Affects of fluoride on kids

[sgtcall]

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defe ... -children/

The National Toxicology Program (NTP) on Wednesday released a draft report linking prenatal and childhood fluoride exposure to reduced IQ in children, after public health officials tried for almost a year to block its publication.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initially blocked the NTP from releasing the report, according to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

But a court order stemming from a lawsuit filed by Food and Water Watch against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forced the report’s release this week.

The NTP, an interagency program run by HHS that researches and reports on environmental toxins, conducted a six-year systematic review to assess scientific studies on fluoride exposure and potential neurodevelopmental and cognitive health effects in humans.

The report, containing a monograph and a meta-analysis, went through two rounds of peer review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Comments from reviewers and HHS and NTP’s responses also were included in the report released Wednesday.

According to its website, the NTP “removed the hazardous classification of fluoride” in response to comments in the peer-review process. Yet, the report states:

“Our meta-analysis confirms results of previous meta-analyses and extends them by including newer, more precise studies with individual-level exposure measures.

“The data support a consistent inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ …

“The results were robust to stratifications by risk of bias, gender, age group, outcome assessment, study location, exposure timing, and exposure type (including both drinking water and urinary fluoride).”

“These findings fly in the face of the empty, unscientific claims U.S. health officials have propagated for years, namely that water fluoridation is safe and beneficial,” said Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Children’s Health Defense chairman and chief litigation counsel. “It’s past time to eliminate this neurotoxin from our water supply.”

The controversial report will play a key role in determining the outcome of a lawsuit brought in 2017 by several nonprofits against the EPA to end fluoridation of drinking water, plaintiffs’ attorney Michael Connett told The Defender.

“We had to fight hard to have this report even made public,” Connett said. “They [CDC and HHS] buried this. If they had gotten their way, this report would have never even seen the light of day,” Connett said.

Since the trial began in 2020, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen has been waiting for the NTP to complete a systematic review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity before ruling on the case.

Groups like the American Dental Association publicly pressured the NTP to “exclude any neurotoxin claims” from the reports.

Connett said during the trial, the EPA repeatedly claimed that the plaintiffs’ allegations about toxicity could not be verified because there was no “systematic review.”

The documents released Wednesday fill that gap.

Connett said:

“So now what do we have? We have a systematic review by one of the pioneering, leading, most authoritative research groups on toxicology in the world.

“They just completed a systematic review that took them six years to complete, so if that’s not enough to demonstrate a hazard under the toxic substances control act, then how would any citizen group ever be able to meet the standard?”

The findings: fluoride and lowered IQ in children

According to the NTP report:

“The current bodies of experimental animal studies and human mechanistic evidence do not provide clarity on the association between fluoride exposure and cognitive or neurodevelopmental human health effects.”

Yet, the report’s summary contradicts this statement by summarizing the evidence informing this conclusion, stating that nearly all studies examined for this literature review found evidence of cognitive or developmental issues associated with fluoride.

According to the report, 8 of the 9 “high-quality studies examining cognitive or neurodevelopmental outcomes reported associations with fluoride exposure.”

Of the 19 high-quality studies assessing the association between fluoride and IQ in children, 18 reported an association between higher fluoride exposure and lower IQ in children. Forty-six of the 53 low-quality studies also found evidence of that association.

The meta-analysis also states:

“The body of evidence from studies on adults is also limited and provides low confidence that fluoride exposure is associated with adverse effects on adult cognition. There is, however, a large body of evidence on IQ effects in children.”

The monograph and meta-analysis found that fluoride exposure at levels equivalent to 1.5 mg/L is associated with lower IQ in children. The abstract concludes:

“This review finds, with moderate confidence, that higher fluoride exposure (e.g., represented by populations whose total fluoride exposure approximates or exceeds the World Health Organization Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality of 1.5 mg/L of fluoride) is consistently associated with lower IQ in children.”

Levels of fluoride found in drinking water in the U.S. are typically 0.7 mg/L, which is lower than the 1.5 mg/L levels found to be neurotoxic by the reports.

On that basis, HHS’ review of the reports recommended the NTP revise its assessment such that, “all conclusory statements in this document should be explicit that any findings from the included studies only apply to water fluoride concentrations above 1.5 mg/L.”

[Tbeck]

IQ is an exposure measure and not a measure of intelligence. So while I am certain fluoride in our water is a health concern, there are too many control's not mentioned that could account for low IQ. I'd like to read the entire study to see how it was conducted.

[navigator]

IQ is an exposure measure and not a measure of intelligence. So while I am certain fluoride in our water is a health concern, there are too many control's not mentioned that could account for low IQ. I'd like to read the entire study to see how it was conducted.

I'm sure they used Pete Buttigieg's recently purchased female crash test dummies.

[sgtcall]

IQ is an exposure measure and not a measure of intelligence. So while I am certain fluoride in our water is a health concern, there are too many control's not mentioned that could account for low IQ. I'd like to read the entire study to see how it was conducted.

The entire study is liked in the article that I linked at the top of the post.

[Tbeck]

Thanks Sgt, I will have a look.

