I shared your newsletter on FB. Please keep up your good work. I am not a scientist but I worked for years in the admin office of Biological Sciences at Stanford. Written words like yours today would stir the souls of the esteemed faculty that I admired and respected way back then.
In the past some places had very high natural fluoride levels - which caused mottled teeth.
I can't believe that if fluoride damages IQ that no one noticed mottled teeth was a sign of low IQ, the fact that they didn't to my mind proves that fluoride doesn't damage IQ.
I’m really interested in this comparison of Ireland to the UK within this scope of fluoridated water. It may take me some time but I’m intrigued and will devote some energy to this.
I hope you’re planning to reply and not just like my comment.
I have very humanly responded to every one of your counter questions.
I am really asking for your viewpoint. I have been so curious why it is that people love fluoride so much. You seem to be one of those people so please enlighten me. Because I don’t get it.
Oh, and any thoughts on the metabolic effect that has been clearly demonstrated as in the fluoride tablets that were used for decades by doctors to suppress thyroid hormone production?
I’m happy to share information but it is just as easy for you yourself to find.
“Yes, fluoride was historically used as a treatment for hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) in the mid-20th century. Notably, a 1958 study by Galletti and Joyet demonstrated that daily doses of 2 to 10 mg of sodium fluoride effectively reduced thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients . This dosage range is comparable to the estimated daily fluoride intake for individuals in fluoridated areas, which can range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg per day.”
This is a direct quote I found online. I cross referenced the 1958 study and it’s legitimate.
So, in light of this do you think ingesting a thyroid suppressing dose not just daily for one’s entire life but for generations including the time of gestation is good for human beings just because it might be helping reduce the advent of cavities?
For me that’s like saying let’s just amputate a leg to rid one of an ingrown toenail.
Amputation is VERY effective at stopping ingrown toenails. It’s actually 100% effective. But at what cost?
Still nothing about the clutching or clinging to the fluoride religion? I am truly and genuinely curious about what it is that holds such allegiance in so many people.
To me it is so blisteringly clear that this is probably or if not at least possibly leading to other more serious health issues and it would be best to stick to mouth wash. No? Like why can’t people just say ah, ok, maybe let’s not drink this anymore. Let’s just swish it in our mouths and stop ingesting day in and day out for our entire lives something that has a lot of possibilities of being harmful.
It’s not like fluoride is being used to stop brain tumors! It’s for cavities with quite possibly devastating consequences. I mean America is the fattest nation in the world. Maybe it’s because everyone’s thyroid is being suppressed since birth 🤔
I have to say that does look worrying. In the UK some cities do have fluoride in the water (mine does not). In Birmingham it has been there since 1964 - it is a shame that there is not more research to compare Birmingham with other UK cities to see if there are problems caused by this.
With obesity I am sure that is not true. Ireland has a lot more fluoridisation than the UK (the same as the US) and the levels of obesity there are only slightly higher. Compare these - obesity via country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate
So you’re interested in what or how fluoride can cause mottled teeth?
With lots of fluoride it causes a brown mottling which is also the same mechanism which prevents cavities. It’s just too much when the mottling begins.
There are places in the states where people have had issue with that
I am not sure but do you agree that the link to obesity must be very small for the UK and Irish obesity rates to be similar despite very different fluoride rates?
What I’ve been trying to figure out myself is the actual and real metabolic effect fluoride has on the entire endocrine system.
But very interesting to look at the obesity rates in both countries considering Ireland has 73% fluoridated water and the UK only about 10% I think.
I’ve often wondered if fluoride in the US’s water is a component of the obesity issue.
So as you’re probably aware the US has some of the most lax standards and regulations regarding chemicals being added to the food. I think Ireland for one is at least a lot more stringent…
I think "I’ve often wondered if fluoride in the US’s water is a component of the obesity issue." This is unlikely to be true when you look at worldwide figures.
Aside from what I stated in my previous reply another major issue I have with ingesting synthesized fluoride in any form is that up until about the late 1940’s fluoride tablets were given as a prescription for individuals suffering from malnutrition. The fluoride tables suppressed their thyroid so that they could gain weight.
