Read original article at https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/20/fluoride-and-brain-development.aspx?
- Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor at York University in Toronto, Canada, has published several damning studies showing fluoride damages the brain and lowers IQ
- In 2019, Till received the President’s Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) from York University for her research into the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure
- After giving a lecture at a recent conference that included speakers who question the safety of mercury and vaccines, a group of 14 scientists are calling for an independent review of Till’s work on fluoridation “to determine whether her ‘ideology is being misrepresented as science’”
- For now, it doesn’t appear as though York University will comply with the call for an independent probe into Till’s research and public statements about water fluoridation
- Depositions by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials in 2018 have also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also does not have any data showing fluoride intake is harmless to the brain. Meanwhile, more than 400 animal and human studies have found fluoride is neurotoxic and damages the brain
While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention promotes water fluoridation as one of the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century, hundreds of studies reveal it’s one of the most harmful public health strategies ever implemented.
Among the many researchers who have published damning fluoride studies is Christine Till, Ph.D., an associate professor at York University in Toronto, Canada1 who in 2019 received the President’s Emerging Research Leadership Award (PERLA) for her research into the neurotoxicity of fluoride exposure.2
That same year, she published research3,4 showing maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy lowered IQ in children. In 2020, Till and her team published another study,5 showing children who were bottle-fed in Canadian fluoridated communities lost up to 9.3 IQ points compared to those in nonfluoridated communities.
She’s also listed as a co-author on several other important fluoride studies published in the last five years. Till’s studies are part of hundreds of studies presented as evidence during the landmark fluoridation trial held in federal court in June 2020, reviewed in “Fluoride on Trial,” and are considered some of the strongest evidence against water fluoridation to date.
Now, Till is suddenly facing the same “cancel culture” that so many other researchers have faced when they present evidence that challenges industry propaganda and threatens the continuation of a toxic but profitable practice.
Pro-Fluoride Group Calls for Independent Probe
According to an October 8, 2020, report6 by CTV News, 14 scientists, referring to themselves as an “International Group of Fluoridation Experts,” have written a letter7 to York University’s board of governors, calling for an independent review of Till’s work on fluoridation “to determine whether her ‘ideology is being misrepresented as science.’” The September 21, 2020, letter reads, in part:8
“… Till’s work continues to have sway in the political and public decision making process because it asserts a ‘possibility’ that water fluoridation is dangerous, however dubious the work’s methodology and conclusions.
That ‘possibility’ frightens some elected officials and administrators. We are advised that several United States boards, which oversee water quality, are currently deciding whether to cease community water fluoridation because of concerns advanced by Dr. Till, her students and associates, including that fluoride harms the developing brain …
Dr. Till’s fluoride research conclusions diverge significantly from current research on the safety of community water fluoridation (CWF) … We believe that some or all of Dr. Christine Till’s fluoride publications might well contain significant error …
Therefore, we are acting on our moral duty to make this belief known by asking you to establish an international, independent, expert committee to determine whether our concerns are justified.”
In response to the accusations, Till told CTV News:9
“Our study underwent extensive scrutiny to meet the scientific standards for publishing in the highest-ranking pediatric journal in the world. Policy makers, health professionals and scientists must have access to all high-quality evidence to make informed decisions. It would be unacceptable to censor scientific results because they do not conform to a certain set of beliefs.”
University Defends Scientific Freedom of Its Faculty
September 29, 2020, York University president Rhonda Lenton issued a public reply10 to the letter, stating:
“Over the past few months, several incidents bearing on the academic freedom of members of the York Community have been brought to my attention.
In each case, individuals and groups external to the University have appealed to senior leadership to intercede against faculty members due to statements made, or research published, in the course of their legitimate scholarly activities.
I believe this presents an important opportunity to restate York’s unequivocal support of academic freedom …
We must always defend the right of students, professors and instructional staff to express their views and conduct free inquiry. It is, however, not required that we agree with the content of that speech.
Free expression, especially on controversial topics, is best regulated by vigorous counterspeech. It is not appropriate for the University to decide which side of a particular issue is correct …
As a leading research university, York remains steadfast in its defense of academic freedom. We will not censure any member of our community for their research or their public statements made in the course of their scholarly work within limits prescribed by law and applicable policies governing the responsible conduct of research.”
Till’s Public Statements Questioned
In addition to questioning Till’s scientific integrity, the group questions the truthfulness of a number of public statements she’s made. That includes the short video featured above, produced by Till and Dr. Bruce Lanphear, a health sciences professor at Simon Fraser University11 in Canada.
