1

Experts Confirm Extremely Low Levels of Fluoride Causes IQ Loss in Children

By Stuart Cooper | The Defender

Story at-a-glance:

  • New studies find that fluoride levels four to five times lower than those found in pregnant women in fluoridated communities cause IQ loss for the child and that older women in fluoridated communities have a 50% higher risk of hip fractures.
  • Plaintiffs suing the EPA in federal court over fluoridation’s neurotoxicity have continued to win legal victories and have shared deposition videos exposing CDC and EPA negligence.
  • The former NTP director joined the chorus of scientific and public health experts raising alarms about neurotoxic risk, but the dental lobby responded by doubling their fluoridation expansion efforts.

A landmark study by Grandjean, et al., has been published confirming that very low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy impair the brain development of the child and at a population level may be causing more damage than lead, mercury, or arsenic.

The study found that a maternal urine fluoride concentration of 0.2 mg/L, which is exceeded four to five times in pregnant women living in fluoridated communities, was enough to lower IQ by one point. The authors stated that even this impact is likely underestimated and:

“These findings provide additional evidence that fluoride is a developmental neurotoxicant … and the benchmark results should inspire a revision of water-fluoride recommendations aimed at protecting pregnant women and young children.”

A urinary fluoride (UF) concentration of 0.2 mg/L is far below what a pregnant woman in a fluoridated community would have, as confirmed by two recent studies.

A study of pregnant women in fluoridated San Francisco, California, found a mean UF concentration of 0.74 mg/L, and one with participants in fluoridated communities across Canada found a mean UF concentration of 1.06 mg/L. Both levels were significantly higher than those found in women in non-fluoridated communities.

Grandjean, et al.’s study, published in Risk Analysis, was a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis of the pooled data from the National Institutes of Health-funded ELEMENT and MIREC birth cohorts in Mexico and Canada. These are the birth cohorts that were used in the studies that found exposure to low levels of fluoride during pregnancy is linked to cognitive impairment in children.

A benchmark dose is used to identify a dose or concentration that would likely cause a defined amount of harm, in this case, a loss of one IQ point.

What makes this paper so important is that BMD is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) risk assessment methodology, and the paper’s authors used a one IQ point drop as the adverse effect amount because the EPA has used this same level of IQ loss in their own risk assessments and has recommended the use of such a level.

It has been well established that a loss of one IQ point leads to a reduced lifetime earning ability of $18,000. Summed over the whole population we are talking about a loss of billions of dollars of earning ability each year.

It is estimated that more than 72% of public drinking water systems in America are fluoridated — thus, millions of pregnant women are currently being exposed to levels of fluoride that have the potential to lower their children’s IQ by at least four points and probably more.

Moreover, it’s important to point out that in risk assessments using BMD methodology, it’s standard practice to apply a safety factor on top of the calculated BMD in order to determine a safe reference dose to protect the whole population (including the most vulnerable) from harm.

If that safety factor used was the standard safety margin of 10, to account for the variables in population-wide sensitivity, then the EPA might conclude that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe.” This is 35 times lower than what the American Dental Association and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend for fluoridated communities.

Study submitted to judge in federal fluoridation lawsuit

Michael Connett, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the EPA, has sent a copy of this BMD analysis to the judge presiding over the case currently in federal court. The Fluoride Action Network is involved in an ongoing federal lawsuit against the EPA seeking to prohibit the deliberate addition of fluoride to drinking water because of its neurotoxicity.

A trial was held in June 2020, which featured world-renowned experts testifying in court that fluoridation posed a danger on a par with lead. At the conclusion, the judge stated that we had presented “serious evidence” that presents “serious questions” about the safety of fluoridation, and said, “I don’t think anyone disputes that fluoride is a hazard.”

The judge also noted that the EPA had used an incorrect standard for assessing the available science and offered them a second chance to review it accurately, which they have declined repeatedly.

Since last summer, we have also won several legal victories, including rulings against EPA motions to dismiss the case and a recent ruling in April 2021 granting our motion to amend our original 2016 petition to include the latest studies and a more detailed listing of plaintiffs.

In the written order, the court dismantles the EPA’s arguments one by one, showing that the judge is committed to ensuring that all of the science is considered and remains the focus, which is a very good sign for our side.

The ruling also sets a precedent for future environmental cases under the Toxic Substances Control Act by allowing petitioners to update and amend complaints to include the most up-to-date science during the trial, rather than restart the multi-year petition process over as the EPA attorneys wanted.

The court will hold the trial in abeyance until the final National Toxicology Program monograph on fluoride’s neurotoxicity is published, possibly later this year. The judge was also awaiting the release of the benchmark dose analysis mentioned above and at least one additional study due out later in 2021.

