Several maternal fluoride-offspring IQ studies should provoke moratorium on fluoridation

Reviewed by James Ives, M.Psych. (Editor)Aug 31 2019

Critics of the fluoride-IQ study published this month in JAMA Pediatrics claimed it needed replication. However, the Canadian study by Green (2019) was already a replication of another U.S. government-funded study published in 2017 by Bashash which found similar effects, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Both were Mother-Offspring studies that used urinary fluoride levels during pregnancy to assess cognition in the paired offspring.

Both studies have shown a strong relationship between maternal exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ in offspring. Each revealed that the fetal stage appears to be the most vulnerable time period for fluoride's neurotoxicity.

Actually, FAN points out that there have been five studies that have found this relationship between maternal exposure and lowered IQ in children (see listing below). However, the Canadian study is the first to compare fluoridated vs non-fluoridated cities. The pregnant women in Canada with higher urinary fluoride levels had offspring with lower IQs and were from the fluoridated cities.

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director, says:

For years promoters of fluoridation have argued that there is no harm from fluoridation; these and other studies indicate that there is potential harm and it is serious. It is unconscionable to continue fluoridation until this is resolved. For those who doubt the current findings more studies can be done once a moratorium on fluoridation is in place. To do otherwise is to condone a human experiment on millions of children."

Connett adds:

To ignore brain health and continue fluoridation in name of dental health is a huge disservice to the children of this country. FAN argues that there are more effective programs to reduce dental inequities (eg, 'Childsmile' in Scotland) and communities can easily implement them."

Fluoride Dangers: New Evidence

When will it be enough to convince policymakers to change course? Action Alert!

A new study published in JAMA Pediatrics has linked fluoride exposure with lower IQ. This is the latest in a long line of studies demonstrating the dangers of water fluoridation, but policymakers are still refusing to act.

The study found that women who drank fluoridated water while pregnant gave birth to children with lower IQs than pregnant mothers who did not drink fluoridated water. The article was accompanied by an editorial note—the first such note the editor-in-chief had ever written—saying that the choice to publish the article was “not easy” and that the paper was subjected to “additional scrutiny” due to its controversial nature. Judging from journals’ refusal to publish credible research calling vaccine safety into question, it is a welcome surprise to see a prestigious journal publish such findings.

Groups like the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have rushed to downplay these findings and affirm the safety of fluoride in drinking water. The preponderance of evidence, however, casts doubt on such conclusions.

Two recent studies showed that 1) adults who are iodine deficient and have high levels of fluoride in their system have a greater risk of an underactive thyroid, and 2) mothers with higher fluoride exposure during pregnancy were more likely to have children with symptoms of ADHD. (Note that this wasn’t the first study to link water fluoridation with ADHD.)

These are just the most recent studies. There is substantial evidence, including more than fifty human population studies, that links elevated fluoride levels with neurological effects, especially lower IQ. Fluoride also accumulates in the body, including the blood vessels, where it can contribute to calcification. A National Research Council report concluded that the EPA’s standard for fluoride in drinking water is unsafe and should be lowered. The report highlighted damage that can be done to the teeth, bones, brain, endocrine system, thyroid, and pineal gland—all from drinking fluoride.

As we reported in recent years, water fluoridation is a gift to special interests. Since sodium fluoride is a waste product of the aluminum production process, water fluoridation meant that the aluminum industry could profit from their industrial waste.

Today it’s even worse. Fluorosilicic acid (FSA), an inorganic fluoride compound, is a waste product of synthetic fertilizer production. Breathing FSA’s fumes causes severe lung damage or death; an accidental splash on skin leads to burning and extreme pain. Yet FSA is put into barrels and shipped across the US to be drip-fed into drinking water.

Even if there weren’t any safety concerns with drinking fluoride, there would still be the question of whether we need to do it in the first place. The world is different than it was 100 years ago, especially when it comes to dental health. Most of us use toothpaste, and many people use fluoridated toothpaste, making fluoride in water unnecessary. Other parts of the world that do not fluoridate their water, like Western Europe, have seen dental decay rates decline just as much as they have in the US.

It’s no surprise, then, that 74 cities have voted to remove fluoride from drinking water over the last few years.

Water fluoridation is unsafe, unnecessary, and only benefits industries who can turn their toxic waste into cash. Some groups have sued the EPA after the agency denied a petition to ban the practice of fluoridating water. The case is currently in federal court.