On a side note, Lanphear is also an invited member of the Council of Fellows of the Collegium Ramazzini12 in Italy, an international scientific academy comprised of physicians and scientists that seeks to increase scientific knowledge of the environmental and occupational causes of disease to protect public health.
The Collegium Ramazzini collaborates with the Ramazzini Institute,13 a nonprofit social cooperative dedicated to independent scientific research into environmental toxins.
You may recall hearing about the Ramazzini Institute in relation to the harms of cellphone radiation — another hotly contested area of research where organizations with vested interests are doing everything they can to smear and dismiss findings showing that electromagnetic fields (EMFs) cause physical harm.
Getting back to the video, in it, Till and Lanphear review the history of water fluoridation, research showing fluoride to be toxic to the developing brain, and the implications of an IQ loss of three to five points.
As noted in the video, most people have an IQ score between 85 and 115 points. Only 2.5% of children have an IQ above 130, which is considered gifted. Another 2.5% of children have an IQ below 70, which is considered challenged.
A mere five points drop in IQ, which doesn’t sound like much, actually results in a whopping 57% increase in the number of children who are intellectually and academically challenged, from 6 million to 9.4 million. There’s also a corresponding decrease in those who are gifted, from 6 million down to 2.4 million, and the overall societal impact of this downward slide is tremendous.
“We ask the international, expert, arm’s length committee to consider whether Dr. Till is in a possible conflict of interest as between her duty (to collect and to report research data reliably) and her probable interest (which appears to be to cause and end to community water fluoridation),” the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” write.14
The group also wants the reviewing committee to ascertain whether the video fairly represents Till’s scientific findings, and if not, they call for a “forensic audit into whether public funds meant for research or knowledge translation were used to create the video, and, if so, require those funds to be reimbursed.”15
Why Was Till Singled Out?
For now, it doesn’t appear as though York University will comply with the call for an independent probe into Till’s research and public statements about water fluoridation, but it raises the question of why she was targeted in the first place.
As it turns out, the attack came on the heels of a lecture she gave in September 2020 at the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology (IAOMT) conference, held in Nashville, Tennessee. Till gave her presentation virtually, from Canada.
According to a September 30, 2020, article16 by Canadian journalist Tom Blackwell, presenters at the event included “a who’s who of the anti-vaccination and COVID-19 conspiracy-theory movements.”
Among the presenters17 receiving “top billing” were Andrew Wakefield, producer of the excellent documentary “1986: The Act,” and Judy Mikovitz, Ph.D., featured in the highly-censored documentary “Plandemic.” Other criticized presenters included Marc Geier and retired chemistry professor Boyd Haley, both of whom have linked vaccines to autism.
According to Blackwell, “Till said she didn’t learn who else was presenting until organizers sent her an agenda two weeks before the event.” Blackwell also reports that, in an interview, Till:
“… stressed that she accepted no payment from the IAOMT, and does back childhood vaccination of the sort her fellow speakers decry … ‘Just because I speak to an organization does not mean I subscribe to the views of the other speakers … To me the invitation to speak is to present our research findings, make them accessible to this group.’”
As detailed in “Fluoride on Trial” (hyperlinked above) and many other articles over the past decade, there’s no shortage of scientific evidence showing water fluoridation causes more harm than good. More than 400 animal and human studies have in fact found fluoride is neurotoxic and damages the brain,18 and have been published in some of the most prestigious peer-reviewed journals.
The claim that Till’s research conclusions “diverge significantly from current research” therefore doesn’t hold water. What’s more, depositions by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officials, which took place in 2018, have also confirmed the agency does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and neurotoxic effects.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also does not have any safety data on fluoride intake and its effects on the brain. During the fluoride trial against the EPA, which took place in June 2020, Michael Connett, an attorney for the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) who is leading the lawsuit, asked the EPA to identify all studies that demonstrate or support the neurological safety of prenatal fluoride exposure.
They produced a single study from 1995, in which the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride was assessed in rats. Ironically, this study actually shows that neonatal fluoride exposure is neurotoxic, and EPA scientists confirmed that this was indeed the case.
