’s been going on since 1950, and we are still having the same arguments over the same research,” Peckham continued. “We don’t have the information to address this. I think they should have a moratorium [on water fluoridation].”

In the meantime, you might want to rethink jabbing the Brits for their, er, gangly smiles.

Claire Bernish writes for TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Read more great articles at Natural Blaze.




Dallas Ends 5 Decades of Water Fluoridation: Saves $1 Million Annually in the Process

 | Naturalsociety | 3rd May 2014

floridewaterIt is taking effect in cities across the nation. Anti-fluoridation activists and knowledgeable consumers have finally tipped the scale, and now Dallas will cease poisoning its water supply with sodium fluoride, saving taxpayers a million dollars annually, along with a few IQ points.water tap fluoride Dallas Ends 5 Decades of Water Fluoridation: Saves $1 Million Annually in the Processwater tap fluoride Dallas Ends 5 Decades of Water Fluoridation: Saves $1 Million Annually in the Processwater tap fluoride Dallas Ends 5 Decades of Water Fluoridation: Saves $1 Million Annually in the Process

After months of regular visits by citizens to city council meetings, the Dallas City Council decided last week to stop water fluoridation. Perhaps it was economic incentive alone that allowed the council to decide to end five decades of water fluoridation, or the tireless work of citizens who continuously probed council members about why they would fluoridate city water when it has been proven to be very dangerous to human health.

NBC 5 Dallas Fort Worth reported that the results from the last meeting surprised anti-fluoridation activists, who have been trying to get someone to listen to them about this industrial chemical and its risks for years.

Dallas City Council Member Sheffie Kadane said he discussed ending fluoridation with City Manager A.C. Gonzalez, citing Kadane as saying:

“We don’t need it and we’d just save a million dollars that we can use for something else. … We’re looking into seeing what we can do immediately so we can get those funds up front now.”

Kadane was backed by Council members Scott Griggs and Jennifer Staubach Gates. Anti-fluoridation activist Regina Imburgia said:

“Yeah. … This is major big. I knew we would prevail. It only makes sense. We’re spending too much money on an ineffective program”.

Imburgia said that there was no need to put fluoride in water when it had obvious health risks, and that people who really wanted fluoride to prevent tooth decay could just squeeze it out of a tube of toothpaste.

City council members focused on the savings of ending fluoridation, rather than the fact that its removal from municipal water was a public health concern.

Health Concerns over Toxic Fluoride

There have been multiple studies proving that fluoride is not metabolized easily by the body, and accumulates in the tissues and bones (much like glyphosate – a main ingredient in pesticides). Other studies have proven that accumulated fluoride can alter the activities of some enzymes involved in free-radical metabolism and whole brain functioning. Philippe Grandjean MD from the Department of Environmental Health at the Harvard School of Public Health, and Philip Landrigan MD, from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mt Sinai, New York, state that industrial chemicals can injure the developing brain in children, lowering their memory and IQ.

Fluoride is among five scientifically identified industrial chemicals that lead to neurological impairment:

  • Lead
  • Methylmercury
  • Polychlorinated biphenyls
  • Arsenic
  • Fluoride

Researchers Grandjean and Landrigan postulate that there are even more neurotoxicants which remain undiscovered, and propose a global prevention strategy to control what they describe as the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity.

Anti-fluoridation advocates in Dallas will get their water fluoride free now, even if it is the last decades’ poor economy driving the point home to city officials.

More from Naturalsociety