Here’s the current big news: “In a decision that could end the practice of water fluoridation in the U.S., a federal judge late Tuesday ruled that water fluoridation at current U.S. levels poses an ‘unreasonable risk’ of reduced IQ in children.” “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) can no longer ignore that risk, and must take regulatory action, Judge Edward Chen of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California wrote in the long-awaited landmark decision.” (Children’s Health Defense) (link in footnote) Unfortunately, the judge didn’t specify what action the EPA has to take. That leaves the door open to the EPA making “minor adjustments” in its position—which for decades has been: let’s keep lying about the safety of fluorides. I went back in my files and found an interview I did about 7 years ago, with Dr. Paul Connett, who at the time was Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry at St. Lawrence University. I asked Dr. Connett about a study just published in Environmental Health Perspectives, in September 2017. It was titled: “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age.” The study concluded: “…higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 years.” Here is the interview with Dr. Connett: Q: There is a new study on the effect of fluorides on IQ. Several questions: Do you believe the study is well done? Does it deserve our attention? What conclusions does it draw? A: This is a very important study…Taken at face value it should have been a good study. It was financed largely by [part of NIH] …which of course is pro-fluoridation. It was conducted largely by specialists in the field who have done similar studies on other neurotoxicants. None of them to my knowledge had taken a public position against water fluoridation (indeed one was known to be pro-fluoridation) so the notion of bias here was small… Q: What is the reaction of public health agencies to the new study? A: Pro-fluoridation agencies have done what they always do—attack any study that finds harm. They are all more interested in protecting the archaic practice of water fluoridation than to protect the health of our children. Extraordinary that any civil servant should think that children’s teeth are more important than their brains! The people at the top are desperately trying to protect a policy they have waxed lyrical about for 70 years. The people in the middle are taught to promote “policy” not question it and the people at the bottom simply believe what they were taught at dental or medical school and reinforced by their professional bodies. Others I think are very concerned that if they lose fluoridation it will affect the public’s trust in other public health practices—a clear example would be vaccination, a multi-billion dollar interest supported by the CDC (a big champion of fluoridation). Q: How have major media reacted to the new study?... Subscribe to Jon Rappoport to unlock the rest.Become a paying subscriber of Jon Rappoport to get access to this post and other subscriber-only content. A subscription gets you:
|
No comments:
Post a Comment