“As of September 2017, a total of 58 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and over 40 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride and learning/memory in animals. Of these investigations, 51 of the 58 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, while 45 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 12,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.” – From Fluoride Action Network,
Get the facts: Fluoride & IQ: The 51 Studies
By Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh / Sonoma County Gazette (11/21/2017)
Dawna Gallagher-Stroeh is the Executive Director of Clean Water Sonoma-Marin. Contact her at 707-547-7006.
The first U.S. Government-funded study investigating prenatal neurological damage from fluoride, Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico, finds that each 0.5 part per million (ppm) increase in a pregnant woman’s urine fluoride levels reduced her child’s IQ by 2.5 – 3 points.
The new study is unique in approach, size, and duration, but it joins over 50 other human-based studies finding evidence of fluoride-based cognitive damage affecting IQ.
The full peer-reviewed study, a 12 year analysis of data from 287 mother-child pairs, was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives (9/19/2017), and can be downloaded at the U. S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) website: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/EHP655.alt_.pdf
Dr. Howard Hu, Dean of the University of Toronto School of Public Health, headed a team of scientists from University of Toronto, University of Michigan, McGill University, and Harvard, analyzing data from 287 mother-child pairs in Mexico City. A press release from the University of Toronto School of Public Health describes the study’s methodology:
The research team analyzed urine samples that had been taken from mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to reconstruct personal measures of fluoride exposure for both mother and child.
“This is significant because previous studies estimated exposures based on neighborhood measurements of drinking water fluoride levels, which are indirect and much less precise measures of exposure. [Previous studies] also looked at children’s exposures instead of prenatal exposures or had much smaller sample sizes of subjects to study,” said Dr. Hu .
The researchers then analyzed how levels of fluoride in urine related to the children’s verbal, perceptual-performance, quantitative, memory, and motor abilities at age four and once more between the ages of six and 12. Analyses were adjusted for other factors known to impact neurodevelopment, such as gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, IQ, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure.
The study found “…higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal [placental blood] fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old.” Read the full article.
In his review of the new study, in the Lund Report, Rick North notes: “The decrease was significant. Each 0.5 part per million (ppm) increase in a pregnant woman’s urine fluoride levels reduced her child’s IQ by 2.5 – 3 points. The child of a mother drinking 1 ppm of fluoridated water, close to the U.S standard of 0.7 ppm, would be expected to have a drop of 5 to 6 IQ points compared to a child of a mother drinking water with close to no fluoride in it…”
North further reports: Mexico, like most nations, doesn’t fluoridate its water. The ADA [dismisses the study because] the women were mainly getting their fluoride from consuming fluoridated salt or varying natural levels of fluoride in the water.
North explains: “The ADA ignores the fact that fluoride’s effects are the same once it’s inside the body, no matter the source. Most others felt differently.”
Lead researcher Dr. Howard Hu asserted, “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.”
In fact, in other contexts, fluoridation proponents frequently say, “A fluoride ion is a fluoride ion.” Read the full article.
When asked by a student, “Why are people not being seriously poisoned by drinking fluoridated water?” fluoride researcher Dr. Richard Sauerheber (B.A. Biology, Ph.D. Chemistry) replied, “Very few if any fluoridation promoters understand that fluoride at any level in the blood exerts toxic effects to varying degree in man and animals.
“At 3-4 ppm, as happened with citizens in Hooper Bay, AK during an accidental overfeed, this level is lethal (one victim perished from fluoride-induced heart block).
“At 1 ppm in the blood, as occurred in kidney dialysis wards where blood levels matched the level in the feed water, patient morbidity escalated (perishing from heart failure by a different mechanism over months of time). These events led to an FDA warning that fluoridated water cannot be used in kidney dialysis.
“At lower levels, around 0.1 ppm as occurs in people consuming fluoridated water, the chronic toxic effects are incorporation of fluoride into bone permanently, causing formation of bone of poor quality, and in some people hypothyroidism, and effects on the brain with IQ lowering and possible ADHD increases.
“Of course adverse effects on teeth enamel, hypoplasia or dental fluorosis, continues to skyrocket in incidence in U.S. teens where blood fluoride blocks normal enamelization during teeth development in children.
The FDA never approved of any fluoride intended for ingestion, and banned the sale of fluoride compounds intended for ingestion by pregnant women in the U.S…”
In other words, people are already being seriously poisoned by drinking fluoridated water. See Dr. Sauerheber’s full Comment.
To understand more, watch the brief Fluoride Action Network (FAN) video by chemist and toxicologist, Professor Paul Connett, PhD:
At the September 2016 Sonoma County Dental Health Summit, our Public Health Officer was enthusiastic about the study, Effect of Supplementation of Fluoride on Maternal Periodontal Health, Preterm Delivery, and Perinatal Well-Being (clinical trials for the study began in 2015 and continue to the present).
