I am more concerned with PFASs contamination in our water. Also note fluoride is commonly found in water. The MD is concerned that those areas with common naturally occurring and adding fluoride can potentially cause excess fluoride however I know people on wells as well as public water systems and Adding fluoride to tap water to prevent tooth decay is one of our greatest public health achievements, with evidence gathered over more than 60 years showing it works. I never had a cavity till a senior in high school. My mom had terrible teeth, she didn’t have that advantage and generally we don’t see the decay like we did. Check out PFASs that are directly linked to serious health hazards. We have a huge problem with clusters of childhood brain cancers which they claim are rare. We have to be careful when a minimal harm is used to protect industries that are active in PFSAs and not allow them to get away with it.
Hey there, I’m all for getting all toxins out of the water, and fluoride is far from the only one - however it is the only one (other than chlorine) deliberately added. If you’ve read my pieces carefully, you’ll see that I don’t argue that it has no benefit to preventing dental caries (although I have hard the study used to justify its introduction was flawed and the flaws overlooked,) but rather that it is toxic for the whole body, that scientists have known this and have hidden it, and that there are reasons they sought to find a use for it that would make a very poisonous substance seem benign.
I’ve pretty much had it my whole life. I’ll research more and am all for removing dangerous toxins that we injest. PFAS is industrial and why they can’t at least filter our water is beyond me. We have become profit centers from both parties. Both sides could care less and oligarchs bought them off long ago. I don’t think I can live in this country anymore. No country is perfect but very concerned here going forward it’s the fall of Rome
Clean water for all no more lies. It needs filtration. I do have a family member that isn’t good with his teeth and gums. Was told all teeth must be removed due to dental caries. We went to specialist and new dentist had 20 cavities filled along with extensive gum cleaning. We spent over $6000 plus on teeth and gums this year. He was prescribed a special toothpaste with high fluoride all this and we do have fluoridated water.
Have you looked into the mycoremdiation as a water filter? I'm not sure how it would be scaled but it has a lot of evidence for being able to remove a lot of toxins, esp heavy metals. I am so sorry about your family member. Dental stuff sucks - trust me I know. I lost all my enamel during my pregnancies from puking excessively - aka hyperemesis.
I really admire you for being open to researching more. Dig into the Phyllis Mullenix story. It's a good one! For starters present-tense, reading the Fluoride Monograph carefully from this year just in terms of IQ is a good place to begin. The point is that the scientists fought back against those who wanted to suppress their findings to conclude that the levels that kids are getting exposed to CUMULATIVE is likely within the range that was found to reduce IQ. That is just the tip of the iceberg since Fluoride is reactive and impacts so much in our physiology as a result. It's the EASIEST to get out because we can just stop it. Maybe you could do a class action PFAS if that is your passion!
Yes I am an RN and I have done writing and research. I also know many scientists that clarify. I need truth. I get it because we all have been lied to. We lack trust. The EU is far better with toxic crap they restrict it. We don’t
This may interest you. I remember reading the Christian Science Monitor and being told by my folks it was a Source of unbiased news. Apparently this was too hot to touch.
Dental treatments are expensive throughout the world. The cost of dentistry has hardly been reduced, even in countries where the decline in caries began 30 years ago. Thus, extension of preventive dentistry is still indispensable for improving oral health (12). The absence of dental care and poor hygiene are still considered the main causes of dental decay (34). Although multifactorial in origin, caries is a preventable disease, with fluoride as a preventive agent used worldwide. Several modes of fluoride use have evolved, each with its own recommended concentration, frequency of use, and dosage schedule. Concurrently, recent opposition has been growing worldwide against fluoridation, emphasizing the potential and serious risk of toxicity. Since the fluoride benefit is mainly topical, perhaps it is better to deliver fluoride directly to the tooth instead of ingesting it (34). Fluoride toothpaste, rinses and varnish applications have proven their effectiveness in some countries, but they are still not universally affordable.
Japan is in a fluoride belt. However some people might have a sensitivity to it. We also should consider that some people don’t want it or consent to it. We must consider that in some areas it could mix with other products and change the composition.
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article. As this invalidates the conclusions of the article, the decision has been made to retract.
