Volume 25, Issue 2
WisconsinChristianNews.com
Page 29
Large-Scale Government Study Proves Fluoride Provides Zero Protection For Teeth
By Ethan Huff May 2024
and architect Robin Monotti on X.
take into consideration the costs of expanding Eng- land’s fluoridation program, which as previously men- tioned would more than likely lead to net economic
to fix through cosmetic den- tistry can be enormous. Not only that, fluoridated water damages brain tissue and leads to a reduction in IQ in children.
confounding in the study that might have caused even that small benefit to be ex- aggerated,” Monotti ex- plains. “Fluoride also calcifies your pineal gland or ‘third eye,’” responded someone on X to Monotti’s post. When someone else re- sponded in defense of con- tinuing to fluoridate public water supplies, another re- sponded that applying fluo- ride to tooth enamel is a whole lot different than con- suming fluoride in water. “Fluoride doesn’t do any- thing good for your teeth when it’s in your liver,” the second responder said. “Water isn’t mouthwash.” “If it is not good for the public then it is good for the elites,” said someone else. “Fluoridation in the brain attracts aluminum, which is believed to cause Alzheimer’s,” noted another about the link between fluo- ride consumption and de- mentia. “It affects thyroid, pineal gland, and most importantly for the global cartel, the brain and intelligence,” said another.
A recently published and very large government study has revealed that there is zero benefit to drinking fluoridated water as far as dental health is concerned. The paper out of England states that fluoridation re- sults in a mere two percent fewer cavities than non-flu- oridation, two percent being a statistically insignificant figure that might as well be zero percent. Also, fluorida- tion does not prevent teeth from falling out. The longstanding claim that artificially fluoridating water results in net eco- nomic benefits by lowering public dental costs is also a myth, the study states. To the contrary, fluoridating water results in a net eco- nomic loss when considering the capital costs of doing it. Using the dental insurance records of 6.4 million adults living in England, the study found that those living in fluoridated areas show no reduction in tooth decay compared to those living in non-fluoridated areas. “It’s the largest ever study of the effects of fluoridation on the dental health of adults,” wrote filmmaker
“The LOTUS study, funded by the UK Department of Health, was intended to in-
form policy-makers of what to expect for future dental and economic outcomes from the current plan to ex- pand fluoridation to all of England. Currently, only 10% of England is fluori- dated. The study found ‘ex- ceedingly small’ reductions in caries most people would not consider meaningful.” Fluoridated water kills In a best-case scenario, consuming fluoridated water as opposed to non-fluori- dated water might save a person $1 per year in dental care costs. This does not
losses.
“The economic cost of na- tionwide ‘brain drain’ would certainly dwarf the costs of filling a few cavities,” Monotti notes. These findings from the LOTUS study come not long after those of the CATFISH study, which similarly found that water fluoridation is a pointless endeavor in terms of providing any actual ben- efits to dental health. “That study found only 0.3 fewer cavities per child from fluoridation, and there was
On the other hand, the risks of consuming fluori- dated water far outweigh any best-case scenario sav- ings of $1 per person, per year, not the least of which include dental fluorosis, or the discoloration and break- down of teeth and tooth enamel. In areas of the United States where public drinking water is fluoridated, up- wards of 70 percent of chil- dren now suffer from dental fluorosis, the cost of which
Made with FlippingBook Converter PDF to HTML5