STATE MP URGES COUNCIL TO PULL FLUORIDE POLL

www.nbnnews.com.au › Mid North News

PREVIEW

1:31

Port Macquarie's MP is urging council to scrap an expensive community poll on water fluoridation. Leslie ...

NBN News · 1 hour ago

The Breaking News on Fluoridation and Intelligence Shows Even More Harm. Part 2: An Interview with Paul Connett, Ph.D.

 In 1996, Dr. Connett was persuaded by his wife Ellen to investigate the controversial practice of water fluoridation. In 2000, he was one of the founders of the Fluoride Action Network and is the organization’s current director. In 2003, he gave an invited presentation to a panel appointed by the U.S. National Research Council, which published a landmark review of fluoride’s toxicity in 2006.

In 2010, with two other authors, James Beck, M.D., Ph.D., and Spedding Micklem, DPhil (Oxon), he published The Case Against Fluoride (Chelsea Green 2010).

 

Passwater: Dr. Connett, this new study not only provides alarming evidence of fluoridation’s developmental neurotoxicity, it also provides the data needed to counter the claim by fluoridation proponents that there is little evidence to show harm at very low fluoride levels. What is the significance of this new study in this regard?

Connett: This BMD analysis is of critical importance in terms of ending fluoridation worldwide. First, let me explain what a BMD analysis is. It is a methodology approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for performing a risk assessment to determine a safe reference dose (RfD) sufficient to protect everyone from a particular substance once a study (or several studies) have found it causes a harmful effect. BMD stands for Benchmark Dose and that is the lowest dose that causes a “defined” amount of harm (the benchmark). In this case the defined amount of harm is a loss of one IQ point.

This method can only be applied when studies have produced dose-response data. In this case, Grandjean combined the dose response date from both the Mexico City study (Bashash et al, 2017) and the study from Canada (Green et al., 2019). The two combined had 800 paired Mother-infant data pairs for Mother’s exposure to fluoride as measured in their urine, versus the average number of IQ points lost in the offspring. From the linear extrapolation for the whole data base, they were able to predict that a loss of one IQ would occur for a mother’s urinary fluoride level of 0.2 mg/Liter (i.e. 0.2 ppm).

That BMD is very low in the context of the average maternal urinary levels measured in pregnant women in fluoridated communities in the San Francisco Bay area and pregnant women from all parts of Canada, which range from 0.8 to 1 ppm. Since the relationship between urinary fluoride levels and IQ loss is a linear one (i.e. if the fluoride urinary level doubles the IQ loss would be doubled), this means that the projected average IQ loss for children born to pregnant women drinking fluoridated water is 4 to 5 IQ points. That is an extraordinary finding, and according to Grandjean, it means that in the USA today fluoride is causing a greater loss of IQ points than lead, arsenic or mercury, as far as the whole population of children is concerned. This does not mean that fluoride (atom for atom) is more brain damaging than these other substances, but rather that millions more children are being exposed to fluoride. We do not deliberately add lead, arsenic, or mercury to the drinking water!

Thus, this throws out of the window the claims that fluoridation promoters have been making ever since the early Chinese studies were published in the 1990s, that fluoride only lowers IQ at much higher doses than experienced in fluoridated communities. This is simply not true. IQ is being lowered at water concentrations far less than the 0.7 ppm used in water fluoridation.

Passwater: Can this additional information be included in the suit in Federal Court against the Environmental Protection Agency?

Connett: Most certainly. In fact, the judge has been waiting for this paper to be published. Dr. Grandjean was an expert witness in the case (heard in June, 2020) and presented a preliminary BMD analysis then. The judge is also waiting for the final version of the NTP’s review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity, and that is expected to be published before the end of this year. When both documents are available, the judge is indicating that he wishes to hear experts from both sides give their opinions on their significance. Then he is expected to give a ruling on our case.

Passwater: What is the importance of Dr. Grandjean using a Benchmark Dose methodology for his risk assessment?

Connett: The defendant in our federal lawsuit under TSCA is the EPA. Therefore, it is highly significant that Grandjean has used the EPA’s own preferred risk assessment methodology to demonstrate that fluoridation is unsafe as far protecting the brain of the fetus is concerned. The EPA lawyers cannot argue that he has used an unusual method.

Passwater: How does the EPA normally go from a Benchmark dose to a Safe Reference dose (RfD)?

Connett: The Benchmark dose is the best estimate of the dose that causes the defined harm (a loss of one IQ point) in a relatively small (800) number of children in the two studies considered. The RfD is determined by dividing the BMD by a safety factor sufficient to protect the most vulnerable child in a large population—in this case all the children being born today in the USA. The default value for this safety factor is usually set no lower than 10, and thus the safe reference dose for fluoride to protect the most vulnerable child from a loss of one IQ point would be 0.02 mg/liter (0.2 mg/liter divided by 10) for the level of fluoride in mother’s urine.