Anywhere fluoride is used in smelting there are health issues - and the same with uranium enrichment where fluoride is used, including the Manhattan project. Some people weren't treated even with what they did know because it was top secret, so doctors weren't even told what they got exposed to when there were accidents.
Also in areas that lack fluoride supplemental fluoride is prescribed so they have to buy it which it should be considered an entire industry is waiting in the wings to profit. It’s not cheap. Just saying all roads have curves and I will agree so many issues need addressed.
So yes fluorspar is recovered from uranium enrichment, stainless steel pickling, and petroleum alkylation. Most of it used in steel production and used to convert uranium oxide (yellow cake) to UF most for enriched uranium for nuclear industry and other such as - sodium fluoride and chemicals by waterworks are fluoroscopic acid and sodium fluoride and may be topically applied to teeth as a 2 % solution to prevent tooth decay. So even though source for all these uses they are processed differently. I’ll send you the sources. Do you have email? Thanks
Please just link here - that way everyone can see! Thanks! You mention the different across the Atlantic - Dr. Roholm - A Dane was one of the first to study fluoride and conclude it is toxic and should not be applied to children’s teeth. See ch 3 “Opposite sides of the Altantic” The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson
Well you know we learn something everyday. A really good site is the EU REACH European Chemicals do you know we distribute dangerous products here but manufacture the same product with the harmful substances removed in other markets? Also when we use the term fluoride it generally contains other substances like this 1-ethyl-3-methyl-2-oxoazetidin-3-yl)methanesulfonyl fluoride
So let me do more research- I’m a detective for truth and when I searched chemical fluoride a ton came up so out for a walk and will look into this more
The National Toxicology Program. They put out the Fluoride Monograph that concluded this year, after much delay because some tried to suppress their findings, that the amount of fluoride IN TOTAL that children absorb is at the level that they found caused reduction in IQ. I have linked to it in at least one of my articles. <3
All we can do is test. All you can do is tell the truth. I reported unsafe patient care and they didn’t fire me but made it difficult I sued them. I was a whistleblower. I was treated horrible but I didn’t want patients to get harmed or worse die. I stood up! I fought that battle.
I can’t fathom why Europe bans and we don’t…it seems there would be the same “interests” in both places….any thoughts? A doctor colleague of my spouse went to a Nordic country and there kids loved the food and said it tasted way better and they started asking questions and the parent was like, “We’re on vacation we’ll talk about it some other time.”
Because they know down the road the harms. They aren’t focused on profits like we are and we know if you do correct thing will lead to healthy people. Here we just focus on profits at expense of the Health of the people and we have to find out the real truth not a spin. Information needs validated. The EU publishes a list of substances of very high concern. For instance I worked for a manufacturer that makes contact lens. In us they reap more profits with boric acid which is used as a disinfectant and anti-fungal agent. In EU we had to decrease or substitute these are buffering agents. Look at salt in our foods and we give that to little children or sugar. Anywhere in the world that eats our food has high rates of diabetes. Now we have ozempic and other such treatment and we as a society need truth not a political spin. I come from medicine where I have worked with a lot of knowledgeable people read test reports, but also seen bad actors that harm people. We ourselves can control what we eat or drink. But our water isn’t clean and often due to aging water systems they add extra bleach. So yeah we have had these issues for some time and I really hope it gets better for people. After all we don’t ask for much but clean water that goes into the body can be helping or harming. Also as we go along we learn more. Once a product is on the market you track it see if harms but first labels can be added to caution. We really aren’t doing a great job of reducing our risks or being proactive like the EU we react. That approach costs more likely leads to more profit. Disease is profitable.
So much can be harmful then you have risk vs the benefit. There are so many things you evaluate. All it takes is one contaminant that can cause death that is why components or additives are tested but sometimes they get through.
Think about devices people get implanted with and the material leeches. I am much more concerned about those and these enter blood stream. The prescription fluoride toothpaste used are instructed use only at night don’t rinse off. I took care of women who had no dental care they go into labor early. Healthy teeth and gums save lives. Our gums are where things can transport into our blood.
I hear your perspective and honor it. Fluoride applied to teeth and absorbed in water goes through the gums as well as systemically. The evidence is strong, but I understand you feel other priorties are more important and that’s okay!
