Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm(salon.com)
salon.com
Health officials delayed report linking fluoride to brain harm
https://www.salon.com/2023/03/16/health-officials-delayed-report-linking-fluoride-to-brain-harm_partner/
422 comments
FYI:
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
The CDC recommends breastfeeding infants, as breastmilk contains significantly less fluoride than fluoridated drinking water. If breastfeeding is not possible, the CDC also endorses using fluoridated water in infant formula, though it suggests mixing the formula with low-fluoride bottled water to lessen the risk of dental fluorosis.
Infants who are fed formula made with fluoridated tap water can have three to four times higher fluoride exposure than adults, warned Lanphear. He added that before an infant's teeth erupt, there's no benefit to fluoride exposure. "There are vulnerable groups we have to be worried about," he said, "and that's not being brought out adequately by these agencies."
As a biochemist, this seems to be a very complex issue that has been unnecessarily politicized. What happened with this report is interesting in and of itself, but I would not draw any conclusions (or make any inferences) from this, frankly.
Twenty years ago, I moved from Michigan (a state that uses fluoride) to Mississippi (a state that doesn't use fluoride). My dentist at the time told me that I was going to end up with tooth decay if I stayed down there for more than a few years. Sure enough, five years later I moved back to Michigan and ended up with a cavity in an unusual place. My (new) dentist in Michigan was completely unsurprised.
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water. 2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
He said there are two problems with tooth decay in Mississippi:
1. They don't use fluoride in their water. 2. No decent dentist would ever work in Mississippi.
Fifteen years later, with no changes in dental hygiene in my entire life, and I've had no other problems with my teeth. Anecdotal evidence, maybe. But that is my experience.
It's worth thinking about the fact that virtually the entire EU gets by with non fluoridated water.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6923889/ - Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: an updated review
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ - Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8930857/ - The use of hydroxyapatite toothpaste to prevent dental caries
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3956646/ - Water Fluoridation: A Critical Review of the Physiological Effects of Ingested Fluoride as a Public Health Intervention
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8930857/ - The use of hydroxyapatite toothpaste to prevent dental caries
> In vitro and in situ studies are demonstrating promising results of HAP toothpastes on the remineralization of enamel lesions and preventing/reducing demineralization. Specifically, research appears to demonstrate either its superiority or equivalency to fluoride toothpaste as anti-caries agents.
I'm not sure how conspiratorial I'm being, but for years I've felt that the fluoridation of water was more about the dilution of neurotoxic industrial waste product and not oral health.
Regardless of whether I'm on or off base in that regard, I see little reason to continue to use something that - at best - will only react with pre-existing enamel, when hydroxyapatite toothpastes can actually fix damage (albeit to a limited degree).
So we know that there is definitely little benefit from ingesting fluoride, and also that we can not rule out negative effects from ingesting fluoride. This seems like... a bit of a big deal?
This seems like it is ultimately a result of the politicization of the issue: it becomes difficult to have an honest conversation of the merits and demerits of something if you know there’s a political faction ready to seize on everything you say and take it out of context. Not saying that makes it right, but it’s an outcome we could anticipate, I think.
This extensive review has been available since 2006:
https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-...
Neurotoxicity, especially in the presence of iodine deficiency, which is common, has been clearly documented. Toothpaste level exposure is enough to lower IQ in iodine deficiency.
>> This January, Birnbaum issued a scathing legal declaration as part of the lawsuit, writing, "The decision to set aside the results of an external peer review process based on concerns expressed by agencies with strong policy interests on fluoride suggests the presence of political interference in what should be a strictly scientific endeavor."
with
>> Despite this unusually rigorous review process, a network of health officials and influential dental groups argued that the NTP had failed to address several issues raised by the NASEM review committee.
Health officials and dental groups have interest on fluoridation for political reasons? I don't buy it!
I would imagine a self interst focused dental and profeccional helthcare group would argue for the decrease of fluoridation so more income comes from the work on decayed teeth. If it is meant of interest of their patients then that is just desirable! Also health officials and dentists are not the typical polititian group I picture in my mind. I'd sooner call them scientists than politicians. (if meant about scientific politics then should say so - including themselves and that why they push despite widespread scientific critics).
I am telling this with having only topical use of fluoride - with good results -, and with no desire for water fluoridation but also knowing that topical may not be sufficient enough for children and the broad population.
Somehow the feeling is that the NTP and Birnbaum is the manipulative and polititian here. Just a felling though, based on this limited and filtered report, but based on quotes.
with
>> Despite this unusually rigorous review process, a network of health officials and influential dental groups argued that the NTP had failed to address several issues raised by the NASEM review committee.