Passwater: Does the study suggest that any urine fluoride concentration above 0.02 mg/L would be unacceptable and “unsafe”? 

Connett: The answer is yes. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommend communities fluoridate their water at 0.7 ppm to help reduce tooth decay. 0.7 ppm is 35-times higher than this estimated safe reference dose of 0.02 ppm (as measured in pregnant women’s urine).

However, for this the CDC only considered the harm to the dental enamel called dental fluorosis. It is now clear that dental fluorosis is not the most appropriate, the most sensitive, or most important end point of fluoride’s toxicity. For the developing fetus and infant, the brain is more sensitive to fluoride’s toxicity than the developing tooth. The big difference between these two endpoints is that dental fluorosis is more visible to the naked eye. Finding damage to the brain had to wait a very long time. It took over 60 years before the U.S. government funded these important IQ studies (Bashash, 2017 & 2018; and Green, 2019) and the infant study (Till, 2020).

Passwater: Grassroots actions helped ban lead-based paints and leaded gasoline. What can our readers do to help bring attention to how fluoridation is harming the brains of our children?

Connett: May I make 3 suggestions?

1. Review our webpage regularly (www.FluorideALERT.org) to get themselves fully informed on this issue.
2. Hope and pray that there is no political interference in the NTP’s review of fluoride’s neurotoxicity.
3. Write to their Congressional representatives and ask them to hold a hearing in whicH
   1. Scientists who have done this important work on fluoride and the brain can explain their findings;
   2. The CDC be questioned on why they continue to spend millions of taxpayers’ money promoting this practice and why they are not issuing warnings to pregnant women to avoid all sources of fluoride and not advising bottle-feeding parents to avoid using fluoridated water to make up baby formula.

See the recommendation by Lanphear, Till, and Birnbaum at https://fluoridealert.org/news/op-ed-it-is-time-to-protect-kids-developing-brains-from-fluoride/). Please also see the letter FAN and over 100 professionals have sent to Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the new head of the CDC: https://fluoridealert.org/news/professionals-expose-cdcs-false-safety-claims-and-call-on-director-to-rescue-americas-children-from-fluoride-program/.

Passwater: Thank you for your relentless efforts to protect our children. Hopefully science will prevail over dogma.

A Case of Fluorosis: Fluoride-Induced Osteopetrosis

 Abstract

There are multiple etiologies of increased bone density, including osteopetrosis and fluorosis. Osteopetrosis can either be a malignant autosomal recessive condition found in children or a benign autosomal dominant adult variant; both of which are characterized by decreased bone resorption. In contrast, fluorosis is characterized by increased bone formation secondary to chronic fluoride intoxication, but with a similar clinical manifestations to osteopetrosis. A 70-year-old lady with generalized joint aches, stiffness as well as fatigue, was found to have high bone mineral density and alarmingly high fluoride levels. The patient was found to be drinking fluoride containing water from an untreated local well for many years. Fluorosis results in increased bone mineral density and disease progression correlates with length of exposure. Fluorosis can result in reversible musculocutaneous symptoms and radiological findings. However, severe chronic cases may develop irreversible neurologic manifestations. Urinary fluoride testing is the screening modality of choice, and the key component of management is avoidance of the source of fluoride intoxication as well as monitoring of urinary fluoride levels.

Health and Care Bill

 Good letter from John to local MP in Southampton

From:	Spottiswoodej <spottiswoodej@gmail.com>
To:	whiteheada@parliament.uk

Dear Alan,

I ask for your help regarding the Health and Care Bill which is currently being considered by the Public Health Committee of the House of Commons. Will you seek, please, to have Clauses 128 and 129 (concerning fluoridation) removed from the Bill by tabling an amendment? 

Hampshire's water is not currently fluoridated and a large majority of us do not want it to become fluoridated.  If you remember we had a massive local battle to stop water fluoridation happening a few years ago. We had massive popular support to keep this major toxin out of our water once people realised how badly fluoride damages the body and the brain.  Thankfully the fluoridation of Southampton's water did not happen so it is still safe to drink water from the tap here.

Below, very briefly, are some of the reasons to consider regarding the new Health and Care Bill.

1. Decisions for or against fluoridation are currently made locally. This is not ideal but better than the Bill's proposal for central control to override local democracy and to deny personal choice over what goes into our bodies.  

2. There is no mention of Water Fluoridation in current nor in past Conservative Party manifestos.  Therefore, the current government does not have a mandate.