Once all of this new research is available to the court, the judge could potentially hold a second phase of the trial, allowing additional discovery and testimony only on this new evidence. In fact, during the April 22 status hearing, the judge said this was his preference, and in the court order it is written, “As this Court has indicated, the evolving science warrants reopening of expert discovery and trial evidence.”

The court order indicated that once the judge has had the opportunity to see the new evidence and hear from both sides, the Fluoride Action Network will be able to resubmit our amended petition to the EPA for what will likely be one last opportunity for their reconsideration before a final ruling is made by the judge.

The next court hearing will be on August 26 at 10:30 a.m. (Pacific U.S.). To get additional updates and links to view the hearing, follow Fluoride Action Network (FAN) on Facebook and Twitter or sign up for our weekly bulletin.

For those wanting to catch up on this precedent-setting trial, we have several resources available for you. First is a 16-minute video featuring our attorney, Michael Connett, providing detailed background on the case and trial. Second, we have a 30-minute interview of Connett by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Third, FAN has a comprehensive database of documents, timelines, media coverage, and materials about the lawsuit on our website.

Damning deposition videos

The talking point we probably hear the most from proponents at council hearings, and repeated by policymakers, is that government agencies like the CDC and EPA vouch for fluoridation’s safety and effectiveness, and regulate the practice responsibly, so therefore it must be true and we must be wrong.

Instead of verifying any of these claims, policymakers have put their blind trust in these agencies. The media outlets, on the other hand, which should be the nation’s watchdog, have suspended their professionalism by not only blindly trusting these agencies, but also by discrediting those opposed to fluoridation.

Under oath, representatives from these agencies proved that their mantra of “safe and effective” is only a baseless claim used to promote a failed policy. In this first video, Casey Hannan, the director of the CDC’s Oral Health Division, testifies that the CDC has no data establishing the safety of fluoride’s effect on the brain, despite decades of touting the safety of fluoridation for all citizens, including children.

In this second video, Hannan admits there is no prenatal or early-life benefit from fluoride despite its known neurotoxicity to this same sub-population. In the third video, Joyce Donohue, Ph.D., a scientist from the EPA’s Office of Water, admits that the EPA’s current fluoride risk assessment, and thus fluoridation regulations, are out of date and should be updated in response to the collection of studies showing neurotoxicity published over the past several years.

These three videos are just a small taste of what was admitted under oath by representatives of the government agencies responsible for protecting the health of Americans.

For example, during the trial we also watched a video of CDC’s Hannan agreeing with the finding that “fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain … and increase risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” as well as agreeing with the National Research Council finding that “it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the function of the brain and body by direct and indirect means.”

FAN will be able to share much more of this video content with you after a ruling is made in the trial, exposing the failure of these agencies to protect the public from overexposure to fluoride.

Former NTP director warns parents in an op-ed

Along with the avalanche of new peer-reviewed studies showing harm and the lawsuit exposing government negligence, there has been an ever-growing chorus of warnings to the public and opposition to fluoridation from researchers and public health experts. This includes the former director of both the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes of Health.

Toxicologist and microbiologist Linda Birnbaum, Ph.D., co-authored an op-ed appearing in Environmental Health News with Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor of psychology at York University in Toronto, Canada, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, MPH, a physician, clinical scientist, and professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada.

Till is a co-author of several significant fluoride studies including the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride neurotoxicity study and others finding lowered IQ, increased diagnosis of ADHD, and thyroid impairment. She received a leadership award from York University, in part, for this groundbreaking research.

Lanphear is also an award-winning researcher who has been a member of two National Academies of Science committees, is a member of the EPA’s Lead Review Panel, and is renowned for his research on low-level lead exposure and many other environmental neurotoxins.

The op-ed, titled “It Is Time to Protect Kids’ Developing Brains From Fluoride,” highlights the mounting evidence that fluoride is impairing brain development and compares the response from the public health community to its delayed response to the obvious harm caused by lead. The authors call for the U.S. “to rethink this exposure for pregnant women and children,” and state:

“Given the weight of evidence that fluoride is toxic to the developing brain, it is time for health organizations and regulatory bodies to review their recommendations and regulations to ensure they protect pregnant women and their children … We can act now by recommending that pregnant women and infants reduce their fluoride intake.”

The op-ed is accompanied by a powerful animated short video on the impact of fluoride on brain development produced by Little Things Matter, a nonprofit scientific organization composed of children’s environmental health professionals. Dr. Till was also recently filmed giving an hour-long “must watch” presentation and Q&A on her fluoride neurotoxicity research.