So, the only study they could find to support safety is actually showing harm. Aside from the 201919,20 and 202021 studies that Till led, the following also implicate fluoride as a neurotoxin that has no place in communal water supplies:
|Bashash 201722,23 — Funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the EPA, this study followed pregnant women and their babies for 12 years, measuring the fluoride in their urine, which reveals total exposure, regardless of the source. They found a strong relationship between the fluoride level in mothers’ urine and IQ scores in their children at the ages of 4, and between 6 and 12.|
|Green 201924 — Published in JAMA Pediatrics, this study reported substantial IQ loss in Canadian children from prenatal exposure to fluoride from water fluoridation.|
|Riddell 201925 — Published in Environment International, this study found a shocking 284% increase in the prevalence of ADHD among children in fluoridated communities in Canada compared to nonfluoridated ones.|
|Malin 201926 — Published in Environmental Health, it linked a doubling of symptoms indicative of sleep apnea in adolescents in the U.S. to levels of fluoride in the drinking water. The link between fluoride and sleep disturbances may be through fluoride’s effect on the pineal gland.|
|Malin 201927 — Published in Environment International. A second study by Malin’s team reported that exposure to fluoridated water led to a reduction in kidney and liver function among adolescents in the U.S., and suggested those with poorer kidney or liver function may absorb more fluoride. The CDC funded this study.|
|Uyghurturk 202028 — Published in Environmental Health, it found that pregnant women in fluoridated communities in California had significantly higher levels of fluoride in their urine than those in nonfluoridated communities. The levels found in their urine were the same as those found to lower the IQ of the fetus in Green et al, 2019, and Bashash et al, 2017.29,30|
As early as 2006, the National Research Council (NRC) looked at the toxicology of fluoride, concluding that, based on the studies available at that time, fluoride poses a threat to the brain.31
Studies have also demonstrated that fluoride is an endocrine disruptor32 that suppresses thyroid function,33,34,35 and this too can lower IQ in offspring if the mother has underactive thyroid function during pregnancy.
Excessive fluoride exposure also causes dental fluorosis, which in turn increases rates of dental cavities.36,37 This alone should be cause for reconsidering water fluoridation, considering it’s a public health strategy aimed at preventing cavities.
The Fight Against Water Fluoridation Continues
Hopefully, FAN’s legal action against the EPA will result in the elimination of fluoride from U.S. water supplies. We still have a ways to go though. As it stands, the judge in the case has asked FAN to allow the EPA to reassess the evidence before he makes a ruling.
According to the judge, the EPA has used the wrong standard to assess the evidence (which, incidentally, means the “International Group of Fluoridation Experts” are likely to have made the same mistake when judging the available research).
The judge also noted, on the record, that the evidence presented by plaintiffs raises serious questions about the policy to fluoridate water supplies. If the EPA tries to drag out this process, he is prepared to make a ruling based on the evidence presented.
So, we still have to wait for the conclusion to this groundbreaking trial but, clearly, we are closer than we’ve ever been to seeing an end to this tragic and unnecessary poisoning of millions of individuals. In the end, researchers like Till may well end up having the last word on the matter.
Sources & References:
- 1 York University, Christine Till Bio
- 2 York University April 21, 2019
- 3, 19 JAMA Network August 19, 2019; 173(10):940-948
- 4, 20 NIH, Fluoride Exposure in the Womb May Lower IQ in Children
- 5, 21 Environmental International January 2020; 134: 105315
- 6, 9 CTV News October 8, 2020
- 7, 8, 14, 15 Dropbox, York University Letter September 21, 2020
- 10 York University September 29, 2020
- 11 Simon Fraser University Bruce Lanphear Bio
- 12 Collegium Ramazzini
- 13 Ramazzini.org, The Institute
- 16 Recorder & Times September 30, 2020
- 17 IAOMT Nashville Speakers
- 18 Fluoridealert.org, Brain
- 22, 29 Environmental Health Perspectives September 19, 2017; 125(9)
- 23, 30 Fluoridealert.org October 2017
- 24 JAMA Pediatrics; August 2019; 173(10): 940-948
- 25 Environmental International October 22, 2019; 133 Part B
- 26 Environmental Health December 9, 2019 [Epub ahead of print]
- 27 Environmental International November 2019; 132: 105012
- 28 Environmental Health April 6, 2020; 19(1): 38
- 31 National Research Council of the National Academies 2006, page 205
- 32 Fluoride Action Network, National Research Council Findings 2006
- 33 J. Epidemiol Community Health 2015; 69: 619-624
- 34 Patch March 17, 2015
- 35 Fluoridealert.org February 24, 2015
- 36 Caries Res. 2013;47(4):299-308
- 37 Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2004 Oct;32(5):337-44