3. Fluoridated water is a medicine, as acknowledged by Lord Jauncey in Scotland in 1983, and by the Supreme Court of New Zealand in 2018.  As a medicine it MUST be proven to be safe and effective.  It fails badly on both counts although the MHRA refuses to act to protect people's health.  Plus a medicine must not be forced on people for human rights reasons.

4. Health Canada in 2014 and Public Health England in 2018 were unable to produce evidence that fluoride is safe to consume. On the contrary, much recent research has found that fluoride is a neurotoxin that adversely affects the fetal and infant brain.

5. Tooth decay is not infectious, so there is no justification at all for compulsory treatment. It is wholly unethical to force people to ingest fluoride (as is already the case for some 6 million people in fluoridated areas of England). Such treatment is a denial of informed consent for medical treatment and contrary to the principles of NHS Personalised Care and Social Prescribing.

6. Most countries in Europe reject fluoridation, and Israel has also stopped it due to health concerns and because tooth decay is no less in fluoridated countries than in non-fluoridated ones.

7. Powerful interests have long sought to suppress evidence against fluoridation. In a review of The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson, Chemical & Engineering News wrote: "We are left with compelling evidence that powerful interests with high financial stakes have colluded to prematurely close honest discussion and investigation into fluoride toxicity."

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

John Spottiswoode

The CDC Is Ignoring Fluoride-Brain Studies: Urge Congress To Halt Funding To Oral Health Division - F.A.N. Newsletter

 On May 3, 2021, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) sent a letter signed by over 100 professionals to the new Director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Rochelle Walensky, asking for an objective internal review of the fetal and infant neurotoxicity science. 

On June 15, 2021, Dr. Karen Hacker sent an email reply.

On June 23, 2021, FAN responded by requesting a meeting between Hacker and a collection of world leading fluoride neurotoxicity experts. 

On July 15, 2021, Dr. Hacker responded to our meeting request, expressing interest in a meeting, but asking us to follow up at a later date due to COVID being a higher priority for her office at the moment.

On August 4, 2021, FAN sent a reply agreeing to follow up in several months, but pointing out that the CDC is blatantly ignoring our warnings about the new science on fluoride’s neurotoxicity and is currently utilizing many resources to promote, fund, and expand fluoridation programs in the US.  We have asked her to suspend these promotional programs and direct staff--not involved with COVID--to initiate a review of the neurotoxicity science on fluoride.

How You Can Help!

We’re making progress, but to keep this pressure on the CDC we are utilizing a multi-step strategy with which we need your help.  In June, we asked all of you to use our automated email system to send our original letter to the CDC along to your Congressional members in the hopes of generating pressure on the CDC to respond.  It worked, as thousands of letters were sent to Congress and the CDC replied back just a few days later.

Today we are beginning a new campaign to end the funding of the Division of Oral Health at the CDC because their promotion of fluoridation is harming future generations.  Money is the only language government agencies seem to understand. 

Please join us in asking our Congressional representatives to deny federal funding to the CDC’s Oral Health Division in their next operating budget until the CDC:

1. Ends all promotion of fluoridation, and 
    
2. Agrees to send warnings to the most vulnerable populations to fluoride’s toxicity: pregnant women and bottle-fed infants. That these warnings be spread through TV and Radio advertisements, pediatricians and the WIC program.

If the CDC does not come up with assurances that these steps will be taken, we urgently request Congress to follow up with hearings with CDC officials so that they can explain why they are not willing to take these reasonable and important steps to protect our children.

Every email counts, and with your help and some patience I'm confident we can get the attention of Congressional staff and possibly members.  We must.  The stakes are too high for our children and future generations to be ignored any longer.

SEND THE LETTER TO CONGRESSIONAL MEMBERS

For an even greater impact you can also send a personal email or (even better) a hardcopy letter to your Congressional representative and your Senators expressing your concerns about the unscientific and biased nature of the Oral Health Division’s promotion of fluoridation, and calling for an end of federal fluoridation funding.

We greatly appreciate your continued support and efforts to end water fluoridation throughout the world.  

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper
Campaign Director
Fluoride Action Network

F.A.N. Newsletter

MARK YOUR CALENDARS!  The next status hearing for our federal TSCA trial against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been rescheduled.  It was originally supposed to be held this week, on Thursday, August 26. However, due to scheduling conflicts it will now take place in three weeks, on Tuesday, September 14th at 2:30PM (U.S. Pacific) / 5:30PM (U.S. Eastern).

The public can watch the proceedings live via Zoom, but we cannot record it per court rules.  FAN will send out a summary of the proceedings to our email list, then post it on our social media pages for those who couldn't watch or would like to share trial updates with their contacts.

