Though Mr. Kennedy’s embrace of recovery farms may be novel, the concept stretches back almost a century. In 1935, the government opened the United States Narcotic Farm in Lexington, Ky., to research and treat addiction. Over the years, residents included Chet Baker and William S. Burroughs (who portrayed the institution in his novel, “Junkie: Confessions of an Unredeemed Drug Addict”). The program had high relapse rates and was tainted by drug experiments on human subjects. By 1975, as local treatment centers began to proliferate around the country, the program closed.

In America, therapeutic communities for addiction treatment became popular in the 1960s and ’70s. Some, like Synanon, became notorious for cultlike, abusive environments. There are now perhaps 3,000 worldwide, researchers estimate, including one that Mr. Kennedy has also praised — San Patrignano, an Italian program whose centerpiece is a highly regarded bakery, staffed by residents.

“If we do go down the road of large government-funded therapeutic communities, I’d want to see some oversight to ensure they live up to modern standards,” said Dr. Sabet, who is now president of the Foundation for Drug Policy Solutions. “We should get rid of the false dichotomy, too, between these approaches and medications, since we know they can work together for some people.”

Should Mr. Kennedy be confirmed, his authority to establish healing farms would be uncertain. Building federal treatment farms in “depressed rural areas,” as he said in his documentary, presumably on public land, would hit political and legal roadblocks. Fully legalizing and taxing cannabis to pay for the farms would require congressional action.

In the concluding moments of the documentary, Mr. Kennedy invoked Carl Jung, the Swiss psychiatrist whose views on spirituality influenced Alcoholics Anonymous. Dr. Jung, he said, felt that “people who believed in God got better faster and that their recovery was more durable and enduring than people who didn’t.”

The debate about the benefits and risks of fluoride is ongoing, as RFK Jr. — incoming President Trump’s pick for HHS secretary — pushes to remove it from the U.S. water supply.

“Fluoride is an industrial waste associated with arthritis, bone fractures, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders and thyroid disease,” RFK wrote in a post on X in November.

A new study published in JAMA Pediatrics on Jan. 6 found another correlation between fluoride exposure and children’s IQs.

RFK JR. CALLS FOR REMOVAL OF FLUORIDE FROM DRINKING WATER, SPARKING DEBATE

Study co-author Kyla Taylor, PhD, who is based in North Carolina, noted that fluoridated water has been used “for decades” to reduce dental cavities and improve oral health.

“However, there is concern that pregnant women and children are getting fluoride from many sources, including drinking water, water-added foods and beverages, teas, toothpaste, floss and mouthwash, and that their total fluoride exposure is too high and may affect fetal, infant and child neurodevelopment,” she told Fox News Digital.

The new research, led by scientists at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), analyzed 74 epidemiological studies on children’s IQ and fluoride exposure.

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS EPA FURTHER REGULATE FLUORIDE IN DRINKING WATER DUE TO CONCERNS OVER LOWERED IQ IN KIDS

The studies measured fluoride in drinking water and urine across 10 countries, including Canada, China, Denmark, India, Iran, Mexico, Pakistan, New Zealand, Spain and Taiwan. (None were conducted in the U.S.)

The meta-analysis found a “statistically significant association” between higher fluoride exposure and lower children’s IQ scores, according to Taylor.

“[It showed] that the more fluoride a child is exposed to, the more likely that child’s IQ will be lower than if they were not exposed,” she said.

Scientists found a “statistically significant association” between higher fluoride exposure and lower children’s IQ scores. (iStock)

These results were consistent with six previous meta-analyses, all of which reported the same “statistically significant inverse associations” between fluoride exposure and children’s IQs, Taylor emphasized.

The research found that for every 1mg/L increase in urinary fluoride, there was a 1.63-point decrease in IQ. 

‘Safe’ exposure levels

The World Health Organization (WHO) has established 1.5mg/L as the “upper safe limit” of fluoride in drinking water.

“There is concern that pregnant women and children are getting fluoride from many sources.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Public Health Service recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L in drinking water.

“There was not enough data to determine if 0.7 mg/L of fluoride exposure in drinking water affected children’s IQs,” Taylor noted.

FDA BANS RED FOOD DYE DUE TO POTENTIAL CANCER RISK

Higher levels of the chemical can be found in wells and community water serving nearly three million people in the U.S., the researcher noted.

She encouraged pregnant women and parents of small children to be mindful of their total fluoride intake.

Nearly three million people have access to wells and community water with fluoride levels above the levels suggested by the World Health Organization. (iStock)

“If their water is fluoridated, they may wish to replace tap water with low-fluoride bottled water, like purified water, and limit exposure from other sources, such as dental products or black tea,” she said.

“Parents can use low-fluoride bottled water to mix with powdered infant formula and limit use of fluoridated toothpaste by young children.”

For more Health articles, visit www.foxnews.com/health.

While the research did not intend to address broader public health implications of water fluoridation in the U.S., Taylor suggested that the findings could help inform future research into the impact of fluoride on children’s health.

Dental health expert shares cautions

In response to this study and other previous research, Dr. Ellie Phillips, DDS, an oral health educator based in Austin, Texas, told Fox News Digital that she does not support water fluoridation.

The study researcher encouraged parents of small children to be mindful of their total fluoride intake. (iStock)

“I join those who vehemently oppose public water fluoridation, and I question why our water supplies are still fluoridated in the 21st century,” she wrote in an email.

“There are non-fluoridated cities and countries where the public enjoy high levels of oral health, which in some cases appear better than those that are fluoridated.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

Phillips called the fluoride debate “confusing” even among dentists, as the American Dental Association (ADA) advocates for fluoride use for cavity prevention through water fluoridation, toothpaste and mouthwash — “sometimes in high concentrations.”

Fluoride is used in water, toothpaste and mouthwash to help prevent cavities. (iStock)

“[But] biologic (holistic) dentists generally encourage their patients to fear fluoride and avoid its use entirely, even if their teeth are ravaged by tooth decay,” she said.

“Topical fluoride is beneficial, while systemic consumption poses risks.”

Advertisement

Phillips encouraged the public to consider varying fluoride compounds, the effect of different concentrations and the “extreme difference” between applying fluoride topically and ingesting it.

“Topical fluoride is beneficial, while systemic consumption poses risks,” she cautioned. 

“Individuals must take charge of their own oral health using natural and informed strategies.”

The study received funding from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Intramural Research Program.

Use left and right arrow keys to navigate between menu items.

Use escape to exit the menu.