Fluoride lowers IQ significantly

HEALTH EFFECTS: Fluoride & the Brain
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/brain/

Fluoride Linked to Low IQ, Studies Show
http://fluoridealert.org/news/1655.html

Top 10 Fluoride Toxicity Papers of 2006
FAN Science Watch, January 22, 2007
http://www.manataka.org/page228.html


From: Paul Connett <paul@fluoridealert.org>
To: "fan_bulletins@lists.eggplantmedia.com" <fan_bulletins@mailman.eggplantmedia.com>
Subject: [FAN Bulletins] 787: Two more hammer blows against fluoridation
Date: Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:34:06 -0400


FLUORIDE ACTION NETWORK
http://www.FluorideAction.net

FAN Bulletin 787: Two more hammer blows against fluoridation

April 6, 2007

Two more hammer blows

Today, I received one abstract and one full paper which between them deliver
two more huge hammer blows to the ³official² mantra that fluoridation is
³safe and effective.²

The abstract (see below), is from yet another paper which shows that
fluoride can lower the IQ of children. This joins 18 studies from China
(some of which are now being translated from the original Chinese) which
show the same thing. However, this is the first time that such an article
has appeared in a dental journal (I am trying to get the name)!

The study found an average difference of 11 IQ points in children between
two villages, one with a fluoride concentration of 2.5 ppm and the other 0.4
ppm. We are most anxious to read the whole paper and would be grateful if
there is someone out there who can translate Persian (Iranian). We have the
whole paper as a pdf file. The findings are remarkably similar to those of
Xiang et al. (2003 a) and b)).

While we have to hold out the possibility that all 19 of these studies have
not taken into account some unidentified confounding factor, the pattern
being seen is remarkably consistent. If this was not a ³real² finding, by
now one would have expected to see other studies, which did not find a
lowering of IQ associated with ³high² fluoride exposure. 19 to 0 does not
look good for those who want to believe that these results are merely a
coincidence and not related to fluoride.

I would remind our readers that the average level of fluoride in mothers
milk in unfluoridated areas is 0.004 ppm and that at birth the baby¹s blood
brain barrier is not fully developed. This is not the time to expose the
baby¹s developing brain to 250 times the level of fluoride that nature
intended.

A second paper was published in the latest issue of Annals of Anatomy (Ann
Anat, 189 (2007) 175-181) and was sent to me by the author (at the
suggestion of Japanese FAN representative Dr. Tohru Murukami). This paper
strikes another blow against the notion that ingesting fluoride is
beneficial to the growing tooth enamel and the growing bone. In an elegant
study, combining electron microscopy and biochemical analyses, Japanese
researchers M. Kakei et al. (m-kakei@dent.meikai.ac.jp ) have shown in a rat
study that ³regardless of its amount, fluoride intake has harmful effects on
both tooth and bone formation.² Electron microscopy ³revealed that fluoride
ions could interrupt the crystal nucleation process, resulting in crystal
perforation in the developing tooth enamel and the presence of amorphous
minerals in bone crystals² and their biochemical analyses ³indicated that
fluoride directly interfered with the synthesis of (the enzyme) carbonic
anhydrase by the enamel forming cells.² These biochemical effects, which the
authors relate to the crystal perforations observed with the electron
microscope, were observed at the lowest doses to which the animals were
exposed: 0.1 ppm in their drinking water!

Remembering that you need approximately 5 times as much fluoride in the
drinking water of a rat to reach the same plasma concentration in a human,
this low dose is equivalent to 0.02 ppm fluoride in human drinking water.
That¹s 50 times lower than we fluoridate water! Again we might be seeing
another reason why nature kept fluoride away from a new born baby and our
foolishness in gambling with higher levels.

Paul Connett

--------------------------------------------------------
Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children¹s
intelligence.
Seraj B., Shahrabi, M., Falahzade, M., Falahzade, F. and Akhondi, N.

In their abstract, the authors write:

Materials and Methods: ³In this cross sectional study, 41 children were
selected from the high fluoride area with 2.5 mg/L (ppm) fluoride in the
drinking water and 85 children were selected from low fluoride area with
0.4 mg/L (ppm) fluoride in the drinking water. The intelligence quotient
(IQ) of each child was measured by the Raven¹s test. The history of illness
affecting the nervous system, head trauma, birth weight (>2.5 kg or < 2.5
kg), residential history, age and sex of children were investigated by
questionnaires completed by the children¹s parents. Data were analyzed by
the Chi-Square test with p < 0.05 as the limit of significance.

Results: I the high fluoride area the mean IQ of children (87.9 +/- 11) was
significantly lower than in the low fluoride area (98.9 +/- 12.9) (p=
0.025).

Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, exposure of children to
high levels of fluoride may carry the risk of impaired development of
intelligence.