To watch live on Zoom:
https://cand-uscourts.zoomgov.com/j/1619911861?pwd=TjVma1lnMlJlNHR3ZE9QMkFjNkFndz09

Webinar ID: 161 991 1861

Password: 912881

For more information on the TSCA trial, please visit our dedicated webpage, where you will find an overview of the case and a menu bar that will bring you to fact sheets, the key studies, a lawsuit timeline, media coverage, and much more.  You can also search for the hashtag #FluorideLawsuit on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

Thank you, 

Stuart Cooper 

Fluoridation seems a minor irritation compared to what is happening now.

COPYRIGHT 2021 - IN ONE PLACE LTD

Fourteen of the worlds highest-profile doctors, all specialists in their own fields, come together to discuss the dangers that we all face from the Covid 19 pandemic. They discuss in detail the merits and the dangers posed by the vaccines that are being rolled out and pushed onto society.

Hear their honest opinions and learn about the censorship that they have all faced from speaking out. Discussing together in one place for the first time, learn from the experts and heed their warnings.

Presented by Katherine Macbean of The Awareness Foundation

Featuring the following specialist:

Professor Dolores Cahill

Dr Ryan Cole

Dr Richard Fleming

Dr Dmitry Kats

Dr Tess Lawrie

Dr Li-Meng Yan

Dr Robert Malone

Dr Peter McCullough

Dr Joseph Mercola

Dr Lee Merritt

Dr Sherri Tenpenny

Dr Richard Urso

Dr Sam White

Dr Vladimir Zelenko

www.awareness.foundation

Fury over Public Health England's claim that vaccines have prevented 23.4million Covid case

Fury over Public Health England's claim that vaccines have prevented 23.4million Covid cases as top experts say estimate is 'away with the fairies' and mathematically impossible

EXCLUSIVE: Professor David Livermore says modelling needs serious 'review'

Government-run agency boasted vaccine rollout has prevented 23million cases 

Sources admit predicting how many cases there'd be without jabs is 'impossible' 

 vaccines have prevented 23.4million infections. The Government-run agency, which will be axed within a matter of weeks, yesterday released 'remarkable' updated estimates about how well the jabs have worked. As well as drastically curbing the spread of the coronavirus, the PHE data suggested vaccines have saved more than 84,000 lives and prevented almost 67,000 hospital admissions. But experts today questioned the maths behind the estimate. Professor David Livermore, a microbiologist at the University of East Anglia, said the jabs have undoubtedly thwarted the spread of Covid and saved tens of thousands of lives. 

    But he told MailOnline it 'cannot possibly be correct' that more than 20million cases were stopped. Vaccines are thought to cut infections by around 60 per cent, so in order for them to have prevented 23.4million, the UK would have had to have seen approximately 17m cases among unvaccinated people since the start of the rollout, he explained. There have only been 3.8million confirmed cases among the entire population since the start of the year — and most have been unvaccinated during that time.            Professor Livermore said: 'The 85,000 deaths prevented is plausible — it’d be a fifth of the care home population, who are the most vulnerable. 'But 23.4million infections prevented cannot possibly be correct. I find myself a little shocked that (the figure) isn’t getting a sanity check anywhere. 'It’s away with the fairies and whatever mathematical model has been used to project these numbers needs a serious review.'

THE FLUORIDE STORY: PART 2 WHAT'S IN YOUR TOOTHPASTE?

CAUTIONS TO TAKE IF YOU DECIDE TO USE A FLUORIDATED TOOTHPASTE

Don’t swallow ANY toothpaste and carefully monitor your child’s brushing to ensure they do not swallow it.  Bear in mind also, that gums and oral mucosa are absorbing whatever you are putting in your mouth — so you are ‘ingesting’ some fluoride even if you spit out the toothpaste.

Take heed to the warning on the tube…even a tiny amount can have serious effects.  Because topical fluoride is considered a medication there are guidelines listed for its use at Drugs.com:

·    Do not use in children unless recommended by a dentist or physician

·    Do not allow a child to use without adult supervision to prevent overdose

·    Talk to your doctor or dentist before use if you are pregnant or breastfeeding

·    Tell your doctor if you are on a low salt or a salt-free diet

·    If you have gum disease, some forms of topical fluoride may be irritating to your gums. Talk to your dentist or doctor if you experience bothersome oral symptoms with use

CAN YOU HELP MITIGATE DENTAL CARIES WITHOUT FLUORIDE? 

There are many ways to prevent cavities without fluoride.  Let’s start with looking at how cavities are formed — knowing what causes tooth decay may help us prevent it without using a dangerous chemical.  

