Fluoride & IQ: The 51 Studies

“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

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

New Study Quantifies Fluoride’s Potential to Reduce IQ in Children

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

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

US Government Study Finds Fluoride Significantly Reduces IQ

The results of the first ever US government funded study on the effects of fluoride on IQ have now been published. A team of researchers funded by the National Institutes of Health found that low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy is linked to significantly reduced IQ in children, according to a study published on September 19, 2017, in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study, entitled “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico”, was conducted by a team of scientists from University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard, and McGill, and found: “…higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal 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 years old.”


Chemist and Toxicologist, Professor Paul Connett, PhD shares
important information regarding the National Institutes of Health study

Read the study here

We must warn our expectant mothers!

Join us at City Hall on Monday, October 2 at 5:30pm

In 2014 Safe Water Healdsburg presented Healdsburg City Council with a letter signed by hundreds of concerned residents requesting that the standard CDC warning concerning fluoride consumption by infants be printed on our water bills. Regretfully, City Council rejected the public’s request. In light of the findings of this new study it is imperative that we warn our expectant mothers that ingesting Healdsburg’s fluoridated water will likely reduce the IQ of their unborn children. Join us at the City Council Meeting on Monday, October 2 at 5:30pm and let the council members know that the city has a moral obligation to warn our families about the dangers that come with ingesting our fluoridated water.

City Hall [map]
401 Grove Street
Healdsburg, CA 95448

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

Healdsburg officials say proving fluoride safety is impossible.

Update: Court rules that City of Healdsburg violated elections code by forcing “misleading, inaccurate, and biased” ballot language for Measure T, the fluoride safety initiative.

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.

Read more @ The Healdsburg Tribune

To donate or volunteer, contact:
Jeannie Rudd, Campaign Coordinator
Healdsburg for YES on Measure T
707-542-1723 or emails us here.
Truth & Transparency

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

FLUORIDE TO DRINKING WATER: NOTHING BUT QUESTIONS

Since the hiring of an outside person as Health Department officer for Sonoma County’s Health Services to bring fluoridation to Sonoma County’s drinking water, I have had nothing but questions.

But before I ask my questions, there are a few things I learned that I didn’t know before this fluoride campaign got started. I found out that:

  • The only city in Sonoma County that fluoridates their drinking water is Healdsburg
  • That neither infants nor fetuses are supposed to have fluoridated water
  • That no water dispensers, private or public, have or will label that the water is fluoridated
  • That there is no practical way to treat fluoride in wastewater so that the County will allow fluoridated water to get into our waterways and expose all the wildlife to this chemical

There are many other reasons to wonder about the wisdom of adding fluoride to drinking water but the above statements are undisputed, so let’s put them together in the form of questions.

Read More

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

FLUORIDE: Same concentration, different doses

Baby Medicine

“…they can‚Äôt control the dose. In what other instance would a medical professional prescribe medicine to a person without also prescribing the dose? In Healdsburg, someone who drinks a lot of water gets a greater dose of fluoride than one who drinks little. A child‚Äôs consumption isn‚Äôt differentiated from an adult‚Äôs.”

Editor: Throughout the last many months of debate over the fluoridation of Healdsburg’s water, pro-fluoride medical professionals have made the argument that the amount of fluoride in our water is miniscule and is at a level determined to be safe. This always boggles my mind. Healdsburg’s water department does indeed control the concentration of fluoride in the water, but they can’t control the dose. In what other instance would a medical professional prescribe medicine to a person without also prescribing the dose? In Healdsburg, someone who drinks a lot of water gets a greater dose of fluoride than one who drinks little. A child’s consumption isn’t differentiated from an adult’s. The elderly, the healthy and those with compromised immune systems all get the same concentration, but different doses, depending on how much fluoridated water they drink.

We should all educate ourselves about the fluoride in our water. Unlike chlorine, which is added to make our water safe, fluoride is added to treat us, our bodies, and in an indiscriminate manner. I encourage anyone who cares about their health to Google the company that supplies our fluoride, and read the warnings. (Solvay Chemicals/sodium fluoride.) It bothers me a great deal that intelligent, educated people would think that just because something toxic can be mixed with water and ingested in small concentrations without noticeable ill-effects, that you can also swallow it and bathe in it 24/7, 365 days a year, for your lifetime, and still be unaffected. Toxic effects often go undetected, disguised as common chronic illnesses or just the effects of aging.

