Banner
    Fluoride In Water Does Not Lower IQ
    By News Staff | May 19th 2014 10:07 AM | 13 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    New research does not support claims that fluoridating water adversely affects children's mental development and adult IQ.

    The researchers were testing the claim that exposure to levels of fluoride used in community water fluoridation is toxic to the developing brain and can cause IQ deficits.  The data used in the American Journal of Public Health article used data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study, which   has followed nearly all aspects of the health and development of around 1,000 people born in Dunedin in 1972-1973 up to age 38.  

    Lead author Dr Jonathan Broadbent of the University of Otago, New Zealand, and colleagues compared IQs of Study members who grew up in Dunedin suburbs with and without fluoridated water. Use of fluoride toothpaste and tablets was also taken into account. 

    They examined average IQ scores between the ages of 7-13 years and at age 38, as well as subtest scores for verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory and processing speed. Data on IQ were available for 992 and 942 study members in childhood and adulthood, respectively.


    Broadbent says the new research focused on Study members' fluoride exposure during the first five years of their lives, as this is a critical period in brain development, after which IQ is known to be relatively stable. They compared IQs of Study members who grew up in Dunedin suburbs with and without fluoridated water. Use of fluoride toothpaste and tablets was also taken into account. 

    The team controlled for childhood factors associated with IQ variation, such as socio-economic status of parents, birth weight and breastfeeding, and secondary and tertiary educational achievement, which is associated with adult IQ.

    "Our analysis showed no significant differences in IQ by fluoride exposure, even before controlling for the other factors that might influence scores. In line with other studies, we found breastfeeding was associated with higher child IQ, and this was regardless of whether children grew up in fluoridated or non-fluoridated areas."

    Broadbent says that studies that fluoridation opponents say show that fluoride in water can cause IQ deficits, and which they heavily relied on in city council submissions and hearings, have been reviewed and found to have used poor research methodology and have a high risk of bias. "In comparison, the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study is world-renowned for the quality of its data and rigour of its analysis.

    "Our findings will hopefully help to put another nail in the coffin of the complete canard that fluoridating water is somehow harmful to children's development. In reality, the total opposite is true, as it helps reduce the tooth decay blighting the childhood of far too many people."




    Comments

    Last March LANCET, one of the most respected medical journal in the world, published a report which adds FLUORIDE as one of six newly recognized “developmental neurotoxicants,” or chemicals that can cause damage to the central nervous system and the brain.

    "Fluoride and the other listed neurotoxicants are likely behind the increase in neurodevelopmental disabilities seen in children— including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia."

    This paper sure blows the Chinese paper out of the window At least this one in done in an english speaking country and the source data is available to analyze not like the Chinese study s where no one except the translators saw the papers And guess who they were An activist group

    Hank
    The Lancet also published a paper claiming that vaccine cause autism. Publishing a paper and claiming the science is settled because it agrees with your predetermined beliefs is not really convincing.
    The world has learned the truth that fluoridation is ineffective for teeth and dangerous to health, so only 5% of the world and only 3% of Europe fluoridate their drinking water, more in the U.S. (70% fluoridated) than the rest of the world combined.

    In the last couple of years many cities have joined the 95% of the world by voting fluoridation out. Included are Portland, OR; Windsor, ON; Wichita, KS; Albuquerque, NM; College Station, TX; Fairbanks, AK; and 15 regions of Queensland, Australia. The full list of hundreds of cities is shown below.
    Last JULY Israel joined most of the world in banning water fluoridation saying,   “ it presents health dangers and its benefits are no longer widely accepted.”
    Last week Dallas Ended Five Decades of Water Fluoridation, Saving $1 Million a Year.
    See a list of hundreds of cities which rejected it:
    http://fluoridealert.org/content/communities/

    This is such an incredibly poorly done study. It reads like a news release from a pro-fluoridation special interest group. The idea that any one study "puts a nail in the coffin" of any research findings reveals these "researchers" had an agenda or are scientifically naive, The only thing good about this "study" is that it reveals how weak fluoridation science is.

    For example, Broadbent doesn't consider total fluoride intake or whether those in fluoridated areas actually drank their tap water. A different New Zealand study by a Dunedin researcher shows that a child taking the recommended F tablet supplements would ingest as much if not more fluoride than a child with fluoridated water So Broadbent could have been measuring children who may have had similar fluoride intakes whether from water or supplements. Fluoride supplements are only prescribed to kids who don’t live in fluoridated areas.

    Broadbent failed to include a category of children who never lived in a fluoridated area AND never used fluoride tablets AND, if possible, never used fluoridated toothpaste (a large proportion of which is swallowed by toddlers)

    And there's so much more wrong with Broadbent’s paper. This question we have to ask is why would an American Journal publish this clearly biased poorly done paper. If anything, this "study" puts the nail in the coffin in the belief that the peer-review process is always objective

    Carol Kopf, aka: nyscof, the housewife from Long Island, NY who spends most of her waking hours every day sharing her anti-fluoridation opinions to anyone who reads her rubbish on the internet.