“Tooth decay is a disease caused by specific bacteria called Streptococcus mutans. Many bacteria do not process their food into carbon dioxide and water, but, rather, they “ferment” their foods into other kinds of waste products, such as alcohols or acids. Streptococcus mutans lives in microscopic colonies on the surface of the teeth, and it has the distinction of being able to produce concentrated acid waste that can dissolve the tooth enamel on which it resides. In other words, these germs can create holes in teeth, and all they require to do so is a fuel such as sugar, processed foods, and/or other carbohydrates.”4 

Based on this, some solutions may be as simple as: 

•    Consuming less sugar, less sugar-containing foods, less highly processed foods/drinks. Sugary drinks contribute to a more acidic saliva, which weakens enamel and promotes cariogenic effects.5 

•    Improving oral hygiene. In essence, the leading cause of tooth decay is NOT caring for your oral health (tongue scraping to remove harmful bacteria, flossing and brushing to dislodge the plaque and bacteria from teeth) 

•    Second on the list of leading causes of tooth decay (behind carbs and sodas) is smoking and alcohol. Both are considered oral desiccants, or agents that extract moisture from hydrated tissues. A frequently dry mouth means reduced saliva flow and less oxygen–an environment in which oral bacteria are at their most active.

•    Establishing a nutritious diet that strengthens the teeth and bones

Remember, fluoride is neither a nutrient nor essential for healthy teeth. However, evidence has proven that a lack of essential nutrients and sugary food and drinks make teeth more susceptible to decay. So, the best cavity prevention strategy is not the consumption or application of fluoride, it is a healthy diet and a consistent and thorough oral care routine!

THE FLUORIDE TAKEAWAY

Fluorosis, hormonal disruption, and neurotoxic effects are substantial concerns. We need to know about these dangers because, as the saying goes, “Knowledge is power.” Armed with the right information, you can make choices that work best for you and your family. 

A healthy life and healthy teeth are about balance. A holistic approach that implements sensible choices — like choosing to filter drinking water and opting for fluoride-free toothpaste— can make a significant difference to you and your family’s wellbeing. Because you deserve it! 

The Fluoride Debate: The Pros and Cons of Fluoridation

 

CONCLUSION

Dental treatments are expensive throughout the world. The cost of dentistry has hardly been reduced, even in countries where the decline in caries began 30 years ago. Thus, extension of preventive dentistry is still indispensable for improving oral health (12). The absence of dental care and poor hygiene are still considered the main causes of dental decay (34). Although multifactorial in origin, caries is a preventable disease, with fluoride as a preventive agent used worldwide. Several modes of fluoride use have evolved, each with its own recommended concentration, frequency of use, and dosage schedule. Concurrently, recent opposition has been growing worldwide against fluoridation, emphasizing the potential and serious risk of toxicity. Since the fluoride benefit is mainly topical, perhaps it is better to deliver fluoride directly to the tooth instead of ingesting it (34). Fluoride toothpaste, rinses and varnish applications have proven their effectiveness in some countries, but they are still not universally affordable.

Fluoridated water impact on tooth decay and fluorosis in 17-20-year-olds exposed to fluoride toothpaste

 

Abstract

Objective: To determine the impact of water fluoridation on the prevalence and severity of dental caries and fluorosis in individuals aged 17-20 years exposed to fluoride toothpaste.

Methods: The study population consisted of 660 students from public schools, residents of areas supplied with fluoridated water (exposed group) or not (not exposed group). Students from both groups had access to fluoride toothpaste throughout life. A questionnaire about socioeconomic demographic aspects, conditions related to access and exposure to fluoridated water, and habits related to oral health was applied. Dental caries was measured by the DMFT index and dental fluorosis by the TF index. The chi-square test, t test, and subsequently logistic regression were applied for data analysis.

Results: Caries experience (DMFT≠0) was significantly higher in students from areas not exposed to fluoridated water, after adjustments to clinical conditions, demographic socioeconomic profile, and hygiene habits. The DMFT mean (±SD) was significantly higher in students from areas not exposed to fluoridated water than exposed (3.83 [±3.28] and 2.48 [±2.71] respectively). The prevalence of very mild/mild and moderate fluorosis was 41.1% and 21% for students either exposed to fluoridated water or not, respectively.

Conclusion: Exposure to fluoridated water was associated with a lower prevalence and severity of tooth decay, in spite of the use of fluoridated toothpaste. The prevalence of dental fluorosis at all levels was higher in fluoridated areas, however, in both groups, there were few cases with esthetic implications.

