Generations of people have been poisoned through the water supply without their consent. This toxic byproduct – hexafluorosilicic acid – has been dripped into most municipal water supplies for decades. The institutions that thought they knew what was best for everyone’s dental health have instead dumbed down entire generations of people, harming their IQ and cognitive development. This widespread dumbing down of human populations helps explain the lack of critical thinking skills in the 21st century.
None of these serious matters of public health seem important to institutions like the American Dental Association, however. In fact, the ADA immediately issued a statement, doubling down and defending water fluoridation.
Biased and stubborn American Dental Association defends fluoridated water
Some institutions, like the American Dental Association, are pushing back against the science and dismissing this federal court ruling, demanding that fluoride be considered safe for everyone, against all available evidence.
The ADA, representing some 159,000 dentists across the country, posits itself as “the premier source of oral health information.” The ADA claims that they have “promoted the art and science of dentistry since 1859” while advocating for the public’s health. But the ADA aren’t thinking about the big picture with fluoride and how it is destroying the cognitive abilities of those exposed on a daily basis.
Immediately after the court’s ruling, the ADA hastily wrote:
The American Dental Association (ADA) remains staunchly in support of community water fluoridation at optimal levels to help prevent tooth decay. The district court ruling against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provides no scientific basis for the ADA to change its endorsement of community water fluoridation as safe and beneficial to oral health.
The ADA called the ruling and the barrage of social media posts that followed “pseudo-scientific information.” The ADA claims that social media users are spreading information that “is not always based on research conducted according to impartial and evidence based scientific methodology.” The ADA contends that “conclusions drawn from research are not always scientifically justifiable or without bias.” One might point out that the ADA is drawing their own biased conclusions from research that was validated in court. By ignoring the latest evidence on fluoride’s damage to children’s brains, the ADA might be guilty of spreading “pseudo-scientific information.”
Will the court’s decision reduce water fluoridation practices across the U.S.?
The ADA wrote that the District Court Judge did “not conclude with certainty that fluoridated water is injurious to public health.” However, the ruling does require the EPA to take regulatory actions to protect future children and populations from this toxic byproduct. The EPA and CDC’s current recommendation of .7 parts per million fluoride in drinking water is now outdated and not consistent with the latest science. The ADA fails to acknowledge this reality and is therefore acting against the best interest of communities that want to protect future generations.
The court’s recent decision should effectively undo the longstanding fluoride recommendations of the Environmental Protections Agency (EPA), and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). These corrupt agencies contend that fluoridated water is “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.” The CDC has historically recommended, and currently recommends, fluoride at a level that was found to be damaging to children’s brains. Public water systems have added fluoride to drinking water for more than 75 years. This was done in the name of “preventing tooth decay” although tooth decay still remains a serious health issue. This is because the ADA is too busy poisoning children's brains instead of working to eliminate added sugars from food.
The real question is: Will municipal water systems across the nation begin to phase out fluoride use, in the face of opposition from American institutions that have misled the public for decades?
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