Now if an entire population of 340 million people are ingesting and cooking everything they eat with the same substance added that is a well known thyroid suppressant wouldn’t that have deleterious consequences on obesity and everything that goes along with that not to mention fertility 😳
Haha I’m just now seeing my typo. Yes, I meant fluorosilicic acid. I can’t say I’d necessarily be happy for it to be added in its natural form. I don’t have enough information on those purported benefits. But what I am pointing out is that fluoride found nature is a naturally occurring mineral. The fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride, or sodium fluorosilicate that is added to municipalities drinking water are byproducts of phosphate fertilizer and aluminum production.
Considering how harmful aluminum is for brain health it lends to reason -at least for me- that a byproduct of aluminum production is actually waste and should not be being added to our drinking water.
Anyway, that was my point.
To me it’s neither here nor there that it can help with cavities. Caries seem almost benign when compared to the health of the brain and subsequent cognitive function. Seems a high price to pay when cavities/caries are wholly preventive with proper diet and hygiene. Perhaps more importantly we should be looking at why in the first place people are getting cavities. We certainly didn’t evolve to have our teeth rot out by the time of young adolescence.
What I’ve also never understood is why on earth must we DRINK the fluoride when the benefit is found by swishing it in your mouth to cover your teeth!
If the government felt so kindly toward these poorer communities with lack of resources then just hand out free bottles of fluoride mouthwash so that everyone can control the dose and also decide to use it or not. Seems really simple to me.
"Considering how harmful aluminum is for brain health it lends to reason -at least for me- that a byproduct of aluminum production is actually waste and should not be being added to our drinking water."
Alcohol damages our brain but yeast extract a by product of producing alcohol does not. Unless you think that sodium fluorosilicate contains aluminium.
Yeast from alcohol production doesn’t contain alcohol because ethanol is a volatile liquid that evaporates or is distilled off.
It doesn’t bind to yeast, and it’s easy to remove.
Fluorosilicic acid, is a corrosive industrial byproduct made from raw materials that contain aluminum (and other metals). Aluminum can remain as a trace contaminant because the substance is not purified to pharmaceutical standards before being added to drinking water.
Comparing the two is like comparing steam to sludge.
Alcohol evaporates cleanly and FL. carries a high risk of heavy residues.
Comparing alcohol’s toxicity to aluminum is also not a good comparison either in my opinion.
Yes, alcohol can damage the brain but its effects are short term, and very well understood. It’s also metabolized and cleared by the body.
But aluminum is very different.
It’s a metal that bioaccumulates and has been implicated in long-term neurotoxicity, with potential links to conditions like Alzheimer’s. Once it crosses the blood-brain barrier, it’s not easily removed.
I may be wrong here but it seems like you’re only interested in this kind of going back and forth and are not in any way open to looking at even the mere possibility that fluoride being added to our drinking could potentially be harmful.
I always wonder why people (Americans) hold on to fluoride like a religion. I really would like to know. Is it political? Is it really about your care for cavities?
In life we often say “better safe than sorry” but not with regard to fluoride being dumped into our drinking water even when there are such easy, practical and cheap alternatives.
I just don’t get it.
I’m American and I moved to Europe 5 years ago. Nowhere I’ve lived has artificially fluoridated water. They abolished that decades ago over here mostly because it showed the potential to be too harmful to justify for the sake of cavities. Makes sense right? There’s no rampant tooth decay and my teeth are beautiful and have certainly not begun to corrode for my lack of fluoride. Yet, Americans continue to clutch their fluoridated water like it’s some kind of belief system that holds no rational.
'Texas Teeth' were quite brown due to the high natural flouride levels in drinking water. They actually take flouride out - more difficult than adding it apparently.
Oh my goodness! The "critique" demanding a recall of the NTP meta-analysis is so flawed it is hard to know where to begin, but I'd say the obvious bias on the part of the three authors, none of whom are qualified to address neuroscience or toxicity, is a good place.
Fluoride science has thoroughly documented harm to brains that goes beyond lowered IQ which was the narrow NTP focus, such as more ADD/ADHD, behavioral problems, and executive function deficits in the realm of developmental neurotoxicity, as well as increases in neurodegenerative conditions, including dementia, which both are consistent with fluoride's profile as a proliferative agent (inflammatory).
Then there is the body of work that confirms fluoride exposure consistent with fluoridation damages thyroid function and kidneys which has resulted in many thyroid & kidney doctors advising their patients to avoid fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water.
