RFK Jr. Says Removing Fluoride Will Cause More Cavities
On FOX's "The Faulkner Focus," news anchor Harris Faulkner asked RFK, Jr. about his stance on removing fluoride from drinking water. In particular, she questioned him about dentists' concerns that children from low-income families may not be able to get the preventative care that they'd need to protect them from tooth decay.
Kennedy replied, "You know, it is an issue. It's a balance. You're gonna see probably slightly more cavities."
The secretary went on to say, "Although in Europe, where they banned fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is, parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride. The National Toxicity Program issued a report...that said there's a direct inverse correlation between the amount of fluoride in your water and loss of IQ."
The American Dental Association (ADA) released a statement in April 2025, saying that the ADA "believes that good oral health depends on proper diet, nutrition, oral hygiene, and optimally fluoridated water. Eighty years of community water fluoridation at optimal levels has proven to be safe and effective at reducing tooth decay to improve oral health."
Historically, there are cities in the US and internationally that have removed fluoride from their water supply and seen increased cavities as a result. The New York Times reported that Calgary, in Alberta, Canada, is reintroducing fluoride into its water supply after 10 years, starting just this week. They noted that "The Alberta Children's Hospital saw a stark increase in the number of children from Calgary who needed antibiotics to treat dental infections after fluoride was removed from the drinking water."
Unsurprisingly, people on Reddit had some thoughts on the secretary's comments. "Could we, instead, maybe focus on banning lead in our drinking water? We'll tell him it's to reduce obesity."
"So, honestly asking here...he says it's a balance…so what are we gaining for the increase in dental costs to the tune of $300/year average for all Americans?"
"I used to be a dental hygienist. All this will do is cause people who have no money to now have to spend it on dental, but they can't. They won't because they can't. Increasing poverty. I hate this MF."
"For the kids and adults who don't have access to dental care for whatever reason, this is going to be devastating. It hurts nothing and helps those who need it most."
"How does having more cavities in children's mouths make us great and healthy again?"
The conversation continued over on Twitter (X), with one user saying, "More cavities for kids in families who can't afford dental care."
"Gonna see slightly more cavities, but luckily in exchange for that we're going to get absolutely no benefits whatsoever so I guess it's a fair tradeoff," said another.
And finally, "This isn't public health. It's policy by privilege."
If you'd like to watch the full clip, you can do so below. And I'd love to know: are you concerned about the levels of fluoride in Americans' drinking water, or do you think it should be left as-is? Let us know in the comments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Currax Expands Access to FDA-Approved Obesity Treatment with Brand Name Contrave® with New Cash Price Available via GoodRx
New cash pay program offers Contrave, the #1 branded oral non-GLP-1 weight loss medication brand, for as low as $199 per month* BRENTWOOD, Tenn., July 15, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Currax Pharmaceuticals LLC ("Currax"), a specialty biopharmaceutical company and manufacturer of the #1 branded oral non-GLP-1 weight loss medication brand CONTRAVE® (naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl), announces today the launch of its latest cost saving initiative with GoodRx, the leading platform for medication savings in the U.S. The national access program introduces a cash pay prescription offer for Contrave, expanding access to affordable weight management medication for more patients, regardless of insurance. According to the CDC, more than 40% of U.S. adults are living with obesity, yet cost and coverage barriers often limit access to effective treatment options. Now, patients can access Contrave at a cash price of $199 via GoodRx, regardless of insurance status, allowing them to fill their Contrave prescription at over 70,000 pharmacies across the United States. Through the program, millions of U.S. adults living with obesity and weight-related health issues will have access to obesity treatment. "At Currax, we truly believe in access for all and putting patients at the center of everything we do," said George Hampton, CEO of Currax Pharmaceuticals. "By making our cash price available through GoodRx, we are continuing to reduce barriers and provide an easy path for patients to get the treatment they need to manage their weight and improve their overall health." Obesity is one of the most pressing health challenges in the U.S., yet many people still struggle to access effective treatment. By combining Currax's clinical leadership in obesity care with GoodRx's reach and reputation for affordability, this collaboration removes a major barrier for patients who may not otherwise have access to FDA-approved medications. Together, the two companies are helping more people take control of their health with greater confidence and fewer hurdles. "Though millions of Americans struggle with obesity, weight management medications can be cost-prohibitive—with or without insurance—causing many people to delay or abandon prescribed treatments. These types of access and affordability challenges are why many pharmaceutical companies partner with GoodRx to reduce friction," said Dorothy Gemmell, Chief Commercial Officer at GoodRx. "By working with Currax to help consumers save money on Contrave, we're helping close this gap and delivering a simple affordability solution that improves access to a life-changing medication." Contrave is an FDA-approved, prescription-only oral medication for adults with obesity or those who are overweight with weight-related medical problems, used as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity. For more information or to access the GoodRx Contrave savings card, visit: *Program benefit maximums and eligibility restrictions may apply. About CurraxCurrax Pharmaceuticals LLC is a specialty pharmaceutical business focused on addressing the #1 and #2 causes of preventable death in the United States, smoking and obesity. Currax distributes a range of both branded and generic pharmaceutical products, including CONTRAVE® (naltrexone HCl/bupropion HCl), ONZETRA® Xsail® (sumatriptan nasal powder), Silenor® (doxepin), Treximet®, (sumatriptan/naproxen sodium), and the authorized generic of Treximet®. For more information, please visit About CONTRAVE: CONTRAVE®, is an extended-release fixed dose combination of naltrexone and bupropion (naltrexone HCL/bupropion HCL) indicated as an adjunct to a reduced-calorie diet and increased physical activity for chronic weight management in adults with an initial body mass index (BMI) of 30 kg/m2 or greater (obese), or adults with a BMI of 27 kg/m2 or greater (overweight) with at least one weight-related medical problem such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, or type 2 diabetes. For full Prescribing Information, including BOXED Warning and Medication Guide, please go to Media Contactcurrax@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Currax Pharmaceuticals LLC Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen.
UPI
29 minutes ago
- UPI
How 17M Americans with Medicaid, ACA plans could lose health insurance
July 15 (UPI) -- The big tax and spending package President Donald Trump signed into law July 4 will cut government spending on health care by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. Because the final version of the legislation moved swiftly through the Senate and the House, estimates regarding the number of people likely to lose their health insurance coverage were incomplete when Congress approved it by razor-thin margins. Nearly 12 million Americans could lose their health insurance coverage by 2034 due to this legislation, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. However, the number of people losing their insurance by 2034 could be even higher, totaling more than 17 million. That's largely because it's likely that at least 5 million Americans who currently have Affordable Care Act marketplace health insurance will lose their coverage once subsidies that help fund those policies expire at the end of 2025. And very few Republicans have said they support renewing the subsidies. In addition, regulations the Trump administration introduced earlier in the year will further increase the number of people losing their ACA marketplace coverage. As a public health professor, I see these changes, which will be phased in over several years, as the first step in a reversal of the expansion of access to health care that began with the ACA's passage in 2010. About 25.3 million Americans lacked insurance in 2023, down sharply from 46.5 million when President Barack Obama signed the ACA into law. All told, the changes in the works could eliminate three-quarters of the progress the United States has made in reducing the number of uninsured Americans following the Affordable Care Act. Millions will lose their Medicaid coverage The biggest number of people becoming uninsured will be Americans enrolled in Medicaid, which currently covers more than 78 million people. An estimated 5 million will eventually lose Medicaid coverage due to new work requirements that will go into effect nationally by 2027. Work requirements target people eligible for Medicaid through the Affordable Care Act's expansion. They tend to have slightly higher incomes than other people enrolled in the program. Medicaid applicants who are between 19 and 64 years old will need to certify they are working at least 80 hours a month or spending that much time engaged in comparable activities, such as community service. When these rules have been introduced to other safety net programs, most people lost their benefits due to administrative hassles, not because they weren't logging enough hours on the job. Experts like me expect to see that occur with Medicaid, too. Other increases in the paperwork required to enroll in and remain enrolled in Medicaid will render more than 2 million more people uninsured, the CBO estimates. And an additional 1.4 million would lose coverage because they may not meet new citizenship or immigration requirements. In total, these changes to Medicaid