FAN Correction

 There was an error in yesterday's bulletin, UK Government Pushing Mandatory Fluoridation, where I compared the Broadbent et al., 2015 study to Green et al. 2019. I incorrectly noted that Broadbent’s study was published in a dental journal. In fact, it was published in the American Journal of Public Health. This journal is published by the American Public Health Association which has a long record of promoting fluoridation.

The online version of the bulletin has been corrected and is available at https://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_8-4-21/

My apologies,

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network

FAN Newsletter

UK Government Pushing Mandatory Fluoridation
The British Conservative party is using primitive propaganda techniques to push mandatory fluoridation.

Even though in the UK, government after government - of both parties - have endorsed water fluoridation, the practice has been stalled having reached only 10% of the population after several decades of trying. Prime Minister Thatcher could not move the needle even after offering to indemnify water companies against financial liabilities. Efforts to fluoridate Northern Ireland failed miserably with 22 councils voting against the measure. Scotland too remains unfluoridated and instead sports a cost-effective ChildSmile program which has had greater success fighting dental decay in low income areas than fluoridated countries like New Zealand.  Efforts over the last two decades to fluoridate Southampton, Manchester, and Hull have all failed. Now comes Boris Johnson with an effort to introduce mandatory fluoridation for the whole of England. For the details, see the UK policy paper, Health and Care Bill: water fluoridation, from the Department of Health & Social Care.

However, their rationale for doing this lacks scientific substance, and their dismissal of the US and Canadian government-funded studies on IQ are shoddy. Our well-informed supporters will cringe when they read the commentary in this Policy Paper on two of the IQ studies funded by the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in the section on the “Evidence of potential harm” (see below) They will immediately realize that this is a crude piece of propaganda posing as scientific analysis.  Our supporters will realize this, but unfortunately, in Britain and other fluoridating countries, many citizens will not, because the media is not keeping them informed about the Mother-Offspring fluoride studies performed in Mexico and Canada. I will summarize those findings and then show how crudely the British government paper uses sleight of hand to dismiss them.

Fluoride’s neurotoxicity

To put the neurotoxicity issue into context, there has been an ever-growing body of peer-reviewed studies, beginning in the mid-1990s, that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic. To date, 69 human studies, most from endemic fluorosis areas in China, have associated lowered IQ with fluoride exposure.  Promoters of water fluoridation have dismissed the relevance of these studies (a) because of methodological limitations and (b) because many (but not all) of these findings occurred at higher fluoride concentrations than those used in water fluoridation programs.  Nevertheless, there has been general agreement that the findings have been remarkably consistent (Choi et al., 2012). Moreover, some of these studies have been very good, e.g. Xiang et al., (2003a, and 2003b), and of course that fact “disappears” in the proponents’ broad brush dismissal of ALL the studies.

A very significant improvement in the quality of these studies occurred in 2017, when the first of four NIEHS-NIH (National Institutes of Health) funded prospective-cohort studies were published (Bashash 2017 and 2018; Green 2019; and an infant study by Till 2020). 

For the first time, the studies included measurements made in pregnant women and their offspring.  This was important because fluoride is known to cross the placenta.  Measurements of both exposure and outcome were made at the individual level (previously these were made at the community level, in so-called “ecological” studies).

The study by Till, 2020 showed that the infant brain is also very susceptible to damage from fluoride. This study found a large reduction in children’s IQ when as infants they were bottle-fed in communities which were fluoridated compared to children who when as infants were bottle-fed in non-fluoridated communities. 

Most importantly, the fluoride exposures in all these studies were at levels commonly experienced by pregnant women and children in fluoridated communities in Canada and USA, which adds fluoride at 0.7 ppm. The weight of evidence now strongly suggests that fluoride is capable of damaging both the fetal and the infant brain at very low levels.

Based upon Grandjean et al., Benchmark Dose Analysis (BMD) published in June 2021, offspring born to women exposed to fluoride doses commonly experienced in communities at 0.7 ppm, would experience a loss of 4 to 5 IQ points.  To put that into perspective, at the population level a shift downward of 5 IQ points halves the number of very bright children (IQ >130) and increases by 57% the number of children needing special care (IQ <70).  Both changes have enormous social and economic ramifications for a large population in a country like the UK.

Largely, because of the large number of children being deliberately exposed to fluoridated water, "fluoride is causing a greater overall loss of IQ points today than lead, arsenic or mercury" according to Grandjean et al. (2021) in their BMD paper.

Not mentioned in the UK government paper are other recent studies published on other organs, tissues and body systems, for example a major prospective cohort study from Sweden demonstrates a higher risk of hip fractures in post-menopausal women associated with long term exposure to natural fluoride at levels in water in the same range as the USA fluoridates its water [Helte et al., 2021]. This is a very serious finding because it is well known that hip fractures in the elderly are debilitating, costly to treat, lead to a loss of independence, institutional care and often shorten the life of those impacted. This finding also underlines the fact that fluoride can impact our health from womb to tomb, affecting the brains of the fetus and the bones of the elderly after lifetime exposure.