FAN has compiled quotes (and produced a video) from a variety of experts warning about fluoride’s neurotoxicity, as well as a list of opinion pieces and journal articles20 warning of harm.

From womb to tomb

An April 2021 study from Sweden found 50% higher rates of hip bone fractures in postmenopausal women in an area with up to about 1 mg/L fluoride in drinking water. It also found 10% to 20% higher rates of fractures for all types of bone fractures and for those types commonly associated with osteoporosis.

The high-quality cohort study used detailed information from more than 4,000 older Swedish women enrolled starting in 2004 and followed through 2017. Their largest source of exposure was from naturally occurring fluoride in drinking water, at concentrations at or below 1 mg/L. Their total exposures fell within the same range as women living in areas with artificial fluoridation.

Concern for fluoride’s effect on bone quality was raised 25 years ago based on animal studies: “[O]ne cannot help but be alarmed by the negative effects of fluoride on bone strength consistently demonstrated in animal models.” The animal findings prompted human studies. This new Swedish study builds on previous studies that found an increased risk of bone fractures in older people with long-term fluoride exposure.

It is also consistent with extensive experience from randomized controlled trials done in the 1990s that attempted to decrease fracture risk for those with osteoporosis by giving patients relatively high doses of fluoride.

Instead of decreasing fracture risk, those studies found an increased risk, especially for hip fractures, and the attempts to use fluoride as a medication against osteoporosis have been largely abandoned. Researchers concluded that although fluoride can increase bone mineral density, it simultaneously decreases the bone quality and bone strength, despite the greater density.

This ought to have serious implications for the practice of fluoridation. The study’s findings suggest that long-term consumption of fluoridated water may be responsible for 50% or more of the hip fractures experienced by older people. There are about 2 million osteoporotic fractures in the U.S. per year, of which about 300,000 are hip fractures. Hip fractures in the elderly are a leading cause of disability and death.

About 30% of people with a hip fracture will die in the following year.” “Of those who survive, many do not regain their pre-fracture level of function. About 50% of patients with hip fractures will never be able to ambulate without assistance and 25% will require long-term care.

Water fluoridation may literally be killing older people, taking years off their lives, or leaving them confined to wheelchairs. “Treating hip fractures is also very expensive. A typical patient with a hip fracture spends the US $40,000 in the first year following hip fracture for direct medical costs and almost $5,000 in subsequent years.”

Widespread fluoridation in the U.S. might help explain why “Hip fracture rates among the U.S. population are the highest in the world.” Just as with the fluoride neurotoxicity studies that are finally being taken seriously, and funded by government agencies, this new study could help spur more high-quality studies on bone effects of fluoride.

But there is already more than enough evidence of risk to the brain, and now to bone health, that there is no justification to continue intentionally adding fluoride to drinking water for the sole purpose of trying to reduce tooth decay.

The fluoridation lobby is doubling down

Unfortunately, in response to the abundance of new research, the landmark lawsuit, growing concern in the scientific community, and the sustained advocacy and education efforts of FAN, the promoters of fluoridation have doubled down on their efforts to expand the practice further in an effort to gaslight public officials into believing the practice isn’t on the brink of extinction.

The UK and New Zealand are both being threatened with nationwide fluoridation mandates. In the U.K., the fluoridation lobby alongside the health secretary, Matt Hancock, is urging the government to take the power over fluoridation from local councils so he can mandate it throughout the country.

While this threat is very real, the proposal doesn’t seem to have made much progress since March, but FAN is tracking it and working with U.K. residents to mount opposition.

In New Zealand, the government has revived and amended a bill that was introduced in 2016 but lacked enough support for passage. As introduced, the bill would have moved fluoridation decisions from local councils — where they reside presently – to district health boards.

However, the current government has amended the language to centralize fluoridation authority even further, by giving full control to the director-general of health, Dr. Ashley Bloomfield. Using this process has defied the normal democratic process, with no select committee, community consultation, or public input.

Supporters of this proposal are trying to pass it into law by the end of the year, at which time local councils (and local taxpayers) will be responsible for all capital and operational costs. While a number of mayors have come out in opposition, as well as citizens and professionals led by Fluoride Free NZ, the proposal appears to be moving forward. Learn more in this new video from FAN.

The dental lobby is also targeting large cities in North America. This past summer, a coalition led by Delta Dental worked behind the scenes to pressure the city council in Spokane, Washington, to pass a resolution to fluoridate their drinking water, despite the public voting three times to reject fluoridation. Part of their sales pitch was that COVID was presenting an oral health emergency, to which this would be a solution.

