Connect with us


The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain



The Spice That Prevents Fluoride From Destroying Your Brain
Photo Credit: GreenMedInfo

Fluoride’s neurotoxicity has been the subject of academic debate for decades, and now a matter of increasingly impassioned controversy among the general public, as well. From ‘conspiracy theories’ about it being first used in drinking water in Russian and Nazi concentration camps to chemically lobotomize captives, to its now well-known IQ lowering properties, to its ability to enhance the calcification of the pineal gland — the traditional ‘seat of the soul’ — many around the world, and increasingly in the heavily fluoridated regions of the United States, are starting to organize at the local and statewide level to oust this ubiquitous toxicant from municipal drinking water.

A compelling study published in the Pharmacognosy Magazine titled, “Curcumin attenuates neurotoxicity induced by fluoride: An in vivo evidence,” adds experimental support to the suspicion that fluoride is indeed a brain-damaging substance, also revealing that a natural spice-derived protective agent against the various health effects associated with this compound is available.

The study was authored by researchers from the Department of Zoology, University College of Science, M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur, India, who have spent the past decade investigating the mechanisms through which fluoride induces severe neurodegenerative changes in the mammalian brain, particularly in cells of the hippocampus and cerebral cortex.[i] [ii]

The study opens by describing the historical backdrop for concern about fluoride’s significant and wide ranging toxicity:

Fluoride (F) is probably the first inorganic ion which drew attention of the scientific world for its toxic effects and now the F toxicity through drinking water is well-recognized as a global problem. Health effect reports on F exposure also include various cancers, adverse reproductive activities, cardiovascular, and neurological diseases.[1,2]

The study focused on fluoride induced neurotoxicity, identifying excitoxicity (stimulation of the neuron to the point of death) and oxidative stress as the two main drivers of neurodegeneration. It has been observed that subjects with the condition known as fluorosis, a mottling of tooth enamel caused by excessive exposure to fluoride during tooth development, also have neurodegenerative changes associated with a form of oxidative stress known as lipid peroxidation (rancidity). Excess lipid peroxidation in the brain can lead to a decrease in total brain phospholipid content. Owing to these well-known mechanisms of fluoride associated neurotoxicity and neurodegeneration, the researchers identified the primary polyphenol in the spice turmeric — known as curcumin — as an ideal agent worth testing as a neuroprotective substance. Previous research on curcumin indicates that it is capable of activing as an antioxidant in 3 distinct ways by protecting against: 1) singlet oxygen 2) hyrodxyl radicals and 3) superoxide radical damage. Also, curcumin appears to raise endogenous glutathione production in the brain, a major antioxidant defence system.

In order to assess the neurotoxic effects of fluoride and prove curcumin’s protective role against it, researchers randomly divided up mice into four groups, for 30 days:

  1. Control (no fluoride)
  2. Fluoride (120 ppm): fluoride was given in distilled water drinking water without restriction.
  3. Fluoride (120 ppm/30 mg/kg body weight) + Curcumin: Oral dose of curcumin dissolved in olive oil along with fluoride in drinking water
  4. Curcumin: (30 mg/kg body weight)

In order to ascertain the effect of treatment, the researchers measured the malondialdehyde (MDA) content in the brains of the different treated mice. MDA is a well-known marker of oxidative stress/damage.

As was expected, the fluoride (F) only treatment group showed significantly elevated MDA levels vs. the non-fluoride treated control. The F + Curcumin group saw reduced MDA levels vs. the fluoride only group, demonstrating curcumin’s neuroprotective activity against fluoride associated neurotoxicity.

The study concluded,

Our study thus demonstrate that daily single dose of 120 ppm F result in highly significant increases in the LPO [lipid peroxidation, i.e. brain rancidity] as well as neurodegenerative changes in neuron cell bodies of selected hippocampal regions. Supplementation with curcumin significantly reduce the toxic effect of F to near normal level by augmenting the antioxidant defence through its scavenging property and provide an evidence of having therapeutic role against oxidative stress mediated neurodegeneration.