Health officials and dental groups have interest on fluoridation for political reasons? I don't buy it!
I would imagine a self interst focused dental and profeccional helthcare group would argue for the decrease of fluoridation so more income comes from the work on decayed teeth. If it is meant of interest of their patients then that is just desirable! Also health officials and dentists are not the typical polititian group I picture in my mind. I'd sooner call them scientists than politicians. (if meant about scientific politics then should say so - including themselves and that why they push despite widespread scientific critics).
I am telling this with having only topical use of fluoride - with good results -, and with no desire for water fluoridation but also knowing that topical may not be sufficient enough for children and the broad population.
Somehow the feeling is that the NTP and Birnbaum is the manipulative and polititian here. Just a felling though, based on this limited and filtered report, but based on quotes.
What is it about this report that no one is calling it a conspiracy theory anymore?
Edit: why am I being downvoted for this?
Edit: why am I being downvoted for this?
I once found myself stuck in a biker bar west of Dallas. I had to listen to this old timer Hell’s Angel go on and on about fluoride conspiracies. Some of them are pretty wild - “fluoride is created by nuclear weapons construction as waste and the government has to get rid of it somehow, so in the water it goes” for example. The rest of the evening is a little hazy but I remember that.
Incidentally, I used to think Hell’s Angels were just retired dentists.
Incidentally, I used to think Hell’s Angels were just retired dentists.
I wonder why it's been so difficult to stop blanket water fluoridation. Maybe something to do with corpos having a cheap way to dump toxic waste from fertilizer production that would otherwise be expensive to dispose of:
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
>The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
Plus we don't just drink fluoridated water- we bathe in it, we cook with it, our pets drink it, we water our lawns with it, its everywhere. I recall trying to find studies on the effects of these non-drinking uses years ago and not finding much. Again, I wonder why.
https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/engineering/engineering-sho...
>The three fluoride additives used for water fluoridation are derived principally from phosphate fertilizer production.
Plus we don't just drink fluoridated water- we bathe in it, we cook with it, our pets drink it, we water our lawns with it, its everywhere. I recall trying to find studies on the effects of these non-drinking uses years ago and not finding much. Again, I wonder why.
It's fascinating. Having gone through 301 comments and there really hasn't been any deep discussion at whether or not fluoride has been linked to brain harm.... There are little debates about drinking water. I'm disappointed..I'm gonna to have to do some digging.
Discussion on fluoride is interesting, but isn't the real news the censorship of the research results?
>But the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times the current recommended water fluoridation level, records show.
This is more a report about consuming excess fluoride from other sources that water.
>Because many common foods and drinks contain fluoride, consuming them along with fluoridated water could amount to harmful exposure levels, these experts say.
I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be
This is more a report about consuming excess fluoride from other sources that water.
>Because many common foods and drinks contain fluoride, consuming them along with fluoridated water could amount to harmful exposure levels, these experts say.
I do wonder what the other common food and drinks could be
This guy posted a video a few weeks ago, claiming to be sick from being over exposed to chlorine in drinking water in Mexico. He believes the combination of highly chlorinated drinking water and swimming daily in a chlorinated pool caused his symptoms.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWdEr1XyTw
My friend is convinced her autistic child was over exposed to aluminium or other metals...but maybe it was fluoride. These things need to be investigated.
We know that Lead exposure is widely known to cause harm to the brain, so other metals could have similar effects. Babies having a much smaller mass, would be much greater risk of ingesting toxic amounts or slow dose environmental exposure through things like aluminum cookware.
A substance might not be toxic on its own, but in combination with another substance in the environment could be highly toxic, but affect only some small percentage of people that come in in contact with both.
Like we know many prescribed drugs, can't be mixed with alcohol, because they become toxic if you do.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeWdEr1XyTw
My friend is convinced her autistic child was over exposed to aluminium or other metals...but maybe it was fluoride. These things need to be investigated.
We know that Lead exposure is widely known to cause harm to the brain, so other metals could have similar effects. Babies having a much smaller mass, would be much greater risk of ingesting toxic amounts or slow dose environmental exposure through things like aluminum cookware.
A substance might not be toxic on its own, but in combination with another substance in the environment could be highly toxic, but affect only some small percentage of people that come in in contact with both.
Like we know many prescribed drugs, can't be mixed with alcohol, because they become toxic if you do.
Fluoride increases precipitation of calcium onto tissues. It's very straightforward. Some parts of the brain are directly exposed to the blood and get easily calcified. In particular, parts of the brain associated with regulation of circadian rhythm are known to get calcified in the presence of higher fluoride. This has been known and understood for a long time.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to voice frustration with "rationalist skeptics", who for the longest time have ridiculed critics of mass water fluoridation. Maybe it's because they're really into the comforts of orthodoxy moreso than skepticism?
