Moth­ers Ex­posed to Flu­o­ride Dur­ing Preg­nancy Give Birth to Lower IQ Chil­dren

Trillions - - In this Issue - http://flu­o­ride­al­

New stud­ies show that flu­o­ride dam­ages ba­bies be­fore they are born.

Flu­o­ride is well known to be more toxic than lead and slightly less toxic than ar­senic. Dozens of in­de­pen­dent stud­ies pub­lished in peer-re­viewed jour­nals have clearly shown that flu­o­ride re­duces IQ. So it should have come as no sur­prise that moth­ers ex­posed to flu­o­ride would de­liver ba­bies with brain dam­age.

The prob­lem is that in the United States, Canada, the United King­dom, Aus­tralia, Sin­ga­pore, Hong Kong, Chile and a few other coun­tries, most of the pop­u­la­tion is de­lib­er­ately ex­posed to harm­ful lev­els of flu­o­ride through their drink­ing wa­ter and have ad­di­tional ex­po­sure to it from air, food, bot­tled bev­er­ages and tooth­paste.

Flu­o­ride is a flu­o­rine com­pound. The el­e­ment flu­o­rine is so un­sta­ble that it is not re­ally found in nature un­less it has bonded to some other el­e­ment. In nature, it is found mostly as cal­cium flu­o­ride.

Flu­o­rine started to be man­u­fac­tured in vol­ume only after the United States needed it to en­rich ura­nium to pro­duce the atomic bomb. It is also now widely used in phos­phate-fer­til­izer plants and is found in about 100 chem­i­cals. It is the pri­mary ac­tive in­gre­di­ent in many phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, in­clud­ing an­tide­pres­sants known to cause homi­ci­dal and sui­ci­dal com­pul­sions.

Prior to World War II, flu­o­ride was widely con­sid­ered to be a dan­ger­ous toxin to be avoided and was thought by some to make peo­ple docile and sug­gestible. Even the Amer­i­can Den­tal As­so­ci­a­tion (ADA) was dead set against the idea of adding flu­o­ride to wa­ter or tooth­paste.

Flu­o­ride is still widely dis­trib­uted in U.S. wa­ter sup­plies and in den­tal prod­ucts be­cause it is said to re­duce tooth de­cay, but the re­al­ity is that it doesn’t ac­tu­ally re­duce tooth de­cay. Data clearly shows that peo­ple who live in coun­tries with­out wa­ter flu­o­ri­da­tion have the same num­ber of or fewer cav­i­ties.

The den­tal in­dus­try uses fake sci­ence and cher­ryp­icked data while ig­nor­ing the vast num­ber of stud­ies that don’t support its po­si­tion.

Al­though still not widely dis­trib­uted, sev­eral sci­en­tific stud­ies have re­vealed that flu­o­ride is an en­docrinedis­rupt­ing chem­i­cal. The cat­e­gory of en­docrinedis­rupt­ing chem­i­cals in­cludes items such as mer­cury, organophos­phate pes­ti­cides, lead, ar­senic, dioxin and Bisphe­nol A (also known as BPA). What they share is ex­actly what their name de­fines: the abil­ity to dis­rupt the hu­man en­docrine sys­tem.

This dis­rup­tion can take many dif­fer­ent forms. Th­ese chem­i­cals can cause cer­tain hor­mones to be re­leased pre­ma­turely or in larger quan­ti­ties than is ap­pro­pri­ate, slow the pro­duc­tion of hor­mones nec­es­sary for proper phys­i­cal func­tions, im­i­tate hor­mones (the dan­ger­ous chem­i­cals re­place the “good” ones they are copying), change one hor­mone into an­other, af­fect the way “hor­mone sig­nal­ing” hap­pens, bind to es­sen­tial hor­mones but dras­ti­cally al­ter their ef­fec­tive­ness and com­pete with other items in the body for es­sen­tial nu­tri­ents. Such chem­i­cals also end up ac­cu­mu­lat­ing in or­gans that pro­duce other hor­mones, caus­ing them to mal­func­tion.