There are so many substances that were commonly used 60 years ago that we considered safe: lead, asbestos, nicotine, DDT … Some people say that they‚Äôve been drinking the fluoridated water here with no discernible harm to their health. But the chemical companies that produce the sodium fluoride we use cannot produce any peer-reviewed studies that show that it‚Äôs safe for human ingestion. I have to ask the question: how did this ever get into our water without that proof? Dosing an entire city is no way to conduct a safety test and the good people of Healdsburg should not be subjected to this experiment. Our water is a precious resource. We should do everything we can to make it as unadulterated and as pure as possible and still be safe. Please Vote No on Measure P.

Julie Kennedy

Healdsburg

Letter to the Editor at The Healdsburg Tribune

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

John Colquhoun, DDS, PhD — Why I Changed My Mind on Water Fluoridation

He was shocked to discover, when the statistics were sent to him, that they revealed no such benefit. In fact, in most Health Districts the percentage of children who were “caries-free” was higher in the non-fluoridated areas…

A dentist and historian, John Coquhoun lived in Auckland, New Zealand while pursuing a career as a researcher, dental practitioner and public health official. He graduated from the University of Otago in New Zealand in 1948 with a Bachelor of Dental Surgery degree and received his diploma for education in Sydney. After 7 years service in the national School of Dental Service, as a teacher and administrator, he entered private practice. In 1971, he became Principal Dental Officer for the Auckland Health District. During this period he carried out research in both dentistry and Auckland social history.

Until 1980, Colquhoun was a keen advocate of water fluoridation. In that year, he was sent on a world study tour by the New Zealand Department of Health for the purpose of investigating recent research into fluoridation. Upon his return he was appointed to the post of Chairman of the Fluoridation Promotion Committee of the New Zealand Dental Health Foundation.

After returning from his study tour, Dr. Colquhoun reported the new discovery (for 1980) that dental decay was declining in “western” counties, with or without fluoridation, and that the differences between decay rates in fluoridated versus non-fluoridated locations were much less than had been claimed would occur.

Nonetheless, like many of his professional colleagues of the day, Colquhoun was very reluctant to admit that fluoridation was a failure. He advocated, and his superiors agreed to a new approach based on the belief that fluoridation still provided a marginal benefit. Colquhoun felt he was reinforced in that belief by his superiors’ claim that new statistics, collected for all New Zealand School Dental Service patients (98% of the childhood population) revealed such a benefit.

He was shocked to discover, when the statistics were sent to him, that they revealed no such benefit. In fact, in most Health Districts the percentage of children who were “caries-free” was higher in the non-fluoridated areas of New Zealand.

Colquhoun disagreed sharply with his superiors’ action in circulating a document, “overview of fluoridation statistics,” which omitted the Health District statistical information on fluoride and “disgracefully doctored” the remaining statistics, claiming that a marginal benefit existed.

When, in addition, he discovered that dental fluorosis prevalence (a sign of fluoride toxicity) was much higher than expected in fluoridated areas, Colquhoun publicly changed his stance on fluoridation in 1983.

Dr. Colquhoun continued his research, which contributed to the earning of a Doctor of Philosophy degree in 1987, and was appointed to the post-doctoral position of Honorary Research Fellow of the University of Auckland. In 1992 he became editor of the Journal of the International Society for Fluoride Research (Fluoride), a position which provided a good overview of fluoride research in different academic disciplines.

Dr. Colquhoun passed away peacefully in his home on March 23rd, 1999 at the age of 75, remaining intellectually active almost until his final moments.

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

FLUORIDE — Is it really safe?

gc-sodium-fluoride

“There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation‚Äôs effectiveness or safety.”

Editor: Saturday’s (Sept. 30) Forum on the topic of Understanding Water Fluoridation was very informative. A doctor and two dentists attended and were able to answer questions. We learned that in the last 50 years tooth decay has declined in both fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas. There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. Once fluoride is added to the public water system, it is impossible to control the dose since it depends on how much is consumed. The chemicals used to fluoridate water are not pharmaceutical grade, instead they are a toxic waste product of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Since 97 percent of Europe and the rest of the world have banned fluoridating their water since they do not believe there is conclusive evidence that it is safe, perhaps we can also decide that the best method for reducing cavities in children is by teaching proper oral hygiene and good nutrition. Assuming we are in doubt, let’s protect our health and “right to choose” and vote it out!

Erika Linn

Healdsburg

Letter to the Editor at The Healdsburg Tribune

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

A matter of ethics

My ethics-based search found the following: “Substances used to fluoridate drinking water‚ have not been tested or approved for use in humans; the dosage is not controlled; individual consent has not been obtained; effects on individuals are not monitored; individuals can not stop the administration.”