It was eventually revealed that implementation would take at least five years, making their exploitation of the pandemic to sell their fluoridation chemicals apparent. A local citizens group assisted by FAN, Safe Water Spokane, has fought this effort, and as a result, the council has tabled their fluoridation resolution and will study the issue for the next year. Click here to learn more about Spokane.

Calgary, Alberta, is also being threatened with fluoridation despite voting numerous times to reject the practice. After hearing from the O’Brien Institute for Public Health that the practice causes cognitive impairment, the cowardly council decided to put the issue to a public vote this October, rather than make a decision. FAN is working with local campaigners Safe Water Calgary to ensure the public votes “no” on reintroducing fluoridation chemicals.

The CDC has even partnered with private industry, using your tax dollars to develop new fluoridation products for rural water systems and private wells to expand the practice to every corner of the country (and likely beyond).

We can’t count on the mainstream media or the public health authorities to tell the public or decision-makers about what is happening. It’s up to us to make this information go viral! It’s up to us to bring it to our elected leaders and demand action! We need your support more than ever. Please help us get to the finishing line of a world without fluoridation.

From June 28 to July 4, we launch Fluoride Awareness Week. We set aside an entire week dedicated to ending the practice of fluoridation. There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride — up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide.

Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Together, let’s help FAN get to the finish line

This is the week we can get FAN the funding it deserves. I have found very few NGOs as effective and efficient as FAN. Its team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help!

So, I am stepping up the challenge. We are turning the tide against fluoride, but the fight is not over. I’m proud to play my part in this crucial battle. For the tenth year in a row, a portion of sales from purchases made on the Mercola online store, up to $25,000, will be donated to Fluoride Action Network. Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Originally published by Mercola.




Read the Shocking Conclusions from 28 Medical Studies Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Children

Image Credit: Waking Times

By Alex Pietrowski | Waking Times

To date, there are at least 53 known international scientific studies concluding that fluoride consumption is harmful to the development of intelligence in children, it impairs their learning and memory capacity. Children are commonly exposed to fluoride from municipal water supplies, dental treatments, environmental pollution, and in-utero.

Municipal water fluoridation is a state-mandated pharmacological intervention that ostensibly aims to fight dental fluorosis, but this claim is highly contested, and a growing body of research indicates that water fluoridation is linked to lower IQ in children. Medication without consent is a human rights violation.

In 2017, former EPA senior scientist, William Hirzy, Ph.D. noted:

“The significance of this peer reviewed risk analysis is that it indicates there may be no actual safe level of exposure to fluoride. Groups of children with lower exposures to fluoride were compared with groups having higher exposures. Those with higher exposures performed more poorly on IQ tests than those with lower exposures.” ~Former EPA senior scientist, William Hirzy, PhD

Here is a sampling of some of the shocking conclusions from these studies, as documented by The Fluoride Action Network, where a full breakdown of these studies, as well as comments about study methodologies and locations, may be found.

“Chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride in water was observed to be associated with lower intelligence quotient.” ~IQ Study #41: Nagarajappa (2013)

“School children residing in an area with higher than normal water fluoride levels demonstrated more impaired development of intelligence when compared to school children residing in areas with normal and low water fluoride levels.” ~IQ Study #47: Sebastian (2015)

“[C]hildren residing in areas with higher than normal water fluoride level demonstrated more impaired development of intelligence and moderate [dental fluorosis]. Millions of children including adults around the world are affected by a higher level of fluoride concentration through their drinking water and are therefore potentially at risk. It is concluded that for the benefit of the future generation, urgent attention should be paid to this substantial public health problem.” ~IQ Study #50: (Das 2016)

“[S]tudents of the study area have less IQ than students of the non-contaminated area, demonstrating that consumption of F also has a major role in the intellectual development of
children.” ~IQ Study #49: Mondal (2016)

“The data from this research may support the hypothesis that excess fluoride in drinking water has toxic effects on the nervous system.” ~IQ Study #48: Khan (2015)

“Fluoride in the drinking water was significantly related to the IQ of children. Along with fluoride, the mother’s diet during pregnancy was also found to be significantly related to the IQ of children.” ~IQ Study #46: Kundu (2015)

“Results of our field study raise a concern about the safety of elevated systemic exposure to fluoride from high concentrations in the drinking water. While topical fluoride treatment confers benefits of reducing caries incidence, the systemic exposure should not be so high as to impair children’s neurodevelopment especially during the highly vulnerable windows of brain development in utero and during infancy and childhood and may result in permanent brain injury.” ~IQ Study #45: Choi (2015)

“Exposures to fluorine and arsenic are deleterious to the development of intelligence and the development of growth in children” ~IQ Study #43: Bai (2014)