Simply put, there is no good reason to continue water fluoridation, and ending the practice could help protect our kids. It’s time the EPA ended this practice once and for all.

Action Alert! Tell the EPA and Congress to stop water fluoridation. Please send your message immediately.

2 to 3 IQ points not highly significant? 
Especially if compounded through generations. Never seen that brought up in any debate.

More Evidence that Fluoride Lowers IQ: Will the CDC Keep Ignoring It?

By the Children’s Health Defense Team

In the United States and Canada, exposure to fluoride is widespread and comes primarily through ingestion of fluoridated water supplied by community water systems. Although some U.S. residents consume drinking water that is fluoride-free, the majority of Americans served by community utilities—an estimated 74%—receive water to which industrial fluoride compounds have been added. The utilities do so in accordance with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) recommendations, which promote water fluoridation for the purpose of altering the consumer’s oral health.

…the study’s senior author states, “It’s important that decisions about safety…be based on evidence.”

The CDC acknowledges no dangers of water fluoridation other than mentioning the risk of dental fluorosis. However, as the first—and most visible—sign of fluoride toxicity, dental fluorosis should trouble the nation’s leading public health agency, particularly given that mild to severe fluorosis affected fully two-thirds of 12- to 15-year-olds as of 2012.

Canada - If fluoride decreases children's IQ, are harder teeth worth the risk?

Corbella: If fluoride decreases children's IQ, are harder teeth worth the risk?
LICIA CORBELLA Updated: August 27, 2019

Calgary City council is again considering fluoride in Calgary's tap water after studies show more cavities in Calgary children. G
If you had to choose, would you rather have your child lose a permanent tooth or 4.5 points from their IQ?

Obviously, no parent would want either but if you faced that kind of rock-and-a-hard place choice for your child, what would you pick?

My guess is most parents would say that enhancing and protecting their child’s intelligence would take precedence over the loss of a molar.

A new Canadian research study that has garnered international interest should cause policymakers to ask themselves the above question before they consider adding fluoride to their community’s water supply or to consider removing the mineral from water where it is currently added.

The Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA Pediatrics) study published Aug. 19 exposes a link between exposure to fluoridated drinking water during pregnancy and lower IQs in children.

The study, entitled, Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Pregnancy and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada, measured the levels of fluoride in the urine of 512 pregnant women living in six major Canadian cities at three different times during pregnancy. It then tested their children once between the ages of three and four. All of the children were born between the years of 2008 and 2012.

Ultimately, for every 1 milligram-per-litre increase in fluoride in the women’s urine, a corresponding drop of 4.5 IQ points was found in boys but not girls.


A study published on August 19, 2019 links exposure to fluoridated tap water during pregnancy to lower IQ scores in infants, but several outside experts expressed concern over its methodology and questioned its findings. ALASTAIR PIKE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The study’s lead author, Christine Till, an associate professor in the faculty of health at York University in Toronto, told Postmedia that she is “concerned about anything that can negatively impact brain function.”

Reached Monday via email in the Netherlands, where she is attending the International Society of Environmental Epidemiology (ISEE) conference, Till said a 4.5 drop in IQ scores has an enormous negative impact on society.

“Most parents want to provide the most optimal development for their child,” said Till. “The question is whether the risk of decreasing a child’s IQ by three to four points is worth the benefits that ingestion of fluoride provides in pregnancy.”

Hardy Limeback, a retired University of Toronto professor of dentistry who once supported fluoridation but now is a leading advocate against “the mass medicating of our water supply,” says studies show that people who live in areas without fluoridated water suffer the loss of just one tooth over their lifetime than they would had they been exposed to fluoridated drinking water their entire lives.

“This study puts to bed the question about the risk versus the reward of water fluoridation,” he said from his home in Ontario. “This study essentially shows that fluoride is as toxic as lead to a developing brain and therefore shouldn’t be added to our water supply.”


Fluoride is applied directly to teeth with most toothpastes. ELAINE THOMPSON / AP

Till says a 4.5-point drop in IQ scores would lead “to 50 per cent more children falling in the range of having an intellectual disability and many fewer children falling into the gifted range.

“We are not talking about a small number of kids who are affected,” she added. “The loss of three to four IQ points gets magnified when we think about the hundreds of thousands of children who are exposed to fluoride when their brain is growing. A shift of that magnitude would have serious societal and economic implications,” added Till, who is giving a talk about the use of fluoridated water in infant formula in Utrecht on Tuesday.