Using bullying and ridicule to reinforce unfounded scientific/medical orthodoxy in the name of "skepticism", or even in the name of "evidence" that you don't have... It isn't scientific no matter how much you'd like to believe it is.
I'd like to take this as an opportunity to voice frustration with "rationalist skeptics", who for the longest time have ridiculed critics of mass water fluoridation. Maybe it's because they're really into the comforts of orthodoxy moreso than skepticism?
Using bullying and ridicule to reinforce unfounded scientific/medical orthodoxy in the name of "skepticism", or even in the name of "evidence" that you don't have... It isn't scientific no matter how much you'd like to believe it is.
Health officials, believe it or not, are like any other human beings - in that they also have their own agendas and sometimes those agendas may be in direct opposition to the well being of others. I am surprised that anyone is surprised when news like this comes out.
Looks like the future neuralink test subjects have come into force against fluoride.
But of course people forgot the history of water fluoridation and the risks of dental cavities
(of course, for modern countries I guess it makes more sense to have it in dental products than just in tap water, but I don't buy the moral panic)
> The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear... the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times
Well good think we are at the current level and not at two times it then
But of course people forgot the history of water fluoridation and the risks of dental cavities
(of course, for modern countries I guess it makes more sense to have it in dental products than just in tap water, but I don't buy the moral panic)
> The report found that a link between typical levels of fluoride added to water and possible harm to brain development is unclear... the report did find a possible link to cognitive harm at approximately two times
Well good think we are at the current level and not at two times it then
All foods are full of sugar, government does nothing, children get teeth issues,
government solves it, by adding fluorine to our drinking water, adding more to our toxic overload.
I learned this too late: after brushing, don't rinse your mouth clean with water, leave the toothpaste residue on your teeth all night to improve effectiveness.
TIL black tea concentrates fluoride since the plant absorbs it.
Also this is kinda scary if true... https://assureasmile.com/fluoride-in-your-water/fluoride-in-...
Also this is kinda scary if true... https://assureasmile.com/fluoride-in-your-water/fluoride-in-...
Are places generally adding more than the recommended level of fluoride in their water? How much water do you have to ingest to reach the maximum recommended exposure? Given how bad people are at drinking the recommended level of water, I'm curious how they accurately assessed outcomes based on what I assume are relatively few data points
A reverse osmosis filtration system will remove the majority of ions from water, including fluoride. This enters into another scientific debate though, as some suggest that you are also removing beneficial minerals from the water at the same time.
I’ve heard from someone who worked in a water district that they didn’t add fluoride to water for dental health, that was a spin they put on it. Not sure how true it is though.
After the city treated and purified the water, they needed something to add in to keep it from reacting with the city’s pipes. Otherwise the water will eat the pipe and you get dirty water full of pipe delivered to the tap.
They needed something that was cheap, relatively safe to drink, and available in large quantities- fluoride checked those boxes. Supposedly they came up with the dental spin to sell the solution to the public.
After the city treated and purified the water, they needed something to add in to keep it from reacting with the city’s pipes. Otherwise the water will eat the pipe and you get dirty water full of pipe delivered to the tap.
They needed something that was cheap, relatively safe to drink, and available in large quantities- fluoride checked those boxes. Supposedly they came up with the dental spin to sell the solution to the public.
What does "possible link" mean? p<0.05?
maybe just brush your teeth
There are significant lobbies now trying to put both statins and lithium into the tap water.
This reminded me of an old CAQ/CAIB article I read in the '90s on the impact of fluoride as an industrial pollutant. I found a copy[1] hosted at a site operated by the "Fluoride Action Network", which is also hosting other alarming claims such as:
> • As of July 18, 2022, a total of 85 human studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence.
> • Of these investigations, 76 studies have reported that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans.
- https://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
There's a historical link between fluoride alarmism and the far right, famously parodied in Kubrick's Dr Strangelove in the person of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper[2,3] who instigates a nuclear response to the communist conspiracy to impurify America's bodily fluids via fluoride.
The CAQ article at [1] explains this:
> Oscar Ewing, as Federal Security Agency administrator, was a Truman “fair dealer” who pushed many progressive programs such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his proposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of “creeping socialism,” while the left rallied to its support. Later during the McCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the opposition when extreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and/or communists in the government to poison America’s brain cells.