So with that backdrop, here is how the UK government paper dismissed the health concerns of water fluoridation.

“Evidence of potential harm”

“… there have also been some more recent studies reporting associations between exposure to fluoride and adverse developmental neurological effects [Bashash et al., 2017; and Green et al., 2019]. However, the evidence does not support this and various authoritative expert evaluations from different international organisations all agree that there is no convincing evidence that fluoride in drinking water at levels used in fluoridation schemes or at concentrations below the regulatory drinking water limit is harmful to general health [Canada, 2019; Australia, 2016; New Zealand, 2021; European, 2011; Ireland, 2015]. 

What’s wrong with the UK analysis?

1. The UK authors have not put this discussion into the larger context of a very large body of evidence of both human and animal studies that fluoride is neurotoxic. 
    
2. In their discussion (or rather dismissal) of recent IQ studies the UK authors failed to mention the very important study of Till et al, 2020 discussed above. This was released in November 2019, approximately 20 months prior to this UK analysis. That is quite an omission. Scientists call this “selective use of the literature” and in this instance it has been used to serve a political agenda.
    
3. Referring to the Bashash, 2017 and Green, 2019 findings, the UK authors use the vague sentence that the “evidence does not support this” without citing a single specific study, of comparable rigor, which refutes these findings.
    
4. When the authors switch to the claim that, “expert evaluations from different international organisations” to dismiss the importance of these two IQ studies, they do a very poor job.

The UK Policy Paper provides citations to 5 reviews from what they call "international organizations" to support their cavalier dismissal of the NIEHS funded Bashash, 2017 and Green, 2019 studies. Only one of these reviews comes from an international organization (EU’s SCHER) the other four come from government agencies within countries with a large percentage of their population drinking fluoridated water. Their reviews usually support government policies.

EUROPEAN - 2011. EU. Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks - SCHER (2011). Critical review of any new evidence on the hazard profile, health effects, and human exposure to fluoride and the fluoridating agents of drinking water.

Note: The EU SCHER committee published their review in 2011 when only a small sample of the 69 IQ studies were available. As far as the UK commentary is concerned this review has no bearing on the quality of the Bashash, 2017 and Green, 2019 studies, since this review was published 6 and 8 years before Bashash, 2017 and Green, 2019, respectively.

IRELAND - 2015.  Health Research Board. Health effects of water fluoridation. An evidence review. Health effects of water fluoridation.

Note: This board was appointed by the Irish government that has enforced mandatory fluoridation in the country since the 1960’s. Their review is irrelevant in terms of the UK commentary since it was published two and four years before Bashash, 2017 and Green, 2019, respectively.

AUSTRALIA - 2016. NHMRC. Jack B, Ayson M, Lewis S, et al. Health Effects of Water Fluoridation. Evidence Evaluation Report. National Health and Medical Research Council; 2016.

Note: The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is part of the Australian government and it is generally felt that its role is to defend government policy on scientific matters. In this case, Australia is extremely pro-fluoridation with the largest percentage of their citizens drinking fluoridated water than any other large country, even the USA. In this review, which is essentially a repeat of their review in 2007, which largely consisted of sections copied and pasted from the York Review (McDonagh et al, 2000), their reviews of IQ studies are poorly done. One example, in 2007 they excluded the Xiang et al., 2003 study because they claimed it did not have a control population, which it certainly did. Again, this Is all irrelevant because this review was published one and three years before Bashash, 2017 and Green, 2019, respectively.

CANADA - 2019.  CADTH. Community Water Fluoridation Programs: A Health Technology Assessment-Review of Dental Caries and Other Health Outcomes. Ottawa; 2019.

Note: This is the first of the cited reviews in the UK paper that was published AFTER the Bashash, 2017 study was published. However, it was a very poor and biased review and it didn’t review the Bashash 2017 study. I was a member of an expert team invited to critique this review on behalf of Safe Water Calgary (see July 2019 critique). Safe Water Calgary suspected, and probably correctly, that this review was rushed into press in order to influence a Council decision to re-fluoridate Calgary (it stopped the practice in 2011). But again, that is irrelevant to the UK’s argument because this report does not examine either the Bashash 2017 or Green 2019 IQ studies.

NEW ZEALAND - 2021. Office of Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor.  Update on evidence The Royal Society of New Zealand, 2021. Fluoridation: an evidence update.

