Fluoride on Trial

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

• After a four-year process, a landmark fluoridation trial was held in federal court in June 2020. 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
• A collection of some of the strongest fluoride studies in history have been published in 2019 and 2020, showing that fluoridation poses an unreasonable risk and hazard to all, but to fetuses and infants in particular
• A landmark U.S. government-funded study published in 2017 found a strong relationship between pregnant women’s exposure to fluoride and the subsequent IQ of their offspring. The higher the fluoride levels of the urine of the women, the lower the IQ of the children
• A 2020 Canadian study reported that children who were bottle-fed in fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities

Full article:
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/03/fluoridation-on-trial.aspx

I've long been against fluoridation in the water, but I wasn't aware that there'd been a 4 year process to get the issue to a trial. Constructive feedback welcome.

 

time to take fluoride out of the water, if we want it, we can get it in a mouth wash or toothpaste

 

The OP is citing Dr. Joseph Mercola who has been ORDERED to Cease & Desist from making FALSE medical claims.

https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/

This OP belongs in the Conspiracy forum.

 

~ I do not think infants and pregnant women should take fluoride. However it is apparently safe for everyone else. I would prefer topical use only.
I know some countries have heavy metals in the water supply and that definatly has an negative affect on brain development.
Another reason not to trust big government. It will be interesting to see what results come of the lawsuit .

 

The water I drink has been through RO and the fluoride and other chemicals removed.

I too am against the fluoridation of water.

 

Here is one of the guys that got a placebo.

 

oh I agree, I have my dentist give it to me, I just do not want in my water

 

⬅ A good source of fluoride

{ Follow directions } ​

 

the Dr may take this and other issues too far, but he is right, it should not be added to our water

 

yep, fluoride is good for the teeth, but drinking it is not advised

 

At least the link doesn't have the garish colours you use. Is your intention to stop me writing here by using such colour schemes? Anyway, I'd never really heard of this quackwatch website, so I did a bit of online searching. I came up with an article from someone who seems to have done their homework on the site and the man who runs it. Here's an excerpt from the article:
**
Is Dr. Stephen Barrett fair in his analysis of nutrition research and those involved in the nutrition industry?

I have not read every single page or article on Quackwatch and I do not read most of the new pages that are added on the site, but the ones I have read give me the impression that in many cases he has done good research on many of the people involved in the alternative health industry, and has pointed out several instances of inaccuracies and scams (for instance, Hulda Clark and her pitiful book "The Cure for all Cancers"). However, I hardly came across reports on his website regarding some of the scams or inaccurate promotion and marketing practices by the pharmaceutical industry. Why is this? Why has Stephen Barrett, M.D. focused almost all of his attention on the nutritional industry and has hardly spent time pointing out the billions of dollars wasted each year by consumers on certain prescription and non-prescription pharmaceutical drugs? If he truly claims to be a true consumer advocate, isn't it his responsibility to make sure the big scams are addressed first before focusing on the smaller scams? It's like the government putting all of its efforts going after the poor misusing food stamps while certain big companies cheat billions of dollars from consumers with hardly any governmental oversight.

Why is there no review of Vioxx on Quackwatch? Why is there no mention on quackwatch.org of the worthless cold and cough medicines sold by pharmaceutical companies and drug stores? Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted each year by consumers on these worthless and potentially harmful decongestants and cough syrups. Why is there no mention on quackwatch of the dangers of acetaminophen use, including liver damage? There are probably more people who are injured or die from over the counter Tylenol and aspirin use each year than from all the natural supplements people take throughout a year. If Dr. Barrett had focused his career on educating people in reducing the use of useless and dangerous prescription and nonprescription drugs (even just one, acetaminophen) he would have helped many more people than attempting to scare people from the use of supplements.

Another point I would like to make regarding Quackwatch is that Dr. Barrett often, if not the majority of the time, seems to point out the negative outcome of studies with supplements (you can sense his glee and relish when he points out these negative outcomes), and rarely mentions the benefits they provide. A true scientist takes a fair approach, and I don't see this in my review of the Quackwatch website. I subscribe to the Quackwatch newsletter (which often has interesting information) but there is hardly any mention of the benefits of supplements. As an example, see a paragraph from the August, 2006 Quackwatch newsletter mentioned a few paragraphs below.

Bottom line: Overall, Dr. Barrett does some good in pointing out scams in the alternative health field, but, in my opinion, he is not fair and balanced, and he is not a true objective scientist as he claims to be. Someone who has a website specifically tailored for criticism needs to have a higher and more objective scientific standard, and Barrett fails in this regard.

