{"id":1652826,"date":"2022-09-22T08:42:20","date_gmt":"2022-09-22T12:42:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1652826"},"modified":"2022-09-22T08:42:31","modified_gmt":"2022-09-22T12:42:31","slug":"bombshell-study-confirms-this-daily-drink-lowers-iq","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/bombshell-study-confirms-this-daily-drink-lowers-iq\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombshell Study Confirms This Daily Drink Lowers IQ"},"content":{"rendered":"<aside class=\"mashsb-container mashsb-main mashsb-stretched\"><div class=\"mashsb-box\"><div class=\"mashsb-count mash-medium\" style=\"&quot;\"><div class=\"counts mashsbcount\">16<\/div><span class=\"mashsb-sharetext\">SHARES<\/span><\/div><div class=\"mashsb-buttons\"><a class=\"mashicon-facebook mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservativenewsdaily.net%2Fbreaking-news%2Fbombshell-study-confirms-this-daily-drink-lowers-iq%2F\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Facebook<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-twitter mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?text=&amp;url=https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/?p=1652826&amp;via=ConservNewsDly\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Twitter<\/span><\/a><a class=\"mashicon-subscribe mash-medium mash-nomargin mashsb-noshadow\" href=\"#\" target=\"_top\" rel=\"nofollow\"><span class=\"icon\"><\/span><span class=\"text\">Subscribe<\/span><\/a><div class=\"onoffswitch2 mash-medium mashsb-noshadow\" style=\"display:none\"><\/div><\/div>\n            <\/div>\n                <div style=\"clear:both\"><\/div><\/aside>\n            <!-- Share buttons by mashshare.net - Version: 4.0.47--><p><em>These study findings were so controversial, they had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before being published. Their publication even warranted a special editor\u2019s note justifying the journal\u2019s decision to publish the story. Will the findings be taken seriously?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>\t\t[embedded content]\n\t\t<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children\u2019s IQ; a 2022 study by the same team will assess the neurotoxicity of early-life exposure to fluoride<\/li>\n<li>In the earlier study, a 1 milligram per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers\u2019 urine was associated with a 4.49-point decrease in IQ among boys only, while a 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score in both genders between ages 3 and 4<\/li>\n<li>The findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre (SMC), two well-known front groups for the chemical industry<\/li>\n<li>As of January 2022, there are at least 74 studies showing fluoride exposure damages children\u2019s brains and lowers IQ; there are at least 60 that found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and\/or memory capacity of animals<\/li>\n<li>There are also more than 2,000 other studies detailing other health effects<\/li>\n<li>Research published in 2017 found that, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. They also found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The August 19, 2019, issue of JAMA Pediatrics[1] delivered an unexpected bombshell: A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children\u2019s IQ.<\/p>\n<p>The research, led by a Canadian team of researchers at York University in Ontario, looked at 512 mother-child pairs living in six Canadian cities. Fluoride levels were measured through urine samples collected during pregnancy.<\/p>\n<p>They also estimated the women\u2019s fluoride consumption based on the level of fluoride in the local water supply and how much water and tea each woman drank. The children\u2019s IQ scores were then assessed between the ages of 3 and 4. As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):[2]\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cThey found that a 1 mg per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers\u2019 urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women\u2019s fluid intake, they found lower IQ\u2019s in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>Its import is also demonstrated by the fact that it was accompanied by an editor\u2019s note[3] explaining the journal\u2019s decision to publish the study, and a podcast[4] featuring the chief editors of JAMA Pediatrics and JAMA Network Open, in which they discuss the study.<\/p>\n<p>An additional editorial[5] by David Bellinger, Ph.D., a world-renowned neurotoxicity expert, also pointed out that \u201cThe hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration.\u201d Few studies ever receive all of this added treatment. According to the editor\u2019s note:[6]\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cPublishing it serves as a testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div class=\"captioned-image-container\">\n<figure>\n<div class=\"image2-inset\"><source type=\"image\/webp\" \/><img class=\"lazy sizing-normal\" src data-src=\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg\" srcset=\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 424w, https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_848, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 848w, https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1272, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 1272w, https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1456, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 1456w\" alt=\"Epoch Times Photo\" width=\"750\" height=\"79\" data-attrs=\"{\" \/><noscript><img class=\"sizing-normal\" src