This is far from the first study to demonstrate curcumin’s remarkable brain-saving properties. From the perspective of the primary research alone, there are over two hundred peer-reviewed published studies indicating that curcumin is a neuroprotective agent. On our own turmeric database we have 115 articles proving this statement: Turmeric Protects The Brain.  We have also featured studies on turmeric’s ability to protect and restore the brain:

Considering the many chemical insults we face on a daily basis in the post-industrial world, turmeric may very well be the world’s most important herb, with over 800 evidence-based health applications. Visit our Turmeric Research database — the world’s largest, open access turmeric resource of its kind — to view the first hand published research on the topi.

For more information, please review the following content:


[i] Bhatnagar M, Rao P, Saxena A, Bhatnagar R, Meena P, Barbar S. Biochemical changes in brain and other tissues of young adult female mice from fluoride in their drinking water. Fluoride. 2006;39:280–4. [Ref list]

[ii] Bhatnagar M, Sukhwal P, Suhalka P, Jain A, Joshi C, Sharma D. Effects of fluoride in drinking water on NADPH-diaphorase neurons in the forebrain of mice: A possible mechanism of fluoride neurotoxicity. Fluoride. 2011;44:195–9. [Ref list]

Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.

Link to original article.

Continue Reading


Alcohol Is Killing More People Than The Opioid Epidemic. So Why Aren’t We Talking About It?



Alcohol Is Killing More People Than The Opioid Epidemic. So Why Aren’t We Talking About It?
Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

In recent years, we have been hearing a lot about the opioid epidemic that is sweeping the nation. The Center for Disease Control reported that over 47,000 people died in the United States alone from an opiate overdose in 2017, that is almost 5 times the amount of deaths caused by opiates in 1999.

This is important, and yes it is good this is getting the attention that it deserves. However, in the same year, an estimated 88,000 people died from alcohol related causes — Did anyone hear about that?

Alcohol is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States, the first is tobacco and the second is poor diet and minimal physical activity. Given this, why aren’t we talking about it? And why don’t we see warning labels on alcoholic beverages? Why are we promoting such a harmful substance? We certainly don’t see huge billboards with people in bikinis popping oxycontin or injecting heroin, because we are well aware that these substances are addictive and can cause harm, so again, why are we openly promoting alcohol? Especially to young people?

Is It Because It’s Legal?

Is it possible that alcohol related deaths do not garner as much of a cause for concern because it is legal, easily available and socially acceptable? Most likely. Alcohol sales reached $253.8 billion in the US in 2018 — this might also have something to do with it.

I’m not suggesting that criminalizing alcohol is a solution to this issue or anything, the same way I don’t see how it’s still against the law to use any drugs at all, regardless of how bad they are for you. I believe that we should have the say in how we treat ourselves and what we put into our bodies, not the government or a legal system. But instead of being portrayed as a harmful substance, like opiates, crystel meth, and crack are — alcohol is glamorized by the media; often being portrayed as sophisticated, fun, sexy and generally just the cool thing to do.

Alcohol Is Basically Encouraged In Our Society

There is no doubt about it, the use of alcohol is deeply ingrained in our culture. So much so, that choosing not to drink is often the more odd thing to do. People will always ask, oh, how come you’re not drinking? As opposed to other drugs, people won’t typically ask, oh why aren’t you smoking meth tonight? Or whatever it may be.

Binge drinking is practically expected on the weekends, and for many people it is a way to unwind, let loose and have fun after a long workweek. Many people justify their consumption this way insisting that it’s fine, because, I don’t drink every day. The thing about alcohol abuse is that it doesn’t have to be every day to be considered a problem or for the person to be considered an alcoholic.

There are many ways we tend to justify our use, because the thought of giving it up entirely or admitting that we even have a problem can be extremely overwhelming — especially if our entire livelihoods are cantered on it.

How Much Is Too Much?

The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) created a web site called “Rethinking Drinking” to highlight the amount of misconceptions about what is considered “low-risk” and “high-risk” alcohol consumption. It turns out, more than three drinks in a day or more than seven drinks per week for women and four drinks per day or 14 drinks per week for men are considered “high-risk,” and these patterns can be detrimental both in the short and long-term.