would lead to more than 8 million people becoming uninsured by 2034. Many of those who aren't kicked out of Medicaid would also face new copayments of up to $35 for appointments and procedures -- making them less likely to seek care, even if they still have health insurance. The new policies also make it harder for states to pay for Medicaid, which is run by the federal government and the states. They do so by limiting the taxes states charge medical providers, which are used to fund the states' share of Medicaid funding. With less funding, some states may try to reduce enrollment or cut benefits, such as home-based health care, in the future. Losing Medicaid coverage may leave millions of low-income Americans without insurance coverage, with no affordable alternatives for health care. Historically, the people who are most likely to lose their benefits are low-income people of color or immigrants who do not speak English well. The new law will also make it harder for the more than 24 million Americans who currently get health insurance through Affordable Care Act marketplace plans to remain insured. For one, it will be much harder for Americans to purchase insurance coverage and qualify for subsidies for 2026. These changes come on the heels of regulations from the Trump administration that the Congressional Budget Office estimates will lead to almost 1 million people losing their coverage through the ACA marketplace. This includes reducing spending on outreach and enrollment. What's more, increased subsidies in place since 2021 are set to expire at the end of the year. Given Republican opposition, it seems unlikely that those subsidies will be extended. Not extending the subsidies alone could mean premiums will increase by more than 75% in 2026. Once premiums get that unaffordable, an additional 4.2 million Americans could lose coverage, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. With more political uncertainty and reduced enrollment, more private insurers may also withdraw from the ACA market. Large insurance companies such as Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealth have already raised concerns about the ACA market's viability. Should they exit, there would be fewer choices and higher premiums for people getting their insurance this way. It could also mean that some counties could have no ACA plans offered at all. Ramifications for the uninsured and rural hospitals When people lose their health insurance, they inevitably end up in worse health and their medical debts can mount. Because medical treatments usually work better when diagnoses are made early, people who end up uninsured may die sooner than if they'd still had coverage. Having to struggle to pay the kinds of high medical bills people without insurance face takes a physical, mental and financial toll, not just on people who become uninsured, but also their families and friends. It also harms medical providers that don't get reimbursed for their care. Public health scholars like me have no doubt that many hospitals and other health care providers will have to make tough choices. Some will close. Others will offer fewer services and fire health care workers. Emergency room wait times will increase for everyone, not just people who lose their health insurance due to changes in Trump's tax and spending package. Rural hospitals, which were already facing a funding crisis, will experience some of the most acute financial pressure. By one estimate, more than 300 hospitals are at risk of closing. Children's hospitals and hospitals in low-income urban areas also disproportionately rely on Medicaid and will struggle to keep their doors open. Republicans tried to protect rural hospitals by designating $50 billion in the legislative package for them over 10 years. But this funding comes nowhere near the $155 billion in losses KFF expects those health care providers to incur due to Medicaid cuts. Also, the funding comes with a number of restrictions that could further limit its effectiveness. What's next Some Republicans, including Sens. Mike Crapo and Ron Johnson, have already indicated that more health care policy changes could be coming in another large legislative package. They could include some of the harsher provisions that were left out of the final version of the legislation Congress approved. Republicans may, for example, try to roll back the ACA's Medicaid expansion. Moving forward, spending on Medicare, the insurance program that primarily covers Americans 65 and older, could decline, too. Without any further action, the CBO says that the law could trigger an estimated $500 billion in mandatory Medicare cuts from 2026 to 2034 because of the trillions of dollars in new federal debt the law creates. Trump has repeatedly promised not to cut Medicare or Medicaid. And yet, it's possible that the Trump administration will issue executive orders that further reduce what the federal government spends on health care -- and roll back the coverage gains the Affordable Care Act brought about. Portions of this article first appeared in a related piece published June 13. Simon F. Haeder is an associate professor of public health at Texas A&M University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What causes obesity? A major new study is upending common wisdom.