So yes they NTP published their findings and concluded and considered exposure from all sources and more that 1.5 milligrams of it per liter that’s approx 1 gallon was associated with lower IQ in kids. They tested in other countries and currently we use 0.7 mg /liter and there is no evidence in consideration of exposure to all sources had adverse effects.
Well if that is how you interpret it am sorry I seem to go in circles here. I am not a liar I have seen horrible things I am not concerned have a great day and shine brightly. Check out PFAS
I am not calling you a liar, I assume you believe what you believe based on your best understanding. To the best of my understanding, I am making literally zero interpretation because I have read that part of the NTP myself.
I'm pretty sure I screenshotted the NTP finding on this matter. Those who wanted to suppress DEEPLY wanted the authors to conclude that it was fine at 0.7, but they specifically did not. You are probably reading someone's fact check versus the actual NTP.
The intro changes the meaning. I saw that too. It's bullshit. Not your fault. Have reading been the actual NTP not the site - as they are trying to decontextualize what the actual report says in light of all the attention it's been getting. I'll find you the screenshot in a minute.
“The literature in children was more extensive and was separated into studies assessing intelligence quotient (IQ) and studies assessing other cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Eight of nine high-quality studies examining other cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes reported associations with estimated fluoride exposure. Seventy-two studies assessed the association between fluoride exposure and IQ in children. Nineteen of those studies were considered to be high quality; of these, 18 reported an inverse association between estimated fluoride exposure and IQ in children.”
Here, the summary is an inverse relationship not specific to 1.5 versus .07
What do you think? It’s a lot of studies looked at and they have experienced such pressure NIOT to conclude that it’s harmful that they had to vet quite carefully.
I am not alarmed. There are worse substances. Dental care is very expensive many can’t afford it. Have a nice day!!! I have had patients who would benefit from dental care which is a preventative care. We need more of that. Keep your light shining.
That's an exciting development - so long as they aren't "next generation probiotics" which are genetically engineered <3 Probiotics is an exciting field! Love to you on this unity ride! <3 <3 <3 Bless your day and thank you for your loving heart and wanting to be of service! YES!
So the methodology of how they conducted the study has to be documented and studies must be reproducible to be considered credible and scientifically advanced. That way they can be validated. There is criteria.
Exactly. The eliminated a lot studies because they weren't considered high quality. The high quality ones nearly all showed fluoride was associated with more F = lower IQ and more F = increase neurodevelopment issues. The whole monograph details all the studies and how they used them if you have a background in study design, it may interest you.
This is a major issue - certainly looking at study integrity it important. There are double standards that exist where shitty studies are allowed if they support the conclusions "interests" want and high quality studies are often retracted (such as the one in Japan linking vaccines to cancer) against the convictions of the scientists - not for a flaw in study or design but over a mere disagreement over conclusion. Yet as I said earlier, NEJM regularly invents conclusions with literally no evidence. In this case however, since the establishment bias is against showing a toxicity with fluoride, the NTP authors had to be very careful. So if their results show what they show, it is worth taking seriously. It takes a brave scientist to even do fluoride research that is honest science because industry is so all-in to keep supporting its uses for various reasons, none to do with public health as far as I can tell.
The problem today is lack of trust on both sides. There is a proper way but today to profit short cuts are taken and studies are conducted that can create what ever you want. This data can create fear, agendas, sways people and is wrong. So we really don’t know who is telling the truth. I typically value data from outside US because industry here taints it. Politics plays with it. So the question is if you want the truth you create a tight protocol and follow it to the T ensure it’s reproducible and validated and documented. In the US they purposely divide us . I’ve been suckered. But I still am not concerned about fluoride. And we can see it’s a topic that goes round and round. Let’s discuss PFAS in our water and health effects far more dangerous and that was not mentioned if they tested the water that the subjects used.
I get you. We need transparency and truly reproducible studies. Ending public/private partnerships is key. I am not sure it is always better in Europe, but sometimes it is. They also have industry pressures, government pressures. They are better on some things, more oppressive on others. This piece may be helpful, with the additional studies linked:
"In 2015, we sought funding to investigate the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy. We assembled an interdisciplinary team of scientists from complementary fields including epidemiology, environmental health, neuropsychology, and dentistry—knowing that diverse perspectives would be critical for minimizing conscious or unconscious biases in our investigative process. We naively expected that the public health and medical community would trust the scientific process. The scientific process
We studied 512 mother−child pairs enrolled in the MIREC (Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Contaminants) study. The families lived in six Canadian cities; 40% lived in cities with CWF. To our astonishment, we found that higher levels of fluoride in pregnant women and water concentrations were associated with a 3- to 5-point lower IQ score in their 3- to 4-year-old children.8 We thought there may be other factors at play, but this association held up after accounting for important characteristics of the study population and looking at the relationship in many different ways."
