UK - Household environment at the micro level may play a role in oral health

LONDON, UK: The role of the household may have an influence not only at the social level, but also at the microbe level. In a study conducted in the UK, researchers have discovered that early environmental influences are far more significant than human genetics in shaping the salivary microbiome, the group of organisms that determine oral and overall health.

Dr Adam P. Roberts, senior lecturer in antimicrobial chemotherapy and resistance at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, pointed to periodontitis, which is associated with an altered microbiome, as a key example of how the study may be relevant to people’s oral and general health. “Once we understand the members of the microbiome that are responsible for health, our everyday behaviour could change to shift our microbiome favourably,” he said. Roberts co-led the study, which was conducted during his time at the UCL Eastman Dental Institute in London.

The study’s main objective was to discover how the salivary microbiome is established and what factors are most responsible for the mix of bacteria. With access to a unique sample set of DNA and saliva from an Ashkenazi Jewish family living in various households spread across four cities on three continents, the team asked how much of the variation seen in salivary microbiomes was due to host genetics and how much to the environment.

Owing to the family members adhering to ultra-Orthodox Judaism, they shared cultural diets and lifestyles that controlled for many confounding factors. Additionally, because the family members’ DNA had already been sequenced to the level of single changes in the DNA code, the research team had a unique and precise measurement of their genetic relatedness.

From this, UCL Genetics Institute graduate student Liam Shaw and the team of researchers sequenced the bacterial DNA signatures present in saliva samples from 157 family members and 27 unrelated Ashkenazi Jewish controls. Across all samples, they found that the core salivary microbiome was made up of bacteria from the Streptococcus, Rothia, Neisseria and Prevotella genera. “What that tells us is that the contact and sharing of microbes that goes on at the very local environment is what determines the differences between individuals,” said Shaw...............

UK-developed protective toothpaste available without fluoride

LONDON, UK: For individuals who want to protect their teeth, but do not wish to or cannot use fluoride, BioMin Technologies has recently launched a new toothpaste. Instead of fluoride ions, the BioMin C releases chloride ions through a patented calcium chloro-phosphosilicate to replace minerals lost from tooth surfaces, the company said.

According to BioMin, the new toothpaste was developed for use in regions of the world where fluoride is already available in high levels in the water supply, such as India and China. In addition to remineralising tooth surfaces, it may further help protect teeth by reducing sensitivity and diminishing the risk of initial dental caries.

“A large portion of what we eat and drink is either acidic or contains sugars that bacteria use to form acids,” said Prof. Robert Hill, Director and Chief Scientific Officer of BioMin Technologies and head of the Dental Physical Sciences unit at Queen Mary University of London. “These acids attack the tooth enamel and dissolve calcium and phosphate from the surface.”

“BioMin C works when water and saliva in the mouth help to slowly release the calcium and phosphate ions contained within the toothpaste. These ions then rapidly form the tooth mineral on the tooth surface, which effectively seals open dentine tubules,” he further explained.

BioMin C is a complement to the fluoride version of the toothpaste, which was launched to the market in April last year. CEO Richard Whatley said that the new version will capitalise on the established distribution network in the UK, parts of Europe and countries around the world, including India, China and Australia.

“Distribution contracts have also been established in the Middle East and Canada, and introduction is planned later this year in the USA. Negotiations with potential distributors and licence holders are on-going in ten further countries,” he said.

Developed at Queen Mary University of London, the BioMin technology received the Armourers and Brasiers’ Venture Prize in 2013, an annual award given to breakthrough innovations in materials science from the UK. A bioactive glass, it has been developed to adhere to tooth structure through a special polymer, from where it slowly dissolves into ions that form fluorapatite—a mineral also found in shark teeth—over an 8–12-hour period to make teeth more resistant to acids from food.

Filmed last year but I don't think I've seen it before.

Efforts to help North Wales children brush up on their dental hygiene commended in national report

A program encouraging children to brush up on their dental hygiene has been commended in a national report.

The Designed to Smile programme, which runs across Wales, provides oral hygiene tuition to young children, encouraging them to establish good dental health habits from an early age.

Across North Wales more than 400 pre-school and primary school settings, including 176 schools, take part in the programme.

The report, published in July by Public Health Wales, states that proportion of five year old children with poor dental health in Wales is falling.

The report details a reduction in the proportion of children with tooth decay between 2007-08 (47.6%) and 2015-16 (34.2%).

Marian Jones, Dental Health Promotion Manager for Designed to Smile North Wales said:

“We are really proud of the Designed to Smile team and other health care professionals for all their hard effort in the delivery and maintenance of the programme.

We are also indebted to the schools, playschools and nursery settings in the implementation of the programme on a daily basis.

The report indicates that the daily Designed to Smile tooth brushing and twice yearly Fluoride Varnish application programme works in the prevention of tooth decay.

The daily tooth brushing not only establishes habits from an early age but the home packs provided also encourages home brushing which is sometimes practiced inconsistently or not at all.”

Fluorosis just cosmetic she says.
Amazing how we can all be confident we are right. Still none of us look at something without preconceived ideas which makes seeing the other person's view difficult. Although many once pro-fluoride experts have changed their mind I don't know anybody who was against fluoridation change sides. One indication we are right.

Peel council revisits fluoride debate after resident revives lawsuit

Liesa Cianchino wants legal opinion on whether fluoride in tap water violates Charter

A Mississauga  woman says she's re-opening a dormant lawsuit she launched against Peel Region over the fluoride it adds to tap water to prevent tooth decay.

Liesa Cianchino sued the region three years ago, alleging that by fluoridating drinking water, the region is medicating the public without permission.

That violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, her suit says, as well as the province's Safe Drinking Water Act.

"We believe we are being mass medicated without our consent," Cianchino told CBC Toronto Wednesday. "Injested fluoride is definitely harmful for the young, for the sick, for the well, for the old ... We want [a court] to rule that water fluoridation is illegal."......................

Dr Bill Osmunson talks about evils of fluoride

Disagreement over fluoride IQ study

The latest fluoride study claims it affects the brains of the unborn.
A recently published US study finding that women who drink fluoridated water have lower IQ babies is being panned by a Bay of Plenty Medical Officer of Health Dr Neil de Wet, while being promoted by fluoride opponents.

Fluoride Free New Zealand says the results mean the 23 New Zealand councils that still fluoridate drinking water should stop using it immediately in order to protect the brains of the unborn.

Dr Neil de Wet says the study referred to is poor quality, has limited scientific value and is largely irrelevant to understanding issues regarding safety and effectiveness of water fluoridation. “The safety of water fluoridation has been rigorously assessed many times over the last 60 years. There is a very strong scientific consensus and body of evidence that water fluoridation is safe and effective,” says Neil. “It is very unlikely that the Bashash paper will withstand scientific scrutiny or make any meaningful contribution to this scientific understanding of the safety of water fluoridation.”

The study published on Tuesday in the US Government's Environmental Health Perspectives finds that children born to mothers exposed to fluoride while pregnant, have significantly lower IQ scores.
This is particularly relevant to New Zealand where half of the population is currently subjected to fluoridation, says Fluoride Free New Zealand National Coordinator and Media Spokesperson, Mary Byrne.

Slamming Neil de Wet's comment that the study is “poor quality”, Mary says the study was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a monthly peer-reviewed journal of research and news published with support from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The study was conducted by a team of scientists from University of Toronto, University of Michigan, McGill University, Indiana University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Harvard School of Public Health, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.

It was funded by the US Government's National Institute of Health and was a multi-million dollar study. This was the group's first study of fluoride - their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury and other environmental neurotoxins.

This study offers confirmation of previous studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere, says Mary. Some of those studies had higher fluoride exposures than are commonly found in fluoridating countries, but many did not.

The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation is by Dunedin dentist Jonathan Broadbent. “That study found no association between water fluoridation and IQ and was trumpeted by fluoridation defenders,” says Mary. “But that study was shown to have almost no difference in total fluoride intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with non-fluoridated water, since at least half of the children in the non-fluoridated area were given fluoride supplements.

“This left only a small proportion of the study children without substantial fluoride exposure. Nor did this study look at maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy, which could be the most vulnerable time of exposure.” Neil also recommends the Broadbent study as a ‘recent high quality study by the University of Otago' which has provided strong evidence that water fluoridation in New Zealand does not have an adverse effect on IQ. (Broadbent, et al 2015 www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832151)

The Ministry of Health recommended 1ppm until the 1990s when it reduced to a range from 0.7ppm to 1ppm, with a target of 1ppm. The US Human and Health Services have directed a maximum of 0.7ppm for fluoridation. The paper also reports that in the USA, which is 70 per cent fluoridated, urine fluoride ranges from about 0.5 to 1.5 mg/L which fully overlaps the range found in the Mexican study. “The child of a mother who was drinking water with 0.85ppm fluoride would be predicted to have 5 IQ lower IQ points than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero fluoride in it. This obviously has huge consequences for New Zealand children,” says Mary. “Pregnant women in New Zealand in fluoridated areas likely have similar levels of urine fluoride as those in the Mexican study. Urine fluoride reflects total fluoride intake from all sources, not just fluoridated water.

“The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists. But the implications of this study are enormous. There have been 58 other human studies looking at fluoride exposure and harm to the brain - 51 of them have found an association.”

The truth about fluoride in Australia's water

Not new but worth seeing again.

ADA News Logo

'The science mattered'

Water authority in Albuquerque resumes fluoridation for 600,000

September 26, 2017Albuquerque, N.M. — With input from the dental community, water officials here voted 5-2 on Sept. 20 to resume water fluoridation for the utility's 606,000 water users.

The vote amended the utility's budget to authorize $250,000 for fluoridation equipment to supplement the local water to optimum levels recommended by the federal government, according to the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority's website..........


Shame.
 

Martin Van Popta with Fluoride Free Lethbridge, joins the show to talk about having a choice when it comes to fluoride in the water.

Worried parents, dentists pushing for fluoride in Calgary water

A group of Calgarians supported by dentists are asking their city councillors to once again add fluoride to the public water supply in order to prevent tooth decay.

The group, calling itself Calgarians for Kids’ Health, includes parents like Carmen Davison, who told reporters at a news conference Monday that she blames lack of fluoride for cavities so severe that her daughter required surgery.

“It was very traumatizing for my husband and I to take a child into a surgery,” she said. Decades of research has shown that fluoride added to drinking water hardens tooth enamel, thereby reducing cavities. Many Canadian communities have been adding it to their supplies since the 1940s. Calgary began in 1989, but removed it in 2011 citing costs and health concerns.

