Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Previous
View More
View More
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
Over the past 20 years, the Fluoride Action Network (FAN) has
facilitated the removal of fluoride from the water supplies of
hundreds of communities across North America, Canada, Europe,
Australia and New Zealand. This week, we’re helping FAN raise
funds to continue their efforts to eliminate water fluoridation
worldwide
I will match all donations, dollar for dollar up to $25,000, given to this
important cause during our annual Fluoride Awareness Week
Ten years later, in 2006, the National Research Council looked at the
toxicology of fluoride.1 At that time, there were six IQ studies and, based
on those six studies along with many animal studies, the NRC
concluded that fluoride did in fact pose a threat to the brain. By 2008,
there were 18 such studies.
It’s important to realize that it’s not the concentration of fluoride in the
water (measured in mg per liter) that is significant for health. What
matters is the dose you get in milligrams per day, and the dosage
(mg/day divided by the individual’s body weight), and these depend on a
variety of fluctuating factors.
It turns out the placenta does not protect the fetus from
fluoride, and, as you know, up to about six months of age, the
blood-brain barrier is not fully formed in the baby. So, the
fetus is very susceptible to this impact of fluoride.”
The first response of the American Dental Association was that the
findings didn’t apply to the United States, since it was done in Mexico
City. However, this ignored the fact that human beings are human
beings, by measuring fluoride in the urine they had a measure of total
exposure, regardless of the source. It really doesn’t matter if the fluoride
comes from water, other beverages, food or toothpaste.
“Now, this study, unlike the first one, the Bashash study, got
a certain amount of coverage,” Connett says. “[It] was
published in the journal of the American Medical
Association, Pediatrics. That's one of the major pediatrics
journals in the world, and the editors of this journal went to
extreme lengths.
They knew this was controversial. Hats off for them to take it
on. They knew it was going to be consequential, so they
doubled up on the peer review process, they double checked
the statistics, so they were confident when they launched it.
They even ran an editorial saying the steps they'd taken.
They had two of their editors, the editor of JAMA in total and
the editor of JAMA Pediatrics did a 20-minute podcast
explaining how astounding the results were. They said, ‘Oh,
we had no idea that fluoride caused any problems to health.’
I don't know what they'd been reading. But anyway … it was a
bombshell for them to suddenly find that fluoride could be
damaging the brain of the fetus.
But the other side was organized and they quickly got some
‘experts’ — none of them actually experts on fluoride or
toxicology or neurotoxicity — who said all the right things to
dampen people's concern about this study.”
The petition was made on the grounds that a large body of research
demonstrates fluoride is neurotoxic at doses within the range now seen
in fluoridated communities, and included over 2,500 pages of scientific
documentation detailing these health risks.
The EPA denied the petition8 February 27, 2017, on the grounds that it
had failed to present “a scientifically defensible basis” to conclude that
anyone had in fact suffered neurotoxic harm as a result of fluoride
exposure. In response, FAN and its coalition partners filed a lawsuit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, legally
challenging the EPA’s denial of their petition.
This interview was taped June 2, 2020. FAN was scheduled to begin
arguments in front of a judge June 8. FAN will explain the neurotoxicity
of fluoride shown in these and other studies, and then the EPA’s
industry experts, paid consultants who have also defended glyphosate
and other toxins, will present their evidence. (see FAN’s web site
FluorideAlert.org for a summary of the trial)
You can now view the transcript of Michael Connett's brilliant summary
statement
The End of Water Fluoridation Is Inevitable
If victorious, the EPA will likely appeal, as this is a classic stall tactic.
“There's no agency in the United States that is better at dragging its feet
on controversial issues,” Connett says.
That you don't read the science, that you don't keep up with
the science on an issue like this? When you're going to the
public and saying again and again and again that fluoridation
is safe and effective, when you've got this evidence right
there in front of you?
After three and a half years they came back, having reviewed
all the animal data and the human data, and in their draft
they said, ‘Based upon the literature, the presumption is that
fluoride is a neurotoxic substance. Based upon studies done
on children in several different countries, the presumption is
that it is neurotoxic.’
Not that it's definite; but you would have to presume, based
upon all the literature, that this is a neurotoxic substance. So,
that’s a huge vindication for our case. But, because it's a
draft and not a final version, we can't actually use it in the
court case. Still, this is very useful for us going forward, in
addition to whatever the court rules.”
In Ireland, they refer to the expert committee. In New Zealand, they refer
to the ministry of health and in Australia to the National Health and
Medical Research Council. In the United States, they refer to the Centers
of Disease Control and Prevention.
All of these agencies have promoted water fluoridation and are not
good judges of whether there are problems or not. Hopefully, a court
win against the EPA will facilitate and speed up the process of getting
fluoride out of drinking water. A win would also set another important
precedent:
We … along with Food & Water Watch are the first groups to
ever do this. So, it's establishing a very important precedent,
which is really worrying the chemical industry. It’s a big
concern of ours, because behind the scenes I'm sure they're
trying to muddy the waters in every way they can. But it's a
huge precedent. I hope that our victory will also shoot
adrenaline into the veins of all these other [health safety]
groups …”
Aside from making sure you do not drink fluoridated water, or use
fluoridated water to mix infant formula, to reduce your exposure, avoid
drinking excessive amounts of tea, which tends to be high in fluoride.
“Mix it up,” Connett says. “If you must drink tea, then drink
tea, drink coffee, drink herbal tea. Mix it around. Not too
much tea. Also, avoid animal bones. Don't eat the bones
from sardines and pilchards. Don't eat the bones from
chicken. Avoid mechanically deboned meat.”
- Sources and References