Some people might have an attitude of, I don’t drink at all during the week, so I have all of my allotted alcoholic beverages on the weekend — however, for men consuming 5 or more drinks and for women consuming 4 or more drinks in about a 2 hour period is considered binge drinking.

Is It Time To ‘Rethink That Drink’?

Should we have more campaigns aimed to raise awareness about the potential harm caused by alcohol? Because it is legal it seems to have this view of also being safe, because our government officials and lawmakers always have our best interest at heart, right? But if we aren’t educating young people effectively on the potential risks associated with alcohol consumption, then perhaps there should be more of an effort to make the risks known on the packaging and even eliminating ads. In my opinion, it simply does not make sense to be legally allowed to advertise something that is so harmful — especially in such a glamorized way.

I don’t know what it’s like now for teens and if it is still considered “cool” to drink and if there is a ton of peer pressure around the whole thing. My hope is that this view will shift, young people will be made more aware of the risks and more people will find the courage to step away from what is no longer serving them or what’s not in their best interest.

Many health advocates and people that are very cautious with regards to what they are putting into their body are still completely overlooking alcohol as a harmful substance. Now, there is no judgment to anyone who chooses to drink, but I think it’s time to take a good hard look at these things and at least have the awareness behind it. Surely, it can be fun from time to time to relax, to loosen up, to be silly, but when we are relying on it to escape our unhappiness from our current situation, well then maybe it’s time to face these situations head on, rather than escape them and change whatever is encouraging us to reach for that glass of wine, whiskey or beer in the first place.

How Can We Support Others?

The fact of the matter remains, many people who drink can do so sparingly, not in excess and not very often. They have a handle on it and it doesn’t interfere with their lives in a negative way. However, for the ones who have struggled — with drinking too much, too frequently, with black outs, it can be difficult to even know if it’s a problem because of how acceptable it is in our society.

If someone says, no thanks I’m not drinking, don’t ask why, and instead try, right on! And no peer pressure. I’ve had problems with drinking, have quit and relapsed twice, currently I’m sober. Before I stopped drinking this time around I would open up to some people about it, questioning my use and whether or not it was harmful, many people would tell me, ahh don’t be so hard on yourself! We are allowed to enjoy life, or shut down from time to time if we need to. If someone is expressing to you that they are concerned they might have a drinking problem, don’t make them second guess themselves, if they are opening up about it please try to support them. We don’t always know what others are going through — apparently even if they flat out tell us. This may also challenge our own relationship with alcohol, but if you can keep that separate.

Do You Have A Problem?

If you are concerned that you might have a drinking problem, you probably do. Keeping in mind that having a problem with alcohol doesn’t necessarily make you an alcoholic. You may have a problem with alcohol if you can identify with any of the following scenarios:

  1. Spending a lot of time obtaining, using, and recovering from the effects of alcohol.
  2. Cravings, or a strong desire to use alcohol.
  3. Being unable to cut down on alcohol use despite a desire to do so.
  4. Continuing to abuse alcohol despite negative interpersonal or social problems that are likely due to alcohol use.
  5. Using alcohol in physically dangerous situations (such as driving or operating machinery).
  6. Drinking more or for a longer time than originally intended.
  7. Continuing to abuse alcohol despite the presence of a psychological or physical problem that is probably due to alcohol use.
  8. Being unable to fulfil major obligations at home, work, or school because of alcohol use.
  9. Giving up previously enjoyed social, occupational, or recreational activities because of alcohol use.
  10. Having a tolerance (i.e. needing to drink increasingly large or more frequent amounts of alcohol to achieve the desired effect).
  11. Developing symptoms of withdrawal when efforts are made to stop using alcohol.

A great way to get things in check is to commit to a period of time without any alcohol consumption and monitor how you feel, what you accomplish, and if you feel uplifted. You may need to ask your friends to support you during this time and have some sober activities prepared! Board games, cards, movies, sports, hiking — all these things can be great sober fun!

If your problem is more severe than this, or you are needing help in any way, reach out to a trusted friend or family member or you may benefit from your local Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for a whole slough of support and resources. If that’s not your jam, check out Hello Sunday Morning for assistance in moderating your use.

