Sodium Fluoride in the Water Supply part 1 overview

 The Kronenwetter Water Utility has pumped sodium fluoride into the Village water supply for many years.

This chemical has repeatedly touted to the public by authority figures as being a "Safe", "Effective", and above all a Cheap way of reducing cavities in teeth.

Along with that line of thought, they almost always throw in the statement that fluoride is

"Recognized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century."

   So then, why would anyone not want to inject this wonderful substance into the Village water supply? After all, it is said to result in an average of ONE less tooth filling per child?

The reason is very simple; sodium fluoride is not as advertised. It is not safe, effective, or necessarily cheap when all the facts are considered.

Effective

   The "science" that they use to promote the effectiveness of  this substance leaves much to be desired, since it all seems to be anecdotal in nature and thus second-rate at best. In any other case of scientific study, anecdotal evidence is not considered sufficient to meet scientific standards, but among the dental community that fact does not matter because it seems to be all they have to show in their case for promoting fluoride.

   For example - If 5 out of 10 people took vitamin C and the other 5 took XYZ vaccine, and the vitamin C people did not get the flu and the other 5 did, this would not be accepted as scientific proof of anything because the double-blind, gold standard controls are not in place to control the experiment. "Correlation does not show causation." they would say.

   Yet, the entire argument for fluoride effectiveness is based on subjective, non-gold standard situations, under far, far weaker circumstances that the example that I just described. Far from scientific standards, they will say "this city stopped fluoridation and then 5 years later this happened". 

   There are a lot of factors that influence outcomes when a municipality starts or discontinues water fluoridation, not the least of which are the strongly held pre-conceived opinions of dentists involved in a study. What might in one child have been a "watch spot" during fluoridation, may now be considered a small cavity in another child after fluoridation was discontinued. Both are little pock marks in the enamel, but what they are called is at the dentist's discretion and based solely on the dentists bias toward fluoridation This can be done consciously or unconsciously.

   Then later, when surveys are done and the conclusions of flawed information like this is evaluated and consolidated as metadata, it is likely to perpetuate false findings. This is even more probable when studies are funded by industries looking to rid themselves of tons of a toxic biohazard (fluoride) that they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of.

Benefit 

   If there is a benefit to fluoride, the question becomes "how much benefit?"

   The claims to fluoride benefit have been all over the map, with 20-25% decrease in cavities being about the most common claim, due solely to putting fluoride in the drinking water. However, with the new HHS Secretary Kennedy in office and the organizations like the American Dental Association (ADA) they know that the public eye has been more closely watching them, they have been much more conservative in their claims of benefit.

   For example ADA President Brett Kessler has put out a very recent press release in response to states and municipalities eliminating fluoride requirements, or banning it altogether.                                                                                        Kessler warns -

"Based on the data used to estimate changes in tooth decay over time, the study shows that if community water fluoridation is removed, we should expect to see a 7.5% increase in dental cavities ..."

https://www.ada.org/about/press-releases/removal-of-fluoride-from-water-will-cost-billions-and-deteriorate-oral-health

   A 7.5% difference? What happened to the 25% less cavities, and even 40% thrown around in dental literature for 50 years?

   A 7.5% increase in cavities means that you might have 14 cavities instead of only the 13 that you would have had drinking fluoridated water. Or put another way, if you have 7 children that each had 2 fillings, had they been on fluoridated water as the ADA recommends, 6 of the children would still have 2 fillings and only one who would see an improvement of one filling. This minimal benefit is at the potential and apparently provable loss of a number of IQ points for all 7 children.                       Is it worth it?

 Virtue Signalling 

   The pro-fluoride industry repeatedly appeals to public sympathy for those on lower incomes, stating that they are the ones who suffer the most without fluoridated water, because those people cannot afford dental care. The hypocrisy is apparent as the fluoride promoters shed crocodile tears for those that they claim cannot afford fluoride toothpaste, supplements, or the very service that the dentists themselves provide, but apparently will not provide at a discount.

   If I was poor and had 13 untreated cavities, I don't think the 14th one would matter as much as having a higher IQ to help me out of my poverty and if there were 7 of us, I think we would all rather be more intelligent than to have our buddie have one less cavity. So this kind of virtue-signaling on behalf of the poor does not make sense against the backdrop of the entire community risking IQ drops. I think we need more intelligence in our communities, not less.

 Organizational Oppression

   You also have the fact that these organizational practices such as fluoridation and so-called "silver fillings" (50% mercury) are not necessarily endorsed by all dentists. There are some that I know who oppose fluoride altogether and others who agree with topical application but warn against swallowing it. Some would never work on a silver filling without wearing hazmat gear.

  The point is that these medical associations are being dogmatic; the pro-fluoride dentists are basically lauded for promoting pro-fluoride company policy, while those dentists who disagree with water fluoridation cannot openly state their views without fear of negative consequences from the association or peers. 

   We saw a lot of this during the Covid debacle,in all medical situations, and the tyranny of "experts" that took place at that time (which has since been proven to be lies and fake science) that cost a lot of people their family members' lives.

Cost vs True Cost

   The ADA claims that fluoridation saves each person an average of $32 per year in dental costs but they have not addressed the detrimental effects that it causes. Using the 20% benefit figure, they claim fluoridation will eliminate about 1 filling per person, but what about the damage of fluoride that we do not see? We will never know how much we or our sons and daughters might have excelled without the perpetual doses of fluoride with each drink of water, day in, day out.

   What are 5 or 10 IQ points worth to a child over that child's lifetime? Is it enough to prevent a life-ruining stupid mistake? or to put them in the top tier of test scores? or give them the edge in a job interview or business venture? When these turning points appear in their life, it is results that count; no one will care how many fillings are in their teeth.

   Stronger teeth can be obtained in a number of non-toxic ways, but not so for higher intelligence.

   The fluoride promoters appear to be very narrow minded in their thinking, and not considering the bigger picture of human health. Don't forget, these are the same people who tell us that mercury fillings are safe. Again, the same group of people are promoting the placing of toxic substances into the human body both of which target the brain.

History 

   This appears to be one of those times in history when the public begins to realize that what they "knew" before turns out to be false, and a paradigm shift occurs. Very similar to what beliefs about smoking were in the 60's compared to now. Who today could imagine having their doctor recommend a certain brand of cigarette over another, thinking that either was beneficial?

   I believe that this is one of those times, and that 50 years from now fluoride-free, undamaged people may be wondering what was wrong with us for ever allowing this chemical poisoning to go on for this long under the very sketchy excuse of a questionable benefit of marginally stronger teeth. They may be thankful for  those who took the step to reject the "official" narrative that a toxic substance should be forced on an entire population because a few people said so.

   We would do well to separate the truth from the lies, and to get on the right side of history now, rather than later.