Yesterday, the Fluoride Action Network released the following press release, which we urge you to share with your local media. Here is the PR Newswire version for sharing.
Dental Fluorosis is Out of Control
But the Media is Missing the Elephant in the Room
When fluoridation began in 1945, promoters believed that the trade-off for reducing tooth decay would be 10% dental fluorosis, but by 1986-7 the prevalence had jumped to 23% and then by 2004 to 41% (Beltrán-Aguila et al, 2010) now it stands at a whopping 65% (Neurath, 2019, in press), reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).
A spate of news stories – triggered by a CDC report – focused on kids swallowing too much toothpaste. But according to Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director, “The defenders of water fluoridation are missing the real story. Dental fluorosis is a biomarker of over-exposure to fluoride and the ‘elephant in the room’ is what damage fluoride is doing to other tissues.”
Recent scientific research indicates that exposure to fluoridated water may lower thyroid function (Peckham et al, 2015 and Malin et al, 2018) and 350 published studies indicate that fluoride can damage the brain.
The latter includes a major U.S.-government funded mother-offspring study conducted in Mexico City (Bashash et al, 2017). This rigorous study found a very strong association between fluoride levels in mothers’ urine and lowered IQ in their offspring. The fluoride levels in this study correspond to levels in pregnant women living in fluoridated areas in Canada (Till et al, 2018) and almost certainly the USA.
While it is understandable that die-hard promoters of fluoridation should be fixated on any study dealing with teeth it is less understandable why the media should ignore fluoride’s impact on the brain.
The fetal brain is under attack from several environmental toxins (Grandjean & Landrigan, 2014; Bellinger, 2018) but only one, fluoride, is deliberately added to our water. There are safer ways to prevent dental caries than exposing the fetus to a neurotoxicant.
Many scientists are intimidated by the dismissal of fluoridation opponents as being akin to “Dr. Strangelove’s” mad general. Repeating the dogma that fluoridation is “safe and effective” many times does not make it so.
Connett urges more scientists to overcome this dogma and intimidation and review the brain studies themselves. In addition to Bashash and Bellinger the other fluoride-brain studies are readily accessible.
Connett added that, “I believe that the intellectual ability of future generations depends on their willingness to do this. Neither intimidation nor dogma has a place in science or public health.”