“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
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
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
Listen to the archived Steve Jaxon interview with Dawna Gallagher of Clean Water Sonoma-Marin and Paul Gullixson, Editor of the Press Democrat about Measure T. Dawna explains how YES on Measure T will require proof of safety for our fluoride. Mr. Gullixson explains the city’s position – “they’re really not interested in proving it’s safe.“
Listen here: YES on T on The Drive with Steve Jaxon – KSRO
Our fluoride comes from China. Below is a list of other items imported from China that have been found to be toxic and recalled: cosmetics, toys, dog food, cat food, laminate flooring, drywall, gardening gloves, baby bibs, notebooks, jewelry, herbal supplements, candy, ginger, shrimp, fish, toothpaste. Does fluoride belong on this list? Let’s test it and find out, our health depends on it. Vote yes on T.
By Chris Love
My family and I have lived in Healdsburg for 36 years, and in the area for 42 total. Our daughter and her family also live here. I understand fluoride occurs naturally in most water supplies. I grew up with fluoridated water, along with my three sisters.
Our dad had great teeth, mom’s were not so great. Three of us have not so great teeth, one has great teeth. We all drank the same water for the first 18 years of our lives. I personally think that genetics has more to do with good teeth and bad teeth, not fluoride.
Our daughter, and two of her children have developed dental fluorosis, which is overexposure to fluoride during the first eight years of life. This gives a mottled appearance to the teeth. But, this fluorosis can also affect the skeletal bones. We don’t know yet if it has affected our daughter’s or grandchildren’s bones. Every body is different, and processes chemicals differently. No two are alike. So here are my points to think about, please.
A study was done, not that long ago, that showed that Healdsburg teeth were no better than the rest of the county. You know we are the only city to add fluoride to our community water. If fluoride is working so well, why are Healdsburg teeth not the best in the county?
Some folks have said that the minor amount of fluoride added is safe for everyone. Really? Well, obviously not safe for some of my family. I wonder how many other families may have a member or two with this condition. How many would it take for you to say, well, maybe it isn’t safe for everyone. If it was your family member, would you still feel that way?
Our family has had to purchase very expensive water filters for our homes to filter out the fluoride. What about the families that cannot afford a filter or to purchase bottled water? What are they supposed to do? Continue to essentially poison their family members because one cannot do without water?
There was a recent article in the Tribune about fluoride, what it is, where it comes from, how much and how it is put in our water. The one part of the article that bothered me was that it comes from China. We all have read about or even been involved in items that have been recalled, made in China, that were found to have dangerous chemicals in them; children’s jewelry, creams, toys and many other items over the years. China does not have the same safeguards or regulations regarding products they make and export. And we are trusting something from them every single one of us in Healdsburg ingests on a daily basis? Did you know that because of studies done in China they do not fluoridate their own water? But they are selling it to us to put it in ours?
Children can still get toothpaste with fluoride (most of them have it), and get fluoride treatments from their dentist. Not all experts agree that drinking fluoride is beneficial to teeth. Fluoride put on the teeth, yes, but not in the stomach. Since fluoride is so cheap, maybe the city could donate the cost of the fluoride we put in the water to a fund for all the dentists in town to give free fluoride treatments to those who cannot afford it.
Measure T is asking for a moratorium on adding fluoride to our water supply until such time as the city can certify that the sodium fluoride put in our water is safe for all human consumption. The city of Healdsburg says that is impossible.
How safe do you think it is? If your family was having health problems, or your neighbor’s family, would you still insist we keep adding fluoride to our water when a study showed it was not making a difference? How many people must be sick, or have bad reactions, for us to say stop, no more forcing our entire population to drink something that is making some of us sick.
I am not trying to scare anyone, but to ask you as reasonable people, to think about this. I’m sure there are more people in town, like my family, who have problems but are unable or afraid to come forward.
Chris Love is a Healdsburg resident
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 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