srcset=\"https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_424, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 424w, https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_848, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 848w, https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1272, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 1272w, https:\/\/substackcdn.com\/image\/fetch\/w_1456, c_limit, f_auto, denied:q_auto:good, denied:fl_progressive:steep\/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0ad657c9-2182-4391-a766-7d2eefc49fba_750x79.jpeg 1456w\" alt=\"Epoch Times Photo\" width=\"750\" height=\"79\" data-attrs=\"{\" \/><\/noscript><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<p>Surprisingly, the findings were widely reported by most major media outlets, including Reuters,[7] The Washington Post,[8] CNN, NPR, Daily Beast and others, effectively reigniting the scientific debate about whether water fluoridation is a good idea.<\/p>\n<p>Not surprisingly, the findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Dental Association (ADA),[9] the American Council on Science and Health[10] (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre[11] (SMC).<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s well worth noting that the ACSH and SMC are well-known front groups for the chemical industry, and they will defend all chemicals, regardless of what\u2019s under discussion, so seeing dismissive articles from these groups is more or less par for the course. You can learn more about these groups in the articles hyperlinked above.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s also worth noting that Fox, which in 2014 made a similar study headline news,[12] wasn\u2019t satisfied with just presenting the latest study as news and, instead, invited its resident doctor, Marc Siegel, to comment[13] \u2014 and that comment began by blaming tooth decay, not fluoride, on lower IQs. Siegel ended with a rambling diatribe against the study and a scathing criticism of JAMA Pediatrics for even having published it:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cI\u2019m far more worried about tooth decay than I am about fluoride \u2026 There\u2019s no way that fluoride would lower your IQ more than having tooth decay \u2026 It\u2019s a ridiculous study \u2026 complete poppycock \u2026 The Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics should not have put this in.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>As for the ADA, it\u2019s been promoting water fluoridation as a health benefit for over a century and a half. To change its stance would clearly result in a loss of face, and might even expose the association to liability. The loss of scientific credibility alone is likely enough to encourage the ADA to hold on to the status quo.<\/p>\n<p>The same goes for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which, despite the more than 2,700 studies[14] against it, maintains water fluoridation is one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.[15]\n<p>A bit tougher to explain is the American Academy of Pediatrics\u2019 continued support of water fluoridation, despite a study linking fluoride intake among pregnant women with a \u201csmall dip\u201d in their children\u2019s IQ.[16]\n<p>Of any group, the AAP really should reconsider its stance on this issue, seeing how it has officially recognized the hazardous influence of hormone-disrupting chemicals on child development. Of course, the American Dental Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists went right along with the AAP, are apparently unconcerned about that \u201csmall\u201d dip in IQ.<\/p>\n<p>What\u2019s hypocritical is that in 2018, the AAP issued a policy statement[17] warning parents to avoid endocrine-disrupting chemicals \u2014 commonly found in processed food, fast food wrappers and plastics, for example \u2014 and while fluoride was not specified as an example of a chemical to be avoided, research shows fluoride has hormone disrupting potential placing it in the exact same category. As noted by FAN:[18]\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cFluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in a 2006 report[19] [20]<\/em><em>\u00a0by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). This report states:<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u2018In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response \u2026 Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response \u2026 The mechanisms of action \u2026 appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms \u2026\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>In the featured video, Paul Connett, Ph.D., founder and current director of the FAN, addresses some of the criticism and why this particular study is such an important wake-up call for health care practitioners and pregnant women.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201c[Fluoride exposure] during pregnancy will lower the IQ of their children. Only if you think a child\u2019s tooth is more important than a child\u2019s brain would you not be disturbed by that,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Connett says.\u00a0<em>\u201cYou can repair a child\u2019s tooth. You cannot repair a child\u2019s brain once it\u2019s been impacted during fetal development.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>One pro-fluoride critique against the JAMA Pediatric study is that it doesn\u2019t show cause and effect. \u201cWell, no epidemiological study proves cause and effect,\u201d Connett says. \u201cThat\u2019s a given! To say it doesn\u2019t show cause and effect is a redundant statement.