My hope is that in the near future it will be more common not to drink and doing so will be more like taking a drug, or having an experience that is typically out of the ordinary.

It is never too late to make a change, first step is to get really honest with yourself…

This article (Alcohol Is Killing More People Than The Opioid Epidemic. So Why Aren’t We Talking About It?) was originally published at Collective Evolution and is re-posted here under Creative Commons.

Continue Reading


The Health Benefits Of Reading Books Compared To Reading From Screens



Photo Credit: Collective Evolution

In the age of information we are being bombarded left, right and center with quick facts, fake news, censored information, video images and so much more. This is greatly affecting the span of our attention. To many the idea of picking up a book, when we could just as easily listen to it, or read segments on our phones is completely absurd. However, there are many benefits that come along with reading books that just might make it worth it to you.

Consider just the very act of reading a book in itself, holding it, turning the pages, seeing your progress in the development of the story, it’s almost as if you are a part of it.

Benefits Of Reading Books

Reading requires patience and diligence, which is not something required from a glance and a click on a quick headline. Reading a book is almost a kin to running a marathon for your brain, I mean if you can finish a whole book!

Reading stimulates imagination and creativity.

Research has shown that reading helps with comprehension and emotional intelligence as well as fluid intelligence — meaning the ability to reason and have flexible thinking. This leads to smarter decision-making regarding yourself and others.

As we age, our memory will decline, but regular reading can help keep minds sharper longer according to research published in Neurology. Frequently exercising your mind was also proven in that same study to lower mental decline by 32 percent.

Our study suggests that exercising your brain by taking part in activities such as these across a person’s lifetime, from childhood through old age, is important for brain health in old age,” study author Robert. S. Wilson of the Rush University Medical Center in Chicago said in a statement. “Based on this, we shouldn’t underestimate the effects of everyday activities, such as reading and writing, on our children, ourselves and our parents or grandparents.”

Reading can help make you more empathetic — researchers from the Netherlands designed two experiments showing that people who were “emotionally transported” by a work of fiction experienced boosts in empathy,

“In two experimental studies, we were able to show that self-reported empathic skills significantly changed over the course of one week for readers of a fictional story by fiction authors Arthur Conan Doyle and José Saramago,” they wrote in their findings. “More specifically, highly transported readers of Doyle became more empathic, while non-transported readers of both Doyle and Saramago became less empathic.”

Even More Reasons Read Books

Aside from these deeper reasons to read books, here are some more basic ones:

Books are a lot easier on the eyes than screens, which will provide a nice break for many of us as we are spending an increasing amount of time staring at screens at work, at home, on our smartphones while watching Netflix — your eyes could use the break.

One survey of 429 university students revealed that nearly half had complained of strained eyes after reading digitally. Electronic books can cause screen fatigue, which may lead to blurred vision, redness, dryness, and irritation. With print books, you don’t have to worry about any of that.

If you are reading an actual book, there is less of a chance that you will be distracted compared to reading on your phone. A book has no notification pings, buzzes or pop-ups, and you can ensure this distraction free time by leaving your phone in another room or putting it on silent or on airplane mode while reading.

Another great thing about books and the wonderful by-product of less screen time is less exposure to electromagnetic frequencies, if you don’t have your phone on you, and perhaps you even have your Wi-Fi turned off while not in use you are giving your body a bit of a break from the constant bombardment of these frequencies.

Reading books before bed can help you sleep better, the main reason being — they do not emit blue light, or any kind of light at all actually, which has been shown to interfere with a good night’s rest. Not only that, but personally I find in general, reading a book tends to make me sleepy, so I enjoy reading a few chapters before putting my head down for the night.

Who doesn’t love the smell of a good book? You know that lovely, kind of musty smell old books give off? Or the fresh, crisp paper smells of a brand new book?

Final Thoughts To Consider?

Will reading books become an outdated thing of the past? Or will we be able to stand by the benefits of books and keep collecting them for generations to come? Only time will tell! To finish off, I’ll leave you with some words of wisdom from the late, great, Dr. Seuss,

The more that you read, the more things you will know. The more that you learn, the more places you’ll go.” — Dr. Seuss

Much Love

This article (The Health Benefits Of Reading Books Compared To Reading From Screens) was originally published at Collective Evolution and is re-posted here under Creative Commons.