You can actually view the studies and have a look at how picky they were in the appendixes of the monograph, so while I agree you can make studies (and statistics) say whatever you want, - I am deeply 100% for full transparency and ending the right of companies to have "proprietary" trump public health and transparency so any third party can, just as you assert, to the T reproduce the studies. However in this case, you can view all the studies included, and many high quality ones were included, so you're not going to get better science and nearly all the high qualities studies point to a real concern.
Reading an article that they have big problems with fluorosis including 24 other countries because they are located in a fluoride belt. There are 3 EU countries that practice water fluoridation.
lovely words. dissolving the heavy, shining in the lightness.
As for the chemicals in the water, I've done such an enormous amount of research over the years but it all came back to- Charcoal. simple burnt wood draws it out of the water - It's the "secret" ingredient along with clay in 100% of patented filters. Clay helps with sediment and pathogens, charcoal is the sponge for chemical contaminants (pfas, flouride, chlorine and medications). Used to be available on many international websites about 10 years ago but the information has been harder to find now due to patents and ownership.
Fired wood, and earth in their most simple forms clean the water. . Have a fire. save the charcoal bits. pull the contaminants from the water by putting a chunk in your jug... I know this is a much larger systemic issue, but also want low cost, local, easy to replace options in everyone's hands while its uncovered and needs time to change.
Water is life. Bless the waters. Thank the waters. Brighten the waters.
we have more power than we know! Thank you for bringing these issues to more eyes. I am glad to bring it back to the practical and individual to keep people healthy. <3
I am more concerned with PFASs contamination in our water. Also note fluoride is commonly found in water. The MD is concerned that those areas with common naturally occurring and adding fluoride can potentially cause excess fluoride however I know people on wells as well as public water systems and Adding fluoride to tap water to prevent tooth decay is one of our greatest public health achievements, with evidence gathered over more than 60 years showing it works. I never had a cavity till a senior in high school. My mom had terrible teeth, she didn’t have that advantage and generally we don’t see the decay like we did. Check out PFASs that are directly linked to serious health hazards. We have a huge problem with clusters of childhood brain cancers which they claim are rare. We have to be careful when a minimal harm is used to protect industries that are active in PFSAs and not allow them to get away with it.
Hey there, I’m all for getting all toxins out of the water, and fluoride is far from the only one - however it is the only one (other than chlorine) deliberately added. If you’ve read my pieces carefully, you’ll see that I don’t argue that it has no benefit to preventing dental caries (although I have hard the study used to justify its introduction was flawed and the flaws overlooked,) but rather that it is toxic for the whole body, that scientists have known this and have hidden it, and that there are reasons they sought to find a use for it that would make a very poisonous substance seem benign.
INCREASING OPPOSITION TO FLUORIDATION
More than 80% of fluoride toxicity is seen in children before the age of 6 years, due to ingestion of fluoride-containing toothpaste or mouthwashes (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b29-pnfs-23-171); it is rare in adults in the developed world. Acute toxicity is characterized by nonspecific gastrointestinal disturbances such as pain, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b30-pnfs-23-171,https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b31-pnfs-23-171). In severe cases, this may progress to renal and cardiac dysfunction, coma, and ultimately death (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b32-pnfs-23-171). In children, as little as 8.4 mg/kg may produce symptoms (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b30-pnfs-23-171). Chronic fluoride toxicity is usually caused by high fluoride concentrations in drinking water or the use of fluoride supplements. Chronic ingestion of high doses leads to dental fluorosis, a cosmetic disorder where the teeth become mottled (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b1-pnfs-23-171). In more severe cases, it leads to skeletal fluorosis, in which bone is radiologically dense, but fragile. Fractures can occur, and there may be calcification of ligaments and tendons, leading to reduced joint mobility (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b1-pnfs-23-171). The syndrome also may include extensive calcification of ligaments and cartilage, as well as the bony outgrowths of osteophytes and exostoses (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b33-pnfs-23-171).