Finally, the healthy adult kidney only excretes 50% of the fluoride consumed. The other 50% is sequestered in bones where it increases brittleness as well as cause inflammation (arthritis) and skeletal disease.
Try. You didn't address a single point. Go on, have a go.
All you've said is fluoride is bad for other reasons, none of which I have a considered opinion on. For all I care it's responsible for global warming, morning dread, and has produced several Coldplay albums (the greatest of all crimes).
1) Lack of relevant qualifications of 3 critique authors v. toxicologists at NTP which I mentioned (contrary to your claim that I made no points)
2) The highest quality studies used by the NTP were NIH sponsored using Canadian cohorts of hundreds mother-child pairs
3) NASEM did NOT critique the findings or the data (and they said so in both their reports and on the stand at the trial.) Their only role was to ensure clarity of communication. NASEM committee recommended edits to that effect and separating the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis into two separate reports. NTP did so. But the bias was in the NASEM committee, not the NTP
4) NTP typically doe NOT have a peer-review. They typically only has a public meeting. Yet this time, because of the high-interest and controversy, NTP decided to do a peer-review - which is not necessary for them to print
5) NTP had several other reviews, as well as inviting internal comment from HHS & CDC. They passed with flying colors. The one interesting thing that was suggested by subsequent peer-review that they did NOT implement, was combining Sys Review with Meta-analysis
6) The high-quality and moderate-quality evidence was consistent across scores of studies and cohorts, so much so that the NTP said any outlier would make no difference.
7) The New Zealand study by Broadbent which the fluoridationists constantly tout is so bad that the NTP went out of its way to explain in detail why they did not use it. One reason was Broadbent not only did not measure individual fluoride exposure (making assumptions based on postal codes), the majority of the kids in the small "unfluoridated" group had been consuming fluoride supplements since infancy
8) The studies from the journal "Fluoride" primarily were NOT the human cohort studies. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with that journal other than it is willing to publish studies that are not favorable to fluoridation policy. The journal was founded by a world renowned and well published medical scientist & practicing physician, George Waldbott, who previously had made several notable contributions to science, particularly involving allergies and susceptibility to environmental toxins. When Dr. Waldbott found he was professionally pilloried and unable to publish his findings that fluoride was harmful to many consumers, he ultimately resorted to creating a journal to share that information. His detractors who championed fluoridation kept it out of PubMed in an effort to disappear the evidence of harm
9) The biological plausibility of a proliferative agent (inflammatory substance), enzyme poison, and endocrine disruptor (especially thyroid hormones) impacting neurological development is high. Those studies are not just in "Fluoride." They are published in many credible journals and number in the 100s
10) The three Benchmark Dose Analyses using over a thousand mother-child pairs done subsequent to the NTP reports confirm that prenatal fluoride exposures of 0.3 ppm can and do lower IQ.
Consequently, the NTP was on the mark while Jane, Heather and Grimes, like the author of this blog, are blowing smoke.
One more thing, we test urine for all sorts of purposes and it addresses individual dose/exposure. It is an entirely valid methodology. Certainly more valid than assuming individual exposure by postal code.
- In the 2023 NTP report authors made comments in their Documents Provided to the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) and BSC Working Group to correct misinformation stating: "...Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas in Canada, but the individual exposure information in those studies, as documented by repeated urinary measurements, suggests widely varying total fluoride exposure from drinking water combined with exposures from other sources. For example, many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.” - in in Documents Provided to the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) and BSC Working Group , NTP reply to HHS comment re NTP Report p. 352 (March 15, 2023)
The full monograph is at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/fluoride_final_508.pdf, and is worth reading. It appears more recent studies were not included because the search was up to 1st May 2020 - so I'm not sure that that is as much of a smoking gun as Jane and colleagues suggest. The work was guided by an ex-ante protocol, and done by a team who have worked hard to develop appropriate methodologies in the environmental toxicology space. The effect is retained when the analysis is limited to 19 low risk of bias (evaluated using a well established RoB tool) studies. They provide an extensive discussion of the limitations of their work (p80 et seq in the monograph). So to say the findings are 'completely unreliable' is, in my view, to overstate the case.