\u201d Other pro-fluoride voices argue the effect size is small \u2014 only 4.49 IQ points[21] for boys, on average. However, as Connett points out:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cIf you shift the entire population over by 3 or 4 IQ points, you would almost halve the number of geniuses in your society \u2026 and you would increase by about 50% the number of mentally handicapped children. So, on a population [basis] such shifts are highly, highly significant.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>A third manufactured controversy revolves around the fact that only boys were impacted by maternal urine levels of fluoride. Some hitch their critique of the study on this simple gender difference.<\/p>\n<p>However, it should come as no surprise that boys and girls can be affected in different ways by the same toxic compound, as their development is affected by various hormones, including sex hormones, and toxins affect various hormones in different ways. We\u2019ve seen this type of gender difference in many other instances as well.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cHowever you cut it, you have to be so wedded to fluoridation not to take this incredibly seriously,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Connett says.\u00a0<em>\u201cRemember, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever \u2014 no scientific evidence \u2014 that a fetus exposed to fluoride has lowered dental decay.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>There\u2019s no evidence you\u2019re protecting the baby from future decay during pregnancy. So, ANY evidence suggesting it may be damaging the brain has to be taken seriously \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>We have potential harm [on the one side] \u2026 and on the other side you have something that is totally unnecessary. Why on earth would any doctor hesitate to advise pregnant women: \u2018Don\u2019t drink fluoridated water during pregnancy\u2019?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>What\u2019s more, as Connett so strongly points out, while this particular study has received a great deal of media attention, it\u2019s not the only one raising a red flag. There are at least 74 studies listed in FAN\u2019s scientific database showing that fluoride exposure damages children\u2019s brains and lowers IQ.[22] There are at least 60 that found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and\/or memory capacity of animals.[23]\n<p>There are also a couple of thousand other studies detailing other adverse health effects. When you add in animal research, there are more than 300 studies demonstrating fluoride can cause:[24]\n<ul>\n<li>Brain damage, especially when coupled with iodine deficiency<\/li>\n<li>Reduced IQ<\/li>\n<li>Impaired ability to learn and remember<\/li>\n<li>Neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spatial organization<\/li>\n<li>Impaired fetal brain development<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In his video commentary, Connett briefly mentions the importance of the 2017 \u201cBashash study.\u201d This was an international study effort led by professor Howard Hu, who at the time of the study\u2019s publication was at the University of Toronto. The study is known as the \u201cBashash study\u201d after the lead author, Morteza Bashash, Ph.D. The team also includes researchers from McGill, Harvard, Mount Sinai, Michigan, Indiana and the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.<\/p>\n<p>Funding for this research came from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The finalized study[25][26] was published in the September 2017 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.<\/p>\n<p>This study was remarkable for the fact that it followed participants for 12 years, involved several well-respected researchers, employed rigorous methodology and controlled for virtually all conceivable factors.<\/p>\n<p>Here too, they found a strong relationship between the urinary level of fluoride in pregnant women and the subsequent IQ in their children. They also found a dose-dependent relationship, so the higher the mother\u2019s urine level of fluoride, the lower the IQ in the offspring.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Bashash study, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. What\u2019s more, they found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ.<\/p>\n<p>In January 2022, York University announced that the same research team that found the connection between fluoride and children\u2019s IQs has obtained close to $2 million from the National Institutes of Health to assess both the neurotoxicity of early-life exposure to fluoride and the thyroid-disrupting effects of fluoride in pregnancy.[27]\n<p>The researchers will use baby tooth dentin \u2014 tissue beneath the enamel \u2014 to measure fluoride \u201cring\u201d markers on the dentin.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cSampling tooth layers that correspond to specific life stages will provide critical information for when exposure occurred and how much reached the developing brain,\u201d lead researcher Christine Till said in a press release.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>\u201cOur earlier research measured urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women, which does not tell us how much fluoride reached the fetus and when \u2026 The tooth dentin is an optimal biomarker because it will provide evidence that fluoride crosses the placenta. This will give a better understanding of the critical window of when exposure becomes harmful to the developing brain.