At least one city councillor who voted to remove fluoride now says she’ll reconsider. “We have done harm, actually, by removing it,” said Diane Colley-Urquhart. Several others told CTV Calgary they would still vote against fluoride. Alberta’s provincial health authority reviewed the scienceand concluded in January that water fluoridation “offers significant benefit with very low risk.”

Health Canada also took a close at the issue in 2010 and said fluoride in drinking water up to twice the recommended amount was “unlikely to cause any adverse health effects including cancer, bone fracture, immunotoxicity, reproductive/developmental toxicity, genotoxicity, and/or neurotoxicity.”

However, one recent study renewed concerns by connecting fluoride to lower IQ. Investigators at the University of Toronto, McGill University and the Harvard School of Public Health studied 287 pairs of mothers and children in Mexico City and found a correlation between fluoride levels in mother’s urine during pregnancy and lower intelligence in their children.

The researchers adjusted their analysis for other possible factors that might have impacted the children’s neurodevelopment, such as the mothers’ smoking history, IQ and lead exposure, but couldn’t find another explanation. That said, one of the researchers told CTVNews.ca that fluoride may be “a proxy of some other real actor that’s playing a role” in the neurodevelopment, and that more research is needed to confirm the link. Calgary dentist June Dabbagh said she believes other factors that weren’t tested for could explain the correlation.

According to Dabbagh, the science is clear and fluoride is safe. “There is no debate,” she said. “We just need to make sure that the public gets it.”

An emotional video is also on the web page of a mother's grief at the suffering of her child through she claims from lack of fluoride in the water. Nothing to do with sugar then and sweets.
(Unable to embed the video)

UK - 'Sometimes it is half the mouth being taken out' - Darlington consultant says children as young as 4 having rotten teeth removed

PRIORITIES: Consultant paediatrician Dr John Furness on the childrens' ward in Darlington Memorial Hospital. He says it is a disgrace that fluoride is not being added to water because of financial priorities. Picture: STUART BOULTON

A HOSPITAL consultant says it is a disgrace that the NHS is footing the bill to remove rotten teeth from children aged as young as four.

Dr John Furness, a consultant paediatrician based at Darlington Memorial Hospital, said weekly ‘extraction’ clinics were taking place at locations including Bishop Auckland and North Tees, Stockton, where youngsters were having “half their mouth taken out”.
He said councils are refusing to pay for a proven public health measure – adding fluoride to water – because of the cost involved.
Decisions on water fluoridation are the responsibility of local authorities, who receive block funding from Public Health England for public health measures and have to prioritise what they spend the money on.
The Northern Echo has learnt that a number of councils in the region have the situation under review, but Dr Furness urged them to act now.

According to County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust in 2016/17 almost 70 children aged under 16 had a primary procedure of dental extraction at hospitals, although Dr Furness said as many as ten a week were having teeth out.
Across the North-East there 618 admissions involving under 18s for extraction of multiple teeth in 2016/17 and 604 in North Yorkshire.

So-called dental caries – tooth decay – remains the number one reason for hospital admissions among children in the North. An estimated 160 procedures to extract teeth are performed each day under general anaesthetic in hospitals across England, costing the NHS more than £35m a year.

Dr Furness said: “We know that fluoride reduces dental caries and that decay is worse in areas of deprivation. “A public health care measure that has been proven to work is not occurring because of financial priorities that put children’s health second.

“It is a disgrace that the NHS is paying a bill to extract multiple teeth from children. "There are children every week having teeth taken out– some as young as four – and it is not just one tooth, sometimes it is half the mouth being taken out.”

According to Northumbrian Water about 40 per cent of its water supplies in the North-East are fluoridated as a result of historic arrangements, including in parts of Northumberland, Tyneside and North-West Durham.

Fluoride is naturally present in the water at optimum levels in Hartlepool, which is the highest or joint highest performer in the region for five out of seven oral health indicators.

But that still leaves the vast majority of County Durham and Teesside lacking fluoridation.

Dr Furness said a powerful anti-fluoride lobby was also scaring off councils from going down this route as in some areas successful legal challenges had been launched against fluoridation, leaving local authorities to pick up the bill.

He said: “There is a political point of view that everybody should have the freedom to decide what goes into their water.

“Opponents also say it can cause fluorosis, which is a browning of the teeth, but huge doses [of fluoride] need to be ingested for that happen, not the doses we are talking about.

“The problem is children don’t have the freedom to decide to have whether to have good or teeth or not, particularly where teeth are not being brushed because of neglect.”

Professor Damien Walmsley, the British Dental Association’s (BDA) scientific advisor, said: “Targeted fluoridation in those areas of the country most in need can make a huge difference.

“Half a million people in the UK, including families in Hartlepool, already receive naturally fluoridated water at sufficient levels to improve their teeth. Other cities like Birmingham have had access for 50 years.

“The facts are that fluoridation is safe and is by far the most cost-effective means of reducing the huge inequalities that exist between communities with the best and worst dental health.

“When nearly 40 per cent of Teesside’s children are experiencing tooth decay, this issue should be on the table.”

The Government has launched an initiative ‘Starting Well’, in 13 local authority areas, including Middlesbrough, aimed at improving the oral health of deprived children. But it has already been criticised by the BDA, which says it does not include any additional investment, and will only benefit relatively few children. Prof Walmsley added: “England deserves the sort of national effort that is already transforming children’s teeth in Wales and Scotland.