> It was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the “original spin-doctor,” to paint all opponents as deranged–and they played this angle to the hilt. For example, one widely distributed dossier on opponents “listed in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
I should note that CAQ has itself been attacked as communist propaganda, (and for that matter, some of the studies linked on the fluoridealert site are Chinese in origin.) Nonetheless the article[1] has some interesting and (to me) surprising information on the politically entangled history of fluoride. An excerpt:
> One thing is certain, the name of the company with the biggest stake in fluoride’s safety was ALCOA–whose name is stamped all over the early history of water fluoridation.
> Throughout industry’s “roaring 20s,” the U.S. Public Health Service was under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA. In 1931, the year Mellon stepped down, a Public Health Service dentist named H. Trendley Dean was dispatched to certain remote towns in the West where drinking-water wells contained high concentrations of natural fluoride from deep in the earth’s crust. Dean’s mission was to determine how much fluoride people could tolerate without obvious damage to their teeth–a matter of considerable concern to ALCOA. Dean found that teeth in these high-fluoride towns were often discolored and eroded, but he also reported that they appeared to have fewer cavities than average. He cautiously recommended further studies to determine whether a lower level of fluoride in drinking water might reduce cavities without simultaneously damaging bones and teeth, where fluoride settles in humans and other animals.
> Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s Pittsburgh industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. ALCOA-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox27 immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: “The case should be regarded as proved.”28 In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.29 Cox began touring the country, stumping for fluoridation.
1: https://fluoridealert.org/content/fluoride-commie-plot-or-ca...
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKR32ImWYzw
> • As of July 18, 2022, a total of 85 human studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence.
> • Of these investigations, 76 studies have reported that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ in humans.
- https://fluoridealert.org/studies/brain01/
There's a historical link between fluoride alarmism and the far right, famously parodied in Kubrick's Dr Strangelove in the person of Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper[2,3] who instigates a nuclear response to the communist conspiracy to impurify America's bodily fluids via fluoride.
The CAQ article at [1] explains this:
> Oscar Ewing, as Federal Security Agency administrator, was a Truman “fair dealer” who pushed many progressive programs such as nationalized medicine. Fluoridation was lumped with his proposals. Inevitably, it was attacked by conservatives as a manifestation of “creeping socialism,” while the left rallied to its support. Later during the McCarthy era, the left was further alienated from the opposition when extreme right-wing groups, including the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan, raved that fluoridation was a plot by the Soviet Union and/or communists in the government to poison America’s brain cells.
> It was a simple task for promoters, under the guidance of the “original spin-doctor,” to paint all opponents as deranged–and they played this angle to the hilt. For example, one widely distributed dossier on opponents “listed in alphabetical order reputable scientists, convicted felons, food faddists, scientific organizations, and the Ku Klux Klan.”
I should note that CAQ has itself been attacked as communist propaganda, (and for that matter, some of the studies linked on the fluoridealert site are Chinese in origin.) Nonetheless the article[1] has some interesting and (to me) surprising information on the politically entangled history of fluoride. An excerpt:
> One thing is certain, the name of the company with the biggest stake in fluoride’s safety was ALCOA–whose name is stamped all over the early history of water fluoridation.
> Throughout industry’s “roaring 20s,” the U.S. Public Health Service was under the jurisdiction of Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon, a founder and major stockholder of ALCOA. In 1931, the year Mellon stepped down, a Public Health Service dentist named H. Trendley Dean was dispatched to certain remote towns in the West where drinking-water wells contained high concentrations of natural fluoride from deep in the earth’s crust. Dean’s mission was to determine how much fluoride people could tolerate without obvious damage to their teeth–a matter of considerable concern to ALCOA. Dean found that teeth in these high-fluoride towns were often discolored and eroded, but he also reported that they appeared to have fewer cavities than average. He cautiously recommended further studies to determine whether a lower level of fluoride in drinking water might reduce cavities without simultaneously damaging bones and teeth, where fluoride settles in humans and other animals.
> Back at the Mellon Institute, ALCOA’s Pittsburgh industrial research lab, this news was galvanic. ALCOA-sponsored biochemist Gerald J. Cox27 immediately fluoridated some lab rats in a study and concluded that fluoride reduced cavities and that: “The case should be regarded as proved.”28 In a historic moment in 1939, the first public proposal that the U.S. should fluoridate its water supplies was made not by a doctor, or dentist, but by Cox, an industry scientist working for a company threatened by fluoride damage claims.29 Cox began touring the country, stumping for fluoridation.
1: https://fluoridealert.org/content/fluoride-commie-plot-or-ca...
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4XhhTF7vRM
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKR32ImWYzw
As a general rule of thumb, I think it's interesting to scrutinize dosage recommendations and compare regulations between countries. If someone claims that the science on some topic is well settled then health officials in multiple countries should arrive at roughly similar results. If there's a discrepancy between the suggestions made by health officials in the US and EU, it's worth asking why.