Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Harvard Study Suggests that Fluoride Lowers IQ

A Harvard University researchers' review of fluoride/brain studies concludes "our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children's neurodevelopment." It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences' journal, reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation.

The study showed that, "The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas. Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature "

Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breast milk.

Bottom line, fluoride is even worse than Murray Rothbard thought. But be sure to check out Rothbard's explanation of how the evil Aluminum Corporation of America was responsible for fluoride being introduced into water supplies, using dubious science.


  1. Yes, Johnny's not the sharpest crayon in the box, but, boy, are his teeth nice!

  2. But, it's great for your teeth and that's why it's in your water. Go back to sleep citizen.

    1. One word.

    2. Considering that our country is about 2/3 fluoridated, if fluoride was effective at fighting dental cavities, you would think there would be a lot of dentists out of work. Actually it is a growing profession.

    3. Good comment, Anon at 10:24 AM on 10-10-12.

      Reaction: Of course, it is unthinkable to the government that people should take personal responsibility for determining what actions or products might be best for protecting their teeth, and then proceed to act on that information as they see fit (as opposed to government doing it for them, regardless of). This comment presumes a person who really thinks fluoride protects teeth and that it does not have adverse effects.

      Wait, I just wasted everyone's time: I could have ended the comment at the words "personal responsibility."

    4. There just isn't a meaningful interpretation for "personal responsibility" with respect to the little 4 year old girl who needs an operation for a mouth full of cavities.

      These are common cases and would be three times more likely if your city doesn't fluoridate.

      A 4 year old having an operation for cavities which fluoridation would prevent doesn't get to chose her parents, her diet, her lack of dental care, or the bacteria in her mother's mouth an important reason for the terrible cavities.

      Actually it doesn't work even the older children. Compelling testimony that the school based programs were generally failures was an important reason Commission Fritz voted to fluoridate. Ideas like buying tablets or toothpaste roll off the tongues of opponents but no public health expert has found a way to create an effective public health intervention from them.

      There really are no effective alternatives. If there were I certainly wouldn't be here arguing about this.

  3. Some research exists on how tamarind can counter the effects of fluoride in water supply. Although many others say the studies are inconclusive. Historically for generations people in India of states like Andhra Pradesh(where water has high fluoride content naturally) used to put tamarind in their lentil soups/daal which was eaten daily. As the availability of tomato became pervasive and price decreased, people replaced use of tamarind by tomato as it gave a similar tangy taste to the lentil soup/daal and this change in behavior is claimed to have lead to an increase in instances of fluorosis.

    1. In case anyone's wondering, tamarind is pretty tasty.

  4. It's always important to note the difference between naturally occurring calcium fluoride tainted water and government added and mandated sodium fluoride.

    For those with children and are uninitiated, Rothbard does his thing here:

  5. It's actually not even good for your teeth; even that part is a lie.

  6. Drinking fluoride to prevent cavities makes as much sense as ingesting sunscreen to prevent skin cancer.

  7. On the website,, there is a summary of each state for possible relocation. Most of the summaries mention what percentage of that state is fluoridated.

    It wouldn't surprise me if the more regulated, socialist, fascist and blue states are more fluoridated (which could explain why so many lefty-nitwits in the blue states).

  8. I'm wondering if the test was done in areas which already have a low IQ, such as Detroit, Washington D.C., Seattle, San Francisco, and Austin.

  9. That's it, I have had it. I am going to kill fluoride in Philly's water. Will put a crew of Penn, Temple and Drexel bio-sciences and statistic professors together and put it to rest.

    1. For the sake of Philadelphia's better dental health I hope not.

      There is enormous expert science consensus that community water fluoridation is safe, effective and inexpensive.

      Start at one of Philadelphia's dental school's department of public health and see how far you ge.

  10. Natural fluoride, if it's calcium fluoride, is not as bad as what they're really putting in the water supplies. It's the industrial waste from the fertilizer industry and the aluminium industry that are the true horrors, things like Sodium Fluoride and the highly toxic Fluosilicic acid. Some of these contain not only fluoride derivatives, but fluosilicic acid contains high levels of arsenic. But get this, a lot of the fluoride additives are now being imported from China. The company in China that exports it tells us how fluoride is promoted as an insecticide, a chemical for the nuclear industry, and a water treatment chemical all in one.

    Of course this leaves out the fact that fluoride causes: fertility problems, cancer (bone cancers primarily), thyroid malfunction (replaces iodine which is taken up by the thyroid), infirmity, dental fluorosis (no it's not good for your teeth), and endocrine disruption.

  11. This is another one I had seen on ICYMI (a site someone posted in the EPJ comments a while back -- thank you).

    Anyway, check out what happened in Illinois at a water treatment plant last year.

  12. Everyone should reconsider ingesting fluoride through the tap water. The FDA has approved 3 fluoride compounds to be used in toothpaste but has NEVER approved of the toxic waste (fluorosilicic acid) that they are polluting our drinking water with. And the toothpaste says to spit out and if swallowed get medical attention.

    Florida readers, join in the effort to stop the practice of putting toxic chemicals in our tap water.

    On Facebook, “click to join” in upper right hand corner

    Fluoride Free Florida

  13. This simply isn't true. The fluorosilicilates are not used in toothpaste.

    The FDA doesn't regulat

    FDA policies have absolutely nothing to do with community water fluoridation. The EPA regulates fluoride in drinking water.

    That fluoridation has very clear and positive benefits to a community's oral health has been confirmed time and time again in the 65+ years of its use in large populations.

    The most compelling data of community water fluoridation's (CWF) effectiveness is the huge Louisiana Medicaid study which found 2/3rds of the operations for terrible cavities in kids are avoided with CWF

    see: Water Fluoridation & Costs of Medicaid Treatment for Dental Decay. MMWR. CDC 09/03/1999

    In the Louisiana study 50% of the dental bills for the kids studied were avoided. If this were the only benefit 150% CWF returns in lower dental bills. That money will allow state Medicaid programs to purchase more care for poor children.

    see: Prev Chronic Dis. 2012 Mar;9: A simulation model for designing effective interventions in early childhood caries. Hirsch GB, et al

  14. This study compared children living in areas of China where natural fluoride levels are extremely high -- up to 10 times higher than in the U.S. -- with children in low-fluoride areas.

    The authors said the difference in IQ was small and within the measurement error for IQ testing. Ironically, the children in the low-fluoride groups -- the ones who may have slightly higher IQs -- were drinking water with fluoride at levels similar to community water fluoridation's (CWF) optimal concentration used in the U.S. to prevent cavities.

    One of the Chinese studies compared high, low & optimal fluoride levels. IQ was lower at both high & low fluoride drinking water

    This finding is very analogous to that for bone fractures in which fractures occurred at zero fluoride as often as they did at 4-8 ppm (higher than allowed in drinking water).

    Quoting the Harvard paper: "each of the articles reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn."

    The authors Drs Grandjean and Chou have written the Wichita Eagle warning voters not to mistakenly use their work to argue against CWF: "These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,"

    Data on fluoride, IQ not applicable in U.S.:

    These studies certainly are no reason to change America's fluoridation policy.

    A large number of comments very critical of this report's use in opposing CWF have been issued:

    In Portland, OR the Everyone Deserves Health Teeth Coalition includes both science and civil rights advocates. While fluoridation is not a silver bullet cure, it blunts the oral health disadvantage people, especially children, which lower socioeconomic status brings. That it saved 50% of the Medicaid dental bills in the huge Louisiana study means there is more money to spend on poor kids medical care.

  15. If that's true, then the dental plans new york will probably lose a lot of credibility, and customers.

  16. Harvard Scientist Criticizes Wichita Paper's Whitewash of Fluoride/IQ Study

    NEW YORK, March 18, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A poorly fact-checked article from a Kansas newspaper is being cited by well-funded advocacy organizations across the country to convince decision-makers, physicians and the public to disregard a peer-reviewed Harvard research paper linking fluoride to lower IQ in children, reports the Fluoride Action Network (FAN). Harvard scientist, Philippe Grandjean, MD, states the newspaper never "checked their information with the authors, even though statements were attributed to them."

    The Kansas newspaper (the Wichita Eagle) heavily promoted fluoridation on its editorial pages in the buildup to a city referendum in which voters rejected an effort to fluoridate water.

    "We believe the newspaper's bias showed up in news articles that were supposed to be objective and truthful but were not," says Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executive Director.

    Fluoridation is the unnecessary addition of fluoride chemicals into public water supplies ostensibly to reduce tooth decay.

    The Wichita paper's opening paragraph on the Harvard IQ study declared: "Harvard university scientists say Wichita voters shouldn't depend on a research study they compiled to decide whether to put fluoride in the city's drinking water to fight tooth decay."

    This, however, is false. Dr. Philippe Grandjean, the senior scientist on the Harvard team, criticized the Wichita paper for deceptively attributing its own conclusions on fluoridation to the Harvard scientists. Fluoridation's potential to produce "chemical brain drain," Grandjean writes, is an issue that "definitely deserves concern."

    Grandjean also takes objection to the Wichita paper's claim that the Harvard review only looked at studies that used "very high levels of fluoride." The Wichita paper conveyed this impression by focusing on a single, cherry-picked study (Hu 1989) that was never published, nor even included in the Harvard review.

    The truth, Grandjean writes, is that "only 4 of 27 studies" in the Harvard review used the high levels that the Wichita paper described, and "clear differences" in IQ "were found at much lower exposures."

    The journalist, Dion Lefler, who wrote the Wichita article, had a record of getting basic facts about fluoride wrong.

    "This is the same journalist," Connett notes, "who reported that the poison warning now found on all fluoridated toothpaste is not there because of fluoride—a blatant error that the paper has yet to correct."

    "Instead of relying on a Kansas newspaper to discredit the findings of a peer-reviewed, published study by Harvard scientists, health authorities should be taking a long hard look at the wisdom and safety of forcing communities to consume fluoride chemicals in their water and food — a practice most developed nations rejected decades ago," says Connett.

    Thirty-six human studies now link fluoride to children's lowered IQ, some at levels considered safe in the US. See: