Why does it seem like the one time you want the government to do something, they aren’t interested?
Supposedly, the EPA exists in part to protect public health. So you might think they would want to get harmful chemicals out of the drinking supply, or at very least, prevent them from being added.
Yet despite mountains of evidence that fluoride is not only ineffective at preventing tooth decay when ingested but actually harmful to the human body, the EPA is still fighting to propagate public poisoning.
A lawsuit has been filed against the EPA by various watchdog organizations dedicated to removing fluoride from public drinking supplies. They want to force the EPA to ban the intentional addition of fluoride into drinking water supplies.
The lawsuit lays out all the evidence amassed about the harmful effects of fluoride, as well as the evidence that it is not necessary or beneficial to be ingested. It states that it has been disproven that fluoride helps prevent tooth decay when ingested, as thought when it was first introduced into drinking supplies in 1940.
It is now universally recognized by dental researchers, including the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Oral Health Division, that fluoride’s primary benefit comes from topical application. Fluoride does not need to be swallowed, therefore, to prevent tooth decay.
Whereas fluoride’s benefit to teeth comes from topical contact, fluoride’s health risks come from ingestion.
From there the lawsuit establishes the evidence that drinking fluoridated water is causing fluorosis, the discoloration of teeth.
And then, of course, it gets to the evidence that fluoride is a neurotoxin which causes significant harm to the brain, especially in children. They cite 300 studies which established the harm done by fluoride, 50 of which specifically found that exposure impairs cognitive functions. Fluoride exposure can cause a measurable drop in IQ and is considered among lead and mercury as a chemical toxic to the brain.
The lawsuit seeks to establish a court ruling on the toxicology of fluoride in order to meet current standards for an EPA ban on neurotoxins in drinking water. Based on a preponderance of the evidence, the suit claims fluoride should fit into the category of what the EPA bans in order to protect public health.
Yet so far, government agencies have been reluctant to believe the numerous studies about the harm of fluoride. This case lays it all out plain as day for the eyes to see.
The ruling the organizations hope for is that they have presented enough evidence that the EPA must ban artificial fluoridation of water because of the unreasonable risk of injury to public health.
It is aggravating that the EPA has no problem being heavy handed on other issues like water run-off from farms, but won’t ban a chemical addition that is clearly not necessary, and very likely very dangerous.
Many believe fluoride is added to water in an intentional effort to dumb down the population and make them more docile and malleable for the government. But you don’t even have to believe that to agree that fluoridating water should be banned. Even without nefarious reasons for adding fluoride to water, the practice shows how hard it is to stop an ill-conceived government program once in motion.
For almost 80 years fluoride has been added to public drinking supplies based on science which is now disproven. It is the faulty belief that the government should always be doing something to “help” people that actually puts the public in harm’s way.
Not only has the government been poisoning the public for years, but they now fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. Let’s hope the courts make a rare ruling against their colleagues in another government department.