In Europe, only Ireland, Poland, Serbia, Spain, and the UK fluoridate their water. However, most developed countries, including Japan and 97% of the European population, do not consume fluoridated water (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b34-pnfs-23-171). In Europe, only four countries have optional salt fluoridation (Germany, France, Switzerland, and Austria), while the majority have neither fluoridated water nor fluoridated salt (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b34-pnfs-23-171). In the US, about 70% of public water supplies are fluoridated (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b34-pnfs-23-171). India, China, and parts of Africa have areas with high natural fluoride levels in their water, and are taking measures to remove the fluoride since it may cause health problems (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#b34-pnfs-23-171). Fluoridation has been debated in recent years, and several countries are taking measures to reduce fluoride intake because of its toxicity risk and many other concerns (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/#t2-pnfs-23-171) mentioned below:
I’ve pretty much had it my whole life. I’ll research more and am all for removing dangerous toxins that we injest. PFAS is industrial and why they can’t at least filter our water is beyond me. We have become profit centers from both parties. Both sides could care less and oligarchs bought them off long ago. I don’t think I can live in this country anymore. No country is perfect but very concerned here going forward it’s the fall of Rome
Yes, I'm with you on the basic premise there!
Clean water for all no more lies. It needs filtration. I do have a family member that isn’t good with his teeth and gums. Was told all teeth must be removed due to dental caries. We went to specialist and new dentist had 20 cavities filled along with extensive gum cleaning. We spent over $6000 plus on teeth and gums this year. He was prescribed a special toothpaste with high fluoride all this and we do have fluoridated water.
<3 <3 <3
Have you looked into the mycoremdiation as a water filter? I'm not sure how it would be scaled but it has a lot of evidence for being able to remove a lot of toxins, esp heavy metals. I am so sorry about your family member. Dental stuff sucks - trust me I know. I lost all my enamel during my pregnancies from puking excessively - aka hyperemesis.
I really admire you for being open to researching more. Dig into the Phyllis Mullenix story. It's a good one! For starters present-tense, reading the Fluoride Monograph carefully from this year just in terms of IQ is a good place to begin. The point is that the scientists fought back against those who wanted to suppress their findings to conclude that the levels that kids are getting exposed to CUMULATIVE is likely within the range that was found to reduce IQ. That is just the tip of the iceberg since Fluoride is reactive and impacts so much in our physiology as a result. It's the EASIEST to get out because we can just stop it. Maybe you could do a class action PFAS if that is your passion!
Yes I am an RN and I have done writing and research. I also know many scientists that clarify. I need truth. I get it because we all have been lied to. We lack trust. The EU is far better with toxic crap they restrict it. We don’t
<3!!!!!
Yes I will thanks
https://www.projectcensored.org/18-manhattan-project-covered-up-effects-of-fluoride-toxicity/
This may interest you. I remember reading the Christian Science Monitor and being told by my folks it was a Source of unbiased news. Apparently this was too hot to touch.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/monographs/mgraph08
CONCLUSION
Dental treatments are expensive throughout the world. The cost of dentistry has hardly been reduced, even in countries where the decline in caries began 30 years ago. Thus, extension of preventive dentistry is still indispensable for improving oral health (12). The absence of dental care and poor hygiene are still considered the main causes of dental decay (34). Although multifactorial in origin, caries is a preventable disease, with fluoride as a preventive agent used worldwide. Several modes of fluoride use have evolved, each with its own recommended concentration, frequency of use, and dosage schedule. Concurrently, recent opposition has been growing worldwide against fluoridation, emphasizing the potential and serious risk of toxicity. Since the fluoride benefit is mainly topical, perhaps it is better to deliver fluoride directly to the tooth instead of ingesting it (34). Fluoride toothpaste, rinses and varnish applications have proven their effectiveness in some countries, but they are still not universally affordable.
Where are you reading or finding harm?
Japan is in a fluoride belt. However some people might have a sensitivity to it. We also should consider that some people don’t want it or consent to it. We must consider that in some areas it could mix with other products and change the composition.