In July, Calgary city council voted to delay the public presentation of a study, completed by the U of C’s O’Brien Institute for Public Health, until the fall.

The report listed the potential benefits of adding fluoride to Calgary’s drinking water, which was eliminated in 2011 following a vote by council that faced spending up to $6 million to replace the aging fluoridation equipment at the city’s water treatment facilities as well as about $750,000 annually to run the program. The O’Brien report found that water fluoridation could reduce cavities and decay in baby teeth by 44 per cent and a 37 per cent reduction in children’s permanent teeth but it also acknowledged that fluoride causes fluorosis (weakening of the enamel and bones), may have minor effects on thyroid function and that there is “more evidence needed for effect of fluoride on cognition.”

Well, the additional evidence needed is here. The JAMA study says that “the beneficial effects of fluoride predominantly occur at the tooth surface after the teeth have erupted. Therefore, there is no benefit of systemic exposure to fluoride during pregnancy for the prevention of caries in offspring.

“The evidence showing an association between fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores raises a possible new concern about cumulative exposures to fluoride during pregnancy, even among pregnant women exposed to optimally fluoridated water,” says the study.

It’s unrealistic to expect pregnant women to avoid drinking water from the tap during their entire pregnancy. It’s much easier for those who want their children to have fluoride to ensure that they get it in their toothpaste and even in their water.

This study further bolsters findings by Dr. Howard Hu in his 2017 University of Toronto study that led the researcher to conclude that: “The potential risks associated with fluoride should be further studied, particularly among vulnerable populations such as pregnant women and children, and more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is clearly needed.”

No one doubts that fluoride, applied topically to teeth, improves dental health. However, if we believed that lead could solve dental issues, would we add it to our water supply? Of course not.

Calgary’s community and protective services committee needs to brush up on this latest study before it holds a public hearing into this divisive topic, as expected in October. Then, if it absorbs what the science says, it will pull from its roots the repeated demands to reintroduce fluoride into our water supply. After all, a good brain is worth more than a tooth.

Licia Corbella is a Postmedia opinion columnist. lcorbella@postmedia.com

: What The Fluoride-IQ Debate Tells Us About Public Health

Eighty Years Of Conflicting Data: What The Fluoride-IQ Debate Tells Us About Public Health

Nicole FisherContributor 

Healthcare

Person at a tap, filling a glass of water.

 GETTY

Since the 1700s the scientific method has been the primary process for experimentation used to explore observations and answer questions. But whether we’re talking about significant breakthroughs in public health like John Snow’s discovery of public drinking water as the source in London’s 1854 cholera outbreak or never-ending contradictory publications claiming which diet is healthiest, it is clear controversy is an inherent part of public health.

At the time of John Snow’s cholera breakthrough, miasma theory (or belief that disease is spread through foul-smelling, dirty air) was the norm. Thus, Snow was ignored by many and even mocked for believing that bacteria in water could be the real source of disease. And sadly, it wasn’t until after his death that his theory was scientifically validated and broadly accepted...........

........What the publication itself means for the ongoing debate however, is important. It’s entry into the public arena ultimately indicates that there is still a great need to understand the impact that fluoride has on the human body – particularly during development no matter where it comes from. It also signals that the science community sees the importance of transparency and public debate. And this is good news. Open and honest discussion not only holds researchers more accountable for the quality of their work, but also helps keep the public informed of ever-changing information.

What this publication does not signal is that parents have a strong reason to panic. There is ample motivation to get informed, be more aware, and to seek additional information with an open mind – as well as a healthy bit of skepticism. Just because we have a new data point in the public health arena doesn’t mean the way things are is wrong. But it does suggest that we don’t have it 100% right. The best thing we can all do is be sure that we’re seeking out quality information, and that we’re doing everything in our power – including, perhaps, consuming less fluoride – until we know more.

Keeping fluoridating NZ water despite bombshell study

Peter Griffin : I'm a strong advocate for putting fluoride in the public water supply.

The evidence from here and abroad suggests that children who live in areas with fluoridated water have much lower rates of dental decay than those who live in non-fluoridated areas.

We put fluoride in over half of the country's water supply because it doesn't naturally exist in sufficient quantities to offer our teeth protection.

So what do we make then of the bombshell scientific paper that appeared last week suggesting that kids exposed to more fluoride at a very young age have lower IQ?