Continue Reading


“DNA-Based” Vaccines Are In Our Future: They Will “Literally Change Your DNA”



Photo Credit: Pexels

Mac SlavoGuest Writer

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have launched efforts to create a vaccine that would protect people from most flu strains, all at once, with a single shot. This shot would be a DNA-based vaccine that will literally change your body’s DNA.

With mandatory vaccinations increasingly being legislated, this bodes a very dangerous health future. Politicians and Big Pharma are pouring a lot of money into this and, at first glance, it may appear that your health and well-being are their concern.  That could not be further from the truth.

Massachusetts Senator and big spender Ed Markey has introduced a bill that would shovel no less than a billion dollars toward the universal flu-vaccine project. Here is a sentence from an NIAID press release that mentions one of several research approaches:

“NIAID Vaccine Research Center scientists have initiated Phase 1/2 studies of a universal flu vaccine strategy that includes an investigational DNA-based vaccine (called a DNA ‘prime’)…” –Technocracy.News

This is horrifying if you know what the phrase “DNA vaccine” means. It refers to what the experts are touting as the next generation of immunizations. Instead of injecting a piece of a virus into a person, in order to stimulate the immune system, synthetic genes would be shot into the body. This isn’t traditional vaccination anymore. It’s gene therapy.

In any such method, where genes are edited, deleted, or added to living organisms, there are always “unintended consequences.” These vaccines will permanently alter your DNA.  Once injected, there’s no going back either.

The reference is the New York Times, 3/15/15, “Protection Without a Vaccine.” It describes the frontier of research—the use of synthetic genes to “protect against disease,” while changing the genetic makeup of humans. This is no longer science fiction:

By delivering synthetic genes into the muscles of the [experimental] monkeys, the scientists are essentially re-engineering the animals to resist disease.

“The sky’s the limit,” said Michael Farzan, an immunologist at Scripps and lead author of the new study.

The first human trial based on this strategy — called immunoprophylaxis by gene transfer, or I.G.T. — is underway, and several new ones are planned. [That was three years ago.] 

I.G.T. is altogether different from traditional vaccination. It is instead a form of gene therapy. Scientists isolate the genes that produce powerful antibodies against certain diseases and then synthesize artificial versions. The genes are placed into viruses and injected into human tissue, usually muscle.” – The New York Times

With mandatory vaccine laws being written, it is foreseeable that these vaccines will be forced on people at gunpoint.  You will have to alter your own DNA without your consent.

If you enjoyed reading this article and want to see more like this one, we’d be humbled if you would help us spread the word and share it with your friends and family. Join us in our quest to promote free, useful information to all!

Continue Reading


Research Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ



Photo Credit: Getty

Dr. MercolaGuest Writer

The August 19, 2019, issue of JAMA Pediatrics delivered an unexpected bombshell: A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ.

The research, led by a Canadian team of researchers at York University in Ontario, looked at 512 mother-child pairs living in six Canadian cities. Fluoride levels were measured through urine samples collected during pregnancy.

They also estimated the women’s fluoride consumption based on the level of fluoride in the local water supply and how much water and tea each woman drank. The children’s IQ scores were then assessed between the ages of 3 and 4. As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):

“They found that a 1 mg per litre increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls.

When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women’s fluid intake, they found lower IQ’s in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders.”

Support For The Importance Of This Study

The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date.

Its import is also demonstrated by the fact that it’s accompanied by an editor’s note explaining the journal’s decision to publish the study, and a podcast featuring the chief editors of JAMA Pediatrics and JAMA Network Open, in which they discuss the study.

An additional editorial by David Bellinger, Ph.D., a world-renowned neurotoxicity expert, also points out that “The hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration.” Few studies ever receive all of this added treatment. According to the editor’s note:

“Publishing it serves as a testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be.”

