AARP and the photographers of Magnum Photos look at older people living in new ways around the world in A New Age.

Reply
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
154
Views

My girw us the 3xact opposite. Only a fluoridation activist woRe: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

154 Views
Message 31 of 1,372

My view is the exact opposite of tbe claim that only fluoridation advocates would make, which is that the study somehow proves fluoride ingestion from water fluoridation does not affect IQ. That is deceived and beyond the pale. 

And only someone who is not an experimental biologist would dishonor the Mullenix study for not achieving the exact average midrange for F seen in human consumers of  F'd water. The technical difficulties with such adjustments are  not only extremely difficult  but are unbearably time consuming. She in fact lost her grant funds because fluoridation activists  could not stand obtaining more such data. The military officials desiring fluoridation laughed and began dumping their waste NaF into water supplies across the country without a second thought.

 

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
154
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
153
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

153 Views
Message 32 of 1,372

FAN response to the unfounded criticism of the Green et al. (2019) study:

 

NEW YORK, Aug. 21, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- A newly published carefully-researched and meticulously peer-reviewed US government-funded study published in JAMA Pediatrics reports maternal fluoride levels are linked to offspring's lower IQ. But the same day the study was released, many fluoridation proponents erroneously dismissed it, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

 

Critics claim: "It is only one study." The truth is that over 50 studies have found a lowering of IQ associated with fluoride exposure including another high-quality US-government funded study (Bashash et al., 2017) using similar methodology as the JAMA study. (Also, Thomas et al. 2018 Occupational & Environmental MedicineValdez Jiménez et al. Neurotoxicology  2017 and Li et al Fluoride 2008)

 

Critics claim: "It doesn't prove cause and effect." No epidemiological study can. However, over 400 animal and cell studies underline the JAMA study's biological plausibility.

 

Critics claim: "A loss of 3-4 IQ points is not enough to be concerned."  This is a predicted average drop for the whole population – such a shift could dramatically reduce the percentage of very bright children and increase the number of mentally handicapped. 

 

Critics claim: "Loss of IQ cannot be sex-related." This claim ignores what the authors state about these sex differences. Christine Till the lead author responds to this and other criticisms in an interview on Canadian TV Contradicting other claims, the mothers were not exposed to high fluoride levels and the study did control for lead, mercury, manganese, perfluoro-octanoic acid, and urinary arsenic.

 

Claims that thousands of studies show fluoridation is safe are not true. In fact, public health has been negligent about examining  the health of people living in fluoridated communities. Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Director says, "It is sickening to hear promoters tout the benefits of swallowing fluoride when confronted with such serious evidence of harm. You can repair a child's tooth but you can't repair a child's brain if it is harmed during fetal development." "It is fine to ask for more studies. But, the only reasonable course of action is to place a moratorium on fluoridation until the matter has been resolved. Meanwhile, pregnant women should be warned to avoid fluoride as much as they can," says Connett.         

 

Connett's video response to criticisms of the JAMA/IQ study https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjKUqf85E6Q&feature=youtu.be 

 

SOURCE Fluoride Action Network

Related Links

http://FluorideAction.Net

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
153
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
145
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

145 Views
Message 33 of 1,372

Richard - You say:

"the fluoride systemic blood levels in the Mullenix studies matched that in humans who are unfortunate to have to live in an area with 1 ppm fluoridated water."

In fact, Mullenix cites plasma F levels in humans exposed to drinking water of 5-10, and 16 ppm F. Very far outside recommended concentrations.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
145
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
142
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

142 Views
Message 34 of 1,372

Richard. I think an apology from you is required. It was actually Bill who said this (https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2174982#M2232):

"The latest fluoride lowering IQ study by Green et al 2019, is rather powerful, with dosages of fluoride similar from all sources except fluoridated water."

I am confusing the two of you again.

But what is your view of the Green et al paper now that you have commented on it below:

https://community.aarp.org/t5/Brain-Health/Fluoride-Demand-AARP-Take-Action/m-p/2175262#M2251

Millunex's study used much higher concentrations of drinking water F. She cited a few levels for a few blood samples for humans receiving much higher than normal concentrations of F in drinking water. She did not make a proper evaluation of these and only opportunistic anti-fluoride activists make the argument you have.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
142
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
159
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

159 Views
Message 35 of 1,372

It would be nice if some day people would stop lying, but they just don't. I have never made a statement in all history about the IQ study that is being discussed here, until 10 minutes ago. So the claim I referred to it as being as great as sliced bread is an outright lie.

Second, the Mullenix study is very relevant because unlike humans who cannot be controlled for diet and behavior in cages, mammals most certianly can and were.

Third, the fluoride systemic blood levels in the Mullenix studies matched that in humans who are unfortunate to have to live in an area with 1 ppm fluoridated water. So the argument that the brain abnormalities have no relevance to CWF is also absurd. The animals used have small stomachs and the residence time of HF in the stomach is most likely not long enough for full assimilation, so a higher water concentration is needed to achieve the same extracellular fluid level of fluoride that humans have in fluoridated areas. . 

Why don't you just say the studies are not relevant because mammals are not humans?