The study appeared in the highly-credible journal  JAMA Pediatrics and has caused a stir globally.

The editors agonised over whether to publish it, knowing the impact it could have on public health.

The research followed mother and child pairs living in fluoridated and non-fluoridated areas of big Canadian cities. 

The scientists took urine samples from 512 pregnant mothers and had them complete questionnaires about their fluoride intake. Later, at age 3 and 4, their children were given IQ tests.

The key result showed that a 1 milligram per litre increase in maternal urinary fluoride concentration was associated with a 4.5-point lower score on the IQ test – for boys only. Girls did about the same with greater exposure to fluoride.

The finding is surprising, but it isn't a game-changer. This is one observational study that doesn't establish cause and effect. It doesn't take into account all of the other factors that could be at play. The differing results between boys and girls aren't explained and have puzzled scientists. IQ tests are well established but are subject to degrees of error.

The results need to be replicated in other large cohorts before anyone can say that exposure to fluoride during pregnancy has an impact on children's brain development.

That hasn't stopped New Zealand  anti-fluoride campaigners from claiming the study results justify a "moratorium on fluoridation".

They don't. But I'd like to see more research.

What should pregnant mothers do in the meantime?

"I would advise them to drink bottled water or filtered water because it is not a particularly odious thing to do and actually does reduce the risk," said JAMA Pediatrics editor Dimitri Christakis.

Fine, do so as a precaution. But the fact remains that once born, kids need exposure to low levels of fluoride to protect their growing teeth. Community fluoridation is the best way to safely give them that.

If one generation's IQ is lowered by fluoridation what about the next generation is it compounded?

The David Knight Show

13:26

Putin Fluoride, Radiation Cancer Fighter Pilots

The David Knight Show

Athletes have poor teeth despite brushing

Elite athletes have bad teeth despite putting more effort into looking after them than other people, a study shows.

UCL scientists interviewed 352 British athletes, including those preparing to compete at the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio, Brazil. It showed they were far more likely to brush twice a day and floss between their teeth, but still struggled.

Researchers said athletes need to take more steps to look after their teeth, such as high fluoride toothpastes. Many previous studies have shown athletes from footballers to London 2012 competitors have problems with their oral health.

Around half of elite athletes in the UK have signs of tooth decay compared with around a third of similarly aged adults.

The latest study, published in the British Dental Journal, attempted to explore why.

Academics interviewed competitors from 11 sports, including cycling, swimming, rowing, hockey, sailing, athletics as well as rugby and football.

It showed:

94% of athletes brushed their teeth twice a day compared with 75% of the general public
44% flossed regularly compared with 21% of the public
Smoking rates and overall diets were also much better in the elite athletes.

"However, they use sports drinks, energy gels and bars frequently during training and competition," said Dr Julie Gallagher, one of the UCL researchers.

She added: "The sugar in these products increases the risk of tooth decay and the acidity of them increases the risk of erosion.

"This could be contributing to the high levels of tooth decay and acid erosion we saw during the dental check-ups."

87% used sports drinks
59% used energy bars
70% used energy gels

Other explanations include the mouth becoming dry due to breathing heavily during exercise so there is less protection from saliva in the mouth.

There are some suggestions poor oral health could have an impact on performance for reasons including less time spent in training.

At the pinnacle of elite sport, the difference between winning and losing is tiny, so even marginal improvements can make a crucial difference.

The report says athletes may need extra help with their teeth which could include very high fluoride toothpastes.

"Athletes were willing to consider behaviour changes such as additional fluoride use from mouthwash, more frequent dental visits, and reducing their intake of sports drinks, to improve oral health," Dr Gallagher said.

Pilot studies testing this have already been conducted, but the results are not yet known.

Who wrote that script

Doctors used to defend cigarettes claiming smoking was beneficial to health.

F.A.N. Newsletter

This morning, the Fluoride Action Network uploaded a new video featuring our Director, Paul Connett, PhD responding to criticism of the JAMA Pediatrics fluoride IQ study.  We have also published the press release below, which we strongly urge you to share with your local media outlets.  Please email the PR Newswire version of our release and a link to the video to the news editors of the largest media outlets in your community (newspaper, radio, TV, online).

