Sen. Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota, joined a host of leftists in ridiculing Donald Trump and Robert
. Kennedy Jr. the day before the election for Kennedy’s proposal to lower the high fluoride levels in the United States.
On November 4, Klobuchar told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, “I was a little shocked that one of their closing arguments for Donald Trump was take the fluoride out of water.” “I suppose they’re getting more cavities in the end.”
The liberal elite had grouped Kennedy and his supporters’ skepticism about fluoridated water with a variety of other unconventional viewpoints that were sometimes referred to as “conspiracy theories.”
Kennedy has been quite critical of fluoride, describing it as an industrial byproduct and a neurotoxic. According to him, the mineral can result in thyroid illness, IQ decline, neurodevelopmental issues, bone cancer, arthritis, and fractures.
He has promised that as soon as Trump becomes office, the White House would advise localities to cut it out of their drinking water.
The idea “sounds alright to me,” according to Trump, who seemed to co-sign it. The same day, Dr. Syra Madad, an epidemiologist with Harvard training.
Was invited by CNN’s Abby Phillip to mock Kennedy’s critiques of fluoride, saying, “I do think there are some rocks to be thrown, frankly, at RFK Jr.”
Kennedy was deemed “dangerous” by Madad, who also noted that his opinions on fluoride were “against science.”
“It’s secure. “It’s not poisonous,” Madad informed the panel. “The studies have not shown any significant negative effects on health, even when you look at adding in additional amounts of fluoride,” she added.
However, many other toxicologists and health experts disagree with Madad. Dr. Linda Birnbaum, a board-certified toxicologist and former director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), told the Daily Caller.
“I believe that there is enough evidence now, largely from the epidemiological literature in multiple populations, done by different investigators, that early life exposure to fluoride is associated with an increased risk of IQ loss.”
From 2009 until 2019, Birnbaum oversaw the NTP, a branch of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
In addition to continuing to provide research to HHS, she is currently an adjunct professor at the Gillings School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina.
A thorough evaluation of the existing scientific literature on the connection between fluoride exposure and neurodevelopment was carried out by the NTP during her tenure.
It was shown that youngsters who are exposed to fluoride at levels that are 1.5 milligrams per liter of water or higher had lower IQs.
According to the analysis, there is not enough data to draw conclusions on the effects of exposure at the current 0.7 milligrams per liter level recommended.
By the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for community water sources in the United States.
Though Dr. Birnbaum insisted she hasn’t seen the most recent version of the meta-analysis, she has seen earlier versions that demonstrate.
“That it’s quite clear that there may really no safe level of fluoride just like there’s no safe level for lead.”
The NTP is conducting a thorough meta-analysis of the data, she told the Caller, which is likely to reveal the linked drop in IQ rate is occurring at rates far below the 1.5 milligrams per liter number.
Stuart Cooper, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network, told the Daily Caller that almost all of the research the NTP analyzed came to the conclusion that the mineral was hazardous.
According to the World Health Organization, whose current guidelines suggest that maintaining levels below that concentration will prevent dental fluorosis.
A yellowing or visible calcification of the teeth caused by excessive fluoride exposure, the 1.5 number, which the NTP concluded with “moderate confidence,” lowers children’s IQ.
Cooper contended that the NTP study included some political overtones. “Do you think you would just chance to settle on 1.5, which is also the recommended threshold by the World Health Organization.
If you were genuinely conducting a true systematic Health Hazard Assessment?He inquired. “You know, it wouldn’t be precisely 1.50, it would be like point 82763.
What happened? The World Health Organization and [the report] just happened to be at the same time? Politics was somewhat woven into this paper at that point.
Cooper, who has been raising concerns about fluoride for more than 14 years, claims that his group has asked the CDC and the American Dental Association (ADA) for supporting studies.
That demonstrate the safety of fluoride on several occasions, but “after 80 years they had nothing.” They were unable to verify.
There is no research demonstrating that low concentrations are safe for the growing brain. This means that 200 million Americans, 2 million pregnant women.
And 300,000 exclusively bottle-fed newborns are being exposed to fluoride in drinking water at this precise moment. According to 64 research, that is dangerous and extremely risky. There are no studies to support their safety. Nevertheless, they want you to ask me to locate further proof.
The CDC praises fluoride as a groundbreaking development in the fight against cavities, also known as caries and tooth disease.
One of the “top ten public health achievements of the twentieth century,” according to the agency, is the fluoridation of communal water.
According to the CDC, “dental caries declined precipitously during the second half of the 20th century” as a result of water fluoridation in the United States.
However, that sharp decline has happened in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated nations. According to WHO data, cavities have decreased even more sharply in nations like Iceland, Italy, and Japan that do not fluoridate their communal water.
Even though caries prevalence differs by nation, it has significantly decreased over the last three decades, and national caries rates are currently low everywhere.
In the British Medical Journal, KK Cheng, a professor of public health and the director of the University of Birmingham’s Institute of Applied Health Research, wrote.