“We observed reduced AChE activity in [the high fluoride area] which may be directly correlated [d] with the reduced intelligence score of the subjects.” ~IQ Study #40: Singh (2013)

“The study found that children residing in a region with a high drinking water F level had lower IQs compared to children living in a low drinking water F region (p<0.001). The differences could not be attributed to confounding educational, economic, social, cultural, and general demographic factors.” ~Karimzade (2014)

“This study indicates that exposure to fluoride is associated with reduced intelligence in children.” ~IQ Study #36: Saxena (2012)

“In conclusion, our study suggested that low levels of fluoride exposure in drinking water had negative effects on children’s intelligence and dental health and confirmed the dose-response relationships between urine fluoride and IQ scores as well as dental fluorosis.” ~IQ Study #35: Ding (2011)

“Based on the findings, chronic exposure to high levels of fluoride can be one of the factors that influence intellectual development.” ~IQ Study #34: Poureslami (2011)

“Previous studies had indicated toward decreased Intelligence in children exposed to high levels of fluoride and our study also confirmed such an effect.” ~IQ Study #32: Shivaprakash (2011)

“Findings of this study suggest that overall IQ levels in children’s exposed to high fluoride levels were significantly lower than the low fluoride areas.” ~IQ Study #31: Sudhir (2009)

“High exposure to fluoride most definitely has an adverse effect on the development of intelligence in children, in particular on the capability of abstract inference.” ~IQ Study #30: Li (2009)

“This study indicates that exposure to fluoride in drinking water is associated with neurotoxic effects in children.” ~IQ Study #28: Wang (2007)

“In agreement with other studies elsewhere, these findings indicate that children drinking high F water are at risk for the impaired development of intelligence.” ~IQ Study #27: Trivedi (2007)

“Exposure to high levels of fluoride is likely to cause a certain level of harm to a child’s level of intelligence.” ~IQ Study #26: Fan (2007)

“Based on the findings of this study, exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence.” ~IQ Study #25: Seraj (2006)

“High fluoride burden has a definite effect on the intellectual and physical development of children.” ~IQ Study #24: Wang (2005)

“The findings of this study thus replicate those of earlier studies and suggest that a real relationship exists between fluoride exposure and intelligence.” ~IQ Study #18: Lu (2000)

“These results show that water improvement and defluoridation can improve the mental and physical development of children in a fluorosis area.“ ~IQ Study #16: Yao (1997)

“The results of the intelligence tests show that a high level of fluoride influences children’s IQ, which is consistent with some previous data. It is worth mentioning that the higher the degree of dental fluorosis, the more negative the impact on the children’s intelligence level. This is an issue that merits utmost attention.” ~IQ Study #15: Yao (1996)

“The results show that a high fluoride intake has a clear influence on the IQ of preschool children, manifesting itself primarily as damage to performance intelligence.” ~IQ Study #13: Wang (1996)

“A high fluoride intake was associated with lower intelligence.” ~IQ Study #11: Li (1995)

“The results show that the level of intelligence of primary and secondary students from the high fluoride area and that of primary and secondary students from the non-high fluoride area had very significant differences, proving that high fluoride has adverse effects on the mental development of students. The higher the water fluoride is, the lower the level of IQ.” ~IQ Study #7: An (1992)

“The results of this study indicate that there is a significant difference between the intellectual ability of the 7–14-year-old children from the [fluorosis] endemic area and those of the control, and moreover that the average IQ of the children from the endemic area is clearly lower.” ~IQ Study #4: Chen (1991)

About the Author

Alex Pietrowski is an artist and writer concerned with preserving good health and the basic freedom to enjoy a healthy lifestyle. He is a staff writer for WakingTimes.com. Alex is an avid student of Yoga and life.

This article (Read the Shocking Conclusions from 28 Medical Studies Linking Fluoride to Lower IQ in Childrenoriginally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Alex Pietrowski and WakingTimes.com

 




Bombshell Study Confirms Fluoride Lowers Children’s IQ

Video Source: fluoridealert

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | mercola.com

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ
  • A 1 milligram per liter increase in the concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.49-point decrease in IQ among boys only, while a 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score in both genders between ages 3 and 4
  • The findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre (SMC), two well-known front groups for the chemical industry
  • There are at least 60 other studies showing fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ. There are also more than 2,000 other studies detailing other health effects
  • Research published in 2017 found that compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. They also found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ

August 19, 2019, issue of JAMA Pediatrics1 delivered an unexpected bombshell: A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ.

The research, led by a Canadian team of researchers at York University in Ontario, looked at 512 mother-child pairs living in six Canadian cities. Fluoride levels were measured through urine samples collected during pregnancy.