agreed - but when you are faced with ~120k chemicals added to our food, water, air - then to have an effective regulatory system you need to do the best with the evidence which is available, acknowledging its limitations. Lots of work from NIEHS, EFSA, Navigation Guide at UCSF, EPA, trying to build approaches which look for convergent signals across different data streams (conventionally human epi (RCTs having doubtful ethics when you are looking for harms), animal studies, mechanistic studies. Here they scrubbed those because they were even worse than the human epi. But think about eg rare drug side effects (eg neurodevelopmental delay with valproate/ depakote) - we wouldn't accept a view that there might be harms but the studies are not good enough to say for sure, and we wouldn't randomise pregnant women to valproate or not, we woul - I hope - raise a signal of potential harm - and encourage better primary studies
Good to know they've tried hard to use appropriate methodologies. They haven't tried very hard to not use SMD incorrectly and redact clearly fake studies from their analysis pool. Turns out that isn't in regular RoB checklists, you actually have to *read the studies*.
You missed the good bit. A reasonable chunk of the studies aren't trustworthy. And some of them are very likely fake.
Isn't that implied in point 4 above?
A bit. Not enough.
(Yes, I *do* realise I am monomaniacal, you don't have to tell me.)
I shared your newsletter on FB. Please keep up your good work. I am not a scientist but I worked for years in the admin office of Biological Sciences at Stanford. Written words like yours today would stir the souls of the esteemed faculty that I admired and respected way back then.
In the past some places had very high natural fluoride levels - which caused mottled teeth.
I can't believe that if fluoride damages IQ that no one noticed mottled teeth was a sign of low IQ, the fact that they didn't to my mind proves that fluoride doesn't damage IQ.
I’m really interested in this comparison of Ireland to the UK within this scope of fluoridated water. It may take me some time but I’m intrigued and will devote some energy to this.
I would guess comparing the UK to Ireland is a very good example - good luck.
I hope you’re planning to reply and not just like my comment.
I have very humanly responded to every one of your counter questions.
I am really asking for your viewpoint. I have been so curious why it is that people love fluoride so much. You seem to be one of those people so please enlighten me. Because I don’t get it.
Oh, and any thoughts on the metabolic effect that has been clearly demonstrated as in the fluoride tablets that were used for decades by doctors to suppress thyroid hormone production?
What are the quantities used in the tablets compared to water?
I’m happy to share information but it is just as easy for you yourself to find.
“Yes, fluoride was historically used as a treatment for hyperthyroidism (overactive thyroid) in the mid-20th century. Notably, a 1958 study by Galletti and Joyet demonstrated that daily doses of 2 to 10 mg of sodium fluoride effectively reduced thyroid activity in hyperthyroid patients . This dosage range is comparable to the estimated daily fluoride intake for individuals in fluoridated areas, which can range from 1.6 to 6.6 mg per day.”
This is a direct quote I found online. I cross referenced the 1958 study and it’s legitimate.
So, in light of this do you think ingesting a thyroid suppressing dose not just daily for one’s entire life but for generations including the time of gestation is good for human beings just because it might be helping reduce the advent of cavities?
For me that’s like saying let’s just amputate a leg to rid one of an ingrown toenail.
Amputation is VERY effective at stopping ingrown toenails. It’s actually 100% effective. But at what cost?
Still nothing about the clutching or clinging to the fluoride religion? I am truly and genuinely curious about what it is that holds such allegiance in so many people.
To me it is so blisteringly clear that this is probably or if not at least possibly leading to other more serious health issues and it would be best to stick to mouth wash. No? Like why can’t people just say ah, ok, maybe let’s not drink this anymore. Let’s just swish it in our mouths and stop ingesting day in and day out for our entire lives something that has a lot of possibilities of being harmful.
It’s not like fluoride is being used to stop brain tumors! It’s for cavities with quite possibly devastating consequences. I mean America is the fattest nation in the world. Maybe it’s because everyone’s thyroid is being suppressed since birth 🤔
I have to say that does look worrying. In the UK some cities do have fluoride in the water (mine does not). In Birmingham it has been there since 1964 - it is a shame that there is not more research to compare Birmingham with other UK cities to see if there are problems caused by this.
With obesity I am sure that is not true. Ireland has a lot more fluoridisation than the UK (the same as the US) and the levels of obesity there are only slightly higher. Compare these - obesity via country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_obesity_rate
And fluoridisation
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/water-fluoridation-by-country
There does not seem to be any causation
How are Ireland’s rates of Alzheimer’s compared to the UK?
Just a thought. Of course I can look it up also.