“Any progress on child tooth decay requires parents, politicians and health professionals to work together. Westminster isn’t doing its bit, so it is vital local councillors show leadership.”
The Echo approached a number of councils in the region to ask their position on fluoridation.
Gill O’Neill, consultant in public health at Durham County Council, said: “We are working through the actions and recommendations as set out in the County Durham oral health strategy, including exploring the possibility of water fluoridation.”
Councillor Jim Beall, Stockton Council’s cabinet member for adult social care and health, said it had commissioned tooth brushing and fluoride varnish programmes within schools and as a result tooth decay rates in five year olds had fallen from 32 per cent to 25 per cent.

He said: “We acknowledge that water fluoridation has been shown to reduce levels of tooth decay and we are continuing to keep the possibility of water fluoridation under review.”
A spokesman for Redcar and Cleveland Council said the same programmes in its borough had cut tooth decay rates in five year olds from 36 per cent to 27 per cent.
He also said water fluoridation was under review.

A spokeswoman for Public Health England North East said: “Water fluoridation is the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply. It is one of a range of safe and effective measures to improve oral health and help reduce tooth decay in local populations.
“Decisions on water fluoridation are the responsibility of local authorities and Public Health England works closely with them to provide evidence-based advice and guidance where necessary.”

Canada - More emotional blackmail.

Another video to scare Canadians into accepting fluoridation.

Canada - Pro fluoride one sided propaganda.

Anyone in Canada able to produce a video using the same technique to counter this?

ADA Untroubled By Yet Another Study Pointing To Fluoride’s Negative Health Impacts

For decades, many groups have fought against the inclusion of fluoride in publicly supplied water, arguing that the risks of mass fluoride consumption outweigh the purported benefits. Now, a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives has added to the scientific literature that suggests that fluoride negatively impacts human intelligence, especially in children and infants.

The study, surprisingly, was widely reported in the U.S. mainstream media despite the fact that its findings contradict the government’s official position regarding the safety of fluoride.

The study examined nearly 300 sets of mothers and children living in Mexico and tested the children’s cognitive development twice over a 12 year period. A drop in scores on intelligence tests was observed for every 0.5 milligram-per-liter increase in fluoride exposure beyond 0.8 milligrams per liter found in maternal urine. While researchers found a potential connection to prenatal fluoride exposure, they found no significant influence of fluoride exposure on brain development once a child was born.

While the study is likely to cause concern for mothers-to-be around the world, the findings of this study will be of particular concern for those living in areas where public water is fluoridated. In Mexico, where the study was conducted, fluoride is not added to public water supplies and fluoride exposure largely occurs via naturally occurring fluoride in the environment, fluoridated salt and supplements. In contrast, three-quarters of the U.S. population is exposed to fluoride through public water, in addition to other sources of fluoride such as fluoridated toothpaste.

FluorideHowever, the American Dental Association (ADA) took issue with the study, stating, its findings “are not applicable to the U.S. The ADA continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.” The ADA declined to state why the study’s findings were not applicable to pregnant women in the United States, given that fluoride consumption in the U.S. is much higher than in Mexico due to public water fluoridation.

Furthermore, contrary to the ADA’s claim, the inclusion of fluoride in drinking water does not actually reduce the incidence of cavities at all — instead causing a form of tooth decay known as dental fluorosis, a widespread phenomenon that the government has admitted is linked to water fluoridation. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates that about 41% of U.S. children between the ages of 12 and 15 suffer from dental fluorosis. Excessive fluoride consumption can also cause skeletal fluorosis, which results in extreme joint and skeletal pain.

Other studies have found yet other negative health effects related to fluoride consumption. For instance, a study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 2015 found that people drinking fluoridated water were 30 percent more likely to have high levels of hypothyroidism compared to those living in areas with low, natural levels of fluoride in their water. The study included the largest sample population ever analyzed regarding fluoride consumption.

This new study is hardly the first of its kind. In 2013, a Harvard University study found that children living in areas with highly fluoridated water had “significantly lower” IQ scores than children living in low fluoride areas. Furthermore, more than 23 human studies and 100 animal studies have linked fluoride consumption to brain damage. Some of these studies date back to the 1940s when mass public fluoridation was just beginning in the United States.

Back when the push to initiate mass public fluoridation began, influential scientists such as Dr. Dean Burk spoke out against it. Burk, co-founder of the U.S. National Cancer Institute and head of its cytochemistry department for over 30 years, once called fluoridation of the public water supply “public murder” after reviewing several government-funded studies from the 1930s that showed that fluoride consumption led to abrupt increases in the incidence of cancer. However, these government studies were classified and suppressed as a result of pressure from the aluminum and industrial fertilizer industries, which supply the fluoride added to U.S. water supplies.

The production of aluminum as well as industrial fertilizers produces sodium silicofluoride and hydrofluorosilicic acid, byproducts that had long been a headache for industry due to their toxicity. Following World War II, when aluminum production was heightened to meet wartime demand, hundreds of fluoride damage suits were filed around the country against aluminum and chemical companies. Most of the lawsuits were settled out of court, which avoided the establishment of legal precedents. However, in one case in 1955, a federal court found that an Oregon couple had sustained “serious injury to their livers, kidneys and digestive functions” from eating “farm produce contaminated by [fluoride] fumes” released by a nearby Reynolds aluminum plant.

Once fluoridation was approved and became public policy, these industries began to sell their fluoride wastes to the government, which then added them to public water supplies. These waste products, incidentally, are classified as hazardous and toxic until they are added to public water supplies, at which point they then become classified as “preventing” cavities. The first scientist to suggest that fluoride had cavity-reducing properties was Gerald J. Cox, whose work was largely funded by the Aluminum Company of America (Alcoa).

