A look at the ruling that will have a widespread impact on the health of all American children.
A seven-year battle between the EPA and the public interest regarding the fluoridation of public drinking water has finally concluded. This is an excellent result by Siri & Glimstad partner Michael Connett in securing a court order against the EPA. Great job, Michael!

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen concluded the following in his ruling:

"[T]he Court finds that fluoridation of water at 0.7 milligrams per liter ("mg/L") - the level presently considered "optimal" in the United States - poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ in children.... [A] risk sufficient to require the EPA to engage with a regulatory response...."

"There is little dispute in this suit as to whether fluoride poses a hazard to human health. Indeed, EPA's own expert agrees that fluoride is hazardous at some level of exposure. And ample evidence establishes that a mother's exposure to fluoride during pregnancy is associated with IQ decrements in her offspring. The United States National Toxicology Program ("NTP") - the federal agency regarded as experts in toxicity.... concluded that fluoride is indeed associated with reduced IQ in children, at least at exposure levels at or above 1.5 mg/L (i.e., "higher" exposure levels)...."

"In all, there is substantial and scientifically credible evidence establishing that fluoride poses a risk to human health; it is associated with a reduction in the IQ of children and is hazardous at dosages that are far too close to fluoride levels in the drinking water of the United States. And this risk is unreasonable under Amended TSCA. Reduced IQ poses serious harm. Studies have linked IQ decrements of even one or two points to e.g., reduced educational attainment, employment status, productivity, and earned wages."

The NTP report referred to above can be found here. While we wait for the EPA to take the next step, many municipalities have already acted to remove fluoride from their water systems.

Citing a need to protect the unborn babies of pregnant women, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on Tuesday banned a pesticide used to kill weeds on farms, golf courses and athletic fields.

The action comes after years of mounting scientific evidence of the dangers posed by exposure to the chemical dimethyl tetrachloroterephthalate, also known as DCPA or Dacthal.

"With the final cancellation of DCPA, we're taking a definitive step to protect pregnant women and their unborn babies," Michal Freedhoff, assistant administrator for the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, said in a press release. "The science showing the potential for irreversible harm to unborn babies' developing brains, in addition to other lifelong consequences from exposure, demands decisive action to remove this dangerous chemical from the marketplace."

New research by Dr. Bellut-Staeck in the journal Medical Research and Its Applications suggests chronic infrasound exposure can lead to serious blood vessel problems. This underpins earlier literature that have reached the similar conclusions.

But the government refuses to accept the results.

Wind turbines are known to disrupt wildlife and severely damage the surrounding biotope, And, despite being inaudible, it is known that low-frequency vibrations from wind turbines can be harmful to human health.

Hat-tip: Tichy's Einblick here.

Humans can only perceive sound waves over a range of approximately between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. Sound waves below 20 Hz cannot be heard by humans and are called infrasound.

Natural infrasound emitted by nature is harmless but it is increasingly being understood that infra-sound generated by wind turbines pulsates and make people who are subjected to them over extended time periods sick.

According to Sarah Sauneron, Deputy Director-General of Health, one of the major challenges is to "anchor the dual influenza-Covid vaccination as double protection for priority groups".

Doctors, nurses, midwives and pharmacists are authorised give the two injections, which can be given back-to-back, although this is not compulsory.

More than 17.2 million French people are being urged to be vaccinated against the two viruses, which can in some cases have fatal consequences.

In the last two years there has been increasing evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus arrived across the world as the result of a laboratory leak. There has likewise been increasing evidence that neither masks nor lockdowns materially altered the transmission of the virus, and also that the vaccines (which are in truth a gene therapy product) have significant risks of side-effects. The number and nature of these remain unclear, but some very recent research even suggests that repeat vaccination increases the likelihood of major side-effects. Worse, there is no clear evidence that they decrease individual susceptibility. Thus the mantra of "safe and effective" is open to question. Added to this is the discovery from Freedom of Information requests that some of the trials were constructed and run in a questionable manner, and that vaccine manufacturers were careful to write into their supply contracts absolution from indemnity. Yet this week a new advertising campaign by the NHS is encouraging the U.K. public to get revaccinated against coronavirus.

Three days ago the British government announced a new scheme to inject obese people with weight loss drugs to try and tackle "worklessness".