They also estimated the women’s fluoride consumption based on the level of fluoride in the local water supply and how much water and tea each woman drank. The children’s IQ scores were then assessed between the ages of 3 and 4. As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):2

“They found that a 1 mg per liter increase in the concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls.

When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women’s fluid intake, they found lower IQ’s in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders.”

Support for the importance of this study

The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date.

Its import is also demonstrated by the fact that it’s accompanied by an editor’s note3 explaining the journal’s decision to publish the study, and a podcast4 featuring the chief editors of JAMA Pediatrics and JAMA Network Open, in which they discuss the study.

An additional editorial5 by David Bellinger, Ph.D., a world-renowned neurotoxicity expert, also points out that “The hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration.” Few studies ever receive all of this added treatment. According to the editor’s note:6

“Publishing it serves as a testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science-based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results maybe.”

Chemical industry front groups defend fluoride safety

Surprisingly, the findings were widely reported by most major media outlets, including Reuters,7 The Washington Post,8 CNN, NPR, Daily Beast, and others, effectively reigniting the scientific debate about whether water fluoridation is a good idea.

Not surprisingly, the findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Dental Association (ADA),9 the American Council on Science and Health10 (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre11 (SMC).

It’s well worth noting that the ACSH and SMC are well-known front groups for the chemical industry, and they will defend all chemicals, regardless of what’s under discussion, so seeing dismissive articles from these groups is more or less par for the course. You can learn more about these groups in the articles hyperlinked above.

It’s also worth noting that Fox, which in 2014 made a similar study headline news,12 wasn’t satisfied with just presenting the latest study as news and, instead, invited its resident doctor, Marc Siegel, to comment13 — and that comment began by blaming tooth decay, not fluoride, on lower IQs. Siegel ended with a rambling diatribe against the study and scathing criticism of JAMA Pediatrics for even having published it:

“I’m far more worried about tooth decay than I am about fluoride … There’s no way that fluoride would lower your IQ more than having tooth decay … It’s a ridiculous study … complete poppycock … The Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics should not have put this in.”

As for the ADA, it’s been promoting water fluoridation as a health benefit for over a century and a half. To change its stance would clearly result in a loss of face, and might even expose the association to liability. The loss of scientific credibility alone is likely enough to encourage the ADA to hold on to the status quo.

The same goes for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which, despite the more than 2,700 studies14 against it, maintains water fluoridation is one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.15

AAP support of water fluoridation is hypocritical

A bit tougher to explain is the American Academy of Pediatrics’ support of water fluoridation.16 Of any group, the AAP really should reconsider its stance on this issue, seeing how it has officially recognized the hazardous influence of hormone-disrupting chemicals on child development.

In 2018, the AAP issued a policy statement17 warning parents to avoid endocrine-disrupting chemicals — commonly found in processed foodfast food wrappers and plastics, for example — and while fluoride was not specified as an example of a chemical to be avoided, research shows fluoride has hormone-disrupting potential, placing it in the exact same category. As noted by FAN:18

“Fluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in 2006 report19,20 by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). This report states:

‘In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response … Fluoride is, therefore, an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response … The mechanisms of action … appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms …”

Fluoride Action Network addresses study critique

In the featured video, Paul Connett, Ph.D., founder and current director of the FAN, addresses some of the criticism and why this particular study is such an important wake-up call for health care practitioners and pregnant women.

“[Fluoride exposure] during pregnancy will lower the IQ of their children. Only if you think a child’s tooth is more important than a child’s brain would you not be disturbed by that,”Connett says. “You can repair a child’s tooth. You cannot repair a child’s brain once it’s been impacted during fetal development.”

One pro-fluoride critique against the JAMA Pediatric study is that it doesn’t show cause and effect. “Well, no epidemiological study proves cause and effect,” Connett says. “That’s a given! To say it doesn’t show cause and effect is a redundant statement.” Other pro-fluoride voices argue the effect size is small — only 4.49 IQ points21 for boys, on average. However, as Connett points out:

“If you shift the entire population over by 3 or 4 IQ points, you would almost halve the number of geniuses in your society … and you would increase by about 50% the number of mentally handicapped children. So, on a population [basis] such shifts are highly, highly significant.”

A third manufactured controversy revolves around the fact that only boys were impacted by maternal urine levels of fluoride. Some hitch their critique of the study on this simple gender difference.

However, it should come as no surprise that boys and girls can be affected in different ways by the same toxic compound, as their development is affected by various hormones, including sex hormones, and toxins affect various hormones in different ways. We’ve seen this type of gender difference in many other instances as well.