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>FAN is part of the Mercola Health Liberty Coalition, founded in 2011 \u2014 the mission of which is to inform and educate about the fraud and deceptions created by the junk food, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Other Health Liberty partners include the National Vaccine Information Center, the Organic Consumers Association and Consumers for Dental Choice.<\/p>\n<p>Not only has your support been helpful to catalyze the removal of fluoride but you have been able to help us make massive changes with two other health issues as well:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>GMOs \u2014<\/strong>\u00a0When we first started, the average person in the U.S. did not know what GMOS were. Now, not only do they know but they are also aware how dangerous they are. Your support has allowed FOIA requests to be filed that produced critical evidence resulting in juries awarding plaintiffs billions of dollars from Bayer\/Monsanto, with another 13,000 cases pending and a possibility of bankrupting this evil giant.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Dental mercury \u2014<\/strong>\u00a0Charlie Brown has coordinated worldwide bans on the use of mercury in dentistry that has already resulted in banning mercury in dentistry in many countries, with the likely complete elimination of amalgam within the next few years.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Again and again, we see \u201ccontroversial\u201d and \u201ccontentious\u201d stances proven prudent and correct given enough time for sufficient science to accumulate. It\u2019s important for you to recognize that your donations to these organizations through the years have allowed these successes to manifest. The latest JAMA Pediatrics study brings us another major step forward in the process to eliminate water fluoridation.<\/p>\n<p>As noted by JAMA Pediatrics editor-in-chief, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, in the JAMA podcast (embedded above):<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cBefore there were anti-vaxxers there were anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency in my early professional career was, \u2018fluoride is completely safe and all of these people trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It\u2019s the best thing that\u2019s ever happened for children\u2019s dental health and we need to push back and get it into every water system\u2019 \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>So, when I first saw this title [\u2018Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada\u2019], my initial inclination was, \u2018What the hell?&#8217;\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Christakis goes on to express shock at the discovery that only 3% of European residents, while 66% of Americans and 38% of Canadians drink fluoridated water (statistics noted in the JAMA Pediatrics paper[28]), as he was under the assumption that all developed countries fluoridated all their water supplies. This just goes to show the general ignorance that still exists even among well-educated health professionals.<\/p>\n<p>Christakis and JAMA Network Open editor-in-chief Dr. Frederick Rivara also express mutual surprise that the effect of water fluoridation on IQ was so great. They point out that a 5-point reduction is significant indeed, as it\u2019s \u201con par with lead.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Christakis goes on to discuss the fact that there have been other studies suggesting fluoride may be a neurotoxin. \u201cWhich, again, was totally news to me. I thought it was junk science,\u201d he says. Rivara agrees, saying such studies have in the past been likened to \u201cjunk\u201d anti-vaccine science.<\/p>\n<p>Christakis admits he struggled with the findings \u2014 basically because of his preconceptions of the science. He certainly did not want to be the one putting out \u201cjunk science\u201d that might lead to a deterioration of children\u2019s dental health. This is precisely why the study was put through additional reviews to make sure the methodology and findings were sound. In the end, the research was solid enough to pass the tests.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s interesting to hear Christakis and Rivara talk about their struggle to accept the idea that water fluoridation may be harmful \u2014 at the very least until the child starts developing teeth. But even toddlers may be harmed, the pair admit, as toddlers and young children\u2019s brains are still developing.<\/p>\n<p>It\u2019s even more interesting to hear them equate their struggles to that of the vaccine safety question for, indeed, the very same struggle to accept the idea that vaccines can cause harm is identical to the struggle to accept that water fluoridation may be damaging our children.<\/p>\n<p>Both are considered unassailable public health victories, and no one wants to entertain the idea that we may inadvertently be causing grave harm on a populationwide basis. Yet that\u2019s a very real probability, as this study shows (and many others as well).<\/p>\n<p>Overall, it makes absolutely no sense to fluoridate municipal water supplies. First of all, it\u2019s forced medication without oversight \u2014 there\u2019s no way to ascertain the dosage any given person is getting, or what effect it\u2019s having on their health.<\/p>\n<p>When it comes to fetuses and infants, water fluoridation is useless, as there\u2019s no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest it has a beneficial impact on future dental health, and it certainly does not make sense to \u201cprevent cavities\u201d in those without teeth.