Writing in the Telegraph - where else would a "Labour" minister write? - Health Secretary Wes Streeting proudly announced the plans, and praised the new wave of anti-obesity medications:

The long-term benefits of these drugs could be monumental in our approach to tackling obesity. For many people, these weight-loss jabs will be life-changing, help them get back to work, and ease the demands on our NHS.

The specific drug in question is "Mounjaro", produced by pharma giant Lilly to compete with the Novo Nordisk's Ozempic/ Wegovy. And the first phase of the scheme is a five-year trial on 3000 obese people in the Manchester area, described in another Telegraph article:

Up to 3,000 obese patients - a mixture of those in and out of work, and on sickness leave - will be recruited for a five-year study that will explore whether the medication boosts productivity and could bring more people back to the workplace.

It was also announced that Lilly - the biggest of Big Pharma vultures - will be "investing" £280 million in the scheme.

Streeting describes it as:

a collaboration that includes exploring new ways of delivering health and care services to people living with obesity, and a five-year real-world study of a cutting-edge obesity treatment."

"Collaboration" is doing some work in that sentence.

If you order a pizza from Domino's, that's not a "collaboration". You don't "collaborate" on getting a pizza - You pay for a pizza, and you get a damn pizza or you get your money back.

...and £280 million buys a lot of pizza.

The quid pro quo here is pretty easy to see.

Cleveland Clinic and research partner USC both touted study on doubling of risk for heart attack, stroke and death for three years after COVID infection, but buried figures show increased risk only applies to hospitalized patients.

With federal authorities recognizing the plunge in COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness as early as four months after each jab, which may actually increase the risk of subsequent infection, the public health establishment is trying to rekindle Americans' interest in a so-called layered mitigation strategy to keep COVID infections at bay.

While it leans into one-size-fits-all vaccination as the best way to avoid severe outcomes from an increasingly mild virus with near-total natural immunity nationwide, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention still recommends wearing any kind of mask and social distancing as an "additional prevention strategy."

Mask mandates are back in several California Bay Area healthcare settings, including for visitors and patients in Silicon Valley's Santa Clara County, despite little evidence that even the highest-quality masks provide meaningful protection as worn in real life as opposed to models.

A recent study from Lund University in Sweden has unveiled a more straightforward path to taming irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Eating less starch and sugar, which describes an eating plan called the starch-and sucrose-reduced diet (SSRD), not only matched the popular low-"FODMAP" diet in symptom relief but also proved superior in promoting weight loss and curbing sugar cravings.

FODMAP (which stands for fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols) refers to a type of carbohydrate that can cause digestive issues.

Earlier research suggests that the SSRD is also associated with other health advantages, and the low-FODMAP diet has some drawbacks.

On 15 December 2021 Larry Lowe's life changed.

He was 54, rarely ill, fit, healthy and running 10km most days - until he got the Pfizer Covid booster.

Within days he developed numbness in the right side of his face and started experiencing pain.

"I had lost all the feeling in my face, teeth, nose, tongue, eye, that whole side of my head," he said.

These symptoms have spread through his body and intensified over the years, with doctors across the UK saying the vaccine is to blame.

Pfizer said patient safety was paramount and it took reports of adverse reactions very seriously.

It said hundreds of millions of doses had been administered globally "and the benefit-risk profile of the vaccine remains positive for all authorised indications and age groups".

Mr Lowe, who is from Omagh in Northern Ireland, said that while he was not opposed to vaccines, his life had been destroyed.

Some studies suggest synthetic caffeine may accelerate aging, but research is limited. Learn about the differences between natural and synthetic caffeine.

From Starbucks to Red Bull to Coke, caffeine has become an energy bump for 75 percent of Americans who consume it on a daily basis. Many count it as the spark that ignites their brains and bodies to get through a long day. However, not all caffeine presents itself the same, according to emerging research demonstrating that synthetic caffeine may accelerate aging while naturally occurring caffeine could slow age-related decline.

Does Synthetic Caffeine Accelerate Aging?

The type of caffeine in your coffee may play a role in its protective effect against aging. About 60 percent of the caffeine consumed by Americans is synthesized in a lab, meaning it doesn't come from natural sources such as coffee beans or tea plants. Synthetic caffeine is what popular companies such as Pepsi, Coke, and Red Bull add to their beverages to give their drinks an extra kick.