I was quite shocked to hear that by now the "National Health System" here is giving liquid fluoride to 2-3 y.old children too. Actually it seems that it's prescribed by doctors, it's a set of small bottles, just waiting to replace it with a toothbrush and paste when they grew older. Vaccinations are also rising sky-high.

dantem said:

I was quite shocked to hear that by now the "National Health System" here is giving liquid fluoride to 2-3 y.old children too. Actually it seems that it's prescribed by doctors,

Click to expand...

Since we are on well water, our pediatrician prescribed fluoride drops for our two boys. I did some research and wasn't comfortable with giving them the drops so I threw the prescription in the trash. My boys have never had a cavity!

If you want to share info with your loved ones, films and documentaries are a good way to introduce them to such a 'frightening' topic as fluoride. Sorry if the links have already have been shown on this forum.

1. “The Fluoride Deception

Email by Paul Connett, Fluoride Action Network

Another fluoride video on Google video.

This one was broadcast on a popular TV news program from Adelaide, Australia. It begins with the fact that there are some people (estimates range from 1 to 4%) of the population who are intolerant of even small exposures to fluoride and broadens out into the larger debate over fluoridation’s dangers.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5329003820626343107

The program features interviews with two people (both of whom I have had the pleasure of meeting and can vouch for their rationality and integrity) who have had their sensitivities demonstrated in doctor administered tests; naturapath Philip Robertson (from Geelong); Dr. Mark Diesendorf (from Sydney, see Diesendorf M.(1986). The Mystery of Declining Tooth Decay. Nature. 322: 125-129. http://www.fluoridealert.org/diesendorf.htm) and Jason Armfield, a pro-fluoridation dental researcher from Adelaide University.

In the program, Diesendorf takes the latest evidence of health dangers seriously, Armfield dismisses it. Ironically, Armfield’s own study of fluoridation in South Australia (Armfield JM, Spencer AJ. (2004) Consumption of nonpublic water: implications for children’s caries experience. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 32:283-296.) found no significant difference in decay in the permanent teeth between children who had lived all their lives drinking fluoridated water and those drinking tank water (i.e. Rainwater) or bottled water. That has not stopped him from advocating adding fluoride to bottled water! Or claiming, in this program, that the benefits of fluoridation outweigh the risks. That is very hard to do if there are no or very little benefits! A possible explanation for the peculiar inconsistency between Armfield’s published findings and his public statements might be the fact that the dental school in which he works is heavily funded by the toothpaste industry. Elsewhere, Armfield has even cited Michael Easley (the most abysmal propagandist for fluoridation) in his dismissal of health effects from fluoride!

Even though some people’s intolerance to fluoride is backed up with trials involving the administration of fluoride tablets versus placebos (Feltman and Kossel, 1956,1961); dozens of case studies published by Dr. George Waldbott and others, and double blind studies from the Netherlands, no government promoting fluoridation has had the decency or integrity to follow up on these reports with their own studies. They prefer to use, what independent observers have characterized as a “paid for statementᾠ from the American Allergy Association (which has been used countless times by governmental reviews of the topic) together with dismissal that all these reports are “anecdotal.ᾠ Bruce Spittle has written a fine review of this issue for the journal Fluoride (Spittle B. (1993). Allergy and Hypersensitivity to Fluoride. Fluoride. 26(4):267-73).

In Australia, in 1991, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) advised the government to follow up on these numerous and persistent stories of people being sensitive to fluoride with government funded research. In the 16 years since this recommendation was made, NO health authority in Australia has done so. Nor have they, (or any health authority in Ireland, or New Zealand) sought to investigate the impact of fluoride on any tissue except the teeth. Like Armfield, they prefer to champion their case with PR not with science.

Thanks THAether for posting this. It is good to have the info gathered in one place.

As a child in primary school, we were used as guinea pigs for a couple of years gargling fluoride IN CLASS. Needless to say, I have had endless problems with caries in my teeth. Whether it is the cause, I don't know, but benefit NONE.

The other day my dentist wanted me to use a flouride mouthwash, but I gently declined. Not my thing.

Fluoride Dangers covered by Mainstream Media (Yahoo! News):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070415/hl_afp/healthchinadiseaseenvironmentcoal;_ylt=Auiotq9lcxSd8dkxR3up1NrMWM0F

Coal burning having a devastating impact on rural Chinese by Benjamin Morgan
Sun Apr 15, 2:45 AM ET

ZHIJIN COUNTY, China (AFP) - Zhang Huaixiang's thin wasted frame dangles from his wooden crutches, his bowed legs swelled by a disease contracted from a lifelong reliance on coal.

Zhang, 57, a farmer in Guizhou province in the nation's mountainous southwest, has been near bed-ridden for a year, unable to walk properly due to the rotting of his bones and joints from fluoride poisoning.