Chemical Industry Front Groups Defend Fluoride Safety

Surprisingly, the findings were widely reported by most major media outlets, including Reuters, The Washington Post, CNN, NPR, Daily Beast and others, effectively reigniting the scientific debate about whether water fluoridation is a good idea.

Not surprisingly, the findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre (SMC).

It’s well worth noting that the ACSH and SMC are well-known front groups for the chemical industry, and they will defend all chemicals, regardless of what’s under discussion, so seeing dismissive articles from these groups is more or less par for the course. You can learn more about these groups in the articles hyperlinked above.

It’s also worth noting that Fox, which in 2014 made a similar study headline news, wasn’t satisfied with just presenting the latest study as news and, instead, invited its resident doctor, Marc Siegel, to comment — and that comment began by blaming tooth decay, not fluoride, on lower IQs. Siegel ended with a rambling diatribe against the study and a scathing criticism of JAMA Pediatrics for even having published it:

“I’m far more worried about tooth decay than I am about fluoride … There’s no way that fluoride would lower your IQ more than having tooth decay … It’s a ridiculous study … complete poppycock … The Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics should not have put this in.”

As for the ADA, it’s been promoting water fluoridation as a health benefit for over a century and a half. To change its stance would clearly result in a loss of face, and might even expose the association to liability. The loss of scientific credibility alone is likely enough to encourage the ADA to hold on to the status quo.

The same goes for the U.S. Centres for Disease Control and Prevention which, despite the more than 2,700 studies against it, maintains water fluoridation is one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.

AAP Support Of Water Fluoridation Is Hypocritical

A bit tougher to explain is the American Academy of Pediatrics’ support of water fluoridation. Of any group, the AAP really should reconsider its stance on this issue, seeing how it has officially recognized the hazardous influence of hormone-disrupting chemicals on child development.

In 2018, the AAP issued a policy statement warning parents to avoid endocrine disrupting chemicals — commonly found in processed foodfast food wrappers and plastics, for example — and while fluoride was not specified as an example of a chemical to be avoided, research shows fluoride has hormone disrupting potential, placing it in the exact same category. As noted by FAN:

“Fluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in a 2006 report by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). This report states:

‘In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response … Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response … The mechanisms of action … appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms …”

Fluoride Action Network Addresses Study Critique

In the featured video, Paul Connett, Ph.D., founder and current director of the FAN, addresses some of the criticism and why this particular study is such an important wake-up call for health care practitioners and pregnant women.

“(Fluoride exposure) during pregnancy will lower the IQ of their children. Only if you think a child’s tooth is more important than a child’s brain would you not be disturbed by that,” Connett says. “You can repair a child’s tooth. You cannot repair a child’s brain once it’s been impacted during fetal development.”

One pro-fluoride critique against the JAMA Pediatric study is that it doesn’t show cause and effect. “Well, no epidemiological study proves cause and effect,” Connett says. “That’s a given! To say it doesn’t show cause and effect is a redundant statement.” Other pro-fluoride voices argue the effect size is small — only 4.49 IQ points for boys, on average. However, as Connett points out:

“If you shift the entire population over by 3 or 4 IQ points, you would almost halve the number of geniuses in your society … and you would increase by about 50% the number of mentally handicapped children. So, on a population (basis) such shifts are highly, highly significant.”

A third manufactured controversy revolves around the fact that only boys were impacted by maternal urine levels of fluoride. Some hitch their critique of the study on this simple gender difference.

However, it should come as no surprise that boys and girls can be affected in different ways by the same toxic compound, as their development is affected by various hormones, including sex hormones, and toxins affect various hormones in different ways. We’ve seen this type of gender difference in many other instances as well.

“However you cut it, you have to be so wedded to fluoridation not to take this incredibly seriously,” Connett says. “Remember, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever — no scientific evidence — that a fetus exposed to fluoride has lowered dental decay.

There’s no evidence you’re protecting the baby from future decay during pregnancy. So, ANY evidence suggesting it may be damaging the brain has to be taken seriously …

We have potential harm (on the one side) … and on the other side you have something that is totally unnecessary. Why on earth would any doctor hesitate to advise pregnant women: ‘Don’t drink fluoridated water during pregnancy’?”