But yes, too bad there’s not more information comparing Birmingham to other UK cities. It’d be a great case study
I looked it up and the UK has more than Ireland
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/alzheimers-rates-by-country
I don't know if this is a significant amount - it could be because of diagnostic practises and not real.
BTW my interest in this comes from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Thorndyke mottled teeth caused by fluoride is a clue in the last novel in the series.
So you’re interested in what or how fluoride can cause mottled teeth?
With lots of fluoride it causes a brown mottling which is also the same mechanism which prevents cavities. It’s just too much when the mottling begins.
There are places in the states where people have had issue with that
No I find it hard to believe that high doses of fluoride had such obvious effects on peoples teeth but no other side effects were noticed
I am not sure but do you agree that the link to obesity must be very small for the UK and Irish obesity rates to be similar despite very different fluoride rates?
It would appear so.
What I’ve been trying to figure out myself is the actual and real metabolic effect fluoride has on the entire endocrine system.
But very interesting to look at the obesity rates in both countries considering Ireland has 73% fluoridated water and the UK only about 10% I think.
I’ve often wondered if fluoride in the US’s water is a component of the obesity issue.
So as you’re probably aware the US has some of the most lax standards and regulations regarding chemicals being added to the food. I think Ireland for one is at least a lot more stringent…
Not sure though.
I think "I’ve often wondered if fluoride in the US’s water is a component of the obesity issue." This is unlikely to be true when you look at worldwide figures.
Aside from what I stated in my previous reply another major issue I have with ingesting synthesized fluoride in any form is that up until about the late 1940’s fluoride tablets were given as a prescription for individuals suffering from malnutrition. The fluoride tables suppressed their thyroid so that they could gain weight.
Now if an entire population of 340 million people are ingesting and cooking everything they eat with the same substance added that is a well known thyroid suppressant wouldn’t that have deleterious consequences on obesity and everything that goes along with that not to mention fertility 😳
All for the cavities….
Because naturally high in fluoride is completely different than adding synthesized fluorescent acid.
Do you mean Fluorosilicic acid? So presumably you would be happy if they used the same chemical that caused fluoride to rise naturally?
Haha I’m just now seeing my typo. Yes, I meant fluorosilicic acid. I can’t say I’d necessarily be happy for it to be added in its natural form. I don’t have enough information on those purported benefits. But what I am pointing out is that fluoride found nature is a naturally occurring mineral. The fluorosilicic acid, sodium fluoride, or sodium fluorosilicate that is added to municipalities drinking water are byproducts of phosphate fertilizer and aluminum production.
Considering how harmful aluminum is for brain health it lends to reason -at least for me- that a byproduct of aluminum production is actually waste and should not be being added to our drinking water.
Anyway, that was my point.
To me it’s neither here nor there that it can help with cavities. Caries seem almost benign when compared to the health of the brain and subsequent cognitive function. Seems a high price to pay when cavities/caries are wholly preventive with proper diet and hygiene. Perhaps more importantly we should be looking at why in the first place people are getting cavities. We certainly didn’t evolve to have our teeth rot out by the time of young adolescence.
What I’ve also never understood is why on earth must we DRINK the fluoride when the benefit is found by swishing it in your mouth to cover your teeth!
If the government felt so kindly toward these poorer communities with lack of resources then just hand out free bottles of fluoride mouthwash so that everyone can control the dose and also decide to use it or not. Seems really simple to me.
I really don't think that this is logical.
"Considering how harmful aluminum is for brain health it lends to reason -at least for me- that a byproduct of aluminum production is actually waste and should not be being added to our drinking water."
Alcohol damages our brain but yeast extract a by product of producing alcohol does not. Unless you think that sodium fluorosilicate contains aluminium.
I don’t see that as a good comparison.
Yeast from alcohol production doesn’t contain alcohol because ethanol is a volatile liquid that evaporates or is distilled off.
It doesn’t bind to yeast, and it’s easy to remove.
Fluorosilicic acid, is a corrosive industrial byproduct made from raw materials that contain aluminum (and other metals). Aluminum can remain as a trace contaminant because the substance is not purified to pharmaceutical standards before being added to drinking water.
Comparing the two is like comparing steam to sludge.
Alcohol evaporates cleanly and FL. carries a high risk of heavy residues.