Agian, epidemiologic studies in man are nearly impossible to perform witthout extraneous variables causing scatter in the data. Some people are vegetatrians, some are not, some drink lots of soda, some do not. This is why fluoridation studies in man that "prove" dental caries benefit are so worthless. Teeth caries are a direct result of the envirionment in the oral cavity to which the teeth are exposed, so teeth caries incidence modification due to various treatments are the most difficult to study well in man.  In caged animals we already know that drinkng fluoridated water does not have a single detectable effect on dental caries. CWF is s a worthless procedure, regardless of whether this study turns out to be properly interpreted or not.

Fourth, it is not possible to state that fluoridation of man causes no effect on IQ. That is another lie. Where are the data that prove this? Especially when this study involved a very small difference in fluoride exposure.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
159
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
168
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

168 Views
Message 36 of 1,372

Richard - you ignore Krutchen's point. There is a very significant effect of sex on IQ - once that is removed there is no effect of fluoride on IQ. And that is reflected in the mean IQ for all children - exactly the same in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas.

In fact, fluoridation has no effect on the mean IQ for boys (104.78 vs 106.31) or for girls (111.47 vs 109.68) which confirms what Krutchen says. There is no statistically significant reduction for boys or girls (if you claim there is could you please show me the workings).

Yes, of course, the effect of sex on IQ is important, maybe a worry. But one can't help speculating on the fact the sample in this study was not really representative. Several critics have commented on this.

But I stress - there is no effect of fluoride on IQ and the Green et al results appear to have arisen from the frowned-on subsampling they used and possibly a non-representative sample. One also must remember there will be an effect due to non-normal data distribution and the reported effect explains only a very small part of the IQ variance.

Concentration on fluoride is perhaps obscuring what should be the real worry - at least for males.

The Mullenix study is irrelevant to community water fluoridation - high F diet and rats.

You seem now willing to discard the Green et al study (perhaps wise) but formerly thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
168
Views
Regular Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
160
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

160 Views
Message 37 of 1,372

It is incorect to claim that the data discussed demonstrate that there is no effect of fluoride ingestion during development on IQ. The reduction reported for boys that is not seen for girls is not surprising and has so many possible explanations that it isn't even funny. First of all, boys are not girls and girls are not boys because boys alone have a Y chromosome. And boys only have one X chromosome while girls have two. The genetic differences are vast and there is no reason to exclude the possibility that systemic fluoride can differentially affect either Y chromosome haplotypes more than other chromosomes, or that women can withstand a fluoride perturbation by having two X chromosomes rather than only one. Fluoride is a normal hydrogen bond disruptor by forming abnormal hydrogen bond interactions, with significant adverse effects on large macromolecules like DNA. Fluoride even at only around 0.1 ppm inhibits DNA repair enzymes which are very susceptible to the ion. Fluoride is also a recognized mitogen.

 

Secondly, statistical covering is a significant problem in epidemiologic studies. For example, if you do not want World War II to have ever existed, you could convince yourself of that by simply lookng at world populations from 1930 to 1950. You will find that the progressive increase in population is smooth and regular to the naked eye. However, if you analyze only the population of Europe over the same time period you wll see a huge drop from the otherwise regularly increasing population occurred during the War years. And the reason we can prove that WWII existed is from other data (e.g. photographic proof, eyewitness testimony, personal involvement, etc.)

 

Likewise, if you don't want fluoride to affect IQ, ignore the well controlled Mullenix studies with mammals that proved fluoride ingestion does impair neurologic development and the Raady animal studies and the Varner animal studies, and the many other human studies correlating blood fluoride concentrations with IQ, and then claim that since girls did not experience any detectable effect in one study of xposure that caused onlyh a slight difference in F urine levels, that voila there is no effect of fluoride on IQ. The argument is baesless of couse but yet people love to do it.

Richard Sauerheber, Ph.D.
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
160
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
164
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

164 Views
Message 38 of 1,372

sirpac271999 - Yes, he extracted 407 points for fig 3A. I extracted 410. Quite a bit lower than the 512 claimed to be in the graph. As Krutchen says "either data was not plotted, or more likely over-plotting"

It's always difficult to ensure complete capture or avoid mistaken capture but I suspect the authors did not include all the data points in their graph. I enlarged the graphs to ensure as best I could that I captured all the points.

I think my capture was pretty representative though. For example, Green et al give mean values of IQ for MUF sample of 107.16 (I get 106.8) for total, for boys of 104.61 (I get 104.0) and girls 109.56 (I get 109.6).

 

For Fig 3B I extracted 319 points (Green reports an n of 400). But still, my mean IQ values were very close. For the nonfluoridated sample, they get a mean IQ of 108.07 (I get 108.3). For the fluoridated sample, they get a mean of 108.21 (I get 108.8).

So very close reproduction of values.

IMPORTANTLY - Green et al found no effect of fluoridation on IQ. (108.21 vs 108.07). They do not comment on this in their discussion.

Yes, Kruchten found a significant effect of sex and wonders why this should be commenting "
which is of course strange. We shouldn't expect anything like that to happen. This difference is very significant. There's also some outlier extremely low IQ values among the male children."

