As readers know I am no scientist but still see the relevance of knowing a bit for many public policy questions. Take the fluoride debate for example, where our water supply tastes like it was out of a swimming pool. Is this good for us? Dr Robert Malone gives the other side of the story that the water authorities are not telling us. There are better ways to make teeth hard, and enough fluoride is found in toothpaste, and there are health risks. (No medical/health advice is offered here):
https://www.malone.news/p/cavity-and-periodontal-disease-prevention
"Beginning in the 1940s, a consensus emerged (particularly in the United States) that the risks and consequences of dental disease could be prevented mainly by ensuring that children consume adequate levels of a chemical called "fluoride" in their diet so that it would then be incorporated into their developing teeth. Based on this belief, most US municipal water systems began injecting fluoride into drinking water. In 2014, three-quarters of the US population on the public water supply received fluoridated water, representing two-thirds of the total US population. Despite this intervention, dental disease remains near the top of US health cost drivers. It is time to revisit the mid-20th century consensus on fluoride supplementation. The metadata indicates that the mandated intervention is not curing the problem.
Recent scientific study data, including a comprehensive evaluation by the US HHS National Toxicology Program, indicate that "higher levels of fluoride exposure, such as drinking water containing more than 1.5 milligrams of fluoride per liter, are associated with lower IQ in children." This finding underscores a couple of central principles of pharmacology and toxicology - first, all substances (including generally beneficial supplements) are toxic at some dose. Secondly, there is no substitute for long-term studies in the species of interest (humans) because cumulative effects may not be revealed in short-term analyses. Sound familiar? Basic principles.
The key is to understand and dose according to the "therapeutic window," and to control exposure so that toxic levels are avoided while maintaining therapeutic levels. The issue with injecting fluoride into municipal water supplies are twofold. First, there no practical informed consent option has been available for what is essentially a medical treatment. We are just told to "trust the experts." Second, the overall dosing of fluoride is uncontrolled- the mineral is present in various ingested materials (including toothpaste!), and people (including children) consume variable amounts of water. These new findings demonstrate that the therapeutic window for fluoride dosing is much narrower than previously believed. In sum, recent US HHS analyses demonstrate that fluoride is toxic at levels consistent with currently supplemented municipal water supplies.
If you actually "follow the science," it is time to rethink the consensus public health policy position on municipal water fluoridation. We have discovered another example of "Groupthink" among public health policy "experts." Have we (and our children) once again become unwitting "victims" of this phenomenon?
Outside North America, water fluoridation was adopted in some European countries, but in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Denmark and Sweden banned fluoridation when government panels found insufficient evidence of safety, and the Netherlands banned water fluoridation when "a group of medical practitioners presented evidence" that it caused negative effects in a percentage of the population.
The American Dental Association (ADA) does not mention the dangers of fluoride in its fluoride promotion literature. Likewise, the American Association of Family Practitioners (AAFP) - does not disclose the neurodevelopment issues with fluoride. Both of these organizations are primarily acting to reinforce outdated public health "consensus" rather than keeping practitioners and the public fully informed of recent findings in a balanced and transparent fashion.
Informed by these recent findings, HHS Secretary nominee Robert F Kennedy Jr. has stated that "the Trump White House will advise all U.S. water systems to remove fluoride from public water" on Inauguration Day has prompted widespread attacks from mainstream media and public health officials who appear to be unaware of the changes in understanding the toxicology of fluoride. Once again, widely quoted "experts in public health" are being revealed as reflexively strident defenders of outdated groupthink consensus and are gaslighting, demeaning, and attempting to delegitimize others who are more up-to-date with recent findings. Sound familiar?"