Comparing alcohol’s toxicity to aluminum is also not a good comparison either in my opinion.
Yes, alcohol can damage the brain but its effects are short term, and very well understood. It’s also metabolized and cleared by the body.
But aluminum is very different.
It’s a metal that bioaccumulates and has been implicated in long-term neurotoxicity, with potential links to conditions like Alzheimer’s. Once it crosses the blood-brain barrier, it’s not easily removed.
I may be wrong here but it seems like you’re only interested in this kind of going back and forth and are not in any way open to looking at even the mere possibility that fluoride being added to our drinking could potentially be harmful.
I always wonder why people (Americans) hold on to fluoride like a religion. I really would like to know. Is it political? Is it really about your care for cavities?
In life we often say “better safe than sorry” but not with regard to fluoride being dumped into our drinking water even when there are such easy, practical and cheap alternatives.
I just don’t get it.
I’m American and I moved to Europe 5 years ago. Nowhere I’ve lived has artificially fluoridated water. They abolished that decades ago over here mostly because it showed the potential to be too harmful to justify for the sake of cavities. Makes sense right? There’s no rampant tooth decay and my teeth are beautiful and have certainly not begun to corrode for my lack of fluoride. Yet, Americans continue to clutch their fluoridated water like it’s some kind of belief system that holds no rational.
Please, can you explain to me why?
Sorry you made too many points to me to respond to at once. Lets talk about obesity and thyroid then Aluminium.
'Texas Teeth' were quite brown due to the high natural flouride levels in drinking water. They actually take flouride out - more difficult than adding it apparently.
Was there any evidence that the IQ was damaged by this? After all if low levels damage IQ - then the effect with high levels much be obvious.
I have a young relative who won't use fluoride toothpaste and I am really worried for his future.
(He won't discuss this).
Oh my goodness! The "critique" demanding a recall of the NTP meta-analysis is so flawed it is hard to know where to begin, but I'd say the obvious bias on the part of the three authors, none of whom are qualified to address neuroscience or toxicity, is a good place.
Fluoride science has thoroughly documented harm to brains that goes beyond lowered IQ which was the narrow NTP focus, such as more ADD/ADHD, behavioral problems, and executive function deficits in the realm of developmental neurotoxicity, as well as increases in neurodegenerative conditions, including dementia, which both are consistent with fluoride's profile as a proliferative agent (inflammatory).
Then there is the body of work that confirms fluoride exposure consistent with fluoridation damages thyroid function and kidneys which has resulted in many thyroid & kidney doctors advising their patients to avoid fluoridated water and foods prepared with that water.
Finally, the healthy adult kidney only excretes 50% of the fluoride consumed. The other 50% is sequestered in bones where it increases brittleness as well as cause inflammation (arthritis) and skeletal disease.
Handbook of studies: https://unite.mykajabi.com/flouride
Also: https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science
"so flawed it is hard to know where to begin"
Try. You didn't address a single point. Go on, have a go.
All you've said is fluoride is bad for other reasons, none of which I have a considered opinion on. For all I care it's responsible for global warming, morning dread, and has produced several Coldplay albums (the greatest of all crimes).
1) Lack of relevant qualifications of 3 critique authors v. toxicologists at NTP which I mentioned (contrary to your claim that I made no points)
2) The highest quality studies used by the NTP were NIH sponsored using Canadian cohorts of hundreds mother-child pairs
3) NASEM did NOT critique the findings or the data (and they said so in both their reports and on the stand at the trial.) Their only role was to ensure clarity of communication. NASEM committee recommended edits to that effect and separating the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis into two separate reports. NTP did so. But the bias was in the NASEM committee, not the NTP
4) NTP typically doe NOT have a peer-review. They typically only has a public meeting. Yet this time, because of the high-interest and controversy, NTP decided to do a peer-review - which is not necessary for them to print
5) NTP had several other reviews, as well as inviting internal comment from HHS & CDC. They passed with flying colors. The one interesting thing that was suggested by subsequent peer-review that they did NOT implement, was combining Sys Review with Meta-analysis
6) The high-quality and moderate-quality evidence was consistent across scores of studies and cohorts, so much so that the NTP said any outlier would make no difference.