“This trend has occurred regardless of the concentration of fluoride in water or the use of fluoridated salt, and it probably reflects use of fluoridated toothpastes and other factors, perhaps including aspects of nutrition.”
When fluoride was removed from the water in certain western regions, the prevalence of cavities actually decreased.
According to data from the National Institutes of Health, cavities among those aged 12 to 65 decreased in Buffalo, New York, a city that stopped using fluoride in 2012.
However, nine years after eliminating the mineral from its water supply, Buffalo resumed fluoridation in September.
After families filed a class action lawsuit against the city, claiming that the fluoride ban forced their kids to have more dental treatment.
CNN and Dr. Madad persisted in promoting the mineral’s safety and effectiveness in preventing cavities in spite of the numerous studies and experts who voiced concerns about it.
“Fluoride is not a synthetic mineral; it is a naturally occurring mineral,” Madad told CNN. The mineral fluoride is found in nature. It is the element fluorine in an ionized state.
Kennedy Jr., however, referred to it as “industrial waste” in a tweet on November 2. Fluoride is found in nature; in fact.
A large number of the research included in the NTP study were from overseas communities in China and India that have high natural levels of the mineral in their groundwater but do not fluoridate their public water supply.
However, Cooper clarified that the particular kind of fluoride supplied to public water sources in the United States is frequently a chemical byproduct of the fertilizer industry.
Cooper told the Caller that phosphate fertilizer firms, such as The Mosaic Company, create the precursor.
To fluoride as a byproduct of their fertilizer production process and then sell it to towns and dental supply businesses for their water supply.
Cooper claims that because the waste is actually a liquid that is collected from the scrubber systems within smokestacks, it is referred to as “scrubber liquor” in the industry.
Cooper told the Caller that the chemical corporations earn handsomely from this side activity, but that it probably wouldn’t damage their bottom line if it were prohibited in public water systems.
They could just replace it with other markets, such as China and Africa, where fluoride toothpaste is becoming more popular.
So it wouldn’t be a huge concern for them if it disappeared economically. In reality, they continue to utilize the same substance, but it has been improved to pharmaceutical quality, Cooper stated.
Some dentists claim that fluoride is not as successful in preventing cavities as the CDC and others claim, despite the fact that numerous public health organizations continue to extol its virtues.
Before she began researching it, Portland-based dentist Dr. Staci Whitman said she was adamantly pro-fluoride.
“I never challenged the advice I received from my dentistry school lecturers. I never challenged the information that was given to me.
She told the Caller, “I honestly believed that anyone who opposed it was a lulu tin foil hat brigade member, a complete jerk.”
Staci took an active role in pro-fluoride activities by attending talks and discussions on the subject and distributing leaflets outlining the mineral’s advantages. Dr. Whitman had an insight during one of these debates.
“I came to the realization that these individuals, who were kind of representing antifluoride, were very professional, articulate, and had a wealth of data and science that.
I had never seen, heard, or even realized could be a problem with water fluoridation.” I didn’t even consider it.
Dr. Whitman then started reading. She came to the realization, “I’m not sure if I can support this anymore.”
At the time, I believed that water fluoridation may be effective, but we now know that it isn’t. We are aware that the rate of degradation in fluoridated and non-fluoridated nations is equal.
Water in the great majority of European nations is not fluoridated. Because they consider it a medical experiment, the majority of those nations have outlawed the practice.
The only chemical that we put into the water supply that isn’t meant to treat the water is this one. Cooper stated, “It’s meant to treat the consumer.”
According to Dr. Whitman, she supported fluoridation because everyone else did. “I was just making it up, really.
I would respond, “Oh, look at you,” in response to my professor’s remarks. No cavities. I was only stating that because everyone else did, you must have been raised in a fluoridated neighborhood.
It was an observational study. That isn’t scientific. Dr. Whitman cited the most recent results on fluoridating community water from the Cochrane Report.
Which she refers to as “the gold standard” since it is a systematic evaluation of health care and health policy studies.
The procedure “may slightly increase the number of children who have no tooth decay in either their baby teeth or permanent teeth,” according to a Cochrane analysis of 21 research on community water fluoridation.
But according to the paper, “these results also included the possibility of little or no difference in tooth decay.”
According to Dr. Whitman, cavities are the most common chronic illness in the world, impacting both populations.
That get fluoridation and those who do not. She informed the Caller that fluoride is not the issue. Instead, it’s what we consume.
“A lack of fluoride prevents cavities,” she stated. We didn’t have fluoride in our life in the past. Examine the skulls that date back ten or twelve thousand years.
The teeth are immaculate. Our diet, therefore, was the difference. During the agricultural and industrial revolutions, humans began incorporating wheat and sugar into everything.
Therefore, fluoride is really a cover for our problems with the large food and sugar industries as well as our food system.
Dr. Whitman clarified that she is not necessarily against topical fluoride and cited the fact that fluoridated toothpaste is widely accessible as more proof that water fluoridation is superfluous.