Following a deluge of industry-funded “science,” fluoridation was sold to Americans by none other than the father of public relations himself, Edward Bernays. Bernays, a nephew of Sigmund Freud, applied his uncle’s ideas for the benefit of industry and government propaganda. His work led fluoride, previously known for being marketed as a rat poison, to become associated in the American mind with gleaming smiles and brilliant white teeth.

Nearly 70 years after water fluoridation began, the aluminum and chemical industries continue to benefit handsomely, as the practice allows them to sell their waste to the government at a premium for inclusion in public water systems. The governments seem happy to continue the agreement, despite the mounting evidence that fluoride lowers intelligence, increases the risk of cancer, and gravely harms public health.

F.A.N. Newsletter

The results of the first ever US government funded study of fluoride/IQ have now been published. A team of researchers funded by the National Institute of Environmental Sciences--part of the National Institutes of Health--found that low levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy are linked to significantly reduced IQ in children, according to a study published on September 19, 2017 in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
The study, entitled Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico, was conducted by a team of scientists from University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard, and McGill, and found:

“…higher levels of maternal urinary fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4 and 6–12 y old.”

Within hours of it being published, FAN released a video response featuring Chemist and Toxicologist, Professor Paul Connett, PhD.

---

TAKE ACTION NOW:

1. Share FAN’s Facebook and Twitter posts on social media.
   
   
2. Share FAN’s webpage on the study with friends, family, co-workers;     particularly expecting mothers.
   
   
3. Share the study, the accompanying press release, FAN’s Video, and the Newsweek article with your city councilors and Water Board, urging them to protect the next generation by opposing fluoridation.

More to come…

---

FAN Comment
The study found a very large and significant effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. Such a drop of IQ in the whole population would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).
Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L. Studies have found that adults in the USA have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L which is what caused the 5 to 6 IQ point difference in the children of the study mothers.
This new study had fluoride exposures almost the same as what is found in fluoridating countries like the USA. The paper shows the relationship between urine fluoride and IQ in the graph (Figure 2) reproduced here:

The data in this graph has been adjusted for numerous potential confounding factors like sex, birth weight, gestational age, and whether the mother smoked. Other potential confounders had already been ruled out, including lead, mercury, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, mother’s education, mother’s IQ, and quality of home environment.
FAN has redrawn this graph in simplified form to better illustrate the relationship found between mothers’ urine fluoride and childrens’ IQ.

 

This simplified version of the graph highlights the range of urine fluoride levels common in women in the USA with the blue text and bracket. When comparing mothers at the low end to those at the high end of this range, the subsequent loss of IQ in their children was 6 points. The light red shaded zone around the relationship line is the 95% Confidence Interval and demonstrates that the relationship is statistically significant across the entire range of fluoride exposures.

Important Points:

1.  The loss of IQ is very large.  The child of a mother who was drinking 1 ppm F water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.  

2.  The study measured urine F, which is usually a better indicator of total F intake than is the concentration of F in drinking water.  When drinking water is the dominant source of F,, urine F and water F are usually about the same.  So, the average urine F level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that woman was ingesting the same amount of F as a woman drinking water with 0.9 mg/L F.

3.  The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States.  The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation.  There is no need to extrapolate downward from effects at higher doses.  The claims by fluoridation defenders that only studies using much higher doses than occur in areas with artificial fluoridation have shown a loss of IQ are squarely refuted by this study.  Those false claims range from 11 times to 30 times higher, but are based on the logical fallacy that it is the highest dose amongst several studies that is relevant, when it is the LOWEST dose amongst studies that is most relevant. 

4.  This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures.  This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study.  This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants. 

5.  This study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect.  It was able to largely rule out confounding by these other factors.  The factors ruled out included Pb, Hg, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy. 

6.  This study offers confirmation of previous less sophisticated studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere.  Some of those studies had higher F exposures than are commonly found in the USA, but many did not.  The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation (as opposed to artificial salt fluoridation which was likely a main source of F in this new study) was by Broadbent in New Zealand.  That found no association between water F and IQ and was trumpted by fluoridation defenders.  But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL F intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with unfluoridated water, since most of the unfluoridated water children were given F supplements.

7.  The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists.  But the implications of this study are enormous.  A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag.  It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.

Key Quotes:

• Newsweek, Children’s IQ Could Be Lowered By Mothers Drinking Tap Water While Pregnant, by Dana Dovey, September 19:

… “This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water,” says Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health.

Trasande emphasizes that the levels of fluoride seen among the mothers in this study are slightly higher than what would be expected in U.S., based on current fluoride supplementation levels. However, he also explains that fluoride is known to disrupt thyroid function, which in turn is crucial for brain development.

“These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration,” Trasande says.

• CTV (Canadian TV), Higher levels of fluoride in urine linked to lower IQ scores in children, by Angela Mulholland, September 19:

… Dr. Howard Hu, the study’s lead investigator, and a professor of environmental health, epidemiology and global health at [the University of Toronto’s] Dalla Lana School of Public Health, says the fact that the fluoride levels in the mothers was most predictive of the drop in test scores may be due to the fact that the brains of babies develop so rapidly while they are in utero.

“This is consistent with a growing appreciation in environmental health that the growing fetal nervous system is more sensitive to exposures than a developed nervous system,” he told CTVNews.ca by phone from Sydney.