"My knees just hurt too much," Zhang told AFP outside his grey-walled concrete room subsidised by the government.

He also receives 50 yuan (6.45 US dollars) a month for food, but his brother-in-law, Li Xiaoxin, also a farmer, said it was not nearly enough.

"I work and live one day and then take care of him the next," said Li, 65.

Zhang is one of 42 million people in China with fluorosis, a condition caused by ingesting too much fluoride, which corrodes the teeth, pitting them and turning them a rusty brown, in cases of excessive, prolonged exposure.

In severe cases like Zhang's, the mineral also weakens the bones and stiffens the joint ligaments, eventually making movement difficult and painful, much like osteoarthritis does.

In many developed countries, fluoride, which is often naturally occurring in water and also coal, is added to toothpaste and drinking water.

Since the 1960s many medical experts have believed that small amounts of fluoride helps prevent tooth decay and strengthen bones.

However, the claimed benefits have increasingly drawn fire from medical experts who say that there are no tangible health advantages to the human body.

Several European countries over the last five years have stopped public water fluoridation programmes amid questions whether the mineral does more harm than good.

At its most severe, fluorosis results in the type of paralysis Zhang now has, and can even lead to cancer and brain damage. The sickness is incurable.

In China, where coal is still a primary cooking and heating fuel in rural areas, the disease is especially prevalent because the fluoride-carrying fumes from coal burnt inside homes pollute the air and the food.

According to Zhijin health bureau officials, the condition is particularly widespread in Guizhou because two regional food staples, corn and red peppers, are dried inside. The rising coal smoke then laces the food with fluoride.

Wang Jianjun, a vice director of the local health bureau, said extended educational campaigns have helped raise awareness of the disease, which can easily be avoided through the use of other cooking fuels.

But the cheapness and availability of coal in rural China has meant that old practices die hard, Wang said.

"We educate the villagers through television, radio and posters, let them know the cause and harm of the disease," he said. "It's very hard to change people's habits."

Wang added that it was not until 1978 that people knew what caused the disease, so China's older generation stood no chance of avoiding contamination.

Ma Wenbo, director of the health bureau, said that one partially successful solution was getting residents to install chimneys in their homes. Another measure was the use of gas made from manure.

However, the disease is still endemic and in Guizhou, a stunning 92 percent of the province's 37 million people are estimated to have some form of fluorosis.

While only about 4,000 people have severe skeletal fluorosis, said Ma, a look around in Zhijin reveals that residents as young as six have decaying teeth that are severely discoloured and other signs of the disease.

Nationwide more than 2.8 million have some form of skeletal fluorosis, according to data published in 2005 by China's national health ministry.

The condition is so common in rural China, where 800 million of the nation's 1.3 billion people live, that the health ministry estimates that 100 million are at risk.

Click to expand...

Anders said:

Thanks THAether for posting this. It is good to have the info gathered in one place.

As a child in primary school, we were used as guinea pigs for a couple of years gargling fluoride IN CLASS. Needless to say, I have had endless problems with caries in my teeth. Whether it is the cause, I don't know, but benefit NONE.

The other day my dentist wanted me to use a flouride mouthwash, but I gently declined. Not my thing.

Click to expand...

They do it in Australia too? I thought it was something that was implemented in the U.S. because I remember having to gargle fluoride at school as well as being given fluoride tablets to use to gargle at home. I had a couple of cavities filled in 6th grade, unfortunately amalgams, and eight more several years ago. I also have some mild fluorosis on my lower front teeth. No benefit here, either.

Bryan said:

Anders said:

Thanks THAether for posting this. It is good to have the info gathered in one place.

As a child in primary school, we were used as guinea pigs for a couple of years gargling fluoride IN CLASS. Needless to say, I have had endless problems with caries in my teeth. Whether it is the cause, I don't know, but benefit NONE.

The other day my dentist wanted me to use a flouride mouthwash, but I gently declined. Not my thing.

Click to expand...

They do it in Australia too? I thought it was something that was implemented in the U.S. because I remember having to gargle fluoride at school as well as being given fluoride tablets to use to gargle at home. I had a couple of cavities filled in 6th grade, unfortunately amalgams, and eight more several years ago. I also have some mild fluorosis on my lower front teeth. No benefit here, either.

Click to expand...

No, I grew up in Denmark, Europe, and early 1970'ies.

Thanks for all the great info on yet another great 'Lie' going on.
I live on the 'Gold Coast' QLD Australia and the debate on fluoride in the water has been drummed in for the last few years harder that ever. It looks like they're going to 'introduce' it in the very near future.
I have tank water so won't be drinking town water.

Does anyone known of ways to alkalize tank water to raise the PH level?

Regards,
John