Note: Finally, we come to the only cited review that actually had something to say about Bashash, 2017 and Green, 2019.  Before we say a few words about this commentary it is important to understand the political context of this review. It appeared in time to provide some kind of scientific cover for the second attempt by the government to introduce mandatory fluoridation into NZ. This quote will give you an idea of how poor their understanding is of the literature on fluoride’s neurotoxicity:

“Recent studies continue to show that at very high levels and with chronic exposure, fluoride could potentially have negative neurodevelopmental and cognitive impacts. However, this is not a concern at levels used in fluoridation of water supplies in Aotearoa, New Zealand.”

This is nonsense. All the NIEHS funded studies discussed above (including Bashash, 2017 ; Green, 2019; Till, 2020)  were done either in communities fluoridated at 0.7 ppm or where residents received equivalent doses from other sources (as measured in the fluoride levels in pregnant women’s urine). The average level of fluoride in NZ’s water is 0.85 ppm in fluoridated communities, making the potential for more IQ loss than in the US and Canada.  

The review provides no critique of Bashash (2017) but they have this to say about the Green (2019) study:

“The study undertaken in Canada (Green et al. 2019) found that the mother’s exposure to fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores⁹ in boys (but not girls), even at optimally fluoridated water levels (i.e. between 0.7-1.2 mg/L). If this finding were replicated in robust studies, it would potentially be concerning as Aotearoa New Zealand recommends fluoridation of water between 0.7 and 1.0 mg/L. There was significant and valid criticism of aspects of the study by many subject-matter experts when it was released (see for example, ‘expert reaction to study looking at maternal exposure to fluoride and IQ in children’ (Science Media Centre 2019)). The study used sub-group analysis to find an association that is not explained in the paper (i.e. why were only boys affected¹⁰ and why verbal IQ was not impacted), the effect appeared to be driven by the minority of participants that had much higher fluoride exposures (i.e. higher than those in Aotearoa New Zealand).”
 

Note: None of these “subject-matter experts” were specialists in neurotoxicology and were hastily gathered by the UK industry-friendly Media Center for the purpose of deflecting concerns on the Green paper. The authors have responded to every single criticism of their paper, which included simplistic and inaccurate comments like “This is only one paper, we need more research.”
 

Then the NZ authors did what most promoters of fluoridation do when tackling the IQ studies: they compared it with a study done by Broadbent et al. in NZ in 2015. Comparing the methodology of Broadbent to that of Green, is like comparing a mole to a mountain. One only has to read the opening sentences of the Broadbent study to see how politically motivated it is on this issue. Broadbent complains that the fluoridation program is being threatened by citizens who have grown alarmed about the IQ studies mainly from China, citing a recent council meeting in Hamilton. Clearly the purpose of the paper was to dismiss these concerns. The paper was seriously flawed, and a recent draft review by the National Toxicology Program (NTP) gave it a low quality ranking.

Here are some of its weaknesses:

1. There were no individual measurements of exposure to fluoride. The cohort and control were differentiated only in terms of community water level.
2. The sample sizes were hugely disproportionate: 99 in the “non-fluoridated” community and 891 in the ‘fluoridated.”
3. There were other differences between the two communities which were not accounted for including other elements in the water. There was no control for lead exposure even though the same cohorts have been used to investigate lead impacts.
4. Many of the children in the “non-fluoridated” community were likely to have used fluoride (a prescription drug designed to deliver the same amount of fluoride a child would get from drinking fluoridated water).
5. Moreover, NZ at the time was one of the largest tea drinkers in the world. Tea is another major source of fluoride.
6. Thus, there was little difference in the total dose of fluoride between the two cohorts and the power to determine any difference in IQ between the two cohorts was very limited.
7. Of the four factors Broadbent did adjust for, most were only crudely controlled. For example, SES was determined solely by the father’s occupation and classified into just 3 levels. Inadequate adjustment for SES could obscure a lowering of IQ caused by fluoride, because almost all of the non-water-fluoridated children came from one outlying town that had lower SES than the fluoridated areas.
8. Finally, one should compare the status of the two journals in which these two articles appeared. Broadbent published in a dental journal, not one specializing on neurotoxicity or infant development, on the other hand Green published in JAMA Pediatrics, which is one of the leading journals in the world of its kind. Green’s paper was subjected to as rigorous a peer review as a paper of its kind is ever likely to get. Listen to the JAMA editors discuss the paper in an online podcast.

So out of the 5 citations provided by the UK government paper to dismiss concerns about Bashash (2017) and Green (2019) only one citation provided relevant criticism on only one of the two papers, and that has been addressed by the authors!

UK citizens deserve a lot better from the UK government on this serious issue.

Thank you, 

Paul Connett, PhD
Director
Fluoride Action Network