• Both the Montreal Gazette & the National Postran the same article: Researchers urge caution over study linking fluoride exposure in pregnancy to lower IQs in children, by Sharon Kirkey, September 21:

… [The article quotes the lead investigator of the study, Dr Howard Hu:] “This is a very rigorous epidemiology study. You just can’t deny it. It’s directly related to whether fluoride is a risk for the neurodevelopment of children. So, to say it has no relevance to the folks in the U.S. seems disingenuous.”

… “Why would anybody rate the equivalency or supremacy of reducing tooth decay by about one cavity a lifetime when what’s at stake is the mental development of your children? It’s utterly preposterous,” said Connett, executive director of the Fluoride Action Network.

Press Releases:

• University of Toronto: Higher levels of fluoride in urine associated with lower intelligence in children.  The study’s lead investigator, Dr Howard Hu, is Professor of Environmental Health, Epidemiology and Global Health at the University’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health. September 19.
  
  
• American Dental Association Response to Study Regarding Fluoride Intake in Mexico. September 19.
  
  
• Fluoride Free New Zealand issued this press release New US Government Study on Fluoride Damage to Brain on September 21.

Additional Media Coverage:

• Collective Evolution, Fluoride exposure in utero linked to lower IQ in kids, study says, by Kalee Brown, September 20.

• Daily Mail (UK), Pregnant women exposed to flouride are more likely to have kids with low IQ, study shows, by Mia De Graaf, September 20.

• Medical Xpress, Higher levels of fluoride in pregnant woman linked to lower intelligence in their children, by Nicole Bodnar, September 20.

• Readers’ Digest, If you drink this type of water during pregnancy, your child’s IQ could suffer, by Sam Benson Smith, September 20. 

STAY TUNED! MORE TO COME…

Sincerely,

Stuart Cooper & Ellen Connett
Fluoride Action Network

See all FAN bulletins online

Report: New Evidence Of Ongoing Corruption And Scientific Misconduct At CDC

Kennedy hopes new evidence and a fresh look at criminal misconduct will result in law enforcement action, rigorous and transparent vaccine safety science, and safer vaccines.

Washington, DC – In a new report released today, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his team outlined various criminal acts on the part of employees and consultants for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) whose questionable ethics and scientific fraud have resulted in untrustworthy vaccine safety science.

Among other information, Kennedy has found additional evidence of criminal activity by the CDC consultant, Poul Thorsen, the author and principal coordinator of multiple CDC studies exonerating the mercury-based preservative thimerosal in the development of autism.

The new evidence, recently uncovered by the World Mercury Project, shows that Thorsen and his collaborators did not obtain permission from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to conduct their research, which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2002 and Pediatrics in 2003.

 SEE: CDC Suggest Miscarriages May Be Linked To H1N1 Vaccine

In 2011, The Department of Justice indicted Thorsen on 22 counts of wire fraud and money laundering for stealing over $1 million in CDC grant money earmarked for autism research. The product of Thorsen’s work for CDC was a series of fraud-tainted articles on Danish autism rates that, today, form the backbone of the popular orthodoxy that vaccines don’t cause autism.

In 2009, when CDC discovered that Thorsen never applied for the IRB approvals, staff did not report the errors or retract the studies. Rather, FOIA documents show that CDC supervisors ignored the missteps and covered up the illegal activity.

You can’t handle the truth about vaccines (Ad)

This misconduct undermines the legitimacy of these studies which were used to refute vaccine injury claims in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP). The studies were also used in the NVICP’s “Omnibus Proceeding” to dismiss 5000 petitions by families who claimed that their children had developed autism from vaccines. These claims, if settled in the claimants’ favor, would have resulted in payouts totaling an estimated $10 billion.

Fluoride again will be added to Albuquerque’s water supply.

Water utility board members voted 5-2 Wednesday to approve a $250,000 appropriation that will allow the Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority to buy the equipment needed to resume supplemental drinking-water fluoridation, which the utility halted in 2011.

The decision followed nearly an hour of passionate pleas by both opponents and supporters of fluoridation similar to comments expressed at two earlier public hearings on the issue.

“At the end of the day, when there’s a question about science, we need to listen to the scientists,” board member and Albuquerque City Councilor Pat Davis said before he voted in favor of resuming fluoridation. Davis withdrew his proposal for an advisory question on the 2018 general election ballot that would have asked Bernalillo County voters whether they support or oppose supplemental fluoridation.

Voting against the appropriation were Albuquerque Councilors Klarissa Peña and Trudy Jones. Joining Davis in support were Bernalillo County Commissioners Debbie O’Malley, Wayne Johnson and Maggie Hart Stebbins and Albuquerque’s Chief Administrative Officer Rob Perry, who represents Mayor Richard Berry on the board..............

Shame the latest research was published after the vote, it may well have changed the decision.

Current Issue

ADA responds to study suggesting association between lower IQ and fluoridation

September 20, 2017

By Michelle Manchir

The ADA on Sept. 19 issued a response to a study published online the same day that suggested an association between higher prenatal fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores.

For the study, researchers examined 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico, including their general cognitive indexes and IQ analyses, and concluded that “higher prenatal fluoride exposure, in the general range of exposures reported for other general population samples of pregnant women and nonpregnant adults, was associated with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at age 4 and 6–12 years.”

The findings, however, are not applicable to the U.S., according to the ADA’s news release, which also noted that the Association “continues to endorse fluoridation of public water as the most effective public health measure to prevent tooth decay.”