7) The New Zealand study by Broadbent which the fluoridationists constantly tout is so bad that the NTP went out of its way to explain in detail why they did not use it. One reason was Broadbent not only did not measure individual fluoride exposure (making assumptions based on postal codes), the majority of the kids in the small "unfluoridated" group had been consuming fluoride supplements since infancy
8) The studies from the journal "Fluoride" primarily were NOT the human cohort studies. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with that journal other than it is willing to publish studies that are not favorable to fluoridation policy. The journal was founded by a world renowned and well published medical scientist & practicing physician, George Waldbott, who previously had made several notable contributions to science, particularly involving allergies and susceptibility to environmental toxins. When Dr. Waldbott found he was professionally pilloried and unable to publish his findings that fluoride was harmful to many consumers, he ultimately resorted to creating a journal to share that information. His detractors who championed fluoridation kept it out of PubMed in an effort to disappear the evidence of harm
9) The biological plausibility of a proliferative agent (inflammatory substance), enzyme poison, and endocrine disruptor (especially thyroid hormones) impacting neurological development is high. Those studies are not just in "Fluoride." They are published in many credible journals and number in the 100s
10) The three Benchmark Dose Analyses using over a thousand mother-child pairs done subsequent to the NTP reports confirm that prenatal fluoride exposures of 0.3 ppm can and do lower IQ.
Consequently, the NTP was on the mark while Jane, Heather and Grimes, like the author of this blog, are blowing smoke.
RESOURCES:
https://unite.mykajabi.com/flouride
https://iaomt.org/resources/fluoride-facts/
https://www.fluoridelawsuit.com/science
One more thing, we test urine for all sorts of purposes and it addresses individual dose/exposure. It is an entirely valid methodology. Certainly more valid than assuming individual exposure by postal code.
- In the 2023 NTP report authors made comments in their Documents Provided to the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) and BSC Working Group to correct misinformation stating: "...Several of the highest quality studies showing lower IQs in children were done in optimally fluoridated (0.7 mg/L) areas in Canada, but the individual exposure information in those studies, as documented by repeated urinary measurements, suggests widely varying total fluoride exposure from drinking water combined with exposures from other sources. For example, many urinary fluoride measurements exceed those that would be expected from consuming water that contains fluoride at 1.5 mg/L.” - in in Documents Provided to the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC) and BSC Working Group , NTP reply to HHS comment re NTP Report p. 352 (March 15, 2023)
Again, I actually like Coldplay.
Why can't people just use OTC fluoride treatments and be able to choose what they want?
The full monograph is at https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/2024-08/fluoride_final_508.pdf, and is worth reading. It appears more recent studies were not included because the search was up to 1st May 2020 - so I'm not sure that that is as much of a smoking gun as Jane and colleagues suggest. The work was guided by an ex-ante protocol, and done by a team who have worked hard to develop appropriate methodologies in the environmental toxicology space. The effect is retained when the analysis is limited to 19 low risk of bias (evaluated using a well established RoB tool) studies. They provide an extensive discussion of the limitations of their work (p80 et seq in the monograph). So to say the findings are 'completely unreliable' is, in my view, to overstate the case.
Hi Malcolm!
By my quick read, even the "low risk of bias" studies were merely cross-sectional correlations.
agreed - but when you are faced with ~120k chemicals added to our food, water, air - then to have an effective regulatory system you need to do the best with the evidence which is available, acknowledging its limitations. Lots of work from NIEHS, EFSA, Navigation Guide at UCSF, EPA, trying to build approaches which look for convergent signals across different data streams (conventionally human epi (RCTs having doubtful ethics when you are looking for harms), animal studies, mechanistic studies. Here they scrubbed those because they were even worse than the human epi. But think about eg rare drug side effects (eg neurodevelopmental delay with valproate/ depakote) - we wouldn't accept a view that there might be harms but the studies are not good enough to say for sure, and we wouldn't randomise pregnant women to valproate or not, we woul - I hope - raise a signal of potential harm - and encourage better primary studies
Good to know they've tried hard to use appropriate methodologies. They haven't tried very hard to not use SMD incorrectly and redact clearly fake studies from their analysis pool. Turns out that isn't in regular RoB checklists, you actually have to *read the studies*.
This sort of meta analysis sounds an awful lot like the CDOs that got the financial world in so much trouble back in 08.
This is such a good observation it gets its own reply.
https://jamesclaims.substack.com/p/the-meta-analysis-as-cdo
Poor America, heading down yet another rabbit hole......