That is a good point - my understanding is fluoride exacerbates other toxins due to fluorine reactivity. Also RE JAPAN:
Retraction: Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan
Monitoring Editor: Alexander Muacevic and John R Adler
http://europepmc.org/search/?This retracts the article "https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC11077472/" in volume 16, e57860.
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article. As this invalidates the conclusions of the article, the decision has been made to retract.
The authors disagree with this retraction.
This is the one I referenced that in its peer reviewed form linked the v with the c
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6195894/
Check out Coldwater Creek in Missouri where they developed manhattan project and the health effects.
Exactly!
Anywhere fluoride is used in smelting there are health issues - and the same with uranium enrichment where fluoride is used, including the Manhattan project. Some people weren't treated even with what they did know because it was top secret, so doctors weren't even told what they got exposed to when there were accidents.
Also in areas that lack fluoride supplemental fluoride is prescribed so they have to buy it which it should be considered an entire industry is waiting in the wings to profit. It’s not cheap. Just saying all roads have curves and I will agree so many issues need addressed.
Yup - have you looked into where fluoride is derived from currently?
So yes fluorspar is recovered from uranium enrichment, stainless steel pickling, and petroleum alkylation. Most of it used in steel production and used to convert uranium oxide (yellow cake) to UF most for enriched uranium for nuclear industry and other such as - sodium fluoride and chemicals by waterworks are fluoroscopic acid and sodium fluoride and may be topically applied to teeth as a 2 % solution to prevent tooth decay. So even though source for all these uses they are processed differently. I’ll send you the sources. Do you have email? Thanks
Please just link here - that way everyone can see! Thanks! You mention the different across the Atlantic - Dr. Roholm - A Dane was one of the first to study fluoride and conclude it is toxic and should not be applied to children’s teeth. See ch 3 “Opposite sides of the Altantic” The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson
Well you know we learn something everyday. A really good site is the EU REACH European Chemicals do you know we distribute dangerous products here but manufacture the same product with the harmful substances removed in other markets? Also when we use the term fluoride it generally contains other substances like this 1-ethyl-3-methyl-2-oxoazetidin-3-yl)methanesulfonyl fluoride
So let me do more research- I’m a detective for truth and when I searched chemical fluoride a ton came up so out for a walk and will look into this more
<3 <3 <3 I love that you are a detective for truth - I resonate! <3 Lots of love and enjoy your walk!
Oh I could tell you a lot of stories but most has been very positive
Keep in mind tooth pastes have been on the market many many years. It has acquired a safe profile. I don’t see alarms.
The NTP does. Who determines safety profiles? How many fluoride scientists who go against the narrative have lost their job?
What is NTP?
The National Toxicology Program. They put out the Fluoride Monograph that concluded this year, after much delay because some tried to suppress their findings, that the amount of fluoride IN TOTAL that children absorb is at the level that they found caused reduction in IQ. I have linked to it in at least one of my articles. <3
All we can do is test. All you can do is tell the truth. I reported unsafe patient care and they didn’t fire me but made it difficult I sued them. I was a whistleblower. I was treated horrible but I didn’t want patients to get harmed or worse die. I stood up! I fought that battle.
I can’t fathom why Europe bans and we don’t…it seems there would be the same “interests” in both places….any thoughts? A doctor colleague of my spouse went to a Nordic country and there kids loved the food and said it tasted way better and they started asking questions and the parent was like, “We’re on vacation we’ll talk about it some other time.”
Because they know down the road the harms. They aren’t focused on profits like we are and we know if you do correct thing will lead to healthy people. Here we just focus on profits at expense of the Health of the people and we have to find out the real truth not a spin. Information needs validated. The EU publishes a list of substances of very high concern. For instance I worked for a manufacturer that makes contact lens. In us they reap more profits with boric acid which is used as a disinfectant and anti-fungal agent. In EU we had to decrease or substitute these are buffering agents. Look at salt in our foods and we give that to little children or sugar. Anywhere in the world that eats our food has high rates of diabetes. Now we have ozempic and other such treatment and we as a society need truth not a political spin. I come from medicine where I have worked with a lot of knowledgeable people read test reports, but also seen bad actors that harm people. We ourselves can control what we eat or drink. But our water isn’t clean and often due to aging water systems they add extra bleach. So yeah we have had these issues for some time and I really hope it gets better for people. After all we don’t ask for much but clean water that goes into the body can be helping or harming. Also as we go along we learn more. Once a product is on the market you track it see if harms but first labels can be added to caution. We really aren’t doing a great job of reducing our risks or being proactive like the EU we react. That approach costs more likely leads to more profit. Disease is profitable.