---

Click Graphic to Watch Paul Connett, PhD's Response to Criticism of JAMA Study

---

Criticisms of Recent JAMA Fluoride/IQ Study Are Unfounded

A newly published carefully-researched and meticulously peer-reviewed US government-funded study published in JAMA Pediatrics reports maternal fluoride levels are linked to offspring's lower IQ. But the same day the study was released, many fluoridation proponents erroneously dismissed it, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

Critics claim: "It is only one study." The truth is that over 50 studies have found a lowering of IQ associated with fluoride exposure including another high-quality US-government funded study (Bashash et al., 2017) using similar methodology as the JAMA study. (Also, Thomas et al. 2018 Occupational & Environmental Medicine; Valdez Jiménez et al. Neurotoxicology 2017 and Li et al Fluoride 2008)

Critics claim: "It doesn't prove cause and effect." No epidemiological study can. However, over 400 animal and cell studies underline the JAMA study's biological plausibility.

Critics claim: "A loss of 3-4 IQ points is not enough to be concerned."  This is a predicted average drop for the whole population – such a shift could dramatically reduce the percentage of very bright children and increase the number of mentally handicapped. 

Critics claim: "Loss of IQ cannot be sex-related." This claim ignores what the authors state about these sex differences. Christine Till the lead author responds to this and other criticisms in an interview on Canadian TV.

Contradicting other claims, the mothers were not exposed to high fluoride levels and the study did control for lead, mercury, manganese, perfluoro-octanoic acid, and urinary arsenic.

Claims that thousands of studies show fluoridation is safe are not true. In fact, public health has been negligent about examining the health of people living in fluoridated communities.

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director says, "It is sickening to hear promoters tout the benefits of swallowing fluoride when confronted with such serious evidence of harm. You can repair a child's tooth but you can't repair a child's brain if it is harmed during fetal development."

"It is fine to ask for more studies. But, the only reasonable course of action is to place a moratorium on fluoridation until the matter has been resolved. Meanwhile, pregnant women should be warned to avoid fluoride as much as they can," says Connett.   

-FAN Website version of Press Release     

---

Links to Additional News Coverage

• Time Magazine

• Global TV Interview with author of study
• USA Today

NHS waste no time in scoffing the latest report that fluoride is harmful

No proof that a mother's intake of fluoride in pregnancy affects their child's IQ

Tuesday 20 August 2019

.................There is also the question of why the reported effect on IQ was only seen in boys in one of the analyses. There seems no obvious reason why the impact on boys and girls would be different, and this result should be seen as very tentative.

Considerable past research has been conducted into the safety of fluoride, including those conducted by the UK government and other international organisations. Overall, these studies all found that fluoride was not associated with significant health risk, while clearly reducing tooth decay.

Analysis by Bazian
Edited by NHS Website

See Alex Jones explanation as to why girls are not so badly affected as boys and even more so black boys.

F.A.N. Newsletter

There has been widespread and worldwide coverage of the prenatal fluoride/IQ studypublished in the American Medical Association’s journal on Pediatrics.  Below we provide some key quotes from the authors and other experts.

But first here is the news report we recommend sharing right now with local decision-makers, friends, and neighbors.  It appeared on the Canadian news network CTV.  It features an excellent interview with the senior author of the study, Christine Till, PhD of York University in Toronto, Ontario. 

WATCH TILL’S CTV INTERVIEW

Quotes from Experts in Media Reports

 

Reuters:

 “…there is absolutely no benefit derived for the fetus” from fluoride, senior author Christine Till of York University in Toronto. “If anything, there is a potential for risk.”

Thus, [Till] said, the idea of limiting fluoride during pregnancy is “a no brainer” - and a major source is fluoridated water.

“Not all women have the means to pay for bottled water and that is a concern to me as a public health dentist,” Dr. Angeles Martinez-Mier, fluoridation expert and a professor at the Indiana University School of Dentistry in Indianapolis. 

CNN:

"At a population level [4.5 IQ points, SC], that's a big shift. That translates to millions of IQ levels lost," said study author Christine Till.  

"I think the study was well done and that the commentary was thoughtful." said Dr. Aparna Bole, chairwoman of American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Environmental Health 

NPR:

"We would feel an impact of this magnitude at a population level because you would have millions of more children falling in the range of intellectual disability, or an IQ of under 70, and that many fewer kids in the gifted range…We recommend that women reduce their fluoride intake during pregnancy." –Christine Till

"It's actually very similar to the effect size that's seen with childhood exposure to lead…" said David Bellinger, a professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children's Hospital 

Washington Post:

“I believe that, in general, the dental community will discount these findings, minimize their importance and continue to recommend the use of fluoridated water during pregnancy,” said Pamela Den Besten, a pediatric dentist who studies tooth enamel at the University of California at San Francisco. She added: “This study has been carefully conducted and analyzed.”