    She has the gall to criticize Dr. Broadbent's study, yet, she falls over backwards over Grandjean's review of 27 poorly designed, Chinese studies from one of the most polluted countries in the world.

    If she doesn't like the results, then, she can do her own research. Better yet, why doesn't she ask her good buddy, Paul Connett, to write an article that will stand up to the rigorous peer review process of the American Journal of Public Health. Oh, that's right. Dr. Connett has never written an article on fluoridation that has been published in a refutable peer reviewed journal that is indexed in the National Library of Medicine.

    Kurt Ferre is a lobbyist for the Oregon Dental Association. He was at the forefront of the failed effort to fluoridate Portland Oregon, lobbying behind the scenes hoping that the electorate wouldn't find out until it was too late that they were going to be mandated to drink fluoride even though they voted against it several times. When Portlanders found out and were ignored by their legislators, probably because of the false information that Kurt fed them about the opponents of fluoridation and the science that purportedly says fluoridation is safe, they rebelled, forced a referendum and fluoridation was defeated by a landslide victory by 61% to 39%, even though Kurt's stealthy army outspend those opposed by a huge amount. There were even allegations that community groups were paid to endorse fluoridation.

    It's interesting to me that Kurt uses "housewife" as a derogatory term. Maybe it's because many leaders of the Portland victory was led by housewives.

    Kurt is also part of a Fluoridation Rapid Response Team (FRRT) which was first organized for the Portland battle to post comments like these.

    Apparently, Kurt gets easily flustered and shouts "housewife" whenever he's asked to provide the science proving that fluoridation is safe for everyone.

    This article in the American Journal of Public Health should be retracted just like the "Kurt Ferre's" caused the retraction of research showing how arsenic in fluoridation chemicals is contributing to various cancers and the cost to society.
    The lead researcher, former EPA scientist Bill Hirzy, has corrected the minor error and will be re-publishing it.

    Broadbent and Ferre criticized the Lancet fluoride/IQ studies because they claim they didn't adjust for several confounders, many of which were ignored by Broadbent.

    If Carol doesn't like the results, then, she can do her own research. Better yet, why doesn't she ask her good buddy, Paul Connett, to write an article that will stand up to the rigorous peer review process of the American Journal of Public Health. Oh, that's right. Dr. Connett has never written an article on fluoridation that has been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal that is indexed in the National Library of Medicine.

    Regarding the term "housewife", my mother was a housewife and a wonderful mother who's expertise was raising me and my 5 siblings. She also believed in the doctor and public health expertise that was around at the time when I was growing up......like getting our polio vaccines. She actually trusted the experts unlike Carol.

    Kurt,
    Why not attack the message instead of the messenger? The reason so many folks no longer trust the experts is in part down to those same experts launching personal attacks, when PhD-waving fails, and then calling the whole sordid mess "science". Rise above it and stick to the evidence; no one likes a bully.

    "This is such an incredibly poorly done study"
    Funny that you say that. It sounds like you actually haven't read the paper. This is best study done to date on IQ and fluoridation, it uses very high quality data.

    And yes the study controlled fluoride tablets.

    "This question we have to ask is why would an American Journal publish "
    If that is the case, why is broadbent up for an award for his work?
    http://aps.psychologicalscience.org/convention/program_2014/search/viewP...

    I don't see where he is up for an award for presenting a poster of his "research."

    Only about 10% of the kids Broadbent reviewed were from the non-fluoridated areas (99). But 139 took fluoride tablets Since fluoride tablets are recommended for children who don't live in fluoridated areas, it's safe to assume that most of the 99 were the ones who took the fluoride tablets. Broadbent doesn't provide the numbers. And he assumes that the kids in the fluoridated areas were drinking the tap water instead of bottled or tank water.

    A different Dunedin study shows that kids who take fluoride tablets actually have higher rates of fluoride ingestion than kids who live in fluoridated areas.

    Broadbent also doesn't factor in the large amount of toothpaste toddlers ingest daily while brushing (once, twice or more times a day) because they can't or won't spit it out.

    Further Broadbent reports that critics of the Lancet fluoride/IQ studies didn't adjust for lead, iodine, arsenic, nutrition, fluoride from other sources. But the neither did he.

    Broadbent also based SES on occupation - not on actual income of the family

    Broadbent is one of NZ’s leading political promoters of fluoridation. He is a dentist not developmental neurotoxicologist
    This article is obviously politically motivated.

    Broadbent's assertion that his study will put a nail in the coffin of fluoridation opposition is scientifically naive as over 100 animal studies and 38 human studies show a link to fluoride and brain deficits.

    Drinking water is essential for living. We can find so many water bottles outside that are bpa unfree, which directly harms our health. Drinking water in bpa free bottle is necessary.

    Hank
    You are just a paid shill cynically exploiting our audience to sell your corporate wares, I get that, but you should at least show some proof that BPA is harmful rather than just starting a rumor in order to make your corporate overlord 1% bosses and yourself richer.