 
He comments further "All of this is strange, we shouldn't expect a huge IQ difference by sex, and more importantly sex shouldn't likely be confounded by anything of interest in the study. E.g. expecting mothers are not likely have their fluoride consumption affected by the sex of their baby."
 
That is weird - yet my analysis showed that the mean MUF values  (during pregnancy before the child was born) were 0.50 mg/L for mothers who later had female children and 0.57 mg/L for mothers who later and male children.  I really do wonder if the sample, especially for male children, was unrepresentative or contaminated in some way because it is hard to think of a mechanism to explain this.

However, once the significant effect of sex on IQ is taken into account there appears to be no effect due to fluoride. Krutchen says:

"with such a significant effect of sex on IQ, does fluoride have any remaining relationship? The answer is a resounding no in the digitized data."
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
164
Views
Silver Conversationalist
0
Kudos
161
Views

Re: Fluoride - Demand AARP Take Action

161 Views
Message 39 of 1,372

If you look at the PhD student analysis, he had a smaller sample that was presumably derived from the Green et al. (2019) study, but he also found significance for Male children. See:

https://twitter.com/AdamKruchten/status/1163852901124464640

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
161
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
202
Views

Biological Plausibility & Weight of Scientific Evidence

202 Views
Message 40 of 1,372

“Industry has learned that debating the science is much easier and more effective than debating the policy. In field after field, year after year, conclusions that might support regulation are always disputed. Animal data are deemed not relevant, human data not representative, and exposure data not reliable.” - David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, in “Doubt Is Their Product” (2008)

 

Given the ethical limitations of experimenting on human beings and the reluctance of organizations to reverse policy, there is unlikely to be a perfect single study that closes the book on fluoridation as harmful. However, the sum of the studies in multiple areas should do so. 

 

Chemists define fluoride as a poison and the EPA recognizes fluoride as a water contaminant. The in vitro, animal, bio-chemical, and other laboratory studies support the findings of epidemiological studies - fluoride even in low doses harms the health in a significant percentage of the population which includes vulnerable subpopulations that include pregnant women & their fetuses, bottle-fed infants & young children, the elderly and those with chronic health conditions like kidney, thyroid, autoimmune & inflammatory diseases.   

 

A scientist recently said to me that as a scientist, she'd hesitate to speak definitively about any epidemiological study at work, but when she goes home she'd be sure her pregnant daughter especially only drank fluoride-free water and used fluoride-free toothpaste. You just don't take that gamble when the stakes are so high. 

 

She went on to say, "but it is not just the epidemiological studies. There is no question that fluoride even in low doses is harmful to consumers, with some consumers being more vulnerable than others." 

 

UNSAFE: “Consequently, although the World Health Organization continues to support F schemes for caries prevention despite a lack of scientific proof, the F schemes are not able to improve the crystal quality but rather contribute adversely to affect tooth development and increases the risk of developing postmenopausal osteoporosis.” - Mitsuo Kakei, Masayoshi Yoshikawa and Hiroyuki Mishima. Fluoride Exposure May Accelerate the Osteoporotic Change in Postmenopausal Women: Animal Model of Fluoride-induced Osteoporosis. Adv Tech Biol Med 2016, 4:1 http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/2379-1764.1000170

 

UNSAFE: “These findings show that fluoride consistently increases BPb and calcified tissues Pb concentrations in animals exposed to low levels of lead and suggest that a biological effect not yet recognized may underlie the epidemiological association between increased BPb lead levels in children living in water-fluoridated communities." - Sawan RM, et al. in Fluoride increases lead concentrations in whole blood and in calcified tissues from lead-exposed rats. Toxicology. 2010 Apr 30;271(1-2):21-6. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20188782

 

UNSAFE: "....the WHO's recommended concentrations in drinking water become nephrotoxic to CKD rats, thereby aggravating renal disease and making media vascular calcification significant."  - A. Martín-Pardillos et al. in Effect of water fluoridation on the development of medial vascular calcification in uremic rats. Toxicology. 2014 Apr 6;318:40-50 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24561004 

 

OVERDOSED: “Fluoride is not an essential element for human growth and development. Prolonged exposure to fluoride in the prenatal and postnatal stages of development might have toxic effects on the development and metabolism of brain.… The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has done both a dose-response analysis and a relative source contribution analysis. This data show that at the 90th percentile a third of children between the ages of 6 months and 4 years are getting significantly more fluoride than is considered safe.” 
- A Strunecka et al. in Immunoexcitotoxicity as the central mechanism of etiopathology and treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A possible role of fluoride and aluminum. Surgical Neurology International. 2018 Apr 9;9:74. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29721353

The biological plausibility of a poison causing harm in low concentrations, especially in vulnerable populations and when taken daily for decades is not scientifically controversial. The controversy over fluoridation is politicaly motivated but per David Michaels of OSHA quoted above, confused by biased players. 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
202
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have a question about AARP membership or benefits? Ask it in the AARP Help Membership forum, Benefits & Discounts forum, or General forum.


multiple white question marks with center red question mark