Be­sides act­ing as an en­docrine dis­rupter, flu­o­ride has also been shown more re­cently to func­tion as a dan­ger­ous neu­ro­toxin. It has been shown to im­pact both short-term and work­ing mem­ory. It has also been con­nected to at­ten­tion deficit hy­per­ac­tiv­ity dis­or­der (ADHD) and the preva­lence of lower IQS in chil­dren ex­posed to the chem­i­cal. There are, in fact, more than 300 an­i­mal and hu­man stud­ies that show that too much flu­o­ride can cause brain dam­age (es­pe­cially in peo­ple who are io­dine-de­fi­cient or whose alu­minum level is too high) and can make it harder to learn and re­call in­for­ma­tion.

One might imag­ine that the U.S. gov­ern­ment was op­er­at­ing com­pletely “asleep at the wheel” re­gard­ing the dan­gers of flu­o­ride. That is not the com­plete story, how­ever. In April 2015, fed­eral au­thor­i­ties fi­nally ad­mit­ted that the orig­i­nal rec­om­mended “op­ti­mal” ex­po­sure to flu­o­ride, go­ing back to 1962, was higher than it should have been. They did this after de­ter­min­ing that over 40% of U.S. teenagers had been ex­posed to much higher lev­els of flu­o­ride than they should have been and were demon­strat­ing symp­toms of den­tal flu­o­ro­sis. In some ar­eas of the coun­try, that over­ex­po­sure rate was over 70%.

Based on this, the U.S. Depart­ment of Health and Hu­man Ser­vices (HHS) re­cently low­ered the rec­om­mended amount of flu­o­ride put in drink­ing wa­ter. The pre­vi­ous value had al­lowed for up to 1.2 mil­ligrams of flu­o­ride per liter of wa­ter. The new rec­om­mended level is 0.7 mg/l, a de­crease of ~42%.

The idea that there might be se­ri­ous con­se­quences for ba­bies in utero who were ex­posed to higher lev­els of flu­o­ride was an easy jump to make. Pre­vi­ous data

had al­ready called out the likely role of flu­o­ride in im­pair­ing fe­tal brain de­vel­op­ment and pro­duc­ing lower IQS. So, when a study pub­lished in Septem­ber 2017 in En­vi­ron­men­tal Health Per­spec­tives came out say­ing that flu­o­ride is a toxin that should be avoided at all costs by preg­nant women, it was not a sur­prise to those fa­mil­iar with the sci­ence in­volved.

The study cov­ered data from al­most 300 moth­ers and their chil­dren in Mex­ico. It was con­ducted by Howard Hu, found­ing dean of the Dalla Lana School of Pub­lic Health, Univer­sity of Toronto.

As a back­ground, while Mex­ico does not flu­o­ri­date its pub­lic drink­ing wa­ter sup­plies, there is still a great deal of flu­o­ride in the Mex­i­can food and hy­giene ecosys­tem. There is still the flu­o­ride that nat­u­rally oc­curs in wa­ter, along with flu­o­ri­dated salt, den­tal prod­ucts, food sup­ple­ments, pes­ti­cides and even tea. That amounts to quite a bit of flu­o­ride still mak­ing its way into the bod­ies of Mex­i­can moth­ers dur­ing preg­nancy.

In this study, the mean level of flu­o­ride in the urine of the moth­ers in­cluded in the in­ves­ti­ga­tion was 0.9 mg/l. The ob­ser­va­tion was made that with some 75% of U.S. drink­ing-wa­ter sup­plies now be­ing flu­o­ri­dated, the level of flu­o­ride con­tam­i­na­tion in Amer­i­can moth­ers was not likely to be a great deal dif­fer­ent than that of the Mex­i­can moth­ers in the study.

