A new study using dental insurance records of 6.4 million adults in England found essentially no reduction in tooth decay for those living in fluoridated areas. This study “should be the last nail in the coffin of fluoridation” argue the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), who have continuously fought against the use of fluoride due to its harm to health.
The LOTUS study, which is the largest ever study of the effects of fluoridation on the dental health of adults was funded by the UK Department of Health, and was intended to inform policy-makers of what to expect for future dental and economic outcomes from the current plan to expand fluoridation to all of England. However, the study found “exceedingly small” reductions in caries most people would not consider meaningful.
An economic cost-benefit analysis found individuals would only save about $1 a year in dental expenses, a savings that wouldn’t even pay for a cup of coffee. The authors cautioned, however, that their economic analysis did not take into account the capital costs of expanding fluoridation, which could easily tip their economic estimates of fluoridation to a net loss. Millions would be spent for virtually no benefit.
The Cost of Fluoridation Health Harms
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN), who are dedicated to protecting public health by ending water fluoridation and other involuntary exposures to fluoride say that what is far more important, but omitted from the economic analysis, are the costs from health harms caused by fluoridation. “70% of children in fluoridated parts of the U.S. now have dental fluorosis” FAN claim and say that “the cost of cosmetic dentistry to correct what can be an unsightly condition even in its so-called “mild” stage, would exceed the marginal 2% cavity reduction found by the LOTUS study.“
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) seeks to broaden awareness among citizens, scientists, and policymakers on the toxicity of fluoride compounds. FAN provides comprehensive and up-to-date information and remains vigilant in monitoring government agency actions that impact the public’s exposure to fluoride. The information and studies cited below have been sourced from various pages of FAN’s website “the Fluoride Alert”
Developmental Neurotoxicity
FAN argue that additionally, the neurotoxic effects of fluoride were not mentioned in the study. Yet the scientific evidence is now strong that fluoridated water can harm the developing brain and cause reduced IQ in children. The economic cost of nation-wide “brain drain” would certainly dwarf the costs of filling a few cavities.
A tremendous amount of research has been conducted on the association of exposure to fluoride with developmental neurotoxicity and over 60 studies have reported reduced IQ in children and several on the impaired learning/memory in animals. There are also studies which link fluoride to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, according to Fluoride Alert.
As of July 18, 2022, a total of 85 human studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence and off these investigations, 76 studies have reported that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans. The studies which reported the association, are based on IQ/cognitive examinations of 28,234 children (73 studies) and 689 adults (3 studies).
The Fetal Brain
There is also evidence of neurological damage from three Chinese studies that have investigated fluoride’s effect on the fetal brain and each found significant neurological damage, including neuronal degeneration and reduced levels of neurotransmitters such as norepinephrine.
FAN write that one of the studies by Yu (1996) noted that “when norepinephrine levels drop the ability to maintain an appropriate state of activation in the central nervous system is weakened.” Studies of fluoride-treated animals have reported similar effects, including lower levels of norepinephrine. (Kaur 2009; Li 1994).
The human placenta does not prevent the passage of fluoride from a pregnant mother’s bloodstream to the fetus. As a result, a fetus can be harmed by fluoride ingested pregnancy. Based on research from China, the fetal brain is one of the organs susceptible to fluoride poisoning.
In the 1960s, the FDA banned the use of prenatal fluoride supplements based on its concern about possible untoward effects on the fetus. If a pregnant woman receives a fluoride gel treatment from the dentist, her blood fluoride levels can go extremely high for up to 15 hours, exceeding the reported short-term exposure levels that impair glucose metabolism and kidney function in human adults and sperm quality in rams. The potential ramifications of these fluoride spikes on the health of the fetus has not been considered in the literature to date.
The Mother-Offspring IQ studies
Additionally, 9 Mother-Offspring IQ studies, have all measured the pregnant woman’s urinary fluoride levels and paired cognitive testing with their offspring at various ages up to 12 years.
Each study found a lowered IQ in offspring from women with higher fluoride levels in their urine. Studies by Green et al. (2019) and Till et al. (2020) compared women living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities in Canada. The authors reported lower IQ in children from women living in the fluoridated communities.
These studies have alerted the public health community to the fact that the fetus is the most susceptible to fluoride’s toxicity, yet public health officials have done nothing to alert pregnant woman or the medical community to these findings. Source.
Fluoridated Toothpaste.
A major source of fluoride exposure is through dental products such as toothpastes, mouth rinses, fluoride gels, fluoride varnishes, and fluoride supplements and this is particularly so for children.
Over 95% of toothpastes now contain fluoride and just a single strip of toothpaste covering the length of a child’s brush contains between 0.75 to 1.5 mg of fluoride exceeding the amount of fluoride in most prescription fluoride supplements (0.25 to 1.0 mg), claims Fluoride Alert, who also say that “many young children swallow over 50% of the paste added to their brush, particularly if they use candy-flavoured varieties and if they are not supervised during brushing to ensure they spit and fully rinse.”
Research has shown that some children swallow more fluoride from toothpaste alone than is recommended from all sources combined and although dentists now recommend that children only use “a pea-sized amount” of toothpaste, many children use more than this, particularly when the toothpaste has bubble gum and watermelon flavours.
Ingesting toothpaste during childhood is a major risk factor for dental fluorosis, and can also cause symptoms of acute fluoride toxicity (e.g., stomach pain, etc).
“The FDA now requires a poison warning on all fluoride toothpastes sold in the U.S” say FAN
No Benefits but so Much Harm.
It is obvious that Fluoridation is detrimental to health and should have been banned a long time ago, and this is especially true when it is known that is has only a tiny amount of benefit to dental health. The new LOTUS study has followed a companion study in children, the CATFISH study, that found fluoridation produced similarly minuscule benefits finding only 0.3 fewer cavities per child from fluoridation, and there was confounding in the study that might have caused even that small benefit to be exaggerated. Source
When fluoridation was first introduced 80 years ago in the U.S., it was touted as reducing tooth decay by 60% or more. By the beginning of this century, the U.S. CDC had tempered its claim of effectiveness to about 30%. Rigorous systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaborative warned that even that claim was based on low-quality studies, almost all of which were from before the mid-1970s, when fluoridated toothpaste started to become widely used.
“Tooth decay rates in all developed countries have dropped dramatically since the 1970s, but only a few of the countries are fluoridated, so fluoridation could not be the reason.” said FAN, and “Under today’s conditions, the LOTUS and CATFISH studies have found almost no reduction of tooth decay in fluoridated areas compared to non-fluoridated.”Source
Therefore, there is no need to continue fluoridation, let alone expand it” argues the Fluoride Action Network, who state that “The economic argument for fluoridation has reversed: more money will be saved by stopping fluoridation than starting it. Setting aside the economic argument, the likely loss of IQ in children means it is doing more harm than good.“ and “The LOTUS study should be the last nail in the coffin of fluoridation.“
Source – The Fluoride Action Network – online at https://fluoridealert.org/
Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/
Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587
EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com
QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com
Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website