Editor: I recently attended a Healdsburg fluoride forum. Both pro and con dentists presented their viewpoints and a film about current research was played. I discovered fluoride does its dental thing topically‚ on the tooth surface. Administered systemically‚ in our water and without regard to dosage, fluoride has negative consequences for infants, people vulnerable to immune disorders, and generally to our brains. Fluoride is not the benign substance we’ve been led to believe.

So come on, why the debate? Statistics show kids’ dental health, regardless of fluoride, is improved with good nutrition and early dental education.

After the event, I questioned the pro fluoride dentist as to how he could, in the face of current research, still stand behind his message. His response: ‘I genuinely believe fluoride helps tooth health in kids’. Man-to-man he let me know his bottom line: he’s ‘a dentist, looking after teeth’. His limited focus on teeth ignores the larger context of health. He mimicked the stance of the ADA‚ a professional advocacy organization not a health advocacy organization. The film demonstrated this willful and narrow perspective; point after point the ADA marginalizes and ignores current research.

I left thinking I may as well have been talking climate science to a coal industry representative. Science reporting is subject to arguments of bias, opinion, vested interests, and beliefs.

We’ve all had our earful of argumentative debate. That evening I formed my opinion on fluoridation yet felt manipulated by the drama of argument. I then realized the solid ground where my integrity and sense of civic responsibility resides is on the ethics of the issue.

My ethics-based search found the following: “Substances used to fluoridate drinking water have not been tested or approved for use in humans; the dosage is not controlled; individual consent has not been obtained; effects on individuals are not monitored; individuals can not stop the administration.”

Please, lets stop this unethical practice. For our kids let’s spend the $30,000 Healdsburg dumps into our water on dental education.

John Diniakos

Healdsburg

Letter to the Editor at The Healdsburg Tribune

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment does not support fluoridation

The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment (CAPE) does not support fluoridation of drinking water for the following reasons.

  • The decline in caries in communities that are fluoridated has been highly significant ‚Äî but so has the decline that has occurred in non-fluoridated communities. There has, in fact, been a general decline in dental caries throughout the Western world, and the decline in fluoridated cities has not exceeded that in non-fluoridated communities. For example, BC drinking water is 95% non-fluoridated, whereas drinking water in Alberta is 75% fluoridated; yet the two provinces have similar rates of caries. Furthermore, Europe is 98% non-fluoridated, but global European dental health is generally equivalent to or better than that in North America. Whatever the reason for the decline in dental caries, it can not be concluded that it is the result of drinking water fluoridation.
  • The incidence of toxic effects in humans from fluoridation may well have been underestimated. The most serious potential association is with osteosarcoma in boys, which appears to have been loosely associated with age of exposure to fluoride. It is true that the CDC has (as has the original researcher) acknowledged that current data are tentative, but a further larger-scale study is pending from the Harvard School of Dentistry. At the very least, such data are grounds for caution.
  • Animal studies have shown a wide range of adverse effects associated with fluoride. It has been shown to be a potential immunotoxin, embryotoxin, neurotoxin and harmful to bony tissues, including both dental and ordinary bone. In addition, it can damage (inhibit) thyroid function in several species, including humans. Its effect on ecosystem balance has been little researched, but is unlikely to be positive.
  • The intake of fluoride from drinking water is uncontrolled, and can lead to dental fluorosis in children who are inclined to drink large amounts of water. Both natural and artificially flouridated water can cause this effect, which is, of course, simply a visible representation of an effect on the entire bony skeleton. The cost of repairing teeth damaged by fluorosis is not trivial; moderate to severe effects can require $15,000 or more in dental fees.

It seems clear that a) fluoridation is unlikely to be the cause of the decline in caries in Europe and North America b) the potential for adverse effects is real, and c) current evidence points in the direction of caution. Over the last decade, recommendations with respect to acceptable fluoride exposure have steadily declined, and cautions have increased. Any dental benefit that may accrue from fluoride exposure is fully achieved by controlled topical application of fluoride compounds by trained dental professionals, not by fluoride ingestion. [The analysis of Dr. Hardy Limeback (www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm), Head, Preventive Dentistry, at the University of Toronto, further clarifies these points.] On the basis of this “weight of evidence” we believe that fluoridation of drinking water is scientifically untenable, and should not be part of a public health initiative or program.

cape.ca/water-fluoridation

rss
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedintumblrmail