Some people want to read. Some people prefer to sell books. Some people want to make a lot of noise and create drama based on views and slogans and some people prefer to do their job and be sure of their events before they act. Some of us find that our moral compass demands that we take action. Unfortunately, this includes both readers and noise manufacturers.
Based on my research and my personal experience on the effects of fluoride, I decided to take action in 2014. It started with a simple letter to the author of my local newspaper, but led to my reading thousands of pages of scientific research and to become part of a federal education.
After seven years of delays, eighteen days of scientific testimony experts, many deposits, many requests for information (FOIA), hundreds of scientific studies concerning the impact of the report of pre- and postnatal fluoride on IQ and an affidavit, Judge Edward M.
He wrote: “The plaintiffs have proven, with the superiority of evidence, that water fluoridation at 0.7 mg/l – the specified optimum level in the United States – has an irrational risk of health injury …”
However, this is where it gets a little technique. Due to the various reasons, the line in the sand used in most of the IQ studies was determined at an individual level of exposure at a 1.5 mg/l dose and the “optimal concentration” for fluoride in the US is currently 0.7 ppm. This means that if an adult with healthy kidneys consumed one liter of water, the dose of fluoride would be 0.7 mg/l from this water.
However, a swallow more than the eight glasses of water doctors recommend to consume each day it provides a dose of 1.5 mg/l and when a person drinks three liters of water or eating foods made with water such as rice, pasta, soup and commercially prepared foods, they can easily receive a dose of 2 mg/l.
Diabetic and kidney patients usually drink four or five liters of water a day. Children’s kidneys are less effective in eliminating fluoride and thus receive higher individual doses than the same consumption. Infants and children should not take a dose of adults anything because size matters.
In order to allow this fluctuation of exposure between a different population, many factors of ten are applied as an EPA safety or uncertainty factor when dealing with substances recognized as dangerous. The lowest safety factor currently imposes EPA is thirty (30). Judge Chen ordered EPA to take action to mitigate the risk of fluoride, which according to EPA witnesses includes the deterioration and assignment of a suitable safety agent that will protect babies powered by bottles and embryos of pregnant women.
However, fluoride apologists claim that once the current water concentration is 0.7 ppm and the determination of developmental neurotoxicity (baby’s brain damage) is 1.5 mg/l, then everyone is safe. They also deform the phrases of receipt or cherries about uncertainty in the decision and show questionable reports and marketing literature to mislead the public. This can be enough to convince people who do not read but get worse.
There is a cartel of fluoride researchers using simulated populations, outdated inflows, defective assumptions, various weights, constructed data and narrow parameters for the construction of so -called studies that claim either a) fluoridation does not harm the brains Groups that any difference in cavities between those who consume fluoridated water and not is somewhere between a clinically insignificant fraction of a unique cavity and fantastic. They do this to mislead those who read, at least a little bit.
Increase at the edge for a moment the fact that there is little or no benefit from fluoridation and there are many human studies that validate lower IQs and more learning difficulties, such as Add/ADHD among populations with “optimally fluoridized waters”, including their children and children performed by (Nih) intestines and bones.
Not everyone is willing to read all this science, but many of us have, including the National Academy of Sciences who advised the NRA to the National Research Committee (NRC/NAS) 2006 that not only the subpopulations and lenses of EPA, the young children, Including gastrointestinal inflammation, thyroid disease, kidney and fragile bones from exposure to 2 ppm water. NRC informed EPA to take action.
EPA ignored the 2006 NRC recommendations. Judge Chen informed EPA in 2024 that they had options on how to proceed under the law, but could not ignore his ruling in the federal court and not take action this time.
SO has not received administrative approval to appeal to the 2024 decision, but the clock has been exhausted with multiple extensions when filing for appeal. The current deadline for EPA either launch its process of creating a safe guideline or appeal is June 25th.
Meanwhile, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has deposited its intention in June to withdraw the fluoride supplements provided for in children living in non -fluoridized communities from the market by October 31.
First, the FDA never approved the consumption of fluoride as safe and effective. Secondly, the FDA acknowledges that science validates that even these small controlled doses of fluoride inflammation are the gastrointestinal part of children, which in turn affects their immunity. Thirdly, the FDA has no hesitation to declare that the fluoride interferes with the function of the thyroid that was known even in the 1940s. This has repeatedly been verified in modern times. What thyroid doctors and patients also know is that thyroid disease increases the risk of renal disease and diabetes. We can connect the dots so we can’t?
Many fluorists ignore science or history of fluoride. They prefer Magic Potion’s narration to do their scientific work. Some of them really want to make a lot of noise and create drama. Obviously, it makes them feel virtuous.
Other fluorists are deliberately blind in science. Successful dental practices make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year selling fluoride treatments to their patients, and even more money repairing dental fluorization. Dental fluorization stains at least two teeth of about half of American children per FDA research. Dental fluorization disproportionately affects poor children and people of color. Dental confirmation does not allow many, but not all, to consider the fact that the foundation of their business plan is at least partially based on a threatening mythology.
Finally, some fluorists are dishonest. I have seen some of the files from the FOIA requests and watched the filmed “expert” deposits such as Dr. Charlotte Lewis, MD that represented the position of the American Pediatric Association (AAP). He said in an oath that he was not a fluoride expert and had not examined studies that substantiate the damage, but that he had seen evidence that fluoridation could prevent cavities. He also said that even if he was convinced by science that usual fluoride exposure to the United States and Canada reduced 10% of children by 5 IQ points would still support fluoridation.
Fortunately, there are others who have read science and disagree with AAP pediatrician about “appropriate commercial decisions”. After reading science, Florida’s General Surgeon, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD said that fluoridation is “public health” and Jama Pediatrics editor Dr. Dimitri Christakis, MD, MPH, said she would advise pregnant women to use bottled or filtered water.
And tonight, during the meeting of July 1 at 6 pm, the Fitchburg Municipal Council Legislative Court will examine “the abolition of the use of fluoride treatments in the public water supply of the city”. I hope they are readers.
Karen Favazza Spencer is a retired analyst living in Leominster. She works with dentists, doctors, lawyers and scientists on fluoride related issues. He is also a member of the Food and Water Monitoring that is recognized as fluoride-indulgence in his lawsuit against EPA.
Originally posted:
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
English
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Turkish