Other Studies Support Link Between Fluoride And IQ Loss

What’s more, as Connett so strongly points out, while this particular study has received a great deal of media attention, it’s not the only one raising a red flag. There are at least 60 other studies listed in FAN’s scientific database showing that fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ.

There are also a couple of thousand other studies detailing other adverse health effects. When you add in animal research, there are more than 300 studies demonstrating fluoride can cause:

  • Impaired fetal brain development
  • Reduced IQ
  • Brain damage, especially when coupled with iodine deficiency
  • Impaired ability to learn and remember
  • Neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spatial organization

In his video commentary, Connett briefly mentions the importance of the 2017 “Bashash study.” This was an international study effort led by professor Howard Hu, who at the time of the study’s publication was at the University of Toronto. The study is known as the “Bashash study” after the lead author, Morteza Bashash, Ph.D. The team also includes researchers from McGill, Harvard, Mount Sinai, Michigan, Indiana and the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.

Funding for this research came from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The finalized study was published in the September 2017 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

This study was remarkable for the fact that it followed participants for 12 years, involved several well-respected researchers, employed rigorous methodology and controlled for virtually all conceivable factors.

Here too, they found a strong relationship between the urinary level of fluoride in pregnant women and the subsequent IQ in their children. They also found a dose-dependent relationship, so the higher the mother’s urine level of fluoride, the lower the IQ in the offspring.

According to the Bashash study, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. What’s more, they found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ.

Your Contributions Are Making A Difference

FAN is part of the Mercola Health Liberty Coalition, founded in 2011 — the mission of which is to inform and educate about the fraud and deceptions created by the junk food, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Other Health Liberty partners include the National Vaccine Information Center, the Organic Consumers Association and Consumers for Dental Choice.

Not only has your support been helpful to catalyze the removal of fluoride but you have been able to help us make massive changes with two other health issues as well:

  • GMOs — When we first started, the average person in the U.S. did not know what GMOS were. Now, not only do they know but they are also aware how dangerous they are. Your support has allowed FOIA requests to be filed that produced critical evidence resulting in juries awarding plaintiffs billions of dollars from Bayer/Monsanto, with another 13,000 cases pending and a possibility of bankrupting this evil giant.
  • Dental mercury — Charlie Brown has coordinated worldwide bans on the use of mercury in dentistry that has already resulted in banning mercury in dentistry in many countries, with the likely complete elimination of amalgam within the next few years.

Again and again, we see “controversial” and “contentious” stances proven prudent and correct given enough time for sufficient science to accumulate. It’s important for you to recognize that your donations to these organizations through the years have allowed these successes to manifest. The latest JAMA Pediatrics study brings us another major step forward in the process to eliminate water fluoridation.

Editors Compare Anti-Fluoridation To Anti-Vaccine Sentiments

As noted by JAMA Pediatrics editor-in-chief, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, in the JAMA podcast (embedded above):

“Before there were anti-vaxxers there were anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency in my early professional career was, ‘fluoride is completely safe and all of these people trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened for children’s dental health and we need to push back and get it into every water system’ …

So, when I first saw this title (‘Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada’), my initial inclination was, ‘What the hell?”

Christakis goes on to express shock at the discovery that only 3% of European residents, while 66% of Americans and 38% of Canadians drink fluoridated water (statistics noted in the JAMA Pediatrics paper), as he was under the assumption that all developed countries fluoridated all their water supplies. This just goes to show the general ignorance that still exists even among well-educated health professionals.

Christakis and JAMA Network Open editor-in-chief Dr. Frederick Rivara also express mutual surprise that the effect of water fluoridation on IQ was so great. They point out that a 5-point reduction is significant indeed, as it’s “on par with lead.”

Christakis goes on to discuss the fact that there have been other studies suggesting fluoride may be a neurotoxin. “Which, again, was totally news to me. I thought it was junk science,” he says. Rivara agrees, saying such studies have in the past been likened to “junk” anti-vaccine science.

Christakis admits he struggled with the findings — basically because of his preconceptions of the science. He certainly did not want to be the one putting out “junk science” that might lead to a deterioration of children’s dental health. This is precisely why the study was put through additional reviews to make sure the methodology and findings were sound. In the end, the research was solid enough to pass the tests.