In responding to the study’s conclusions, the ADA noted that the intake of fluoride in Mexico “is significantly different from the U.S.,” because fluoride is added to salt and because fluoride naturally exists in varying degrees in community water. In the U.S., fluoride is not added to salt and is only added to water “in cases where the natural occurrence of fluoride is lower than the rec-ommended level to prevent tooth decay,” the ADA said.

Furthermore, it is unknown how the subjects of the study ingested fluoride — whether through salt, water, or both — so “no conclusions can be drawn regarding the effects of community water fluoridation in the U.S.”

The study, Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico, was published in Environmental Health Perspectives.

The ADA endorses community water fluoridation as safe and effective for preventing tooth decay based on 70 years of scientific research. To see scientific evidence and other information about fluoridation, visit ADA.org/fluoride.

A not unexpected response from ADA.

Are we winning at last?

Higher levels of fluoride in urine associated with lower intelligence in children

HIGHER LEVELS OF FLUORIDE IN URINE ASSOCIATED WITH LOWER INTELLIGENCE IN CHILDREN

September 19/2017

Fluoride in the urine of pregnant women shows a correlation with lower measures of intelligence in their children, according to University of Toronto researchers who conducted the first study of its kind and size to examine fluoride exposure and multiple states of neurodevelopment.

“Our study shows that the growing fetal nervous system may be adversely affected by higher levels of fluoride exposure,” said Dr. Howard Hu, the study’s principal investigator and Professor of Environmental Health, Epidemiology and Global Health at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health. “It also suggests that the pre-natal nervous system may be more sensitive to fluoride compared to that of school-aged children.”

Tap water and dental products have been fluoridated in communities in Canada and the United States (as well as milk and table salt in some other countries) by varying amounts for more than 60 years to prevent cavities and improve bone health. In recent years, fierce debate over the safety of water fluoridation — particularly for children’s developing brains — has fueled researchers to explore the issue and provide evidence to inform national drinking water standards.

There are some known side effects of fluoride, for example dental defects like mild staining are common among those ingesting recommended levels of fluoride in the United States and Canada. Skeletal fluorosis — excessive accumulation of fluoride in the bones — is much less common and only observed at levels of fluoride in the water that are more than 5 to 10 times higher than those recommended.

“Relatively little is known, with confidence, about fluoride’s impact on neurodevelopment,” said Hu, whose research team included experts from the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico, University of Toronto, University of Michigan, McGill University, Indiana University, Mount Sinai School of Medicine and Harvard School of Public Health.

The study, “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6-12 Years of Age in Mexico,” published today in Environmental Health Perspectives, analyzed data from 287 mother-child pairs in Mexico City that were part of the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) project, which recruited pregnant women from 1994 to 2005 and has continued to follow the women and their children ever since.

The research team analyzed urine samples that had been taken from mothers during pregnancy and from their children between six and 12 years of age to reconstruct personal measures of fluoride exposure for both mother and child.

“This is significant because previous studies estimated exposures based on neighborhood measurements of drinking water fluoride levels, which are indirect and much less precise measures of exposure. They also looked at children’s exposures instead of prenatal exposures or had much smaller sample sizes of subjects to study,” said Dr. Hu.

The researchers then analyzed how levels of fluoride in urine related to the children’s verbal, perceptual-performance, quantitative, memory, and motor abilities at age four and once more between the ages of six and 12. Analyses were adjusted for other factors known to impact neurodevelopment, such as gestational age at birth, birthweight, birth order, sex, maternal marital status, smoking history, age at delivery, IQ, education, socioeconomic status and lead exposure.

With regard to the study’s implications for populations in North America, researchers found that urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women were somewhat higher than, but within the general range of, urinary fluoride levels seen in non-pregnant general populations in Canada and the United States. However, in Dr. Hu’s opinion, the findings do not provide enough information to suggest there is no safe level of fluoride exposure.

“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.”

The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), funded this study (R01ES021446).

Newsweek - CHILDREN'S IQ COULD BE LOWERED BY MOTHERS DRINKING TAP WATER WHILE PREGNANT

Adding fluoride to public drinking water for dental purposes has been controversial since the practice first began in 1945, and the latest findings are sure to stir that pot yet again. A new study suggests that prenatal exposure to this chemical may affect cognitive abilities and that children born to mothers exposed to high amounts of fluoride could have lower IQs.

The study, published Tuesday in Environmental Health Perspectives, found an association between lower intelligence and prenatal fluoride exposure in 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico. The team measured fluoride levels from mothers via urine samples and followed up on their children until they were between 6 and 12 years old. Even when other possible factors were taken into account, such as exposure to other chemicals, results continually showed that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was linked to lower scores on tests of cognitive function in children at age 4 and then again between 6 and 12.

Drinking water with high levels of fluoride may put children at risk for lower IQs.

Although the study accurately measured how much fluoride was in each mother's urine samples, it could not pin down the exact amount of fluoride the children had been exposed to. That's because pregnancy can change how certain substances are secreted in urine. However, the team estimates that these levels of exposure are not exceptionally high.

"If you just assume for the moment that fluoride in the urine of pregnant women is the same as it is in nonpregnant women, then these levels are a bit higher—but not hugely higher—than that seen in general population samples in North America," lead study author Dr. Howard Hu, who studies environmental health at the University of Toronto, tells Newsweek. 