“However you cut it, you have to be so wedded to fluoridation not to take this incredibly seriously,” Connett says. “Remember, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever — no scientific evidence — that a fetus exposed to fluoride has lowered dental decay.

There’s no evidence you’re protecting the baby from future decay during pregnancy. So, ANY evidence suggesting it may be damaging the brain has to be taken seriously …

We have potential harm [on the one side] … and on the other side you have something that is totally unnecessary. Why on earth would any doctor hesitate to advise pregnant women: ‘Don’t drink fluoridated water during pregnancy’?”

Other studies support a link between fluoride and IQ loss

What’s more, as Connett so strongly points out, while this particular study has received a great deal of media attention, it’s not the only one raising a red flag. There are at least 60 other studies listed in FAN’s scientific database22 showing that fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ.

There are also a couple of thousand other studies detailing other adverse health effects. When you add in animal research, there are more than 300 studies demonstrating fluoride can cause:23

  • Brain damage, especially when coupled with iodine deficiency
  • Reduced IQ
  • Impaired ability to learn and remember
  • Neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spatial organization
  • Impaired fetal brain development

In his video commentary, Connett briefly mentions the importance of the 2017 “Bashash study.” This was an international study effort led by professor Howard Hu, who at the time of the study’s publication was at the University of Toronto. The study is known as the “Bashash study” after the lead author, Morteza Bashash, Ph.D. The team also includes researchers from McGill, Harvard, Mount Sinai, Michigan, Indiana and the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.

Funding for this research came from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The finalized study24,25was published in the September 2017 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

This study was remarkable for the fact that it followed participants for 12 years, involved several well-respected researchers, employed rigorous methodology and controlled for virtually all conceivable factors.

Here too, they found a strong relationship between the urinary level of fluoride in pregnant women and the subsequent IQ in their children. They also found a dose-dependent relationship, so the higher the mother’s urine level of fluoride, the lower the IQ in the offspring.

According to the Bashash study, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. What’s more, they found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ.

Your contributions are making a difference

FAN is part of the Mercola Health Liberty Coalition, founded in 2011 — the mission of which is to inform and educate about the fraud and deceptions created by the junk food, chemical, and pharmaceutical industries. Other Health Liberty partners include the National Vaccine Information Center, the Organic Consumers Association and Consumers for Dental Choice.

Not only has your support been helpful to catalyze the removal of fluoride but you have been able to help us make massive changes with two other health issues as well:

  • GMOs — When we first started, the average person in the U.S. did not know what GMOs were. Now, not only do they know but they are also aware of how dangerous they are. Your support has allowed FOIA requests to be filed that produced critical evidence resulting in juries awarding plaintiffs billions of dollars from Bayer/Monsanto, with another 13,000 cases pending and a possibility of bankrupting this evil giant.
  • Dental mercury — Charlie Brown has coordinated worldwide bans on the use of mercury in dentistry that has already resulted in banning mercury in dentistry in many countries, with the likely complete elimination of amalgam within the next few years.

Again and again, we see “controversial” and “contentious” stances proven prudent and correct given enough time for sufficient science to accumulate. It’s important for you to recognize that your donations to these organizations through the years have allowed these successes to manifest. The latest JAMA Pediatrics study brings us another major step forward in the process to eliminate water fluoridation.

Editors compare anti-fluoridation to anti-vaccine sentiments

As noted by JAMA Pediatrics editor-in-chief, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, in the JAMA podcast (embedded above):

“Before there were anti-vaxxers there were anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency in my early professional career was, ‘fluoride is completely safe and all of these people trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened for children’s dental health and we need to push back and get it into every water system’ …

So, when I first saw this title [‘Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada’], my initial inclination was, ‘What the hell?”

Christakis goes on to express shock at the discovery that only 3% of European residents, while 66% of Americans and 38% of Canadians drink fluoridated water (statistics noted in the JAMA Pediatrics paper26), as he was under the assumption that all developed countries fluoridated all their water supplies. This just goes to show the general ignorance that still exists even among well-educated health professionals.

Christakis and JAMA Network Open editor-in-chief Dr. Frederick Rivara also express mutual surprise that the effect of water fluoridation on IQ was so great. They point out that a 5-point reduction is significant indeed, as it’s “on par with lead.”

Christakis goes on to discuss the fact that there have been other studies suggesting fluoride may be a neurotoxin. “Which, again, was totally news to me. I thought it was junk science,” he says. Rivara agrees, saying such studies have in the past been likened to “junk” anti-vaccine science.