Obesity is uncommon among Hadza hunter-gatherers in Tanzania, Tsimane forager-farmers in Bolivia, Tuvan herder-farmers in Siberia, and other people in less-developed nations. But it's widespread among those of us in wealthy, highly industrialized nations. Why? A major study published this week in PNAS brings surprising clarity to that question. Using objective data about metabolic rates and energy expenditure among more than 4,000 men and women living in dozens of nations across a broad spectrum of socioeconomic conditions, the study quantified how many calories people from different cultures burn most days. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. For decades, common wisdom and public health messaging have assumed that people in highly developed nations, like the United States, are relatively sedentary and burn far fewer daily calories than people in less-industrialized countries, greatly increasing the risk for obesity. But the new study says no. Instead, it finds that Americans, Europeans and people living in other developed nations expend about the same number of total calories most days as hunter-gatherers, herders, subsistence farmers, foragers and anyone else living in less-industrialized nations. That unexpected finding almost certainly means inactivity is not the main cause of obesity in the U.S. and elsewhere, said Herman Pontzer, a professor of evolutionary anthropology and global health at Duke University in North Carolina and a senior author of the new study. What is, then? The study offers provocative hints about the role of diet and some of the specific foods we eat, as well as about the limits of exercise, and the best ways, in the long run, to avoid and treat obesity. - - - Is diet or inactivity causing obesity? 'There's still a lively debate in public health about the role of diet and activity' in the development of obesity, Pontzer said, especially in wealthy nations. Some experts believe we're exercising too little, others that we're eating too much, and still more that the two contribute almost equally. Understanding the relative contributions of diet and physical activity is important, Pontzer noted, because we can't effectively help people with obesity unless we first tease out its origins. But few large-scale studies have carefully compared energy expenditure among populations prone to obesity against those more resistant to it, which would be a first step toward figuring out what drives weight gain. So, for the new study, Pontzer and his 80-plus co-authors gathered existing data from labs around the world that use doubly labeled water in metabolism studies. Doubly labeled water contains isotopes that, when excreted in urine or other fluids, allow researchers to precisely determine someone's energy expenditure, metabolic rates and body-fat percentage. It's the gold standard in this kind of research. They wound up with data for 4,213 men and women from 34 countries or cultural groups, running the socioeconomic gamut from tribes in Africa to executives in Norway. They calculated total daily energy expenditures for everyone, along with their basal energy expenditure, which is the number of calories our bodies burn during basic, biological operations, and physical activity energy expenditure, which is how many calories we use while moving around. - - - A new theory of how our metabolisms work After adjusting for body size (since people in wealthy nations tend to have larger bodies, and larger bodies burn more calories), they started comparing different groups. Anyone expecting a wide range of energy expenditures, with hunter-gatherers and farmer-herders at the high end and deskbound American office workers trailing well behind, would be wrong. Across the board, the total daily energy expenditures of the 4,213 people were quite similar, no matter where they lived or how they spent their lives. Although the hunter-gatherers and other similar groups moved around far more throughout the day than a typical American, their overall daily calorie burns were nearly the same. The findings, though counterintuitive, align with a new theory about our metabolisms, first proposed by Pontzer. Known as the constrained total energy expenditure model, it says that our brains and bodies closely monitor our total energy expenditure, keeping it within a narrow range. If we start consistently burning extra calories by, for instance, stalking prey on foot for days or training for a marathon, our brains slow down or shut off some tangential biological operations, often related to growth, and our overall daily calorie burn stays within a consistent band. - - - The role of ultra-processed foods The upshot is that 'there is no effect of economic development on size-adjusted physical activity expenditure,' Pontzer says. In which case, the fundamental problem isn't that we're moving too little, meaning more exercise is unlikely to reduce obesity much. What could, then? 'Our analyses suggest that increased energy intake has been roughly 10 times more important than declining total energy expenditure in driving the modern obesity crisis,' the study authors write. In other words, we're eating too much. We may also be eating the wrong kinds of foods, the study also suggests. In a sub-analysis of the diets of some of the groups from both highly and less-developed nations, the scientists found a strong correlation between the percentage of daily diets that consists of 'ultra-processed foods' - which the study's authors define as 'industrial formulations of five or more ingredients' - and higher body-fat percentages. We are, to be blunt, eating too much and probably eating too much of the wrong foods. 'This study confirms what I've been saying, which is that diet is the key culprit in our current [obesity] epidemic,' said Barry Popkin, a professor at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and an obesity expert. 'This is a well-done study,' he added. Other experts agree. 'It's clear from this important new research and other studies that changes to our food, not our activity, are the dominant drivers of obesity,' said Dariush Mozaffarian, director of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University in Boston. The findings don't mean, though, that exercise is unimportant, Pontzer emphasized. 'We know that exercise is essential for health. This study doesn't change that,' he said. But the study does suggest that 'to address obesity, public health efforts need to focus on diet,' he said, especially on ultra-processed foods, 'that seem to be really potent causes of obesity.' Related Content He may have stopped Trump's would-be assassin. Now he's telling his story. He seeded clouds over Texas. Then came the conspiracy theories. How conservatives beat back a Republican sell-off of public lands