<\/p>\n<p>Furthermore, the vast majority of the fluoride in the water never ever touches a tooth. It\u2019s simply flushed down the drain, becoming an environmental pollutant. As noted by Edward Groth III, a staff officer on the Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources, with the National Research Council back in 1975:[29]\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cEnvironmental contamination by fluorides exposes many organisms to potentially toxic effects and may exert some stress on the ecological interrelationships among plant and animal populations \u2026 [T]he available evidence does support the view that fluorides are pollutants with considerable potential for producing ecological damage.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Groth\u2019s article, \u201cFluoride Pollution,\u201d[30] which appeared in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, summarizes the ecological impacts of low-level fluoride pollution, pointing out fluoride has been found to accumulate in the bodies of insects, birds and mammals, in some cases to potentially toxic levels, thus increasing fluoride levels in the food chain as a whole.<\/p>\n<p>There are also reports of toxic effects in algae and freshwater vertebrates, and \u201cindications that aquatic vegetation may also concentrate the element.\u201d Substantial amounts of fluoride are also entering farmland, where it\u2019s taken up by soil organisms.<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cPossible conversion of fluoride into fluoracetate (more toxic than fluoride itself and related organic forms), and the likelihood that fluoride may enter into synergistic actions with other contaminants, greatly expand the potential for ecological damage by low-level fluoride contamination,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Groth writes.[31]\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>It\u2019s also important to realize that the fluoride added to our water is an untreated industrial waste product from the fertilizer industry \u2014 not a pharmaceutical grade product \u2014 that is suddenly deemed a health product once it\u2019s purposely added to water.<\/p>\n<p>As long as the chemical is on the premises of a fertilizer company, it\u2019s actually classified as hazardous waste, requiring costly disposal measures to comply with hazardous waste regulations.<\/p>\n<p>This fluorosilicic acid is frequently contaminated with lead, arsenic, uranium, radium, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. In other words, water fluoridation can be likened to a legal water contamination scheme.<\/p>\n<p>For a review of the oft-neglected history of water fluoridation, read through \u201cToxic Treatment: Fluoride\u2019s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle\u201d in the March 2018 issue of Origins,[32] a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University. As noted in \u201cToxic Treatment:\u201d<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cWithout the phosphate industry\u2019s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>There\u2019s also very little evidence to suggest water fluoridation actually has a beneficial impact on tooth decay, while there\u2019s unequivocal evidence of harm, as it causes dental fluorosis. Origins writes:[33]\n<blockquote>\n<p><em>\u201cOnly a handful of countries fluoridate their water \u2014 such as Australia, Ireland, Singapore, and Brazil, in addition to the United States. Western European nations have largely rejected the practice. Nonetheless, dental decay in Western Europe has declined at the same rate as in the United States over the past half century \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>This is not to vilify the early fluoridationists, who had legitimate reason to believe that they had found an easy and affordable way to counter a significant public health problem.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>However, the arguments and data used to justify fluoridation in the mid-20th century \u2014 as well as the fierce commitment to the practice \u2014 remain largely unchanged, failing to take into account a shifting environmental context that may well have rendered it unnecessary or worse.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p><em>Originally published\u00a0Mar 30 2022 on Mercola.com<\/em><\/p>\n<h3>References<\/h3>\n<p><i>Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times. Epoch Health welcomes professional discussion and friendly debate. To submit an opinion piece, please follow these guidelines and submit through <a href=\"https:\/\/www.theepochtimes.com\/submission-guidelines_4553495.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">our form here<\/a>.<\/i><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>These study findings were so controversial, they had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before being published. Their publication even warranted a special editor\u2019s note justifying the journal\u2019s decision to<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2315279,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mo_disable_npp":"","fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1652826","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1652826","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1652826"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1652826\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2315279"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1652826"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1652826"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.conservativenewsdaily.net\/breaking-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1652826"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}