I wrote an article a week ago or so elsewhere examining the potential negative health effects of fluoride — a documented neurotoxin — and why the Public Health™ authorities encourage it to be dumped into three-quarters of the U.S. water supply. The evidence of its deleterious effects on cognition, especially in children and developing fetuses in utero, is widespread and easily accessible to anyone interested in the subject.
According to Mutation Research, the most commonly used form of fluoride, fluorosilicic acid, “at concentrations used in drinking water induced genotoxicity, oxidative stress, and acceleration of bone mineralization.”
Via The Journal of Neurosciences in Rural Practice:
Exposure to fluoride is associated with reduced intelligence in children. We have found a significant inverse relationship between intelligence and the water fluoride level, and intelligence and the urinary fluoride level.
“But maybe the concentrations of fluoride in the water aren’t enough to trigger negative health effects?” one might speculate. Not true.
Via Environmental Health:
Within the brain, fluoride appears to accumulate in regions responsible for memory and learning… The MCLG [maximum contaminant level goal] for fluoride (4 mg/L)… is clearly not protective of adverse effects on the brain, especially in regard to early-life exposures…
Out of the 18 studies that provided the water-fluoride concentrations, 13 found deficits at levels below the MCLG, with an average elevated level at 2.3 mg/L, the lowest being 0.8 mg/L [4]…. and extend the documentation of cognitive deficits associated with only slightly elevated exposures.
Despite the reams of publicly available data, the CDC Community Water Fluoridation guidelines encourage the practice of water fluoridation.
Now, via allegations from the Fluoride Action Network, it’s come to light that “a new study led by a California public health official [Dr. Jayanth Kumar] and long-time advocate of water fluoridation omitted data that contradicted its conclusion that fluoridated water is not associated with reduced IQ, according to documents obtained through Public Records Act requests.”
It appears that the good doctor, the expert we are trained to deeply respect, has a strong pro-fluoride bias that may have influenced his actions. “Dr. Kumar was instrumental in implementing community water fluoridation and school-based dental sealant programs in many communities,” according to the American Association for Community Dental Programs. The documents provided by the organization can be viewed here.
When information threatens the prevailing narrative, it must be suppressed. That’s how The Science™ works. Hopefully, the COVID-19 melodrama over the past three years has done enough damage to the Public Health™ authorities’ credibility that we can begin to seriously question previously unquestionable fundamental tenets of The Science™ like the notion that water fluoridation is a necessary public good.