“This is an excellent study,” said Philippe Grandjean, a physician who studies brain development and environmental pollutants at the Harvard School of Public Health. “CDC has to come out and look at the risk-benefit ratio again, because they can’t continue relying on studies that were carried out decades ago.”

“The answer for me, I can say, is I would not have my wife drink fluoridated water” if she were pregnant, Dimitri Christakis, [editor in chief of JAMA Pediatrics and a pediatrician] said. Grandjean, likewise, suggested pregnant women drink bottled water and limit black tea to a single cup per day. 

WebMD:

"Four and a half IQ points is of substantial societal and economic concern," said senior researcher Christine Till…"We're talking a magnitude that's comparable to what we're talking about when we talk about lead exposure. You would have millions of more children falling into the range of intellectual disability with IQ scores of less than 70, and that many fewer kids in the gifted range,"

"There's absolutely no benefit of fluoride to a fetus or a baby without teeth,"Till said. "You're not doing any harm to your baby by reducing your fluoride intake. You can reduce it and your baby will be fine." 

DailyBeast:

“It is the only editor’s note I’ve ever written,” Dimitri Christakis, editor in chief of JAMA Pediatrics and a pediatrician, told The Daily Beast. “There was concern on the journal’s editorial team about how this would play out in the public eye and what the public-health implications would be.  The effects of this study are comparable to the effects of lead, and if these findings are true there should be as much concern about prenatal fluoride exposure,”

“When we started in this field, we were told that fluoride is safe and effective in pregnancy,” said study co-author Christine Till …“But when we looked for the evidence to suggest that it’s safe, we didn’t find any studies done on pregnant women.”

ScienceMag:

“It’s a potential bombshell,” says Philippe Grandjean, an environmental health researcher at Harvard University

Lindsay McLaren, a public health researcher at the University of Calgary in Canada…tells Science that the study appears both credible and methodologically sound. 

Globe and Mail:

“I think the public should be aware of both the benefits and potential risks of fluoride,” Christine Till said.  “I didn’t think we were going to find an effect because we were told it’s safe and effective, and that’s the dogma that we hear,”

Philadelphia Inquirer:

The IQ losses “were observed at fluoride levels typically found in white North American women,” the authors wrote. “This indicates the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy. We know boys have higher rates of autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and learning disabilities,” study co-author Rivka Green said. “So it could be they are more susceptible to certain contaminants during prenatal development.” 

Philippe Grandjean, a Danish researcher and adjunct professor of environmental health at Harvard University, has long been involved in scientific efforts to warn of the brain development hazards of lead, mercury, and now fluoride. He led a 2012 review of 27 fluoride studies 

“There’s so much investment in promoting water fluoridation, and therefore so much face-losing that is at stake,” he said. “No one wants to admit failure. I’m sure that’s true of dentists and the CDC. But I think the time has come for us to ask the CDC to reconsider fluoridation, because how many millions of children do we want to potentially put at risk of a small loss of IQ?” 

Medscape:

"I think this is one of the most rigorous studies published in this whole field because they are using biological markers," a substantial improvement over previous epidemiological studies that used only geographic or other indicators to determine fluoride exposure levels, said Howard Hu, MD, ScD, an affiliate professor in environmental and occupational health science at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Howard Hu was a coauthor, along with some authors from the current study, on the only previous study to use a biomarker in pregnant women, also urinary concentration, in Mexico City. He said that "urinary concentration tends to be more stable than blood concentration.  It would be hard to criticize this study as being subject to confounding or bias. The sensitivity analyses that were done strengthen the ability to conclude that the relationships they found were quite strong…What I can say is this study is really rigorous, but I'm going to leave the policy pronouncements to others."

Additional Media Coverage

• Daily Mail
• Newsmax 
• Globe and Mail
• FOX News 
• MedPage Today
• Medscape
• Dr. Bicuspid
  

You can continue to follow the media coverage of this study by visiting this webpage or by visiting our News Archive (updates pending).

Please stay tuned as we continue to provide updates, analysis, and ways to take action in your community and state to end artificial fluoridation. 

Sincerely,

 

Stuart Cooper

Campaign Director

Fluoride Action Network