However, as an alternative to fluoride, she also suggested hydroxyapatite, a teeth-cleaning agent based on calcium and phosphorus that is used in Italy, Japan, and other western European nations.
Dr. Whitman clarified that hydroxyapatite, not fluoride, is what makes up our teeth. According to the CDC, 40 percent of American youth suffer from dental fluorosis, which may be avoided by using the alternative.
Additionally, it can help avoid skeletal fluorosis, a far more dangerous condition that can seriously deform a person’s bones.
Governments in China, India, and other places where fluoride levels are naturally high have invested millions of dollars in research and removal efforts.
Cooper told the Caller, while municipalities around the United States are adding fluoride to their water sources.
For decades, the government and other charitable organizations have been attempting to address that issue.
We reach a stage here in the United States where we actively add it, we self-inflict this harm, because it’s just so hard to deal with and tough to filter out,” he added.
Cooper and Dr. Whitman both cited the mineral’s embeddedness in common dental procedures as a reason why it is difficult to alter public understanding of its possible negative effects.
“I don’t believe that anything evil is happening. Cooper stated, “I believe the majority of dentists just lack a thorough understanding of the problem.
The typical dentist has been using topical fluoride in their dental practice for their whole lives, according to what I say to them at legislative hearings and municipal halls.
They believe it and care about children after hearing about the advantages of water fluoridation as a proven scientific fact one day in dentistry school.
However, he claimed that the American Dental Association, which openly supports water fluoridation, is too firmly committed to the practice to reverse its direction.
“It’s a lie that’s too big to fail right now,” he declared. “There would be a significant decline in faith in the American Dental Association if they now acknowledge that they were not just mistaken, but that this affected millions of youngsters.
Unfortunately, because the dentistry lobby is so powerful and affluent, they have manipulated the government to accept this.
Both experts contended that, given the significant risks associated with neurodevelopment, the weight of proof should rest with the pro-fluoride side.
Dr. Staci said, “As a dentist, I am trained to fix teeth, but I can’t fix a brain.” “A child’s brain development is something we only have one chance at.”
Cooper agreed. “While the hole may be readily filled, brain injury is irreversible and has long-term effects.
There are no second chances when it comes to brain development, and a wealth of government-funded research has demonstrated that fluoride is neurotoxic at the levels seen in fluoridated regions.
The agreement among scientists is that. Science does not contradict itself. Additionally, government-funded studies demonstrate that we have been overexposing newborns to water fluoride for decades, and they were aware of it,” he said.
It turned out that the American Dental Association actually gets millions of dollars from companies that make fluoride products, according to an ADA report that Republican Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa sought in 2010.
According to Cooper, “these dental product companies were giving millions of dollars to pay for the ADA’s endorsement of their products in addition to giving various grants.”
“You see that approved stamp from the ADA? The ADA requires that your product contain fluoride in order to receive its seal of approval.
Therefore, they won’t approve your toothpaste unless you additionally add fluoride, even if you manufacture a really good xylitol toothpaste.
Cooper praised Kennedy Jr. and the Trump administration for raising awareness of the problem and acting.
“On water fluoridation, what the Trump administration and RFK are doing is common sense that elected officials should be doing at every level,” he stated.
Some public health authorities are now taking a cue from Kennedy and Trump. Last month, Florida’s Surgeon General, Dr. Joseph Ladapo.
Formally advised against fluoridating municipal water due to “the neuropsychiatric risk associated with fluoride exposure.”
His suggestion comes after a historic ruling in September by US District Judge Edward Chen in Northern California.
Which mandated that the EPA tighten its regulations on fluoride levels in water under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Obama appointee Chen noted in his ruling, “The scientific literature in the record provides a high level of certainty that a hazard is present; fluoride is associated with reduced IQ.”
However, other municipalities are doubling down, such as Buffalo, New York. In September, Buffalo started fluoridating their water supply once more, nine years after the mineral was removed.
Others continue to question whether the research demonstrating elevated fluoride levels associated with neurotoxicity has any bearing on the fluoridation levels in American water.
Dr. Ryan Marino, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine and a board-certified toxicologist, told the Caller that fluoride may undoubtedly be harmful.
One of the deadliest poisonings that comes to mind is acute fluoride intoxication. However, the amounts of fluoride used in American drinking water for oral health advantages.
Are far lower than those that may even begin to have negative effects and be toxic, and the amounts we use have never been demonstrated to have negative effects or be toxic,” Dr. Marino said.
Cooper, however, is optimistic that things are changing in light of the recent California verdict and Kennedy Jr.’s anti-fluoride campaign.
Cooper stated, “We’ve been trying our hardest to disseminate decades of science, but the ADA and mainstream media have suppressed it.”
“At last, they are unable to conceal it any longer, and they appear to be at a loss for what to do. They are frantic.
By the time of publication, The Daily Caller had not received a response from the CDC, the ADA, the NTP, HHS, or Dr. Syra Madad.