What re­searcher Hu noted in his study was that “the fe­tal sys­tem tends to be more sen­si­tive to en­vi­ron­men­tal tox­i­cants than once the child is born.” He went on to con­clude, based on the anal­y­sis, that a child of a mother drink­ing wa­ter with 1 part per mil­lion (ppm) of flu­o­ride would have an IQ run­ning 5 to 6 points lower than a child born to a mother drink­ing only flu­o­ride-free wa­ter. Fur­ther, as the level of flu­o­ride in the wa­ter in­creased, the ef­fect was worse. For ev­ery 0.5 mg/l in­crease in flu­o­ride con­cen­tra­tion in the wa­ter be­yond 0.8 mg/l, there was an­other 2.5-point re­duc­tion in IQ and a cog­ni­tive in­dex score re­duc­tion of 3.15 points. A de­tailed scat­ter graph backed up the lin­ear re­la­tion­ship be­tween Iq-level im­pact and flu­o­ride con­cen­tra­tion.

Com­par­ing that to what has been a decades-long ex­po­sure to 1.2 mg/l of flu­o­ride in the wa­ter as a “safe” level, that would cor­re­spond to a 0.4 mg/l in­crease over the base num­ber noted above.

Does this mean the new “safe” max­i­mum level of flu­o­ride ex­po­sure the HHS has set – 0.7 mg/l – is safe enough? Hardly. It sim­ply means that go­ing over that level is worse. The best sce­nario would be zero ex­po­sure to flu­o­ride.

After see­ing Hu’s study and con­sid­er­ing its im­pli­ca­tions, the ADA, which has a close re­la­tion­ship with the flu­o­ride sup­ply in­dus­try, has said the find­ings are not rel­e­vant be­cause the source of the flu­o­ride in­gested was not iden­ti­fied. That, of course, makes lit­tle sense, con­sid­er­ing that it is the flu­o­ride it­self that is the is­sue, as well as its ready abil­ity to be ab­sorbed into the blood­stream. It has noth­ing to do with where it comes from. So the ADA, which by its en­dorse­ment en­cour­ages putting even more flu­o­ride into preg­nant women’s bod­ies via their tooth­pastes and other den­tal prod­ucts, is mak­ing mat­ters worse.

In some ways, this is feel­ing like a re­run of the sit­u­a­tion when the con­tro­ver­sial an­timi­cro­bial agent tri­closan and its chem­i­cal sib­ling tri­clo­car­ban ended up be­ing banned last year from hand and body washes and bar soaps. When the FDA banned the items in Septem­ber 2017, it pointed out that tri­closan, tri­clo­car­ban and the other chem­i­cals re­moved from con­sumer prod­ucts are not just un­nec­es­sary. The agency also noted that there is ev­i­dence that those chem­i­cals dis­rupt hor­mone cy­cles and can cause mus­cle weak­ness.

The FDA ban did not suc­ceed ev­ery­where, how­ever. The same tri­closan chem­i­cal now banned from soap prod­ucts is still al­lowed in tooth­paste as an ad­di­tive placed there for pre­cisely the same mar­ket­ing rea­son: that it al­legedly helps those brush­ing their teeth to kill bac­te­ria dur­ing the tooth-brush­ing process. This is again de­spite tri­closan ap­par­ently caus­ing hor­mone dis­rup­tion – just as the sci­en­tists are prov­ing now, again and again, for the pres­ence of flu­o­ride in the wa­ter.

So how did tri­closan and sim­i­lar chem­i­cals make it through un­scathed as part of oral hy­giene prod­ucts? None other than via the ADA, along with lob­by­ing by the man­u­fac­tur­ers of the tri­closan tooth­pastes them­selves, which are even patented so oth­ers can’t use this ap­proach even if it were safe.

The story on tri­closan is still to be in­ves­ti­gated in more de­tail. For now, the con­clu­sions on the many forms of dam­age that flu­o­ride can do to all of us – and our un­born chil­dren – are be­com­ing clearer than ever.

Tooth­paste is avail­able with­out flu­o­ride, tri­closan and other poi­sons.

For in­de­pen­dent, sci­ence-based in­for­ma­tion on the haz­ards of flu­o­ride please visit:

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.