It’s interesting to hear Christakis and Rivara talk about their struggle to accept the idea that water fluoridation may be harmful — at the very least until the child starts developing teeth. But even toddlers may be harmed, the pair admit, as toddlers and young children’s brains are still developing.

It’s even more interesting to hear them equate their struggles to that of the vaccine safety question for, indeed, the very same struggle to accept the idea that vaccines can cause harm is identical to the struggle to accept that water fluoridation may be damaging our children.

Both are considered unassailable public health victories, and no one wants to entertain the idea that we may inadvertently be causing grave harm on a population-wide basis. Yet that’s a very real probability, as this study shows (and many others as well).

Fluoride Is An Environmental Pollutant As Well

Overall, it makes absolutely no sense to fluoridate municipal water supplies. First of all, it’s forced medication without oversight — there’s no way to ascertain the dosage any given person is getting, or what effect it’s having on their health.

When it comes to fetuses and infants, water fluoridation is useless, as there’s no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest it has a beneficial impact on future dental health, and it certainly does not make sense to “prevent cavities” in those without teeth.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the fluoride in the water never ever touches a tooth. It’s simply flushed down the drain, becoming an environmental pollutant. As noted by Edward Groth III, a staff officer on the Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources, with the National Research Council back in 1975:

“Environmental contamination by fluorides exposes many organisms to potentially toxic effects and may exert some stress on the ecological interrelationships among plant and animal populations … (T)he available evidence does support the view that fluorides are pollutants with considerable potential for producing ecological damage.”

Groth’s article, “Fluoride Pollution,” which appeared in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, summarizes the ecological impacts of low-level fluoride pollution, pointing out fluoride has been found to accumulate in the bodies of insects, birds and mammals, in some cases to potentially toxic levels, thus increasing fluoride levels in the food chain as a whole.

There are also reports of toxic effects in algae and freshwater vertebrates, and “indications that aquatic vegetation may also concentrate the element.” Substantial amounts of fluoride are also entering farmland, where it’s taken up by soil organisms.

“Possible conversion of fluoride into fluoracetate (more toxic than fluoride itself and related organic forms), and the likelihood that fluoride may enter into synergistic actions with other contaminants, greatly expand the potential for ecological damage by low-level fluoride contamination,” Groth writes.

Water Fluoridation Is A Clear Form Of Water Contamination

It’s also important to realize that the fluoride added to our water is an untreated industrial waste product from the fertilizer industry — not a pharmaceutical grade product — that is suddenly deemed a health product once it’s purposely added to water.

As long as the chemical is on the premises of a fertilizer company, it’s actually classified as hazardous waste, requiring costly disposal measures to comply with hazardous waste regulations.

This fluorosilicic acid is frequently contaminated with lead, arsenic, uranium, radium, aluminium and other industrial contaminants. In other words, water fluoridation can be likened to a legal water contamination scheme.

For a review of the oft-neglected history of water fluoridation, read through “Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins, a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University. As noted in “Toxic Treatment:”

“Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”

There’s also very little evidence to suggest water fluoridation actually has a beneficial impact on tooth decay, while there’s unequivocal evidence of harm, as it causes dental fluorosis. Origins writes:

“Only a handful of countries fluoridate their water — such as Australia, Ireland, Singapore, and Brazil, in addition to the United States. Western European nations have largely rejected the practice. Nonetheless, dental decay in Western Europe has declined at the same rate as in the United States over the past half century …

This is not to vilify the early fluoridationists, who had legitimate reason to believe that they had found an easy and affordable way to counter a significant public health problem.

However, the arguments and data used to justify fluoridation in the mid-20th century — as well as the fierce commitment to the practice — remain largely unchanged, failing to take into account a shifting environmental context that may well have rendered it unnecessary or worse.”

Help End The Practice Of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride—up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get The Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Continue Reading

Our Facebook Page


Trending Now

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Censorship is hiding us from you.

Get breaking conscious news articles sent directly to your inbox!

You have Successfully Subscribed!