True and they don’t have the obesity but we are always stressed and what do we do use food to soothe.
So much can be harmful then you have risk vs the benefit. There are so many things you evaluate. All it takes is one contaminant that can cause death that is why components or additives are tested but sometimes they get through.
Europe does not ban fluoride in toothpastes
Yes because it is optional. So people can choose.
Think about devices people get implanted with and the material leeches. I am much more concerned about those and these enter blood stream. The prescription fluoride toothpaste used are instructed use only at night don’t rinse off. I took care of women who had no dental care they go into labor early. Healthy teeth and gums save lives. Our gums are where things can transport into our blood.
I hear your perspective and honor it. Fluoride applied to teeth and absorbed in water goes through the gums as well as systemically. The evidence is strong, but I understand you feel other priorties are more important and that’s okay!
No US is worse
? I'm not sure what you are referring to here...but I love your search for the truth and I trust your journey! <3
So yes they NTP published their findings and concluded and considered exposure from all sources and more that 1.5 milligrams of it per liter that’s approx 1 gallon was associated with lower IQ in kids. They tested in other countries and currently we use 0.7 mg /liter and there is no evidence in consideration of exposure to all sources had adverse effects.
That is not correct. The NTP finding is that in total we do get exposure that is likely equal to 1.5 and that this level is detrimental.
Well if that is how you interpret it am sorry I seem to go in circles here. I am not a liar I have seen horrible things I am not concerned have a great day and shine brightly. Check out PFAS
I am not calling you a liar, I assume you believe what you believe based on your best understanding. To the best of my understanding, I am making literally zero interpretation because I have read that part of the NTP myself.
I'm pretty sure I screenshotted the NTP finding on this matter. Those who wanted to suppress DEEPLY wanted the authors to conclude that it was fine at 0.7, but they specifically did not. You are probably reading someone's fact check versus the actual NTP.
I am reading on the site
The intro changes the meaning. I saw that too. It's bullshit. Not your fault. Have reading been the actual NTP not the site - as they are trying to decontextualize what the actual report says in light of all the attention it's been getting. I'll find you the screenshot in a minute.
“The literature in children was more extensive and was separated into studies assessing intelligence quotient (IQ) and studies assessing other cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes. Eight of nine high-quality studies examining other cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes reported associations with estimated fluoride exposure. Seventy-two studies assessed the association between fluoride exposure and IQ in children. Nineteen of those studies were considered to be high quality; of these, 18 reported an inverse association between estimated fluoride exposure and IQ in children.”
Here, the summary is an inverse relationship not specific to 1.5 versus .07
What do you think? It’s a lot of studies looked at and they have experienced such pressure NIOT to conclude that it’s harmful that they had to vet quite carefully.
https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/monographs/mgraph08
Under results
I am not alarmed. There are worse substances. Dental care is very expensive many can’t afford it. Have a nice day!!! I have had patients who would benefit from dental care which is a preventative care. We need more of that. Keep your light shining.
US was left out. Many countries including India is already in a fluoride belt with excess levels
Ok I have spent enough time on this moving on!
You know what I read there is toothpaste coming out with probiotics
That's an exciting development - so long as they aren't "next generation probiotics" which are genetically engineered <3 Probiotics is an exciting field! Love to you on this unity ride! <3 <3 <3 Bless your day and thank you for your loving heart and wanting to be of service! YES!
So the methodology of how they conducted the study has to be documented and studies must be reproducible to be considered credible and scientifically advanced. That way they can be validated. There is criteria.
Exactly. The eliminated a lot studies because they weren't considered high quality. The high quality ones nearly all showed fluoride was associated with more F = lower IQ and more F = increase neurodevelopment issues. The whole monograph details all the studies and how they used them if you have a background in study design, it may interest you.
However, the growing concerns of failure to comply with good scientific principles has resulted in issues with research integrity and reproducibility.