Christakis admits he struggled with the findings — basically because of his preconceptions of the science. He certainly did not want to be the one putting out “junk science” that might lead to a deterioration of children’s dental health. This is precisely why the study was put through additional reviews to make sure the methodology and findings were sound. In the end, the research was solid enough to pass the tests.

It’s interesting to hear Christakis and Rivara talk about their struggle to accept the idea that water fluoridation may be harmful — at the very least until the child starts developing teeth. But even toddlers may be harmed, the pair admit, as toddlers and young children’s brains are still developing.

It’s even more interesting to hear them equate their struggles to that of the vaccine safety question for, indeed, the very same struggle to accept the idea that vaccines can cause harm is identical to the struggle to accept that water fluoridation may be damaging our children.

Both are considered unassailable public health victories, and no one wants to entertain the idea that we may inadvertently be causing grave harm on a population-wide basis. Yet that’s a very real probability, as this study shows (and many others as well).

Fluoride is an environmental pollutant as well

Overall, it makes absolutely no sense to fluoridate municipal water supplies. First of all, it’s forced medication without oversight — there’s no way to ascertain the dosage any given person is getting, or what effect it’s having on their health.

When it comes to fetuses and infants, water fluoridation is useless, as there’s no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest it has a beneficial impact on future dental health, and it certainly does not make sense to “prevent cavities” in those without teeth.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the fluoride in the water never ever touches a tooth. It’s simply flushed down the drain, becoming an environmental pollutant. As noted by Edward Groth III, a staff officer on the Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources, with the National Research Council back in 1975:27

“Environmental contamination by fluorides exposes many organisms to potentially toxic effects and may exert some stress on the ecological interrelationships among plant and animal populations … [T]he available evidence does support the view that fluorides are pollutants with considerable potential for producing ecological damage.”

Groth’s article, “Fluoride Pollution,”28 which appeared in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, summarizes the ecological impacts of low-level fluoride pollution, pointing out fluoride has been found to accumulate in the bodies of insects, birds, and mammals, in some cases to potentially toxic levels, thus increasing fluoride levels in the food chain as a whole.

There are also reports of toxic effects in algae and freshwater vertebrates, and “indications that aquatic vegetation may also concentrate the element.” Substantial amounts of fluoride are also entering farmland, where it’s taken up by soil organisms.

“Possible conversion of fluoride into fluoroacetate (more toxic than fluoride itself and related organic forms), and the likelihood that fluoride may enter into synergistic actions with other contaminants, greatly expand the potential for ecological damage by low-level fluoride contamination,” Groth writes.29

Water fluoridation is a clear form of water contamination

It’s also important to realize that the fluoride added to our water is an untreated industrial waste product from the fertilizer industry — not a pharmaceutical-grade product — that is suddenly deemed a health product once it’s purposely added to water.

As long as the chemical is on the premises of a fertilizer company, it’s actually classified as hazardous waste, requiring costly disposal measures to comply with hazardous waste regulations.

This fluorosilicic acid is frequently contaminated with lead, arsenic, uranium, radium, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. In other words, water fluoridation can be likened to a legal water contamination scheme.

For a review of the oft-neglected history of water fluoridation, read through “Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,30 a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University. As noted in “Toxic Treatment:”

“Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”

There’s also very little evidence to suggest water fluoridation actually has a beneficial impact on tooth decay, while there’s unequivocal evidence of harm, as it causes dental fluorosis. Origins write:31

Only a handful of countries fluoridate their water — such as Australia, Ireland, Singapore, and Brazil, in addition to the United States. Western European nations have largely rejected the practice. Nonetheless, dental decay in Western Europe has declined at the same rate as in the United States over the past half-century …

This is not to vilify the early fluoridationists, who had a legitimate reason to believe that they had found an easy and affordable way to counter a significant public health problem.

However, the arguments and data used to justify fluoridation in the mid-20th century — as well as the fierce commitment to the practice — remain largely unchanged, failing to take into account a shifting environmental context that may well have rendered it unnecessary or worse.”

Help End the Practice of Fluoridation

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Furthermore, according to screenings conducted for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 65% of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis — unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride—up from 41% a decade ago. Clearly, children are continuing to be overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of artificial water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN), has a game plan to END fluoridation worldwide. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs, and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So please, protect your drinking water and support the fluoride-free movement by making a tax-deductible donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the website of the Fluoride Action Network and visit the links below:

Together, Let’s Help FAN Get the Funding They Deserve

In my opinion, there are very few NGOs that are as effective and efficient as FAN. Its small team has led the charge to end fluoridation and will continue to do so with our help! Please make a donation today to help FAN end the absurdity of fluoridation.

Donate Today!

Read more great articles at mercola.com