The Fluoride Supplementation study itself warns: “The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. Know the risks and potential benefits of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our disclaimer for details.” https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02536352
In-utero fluoride exposure adversely affects a child’s IQ, the FDA has not approved fluoride for ingestion, and yet researchers are experimenting on pregnant women by prescribing fluoride supplements.
In the middle range, a few IQ points might not be missed, but lowering average IQ means, at the high end, fewer gifted people solving society’s problems, and more mentally deficient people that society would have to deal with and care for.
A cavity can be fixed, but a child’s brain, once damaged, cannot.
Please help protect our children. Put “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes” in the hands of obstetricians and pediatricians now. Printable PDF: Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico. Link: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/EHP655.alt_.pdf
By Ray Holley | Managing Editor | The Healdsburg Tribune
Healdsburg voters will be asked again this year whether to continue fluoridating city water, but the wording of the initiative is the subject of a legal battle this week.
Fluoride opponents lost a ballot effort to ban fluoridation two years ago and came back this year with a new tactic. A petition was circulated that, if placed on the ballot and passed, would require manufacturers of the fluoride additive to prove it is safe before it can be added to drinking water.
Healdsburg officials say proving such a thing is impossible and the Healdsburg City Attorney recommended changing the lengthy ballot language to a simple yes-or-no on the subject of fluoridation.
The language suggested by the petition was: “Shall the City of Healdsburg institute a moratorium on all municipal water fluoridation until the manufacturer supplying the fluoridating chemical provides the public with an accurate list of all contaminants and their amounts for each batch sold to the City, a detailed toxicological report on the fluoridating chemical, and a written verification of the chemical’s safety for ingestion by all water consumers, once introduced into the water supply?”
The city attorney suggested changing the language to: “Shall the City of Healdsburg stop fluoridating its water supply?”
Anti-fluoride activists protested and charged that the city is violating state election law by substantially changing the language that was on the petition signed by local voters. Healdsburg officials counter that the language is misleading and the city has a duty to give the voters a clear and unambiguous choice.
To donate or volunteer, contact:
Jeannie Rudd, Campaign Coordinator
Healdsburg for YES on Measure T
707-542-1723 or emails us here.
Truth & Transparency
Signatures are being gathered to put a Water Fluoridation Moratorium Initiative on the Healdsburg ballot for November 2016.
The Initiative calls for a moratorium on water fluoridation until the manufacturer of Healdsburg’s fluoridating chemical provides specified information about the chemical, including verification of its safety for ingestion by all consumers, regardless of an individual consumer’s age, size, diet, or health.
If the documents don’t exist, or if the manufacturer chooses not to provide them, the moratorium would continue, and District water would not be fluoridated.
To sign the petition or volunteer, contact:
Jeannie Rudd, Campaign Coordinator
Healdsburg Fluoridation Moratorium Initiative
707-542-1723 or emails us here.
“…the FDA has never approved fluoride supplements for the prevention of tooth decay. Because of fluoride’s toxicity, you can only buy a fluoride “supplement” if you have a doctor’s prescription.”
Dan Kenner, Ph.D. Naturopathic Medical Science, L,Ac.
I am a writer and researcher in health care (The Whole-Body Workbook for Cancer) with 35 years of clinical experience, and would like to make three simple points about the water fluoridation issue:
1. We already get enough fluoride in our food and drink: If you drink any kind of juice (or wine) on a regular basis, you’re probably getting hefty doses of fluoride. Grapes are heavily sprayed with cryolite, a fluoride-based pesticide, and white grape juice is used as the base or filler juice in many juice drinks.
Cereals, mechanically deboned meats, and black or green tea are a few other significant sources. If people feel that this is not enough fluoride of course they are free to buy any of the many fluoridated dental products.
2. Ingesting fluoride doesn’t prevent tooth decay: According to the Centers for Disease Control and research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, fluoride ingestion is ineffective at reducing tooth decay and is harmful to health. Further, the FDA has never approved fluoride supplements for the prevention of tooth decay. Because of fluoride’s toxicity, you can only buy a fluoride “supplement” if you have a doctor’s prescription.
3. Fluoride is hazardous to brain function: A recent Harvard University study found that children in high-fluoride areas were found to have significantly lower IQs than those who lived in no-fluoride or low-fluoride areas. Researchers speculate that young brains may not be able to fully develop if the fluoride toxicity damages the brain at a very early age. Harvard researcher Philippe Grandjean, MD, commented that “Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain.” This is only one of several health threats that fluoride presents.
The results of the experiment, which for the first time focused on the chemical‚Äôs effects on the black community, revealed that blacks were far more susceptible to dental fluorosis than whites…”twice as much fluorosis than others.” The condition, which is caused by fluoride consumption, produces a wide range of problems.
The federal government has known for five decades that blacks were even more susceptible than whites to serious damage from fluoride added to water supplies, but it urged local governments to fluoridate the population anyway, according to newly released documents. In addition to knowingly inflicting major dental problems known as ‚Äúfluorosis‚Äù on whites and especially blacks through the controversial forced mass-medication scheme, federal health officials never even bothered to inform blacks about the risks. Despite the mounting scientific evidence of harm and the ethical concerns surrounding the involuntary medical treatment, authorities across the United States continue fluoridating public water supplies.
The recently uncovered documents, obtained using Freedom of Information (FOIA) Act requests by the anti-fluoridation group Fluoride Action Network (FAN), reveal that the U.S. Public Health Service fully understood the consequences of its actions. The tale begins in Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945, when authorities there began a massive involuntary medical experiment by adding the controversial chemical to the water supply. The theory was that fluoride, now labeled a ‚Äúneurotoxin‚Äù by perhaps the world‚Äôs most prestigious medical journal and myriad experts, might reduce cavities.
The results of the experiment, which for the first time focused on the chemical‚Äôs effects on the black community, revealed that blacks were far more susceptible to dental fluorosis than whites. Indeed, an internal 1962 memorandum from Public Health Service official F.J. Maier, ‚Äúsanitary engineer director‚Äù with the ‚ÄúDivision of Dental Public Health and Resources,‚Äù stated that ‚Äúnegroes in Grand Rapids had twice as much fluorosis than others.‚Äù The condition, which is caused by fluoride consumption, produces a wide range of problems. In moderate to severe cases, it damages tooth enamel to such an extent that teeth can literally fall apart.
Read more at The New American
“Medical treatment is for physicians to give with our consent. By voting NO on Measure P, Healdsburg citizens will give themselves clean water again. They can then decide whether they and their children should use fluoride.”
EDITOR: As a cofounder of the Sonoma County Water Coalition and as a member of the Sonoma County Health Services‚Äô Fluoridation Advisory Committee, I was distressed to read the polarizing editorial on water fluoridation (‚ÄúDefending Healdsburg‚Äôs dental health,‚Äù Oct 8).
There is no evidence that children‚Äôs teeth in fluoridated Healdsburg are any better than children‚Äôs teeth elsewhere in non-fluoridated Sonoma County. All the solid peer-reviewed science now indicates that dental health correlates more closely to family income and access to dental care than to drinking fluoridated water. Moreover, the Centers for Disease Control say that fluoride works when applied topically to tooth surfaces, not internally.
By voting no on Measure P, Healdsburg citizens will give themselves clean water again. They can then decide whether they and their children should use fluoridated toothpaste or any of the many other sources of fluoride that were not available 62 years ago when Healdsburg began fluoridating its drinking water. They will have that choice.
Medical treatment is for physicians to give with our consent. It‚Äôs not the job of our elected representatives or for our public health officials to medicate anyone without his or her own individual informed consent.
Letter to the Editor at The Press Democrat
“I want to keep the fluoride only in my mouth, not in my stomach and to be able to choose how much I am getting. That is why I am voting no on P.”
EDITOR: The editorial that stated The Press Democrat‚Äôs recommendation to vote yes on Measure P portrayed those who are against the measure as fanatics and believers in ‚Äúvoodoo science‚Äù (‚ÄúDefending Healdsburg‚Äôs dental health,‚Äù Editorial, Oct. 8). I am in no way a supporter of improperly documented studies. Having been born and raised in Healdsburg, I have been exposed to fluoride my whole life. I don‚Äôt believe in any of the mental side effects and have not been affected by them, but I have been affected by fluorosis (staining and more porous enamel). I also have a sensitive stomach and would prefer my fluoride to not be ingested due to gastrointestinal irritation that can be caused.
I feel my oral health can be maintained by my flossing, brushing and rinsing with products that contain fluoride. I want to keep the fluoride only in my mouth, not in my stomach and to be able to choose how much I am getting. That is why I am voting no on P.
Letter to the Editor at The Press Democrat
Mark Landman, Cotati Councilman and Cotati Mayor, 2013 — As Cotati’s Mayor last year, I chaired the meeting in which our City Council assessed the question of fluoridation of our City‚Äôs water supply. After presentations from all sides, and much thoughtful discussion, we unanimously voted against fluoridation.
This decision was the result of a number of factors, but in the end, it was evident that there were better, more cost effective ways to provide dental care to those in need.
As we analyzed this issue, three key points helped lead me to my decision;
Read more: Sonoma County Gazette