[snip]
Where does Quackwatch get funding, anyway? Quackwatch has been involved in a number of lawsuits and apparently Stephen Barrett had lost one or more lawsuits where the judge made him pay the opposing attorneys fees. Where does he get his funding? He is a retired psychiatrist, how can he afford getting involved in so many lawsuits and pay all the legal bills?
**

Full article:
https://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

 

Yes, I too am very interested in seeing what becomes of it.

 

@FreshAir
Drinking water is the natural, source of fluoride!
Not tooth paste, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Sparkletts brand
fluoridated water has become unavailable
although Gerber's Baby Water with the same amount . . .

Pharmacist supplied Rx Luride / fluoride likewise not available
for about a year.


I believe in fluoride to harden my aging bones.
Why Is The Gov't Messing With "Moi"?



Moi

No ​

 

Is it really? Went searching online again, found this:
**
The History of Water Fluoridation
For more than 50 years fluoride has been routinely added to most US municipal water systems in the form of sodium fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, or sodium fluorosilicate in levels up to 1 part per million (ppm) to prevent tooth decay. While it is impossible to determine how much an individual body may be absorbing in a given day (as personal physiology varies absorption) over 4 ppm is considered unsafe and can at the very least damage teeth causing the undesirable effect of staining and wearing away the enamel. Long touted as “safe and effective” by US government officials, interestingly most of Western Europe has rejected the use of water fluoridation based on more recent studies and concerns for the health and physical welfare of their citizens. In fact, Western Europeans have successfully dealt with tooth decay without the use of fluoride and in some areas have exceeded our national average for lifetime healthy teeth.
**

Full article: Is Fluoride REALLY Good for Your Teeth? | Biological Dentist

 

From what I have read, it actually has the opposite effect:
**
Researchers have determined a growing list of health concerns related to long term over fluoridation including:

Bones: It accumulates in bones causing them to become brittle and prone to fracture, a particularly relevant concern in the elderly. There is also mounting concerns over fluoridation having some influence on the current epidemic of arthritis. There may be a connection between fluoridation and osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) in boys between the ages of 6 and 8 who may have a significantly increased risk of developing the disease.
**

Full article: Is Fluoride REALLY Good for Your Teeth? | Biological Dentist

 

Nice catch !

 

Yeah, I was going to say that there will be a lot of cavities after removing fluoride from the water.

 

Hey, guys, the 50's along with the John Birch Society called. They're gonna come over and take you down with their Garands if you don't stop stealing their issues.

 

too much fluoride can be bad, but yes, I feel fluoride strengthens teeth - but best just not to eat so much sugar from soda and fruit juices

fluoride should be optional, if you want it, get it in toothpaste or mouthwash

but we do agree they should remove fluoride from our water as digesting it is not healthy

 

http://fluoridealert.org/issues/health/

 

I've been keto for a few years now and my hot\cold sensitivity is gone, teeth can heal themselves without all the sugar, sadly almost everything today has sugar added to it - cola and fruit juice being some of the worst

 

PLEASE don't edit my quotes. Gracias
===================================================


Yes I have read what you cite.
Sadly, who pays for the research is . . . .

Within the calcium matrix, an occasional fluoride atom
makes a harder structure.
Go Fluoride FREE. G'Luck

Bone is always making and breaking itself. Dynamic.
I rather fluoride be plentiful. Supplied in my water.
YOU Don't Agree?
Okay.
But, why inhibit "my choice"?
I can't find Sparkletts fluoridated water

 

I havn't been able to get a straight answer whether my city fluoridates or chlorinates... but I filter anyway. I know the cat and the dog both will drink the filtered water over the tap if presented with both.

I oppose fluoridation because chlorination achieves the same antiseptic result and the hole 'its better for your teeth' thing is misleading... yes, you can ionize fluoride onto your teeth and it makes them resistant to the bacteria that erode teeth, but it also makes your teeth more brittle than ionizing them with calcium and phosphorous like they're sposed to be made of. If fluoride helps teeth, administer it at the dentist in appropriate dosages, not randomly in the water supply. Also, the Nazi's and Soviets didn't put fluoride in the water in stalags and gulags because they were worried about prisoners teeth...

 

Well, I'm glad we agree that they should remove it from our water and that ingesting it isn't healthy. However, I'd like to know why you think that it strengthens teeth.

 

Yep.