Fluoride Action Network

Public Health England Makes a Scientific Ass of Itself

Fluoride Action Network | Bulletin | March 22, 2018

Public Health England Makes a Scientific Ass of Itself

On March 22, Public Health England issued a report titled Water Fluoridation. Health monitoring report for England 2018 . It is yet another sham review by a pro-fluoridation government agency.

Public Health England described itself this way:

“Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities. We do this through world-leading science, knowledge and intelligence, advocacy, partnerships and the delivery of specialist public health services. We are an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, and a distinct delivery organisation with operational autonomy. We provide government, local government, the NHS, Parliament, industry and the public with evidence-based professional, scientific and delivery expertise and support.” (page 2)

Public Health England on fluoride and IQ:

 “At the time the PHE working group were considering health outcomes, the evidence for an association between lower IQ and fluoride in water was considered weak (22, 24), and there were no quality routine datasets available for analysis. Therefore IQ was not considered a priority health outcome for inclusion.” (page 23)

Comment from FAN:

We recommend our readers re-read these two statements again while listening to a recording of Elgar’s famous Pomp and Circumstance march!

The two references used for this statement were from outdated rubber-stamp reports from Ireland (2015) and New Zealand (2014) (which we discussed in some detail in a previous bulletin.

It is a hallmark of these government “sham reviews” that they incestuously cite each other – piling propaganda on top of propaganda – but all the while trying to impress with their inflated “authority.”  Nowhere, was this clearer than with the NZ review which stressed that Sir Peter Gluckman was the “senior scientific adviser to the Prime Minister of NZ” and Sir David Skegg was the President of The Royal Society of New Zealand.  The shock comes when someone who knows the science of the issue actually reads their reports and finds how little they know about the subject.

Of course, neither the authors of these two sham reviews could have considered the Bashash et al., 2017 study (since they were written three years earlier). But was the PHE unaware that this study has been in the works for 12-years and was funded by US government agencies (National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency)? And did none of their distinguished panelists not hear about the study when it was published 7 months ago? Have they not been following the issue of fluoride’s neurotoxicity over the last few years? Were they unaware of the over 300 animal and human studies that indicate that fluoride is neurotoxic, including 52 IQ studies? They are available online here.

At the very least the PHE should have mentioned the Bashash study which vindicated our concerns and dealt with many of the criticisms of the IQ studies presented in the Irish and NZ reviews, and revised their preposterous notion that, “IQ was not considered a priority health outcome.”

Or do they seriously maintain there is nothing wrong about deliberately adding a neurotoxic substance to drinking water? And to do so without issuing any warnings to pregnant women that fluoride has the potential to lower the IQ of their offspring? The only rational explanation for their cavalier attitude on this matter is that they, along with the health agencies in other fluoridated countries, are more interested in protecting the practice of water fluoridation than protecting the health of the population.

Curiously, Public Health England notes

 “It would be interesting to link health effects to a measure of the total daily fluoride intake from all sources or the total dose of fluoride absorbed by each person.  This can be estimated by biological monitoring using biological samples for example urine. However, again such total fluoride intake data were not available at a population level. To study the effect of fluoride the exposure assessment has focussed on concentration of fluoride in the water supply. This is the one of the main determinants of how much fluoride people absorb, although we recognise that total intake also depends on factors for which we have no data.” (page 26)

The UK government environment and health agencies and those in other fluoridating countries like Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand, have had over 70 years to perfect this (or even attempt to do this) but have failed miserably to do so. Using water concentrations as the biometric of exposure is pathetic considering once fluoride is added to the water you can’t determine dose without knowing how much water people drink and the fluoride they get from other sources. Total dose is the only meaningful biometric for exposure when considering the health of the whole population.

Declan Waugh commenting on the PHE report noted that:

“when they don’t even consider tea as a source of fluoride exposure in the UK (a major tea drinking country), then it’s a worthless pile of garbage. There are 15 studies in the UK that have measured fluoride levels in tea including a number of large studies in the last 5 years.”

As we discussed in yesterday’s bulletin, A Mind is  Terrible Thing to Waste:

Available evidence suggests that the following are all associated with IQ reductions: (1) Daily fluoride doses, (2) Urine fluoride levels, (3) Serum fluoride levels, and (4) Dental fluorosis levels. Each of these four metrics of fluoride exposure provide a more direct assessment of individual fluoride exposure than water fluoride concentration and are thus more probative for risk assessment purposes.

The 2017 US government-funded Bashash study certainly highlighted the importance of urine fluoride levels. Note this study followed 300 mother-child pairs and found that urine fluoride levels in the mothers – corresponding to fluoride levels experienced by adults in fluoridated communities in the USA-  was associated with a 6 IQ point loss in their offspring.

The PHE report is like a Trump tweet: it is a distraction from the “real science” of fluoride’s dangers to human health – particularly the brain. It provides even more incentive to get that “real science” examined in court.

The Rubber Stamp references used to justify inaction on IQ:
22. Sutton M, Kiersey, R., Farragher, L., Long, J. Health Effects of Water fluoridation: An evidence review. Health Research Board (Ireland); 2015.
24. Royal Society of New Zealand and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Health effects of water fluoridation: A review of the scientific evidence. Wellington; 2014.

Let’s be positive now….

Invest in the End of Fluoridation:

** Donate to our TSCA Lawsuit Legal Fund

We have received $32,779 from 197 donors towards the goal of $75,000 by May 31st. Thank you to everyone who has contributed.

You can donate either:

• Online at our secure server.

• Or by Check, payable to the Fluoride Action Network. Send your check to:
Fluoride Action Network
c/o Connett
104 Walnut Street
Binghamton NY 13905

** Get Involved in the NEW Campaign to Warn Pregnant Women Not to Drink Fluoridated Water!

We are working on the details.

Objective: Pregnant women who live in fluoridated communities need to be warned about the results of the Bashash et al. study (2017).

Reason: Because there is a potential threat to the brains of their unborn we must act to get the message out.

How do I get involved: Start by contacting friends and groups and ask them to work with you. Email our Campaign Director, Stuart Cooper to tell him you want to be part of this campaign.

We are not quite ready for our new Poster campaign.

We need your input (yes, Arlene, I will get back to you)

Please stay tuned,
Paul and Ellen Connett for the FAN fundraising Team 

See previous bulletins that discuss Bashash:


See all FAN bulletins online