This is a major issue - certainly looking at study integrity it important. There are double standards that exist where shitty studies are allowed if they support the conclusions "interests" want and high quality studies are often retracted (such as the one in Japan linking vaccines to cancer) against the convictions of the scientists - not for a flaw in study or design but over a mere disagreement over conclusion. Yet as I said earlier, NEJM regularly invents conclusions with literally no evidence. In this case however, since the establishment bias is against showing a toxicity with fluoride, the NTP authors had to be very careful. So if their results show what they show, it is worth taking seriously. It takes a brave scientist to even do fluoride research that is honest science because industry is so all-in to keep supporting its uses for various reasons, none to do with public health as far as I can tell.
The problem today is lack of trust on both sides. There is a proper way but today to profit short cuts are taken and studies are conducted that can create what ever you want. This data can create fear, agendas, sways people and is wrong. So we really don’t know who is telling the truth. I typically value data from outside US because industry here taints it. Politics plays with it. So the question is if you want the truth you create a tight protocol and follow it to the T ensure it’s reproducible and validated and documented. In the US they purposely divide us . I’ve been suckered. But I still am not concerned about fluoride. And we can see it’s a topic that goes round and round. Let’s discuss PFAS in our water and health effects far more dangerous and that was not mentioned if they tested the water that the subjects used.
https://bmcresnotes.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13104-021-05875-3
I get you. We need transparency and truly reproducible studies. Ending public/private partnerships is key. I am not sure it is always better in Europe, but sometimes it is. They also have industry pressures, government pressures. They are better on some things, more oppressive on others. This piece may be helpful, with the additional studies linked:
"In 2015, we sought funding to investigate the safety of fluoride exposure in pregnancy. We assembled an interdisciplinary team of scientists from complementary fields including epidemiology, environmental health, neuropsychology, and dentistry—knowing that diverse perspectives would be critical for minimizing conscious or unconscious biases in our investigative process. We naively expected that the public health and medical community would trust the scientific process. The scientific process
We studied 512 mother−child pairs enrolled in the MIREC (Maternal Infant Research on Environmental Contaminants) study. The families lived in six Canadian cities; 40% lived in cities with CWF. To our astonishment, we found that higher levels of fluoride in pregnant women and water concentrations were associated with a 3- to 5-point lower IQ score in their 3- to 4-year-old children.8 We thought there may be other factors at play, but this association held up after accounting for important characteristics of the study population and looking at the relationship in many different ways."
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-020-0973-8
You can actually view the studies and have a look at how picky they were in the appendixes of the monograph, so while I agree you can make studies (and statistics) say whatever you want, - I am deeply 100% for full transparency and ending the right of companies to have "proprietary" trump public health and transparency so any third party can, just as you assert, to the T reproduce the studies. However in this case, you can view all the studies included, and many high quality ones were included, so you're not going to get better science and nearly all the high qualities studies point to a real concern.
As I said, all for taking out PFAS - and calling out Aluminum
Reading an article that they have big problems with fluorosis including 24 other countries because they are located in a fluoride belt. There are 3 EU countries that practice water fluoridation.
Yeppers…it’s rough cause it’s natural but still toxic. Like aluminum. But then you add industrial use and….PROBS
lovely words. dissolving the heavy, shining in the lightness.
As for the chemicals in the water, I've done such an enormous amount of research over the years but it all came back to- Charcoal. simple burnt wood draws it out of the water - It's the "secret" ingredient along with clay in 100% of patented filters. Clay helps with sediment and pathogens, charcoal is the sponge for chemical contaminants (pfas, flouride, chlorine and medications). Used to be available on many international websites about 10 years ago but the information has been harder to find now due to patents and ownership.
Fired wood, and earth in their most simple forms clean the water. . Have a fire. save the charcoal bits. pull the contaminants from the water by putting a chunk in your jug... I know this is a much larger systemic issue, but also want low cost, local, easy to replace options in everyone's hands while its uncovered and needs time to change.
Water is life. Bless the waters. Thank the waters. Brighten the waters.
I love it! Thank you for bringinging it back to what we can do, one person at a time for our health! Love you. <3
we have more power than we know! Thank you for bringing these issues to more eyes. I am glad to bring it back to the practical and individual to keep people healthy. <3