Okay after reading through the study it's pretty evident that the study doesn't begin to meet the requirements for a scientific based study. There were too many variables unaccounted for, and no control group that wasn't on fluoride. Height, weight, diet, etc all could have impacted the result's.
Again I do believe that fluorides in our drinking water can't be good for anyone, but the study wasn't conducted properly.

[sgtcall]

Thanks Sgt, I will have a look.

Okay after reading through the study it's pretty evident that the study doesn't begin to meet the requirements for a scientific based study. There were too many variables unaccounted for, and no control group that wasn't on fluoride. Height, weight, diet, etc all could have impacted the result's.
Again I do believe that fluorides in our drinking water can't be good for anyone, but the study wasn't conducted properly.

This part says it all.

"The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) initially blocked the NTP from releasing the report, according to emails obtained via a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

But a court order stemming from a lawsuit filed by Food and Water Watch against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) forced the report’s release this week."

[Tbeck]

Sgt, it doesn't say a thing. Now it MIGHT be important to know why they initially tried to block it's release, BUT we don't know why because they didn't report that IN PURPOSE. This is a TYPICAL sucker job report The author IMPLIES several things BUT stop's without providing the REST of the information. Typical innuendo!

Now just to show how this works. Perhaps they attempted to block the report because it would be misleading to the public? We saw this happen before when someone published a vaccine piece linking autism to vaccines. Turns out it wasn't true, the study was flawed, but it didn't stop many from jumping on the anti-vax bandwagon.

[sgtcall]

Sgt, it doesn't say a thing. Now it MIGHT be important to know why they initially tried to block it's release, BUT we don't know why because they didn't report that IN PURPOSE. This is a TYPICAL sucker job report The author IMPLIES several things BUT stop's without providing the REST of the information. Typical innuendo!

Now just to show how this works. Perhaps they attempted to block the report because it would be misleading to the public? We saw this happen before when someone published a vaccine piece linking autism to vaccines. Turns out it wasn't true, the study was flawed, but it didn't stop many from jumping on the anti-vax bandwagon.

Because government and healthcare departments have a great track record of keeping misinformation from the public? Telling us what misinformation is? Did you miss the entire COVID lie that our government and healthcare industry just forced on the world?

One thing that we should have learned over the past 3 years is that when the truth comes out the government tries to discredit or hide it. So anything they are pushing back against is something we should pay more attention to.

[Herb]

Sgt, it doesn't say a thing. Now it MIGHT be important to know why they initially tried to block it's release, BUT we don't know why because they didn't report that IN PURPOSE. This is a TYPICAL sucker job report The author IMPLIES several things BUT stop's without providing the REST of the information. Typical innuendo!

Now just to show how this works. Perhaps they attempted to block the report because it would be misleading to the public? We saw this happen before when someone published a vaccine piece linking autism to vaccines. Turns out it wasn't true, the study was flawed, but it didn't stop many from jumping on the anti-vax bandwagon.

Because government and healthcare departments have a great track record of keeping misinformation from the public? Telling us what misinformation is? Did you miss the entire COVID lie that our government and healthcare industry just forced on the world?

One thing that we should have learned over the past 3 years is that when the truth comes out the government tries to discredit or hide it. So anything they are pushing back against is something we should pay more attention to.

If the government says it, it is probably a lie.

Any truth that comes out of our government is purely accidental.


BTW, I figured that out all on my own about 40 years ago.

For general information, there is a lot of proof that giving vaxxes too close together does contribute to Autism problems. And the government has buried the information and hammered anyone that tries to reveal it.

I have friends that their 4 year old son was developing perfectly, talking and playing like a 4 year old should, he had one of the mega doses of vaccines and with in 3 months he quit talking and withdrew into himself. Less than 10 months after the vax he was diagnosed with Autism. Yeah, I know, according to T that is just 1 incident, but T is wrong again..

[tabasco]

We want the fluora dora girls!

[Herb]

I wonder what those dresses look like on their bedroom floors...

[sgtcall]

If the government says it, it is probably a lie.

Any truth that comes out of our government is purely accidental.


BTW, I figured that out all on my own about 40 years ago.

For general information, there is a lot of proof that giving vaxxes too close together does contribute to Autism problems. And the government has buried the information and hammered anyone that tries to reveal it.

I have friends that their 4 year old son was developing perfectly, talking and playing like a 4 year old should, he had one of the mega doses of vaccines and with in 3 months he quit talking and withdrew into himself. Less than 10 months after the vax he was diagnosed with Autism. Yeah, I know, according to T that is just 1 incident, but T is wrong again..

We have a friend that gave her son the MMR vax and the kid passed out within hours then weeks later after not going back to normal was diagnosed with Autism. But according to her doctors it was just coincidence that it happened that day.

[Tbeck]

Sgt, you missed my point entirely. The report MIGHT provide some value for the public, BUT it's clearly a FLAWED study. I don't like the government or it's agencies telling me what to believe. By the same token I believe that it's a real good idea to have peer review before studies are released to the public. After all most of these so called studies are just a way for colleges to get money from the government and for professors to get published/notoriety.
So the long and short is that they might have had a legitimate reason for opposing the report, BUT as I stated we'll never know because that was deliberately left out.
For me, evaluation of a report/editorial really comes down to what ISN'T presented, more than what is. If there's deliberately vague content, there's a reason.