The study, entitled Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico, was conducted by a team of scientists from University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard, and McGill, and found:
“…higher levels of maternal urinary
fluoride during pregnancy (a proxy for prenatal fluoride exposure) that
are in the range of levels of exposure in other general population
samples of pregnant women as well as nonpregnant adults were associated
with lower scores on tests of cognitive function in the offspring at 4
and 6–12 y old.”
Within hours of it being published, FAN released a video response featuring Chemist and Toxicologist, Professor Paul Connett, PhD.TAKE ACTION NOW:
- Share FAN’s Facebook and Twitter posts on social media.
- Share FAN’s webpage on the study with friends, family, co-workers; particularly expecting mothers.
- Share the study, the accompanying press release, FAN’s Video, and the Newsweek article with your city councilors and Water Board, urging them to protect the next generation by opposing fluoridation.
More to come…
FAN Comment
The study found a very large and significant effect. An increase in urine fluoride of 1 mg/L was associated with a drop in IQ of 5 to 6 points. Such a drop of IQ in the whole population would half the number of very bright children (IQ greater than 130) and double the number of mentally handicapped (IQ less than 70).Most of the Mexican women had urine fluoride between 0.5 and 1.5 mg/L. Studies have found that adults in the USA have between about 0.6 and 1.5 mg/L, almost exactly the same range. From the low end of that range to the high end is a difference of 1 mg/L which is what caused the 5 to 6 IQ point difference in the children of the study mothers.
This new study had fluoride exposures almost the same as what is found in fluoridating countries like the USA. The paper shows the relationship between urine fluoride and IQ in the graph (Figure 2) reproduced here:
The data in this graph has been adjusted for numerous potential confounding factors like sex, birth weight, gestational age, and whether the mother smoked. Other potential confounders had already been ruled out, including lead, mercury, alcohol consumption during pregnancy, mother’s education, mother’s IQ, and quality of home environment.
FAN has redrawn this graph in simplified form to better illustrate the relationship found between mothers’ urine fluoride and childrens’ IQ.
Important Points:
1. The loss of IQ is very large. The child of a mother who
was drinking 1 ppm F water would be predicted to have 5 to 6 IQ points
lower than if the mother had drunk water with close to zero F in it.2. The study measured urine F, which is usually a better indicator of total F intake than is the concentration of F in drinking water. When drinking water is the dominant source of F,, urine F and water F are usually about the same. So, the average urine F level in this study of 0.9 mg/L implies that woman was ingesting the same amount of F as a woman drinking water with 0.9 mg/L F.
3. The range of F exposures in this study is likely to be very close to the range in a fluoridated area of the United States. The doses in this study are directly applicable to areas with artificial fluoridation. There is no need to extrapolate downward from effects at higher doses. The claims by fluoridation defenders that only studies using much higher doses than occur in areas with artificial fluoridation have shown a loss of IQ are squarely refuted by this study. Those false claims range from 11 times to 30 times higher, but are based on the logical fallacy that it is the highest dose amongst several studies that is relevant, when it is the LOWEST dose amongst studies that is most relevant.
4. This study was very carefully done, by a group of researchers who have produced over 50 papers on the cognitive health of children in relationship to environmental exposures. This was funded by the NIH and was a multi-million dollar study. This was the group’s first study of fluoride, their other studies mostly dealing with lead, mercury, and other environmental neurotoxicants.
5. This study controlled for a wide range of potential factors that might have skewed the results and produced a false effect. It was able to largely rule out confounding by these other factors. The factors ruled out included Pb, Hg, socio-economic status, smoking, alcohol use, and health problems during pregnancy.
6. This study offers confirmation of previous less sophisticated studies in Mexico, China and elsewhere. Some of those studies had higher F exposures than are commonly found in the USA, but many did not. The sole study in a country with artificial water fluoridation (as opposed to artificial salt fluoridation which was likely a main source of F in this new study) was by Broadbent in New Zealand. That found no association between water F and IQ and was trumpted by fluoridation defenders. But that study was shown to have almost no difference in TOTAL F intake between the children with fluoridated water and those with unfluoridated water, since most of the unfluoridated water children were given F supplements.
7. The study authors are cautious in their conclusions, as is common for scientists. But the implications of this study are enormous. A single study will never prove that F lowers IQ at doses found in fluoridated areas, but this is more than a red flag. It is a cannon shot across the bow of the 80 year old practice of artificial fluoridation.
Read more:http://fluoridealert.org/content/bulletin_9-21-17/
No comments:
Post a Comment