The mothers in this study did not have fluoride added to their water. Rather, they ingested fluoride from natural sources or through fluoridated salt and supplements. In Mexico, fluoridated salt is the main way that women get salt into their diet, says Hu, unlike in the U.S., where fluoridated water is the main avenue.

Related: Fluoridation may not prevent cavities, scientific review shows

The data could renew the debate about the safety of adding fluoride to tap water, in part because experts have not been quick to dismiss the findings. "This is a very well-conducted study, and it raises serious concerns about fluoride supplementation in water," says Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a pediatrician who studies potential links between environmental exposures and health problems at New York University Langone Health. (He was not involved in the new study.)

Trasande emphasizes that the levels of fluoride seen among the mothers in this study are slightly higher than what would be expected in U.S., based on current fluoride supplementation levels. However, he also explains that fluoride is known to disrupt thyroid function, which in turn is crucial for brain development.

"These new insights raise concerns that the prenatal period may be highly vulnerable and may require additional reconsideration," Trasande says.

Related: Water fluoridation linked to higher ADHD rates

Fluoride is a naturally occurring chemical that is noted for its ability to help prevent tooth decay and is often added to public drinking water for this reason. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, drinking fluoridated water reduces cavity occurrence by 25 percent in areas where it is practiced. In 2014, about 74 percent of the U.S. population was on fluoridated public water systems, and by 2020 the CDC hopes to increase this number to 79.6 percent. 

A large body of research has confirmed the safety of fluoride in water. One review of more than 70 studies concluded that the practice was safe. A 2009 review of more than 50 studies deemed the practice safe. A study in 1996 called the evidence confirming the safety of water fluoridation "compelling." 

But this new study is not the first time that research has raised alarm about toxic levels of the element. One critical review stated that fluoride ingestion or inhalation "constitutes an unacceptable risk with virtually no proven benefit." A review of studies conducted in China, where naturally occurring levels of fluoride in water can be dangerously high, found a connection between exposure to fluoride and children’s IQ.

However, these investigations were examining a water supply with fluoride levels reaching 30 milligrams per liter. In the U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency sets the limit at 4 mg per liter, and most public water supplies contain about 0.7 mg per liter. In other words, the findings in China are most likely inapplicable to the U.S. population. (But an extensive report by the National Research Council, part of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, did call for a reduction in the legally allowed limit of 4 mg/liter.)

This occasion is not the first time that Environmental Health Perspectives has waded into the fluoride debate waters. The same journal also published a controversial investigation, known as "the Harvard Study," which reported a link between exposure and neurological development in children. But that study was heavily criticized, in part for its reliance on data from China. 

Dr. James Betoni, an ob/gyn who specializes in high-risk maternal fetal medicine at Saint Alphonsus Medical Group in Boise, Idaho, tells Newsweek that he would advise patients not to be too fearful of the findings. 

"There are so many variables and so many factors for cognitive development, I think it's such a nebulous thing," says Betoni. "The fluoride may be high, but there may be something in the water that we don't even know." 

He says he would tell patients concerned about these new findings that, although they are interesting, this is only one study and they shouldn't make any lifestyle changes based on the results of a single study. 

Still, many groups oppose the practice, and the American Academy of Pediatrics has a campaign to quell fears. And the new study, which found a link between fluoride and lower IQ starting at 0.5 mg per liter in the mother's urine (lower than the levels in tap water), may be viewed as supporting their argument.  

Hu and colleagues note that their results need to be reproduced by other researchers—and in different, larger populations—before any conclusion can be made about the effects of this finding on fluoride levels in public drinking water. They would also like to explore how other factors, such as different nutrients and genetics, may play a role in a link between fluoride consumption and children's IQ. 

Comment

Karen Favazza Spencer

Don't know why Newsweek bent over backwards to find support for fluoridation, which required ignoring the prestigious 2000 York and 2015 Cochrane ireviews that confirmed there is no safety data. Those panels also determined that there is no benefit to adults while the small evidence of small benefit to children is highly suspect. The 2009 Parnell study is an obvious put-up job. The content dcoumented there is no data or evidence for safety, yet concluded fluoridation is valid where "culturally acceptable." The 1996 item is an opinion peice by a dentist, and the 2008 item is a political review by a single author that is a political attempt to negate the findings of the York Reveiw.

I suggest these are more relevant:
2017: “The effects of fluoride intake pose risks of various diseases in the asthmatic-skeletal, neurological, endocrine and skin systems... avoid the fluoridation of drinking water and fluoridation of milk in all regions of the country.” - Romero et al. The impact of tap water fluoridation on human health. Verena Romero, Frances J. Norris, Juvenal A. Ríos, Isel Cortés, Andrea González, Leonardo Gaete, Andrei N. Tchernitchin. Rev. méd. Chile vol.145 no.2 Santiago Feb. 2017.

2016: “Food fluoridation, fluoridated milk and fluoridated water do not seem, based on the existing literature, to hold sufficient evidence for the reduction of dental caries.” - Sicca, Claudio et al. “Prevention of Dental Caries: A Review of Effective Treatments.” Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 8.5 (2016): e604–e610. PMC. Web. 29 Dec. 2016

2016: Fluoridation advocates and their political partners ”share only partial, biased information in order to support their case, and convey information in terms that misrepresent the actual situation.” - A. Gesser-Edelsburg & Y. Shir-Raz in "Communicating risk that involve ‘uncertainty bias’…" Journal of Risk Research. August 2016.