Reduced Intelligence - Recent Research (2024)

Here, we reproduce a December 2021 letter sent by two toxicologists to Boris Johnson.  This was the second letter which he had received during 2021.  Neither were acknowledged.  Did he pass them on to Sajid Javid, his then Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (SoS HSC)?  If the administration of Government is working efficiently, then this is what should have happened.  However, the SoS was rather too shy at replying to correspondence, particularly from his constituents, so it would probably be a futile exercise to ask him if he has received and read the letters. 

Here then, is the most recent letter to the PM from our two learned toxicologists:

The intelligence of the unborn child and infant is reduced from over-exposure to fluoride in the womb and when drinking baby formula made up with fluoridated tap water.

The expectant mum does not know to avoid fluoride because the NHS is in favour of the element for the reduction of tooth decay.  Consequently, nothing on the NHS Choices website discourages the use of [fluoride/fluoridated] tap water.  Unfortunately, this is junk science.   Why expose the foetus and infant to a developmental neurotoxin when they have no erupted teeth?  Why overexpose the infant to a developmental toxin which is  found in a very minute amount in human breast milk.  Breast milk provides everything a baby needs - and fluoride is not one of them.  It is truly a case of the baby being thrown out with the bath water!

Is it morally ethical to disregard the future prospects of the fluoridated baby for the sake of shoring up this erroneous and outdated dental fashion sponsored by dental health professionals who have no grounding in biochemistry and toxicology? 

We feel justified in accusing our politicians of causing brain damage to past, current and future generations of young people in complete denial of the facts.

It appears that the current push to fluoridate the nation has been urged by the Chief Dental and Chief Medical Health Officers of England as a ploy to disguise the impending failure of NHS dentistry.  (See Home > Editorial)

When growing a baby, it is best to avoid the following:

• Fluoridated water
• Tap water containing chlorine
• Manufactured foods made with fluoridated water
• Tea which has varying amounts of fluoride depending on the age of the leaves.  (See Resources, Drop-Down Menu for a list of teas.)
• Fluoride toothpaste unless a very tiny amount is used and is not swallowed
• Pharmaceutical drugs containing fluoride
• Bathing in hot fluoridated water - this challenges the endocrine system.
• Bathing in hot natural fluoride water - this challenges the endocrine system

When nurturing the infant, it is best to avoid:

• Fluoridated water for making up baby formula
• Minimal exposure to bathing in fluoridated tap water.  Bottled or distilled water are safer options.

It is calculated that baby loses between 5 - 7 IQ points between conception and weaning if exposed to fluoride at 1mg fluoride/litre.

Busting the Fluoride Myth

We imagine that the scarcity of books written by pro-fluoridationists is indicative of the paucity of facts that they are able to present to the public.  Those who sponsor Water Fluoridation depend on politicians believing them when they say that WF is safe and effective and that it reduces dental decay by 20% or 25% or 30% or 35% or 40% or 45% .......  Since they cannot make up their minds, that indicates that there are no dependable high-quality studies on this topic.  Of greater importance is their inability to provide any research which proves that swallowing fluoride is safe.  Public Health England have to publish "health monitoring" reports every 4 years.  All three reports in 2014, 2018 and 2022 were PHE's attempt to defend the undefensible.  To the knowledgeable observer, the reports cherry-picked illnesses which we do not claim to arise from systemic fluoride and ignored the bio-chemistry where there is a wealth of evidence that fluoride disrupts our enzyme and endocrine systems. 

A most important mineral in our diet - magnesium - is prevented by fluoride from performing its functions. The result is a gradual weakening of our bodies.  Fluoride also deposits in bones and the dentine of erupted teeth throughout life.  It is only in developing enamel prior to tooth eruption that systemic fluoride is found.  Erupted tooth enamel cannot accumulate systemic fluoride.  However, adsorbed fluoride weakens bones. 

The CATFISH and LOTUS research (UK)

Two recent studies in England in 2022 and in 2023 found that swallowed fluoride had a minimal effect on reducing decay:

The CATFISH study.  Found that fluoridated small children had up to 4% less dental decay but that the practice of WF did not reduce oral health inequalities across social groups.  An older birth cohort discovered even less reduction in decay if fluoridated.

The LOTUS study.  This studied adults throughout England and found that up to 2% had less decay if they lived in fluoridated areas and that the practice of WF did not reduce oral health inequalities across social groups.

References:

Goodwin, M. et al.  (2022) Evaluation of water fluoridation scheme in Cumbria: the CATFISH prospective longitudinal cohort study

Public Health Research, No. 10.11.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK586987/

https://www.catfish-study.org/?page_id=436 (video).

Moore D, et al., (2024) How effective and cost-effective is water fluoridation for adults and adolescents? The LOTUS 10-year retrospective cohort study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2024 Jan 8. doi: 10.1111/cdoe.12930.  https://sites.manchester.ac.uk/lotus/#results

The Brunelle and Carlos Research, USA (1990)

We often refer to a piece of research from the USA by Brunelle and Carlos to illustrate the dearth of high-quality research on fluoride's claimed effect on dental decay.  In 1990, the two pro-fluoridation researchers published their findings* having examined 39,000 children aged 5-17 in 84 communities in the USA.  One third were wholly artificially fluoridated, one third were partially fluoridated and one third were not fluoridated.  The conclusion, after the research was painstakingly assessed, was that artificial fluoridation had saved, at most, 0.6 of a tooth surface from decay.  Since there are 128 tooth surfaces in a child's mouth, the saving of 0.6 of a tooth surface is not statistically significant.  For a detailed explanation of Bruno and Carlos, go to https://fluoridealert.org/content/ifin-290/

No other piece of research has studied so many children in this fashion.  So why don't those who support WF cite this study?  Could it be because the results negate their long-held "belief" that WF "is very very good for dental health" as Matt Hancock would have had us believe in the video*** of his appearance before the H&SC White Paper Select Committee on 16th March 2021?   (Note the official written transcript altered "very very" to "very".)

The bottom line is that swallowed fluoride does reduce dental decay but the effect is minimal.  So how can it be cost-effective?  When the DHSC finally produces an honest cost/benefit analysis, everyone will see that it has been hype all along.

Harms from Swallowing Fluoride

The harm done by systemic fluoride far outweighs any dubious benefit. "It is for this incredibly meagre benefit of 0.6 of a tooth surface that our [US] government is prepared to:

1) Impose medication on the whole population whether individuals want it or not;

2) Knowingly increase the chance that about 30% of our children will get unsightly dental mottling and discoloration on at least two teeth (Heller, 1997);

3) Allow the build up of fluoride in our bones – about 50% of all the fluoride we swallow ends up in our bones-thus increasing the risk of hip fracture and arthritis-like symptoms (aka Skeletal Fluorosis Stage I) in the elderly, and bone cancer (osteosarcoma) in young males;

4) Allow the accumulation of fluoride in the pineal gland (Luke, 2001);

5) Run the risk of increasing the uptake of aluminum into our brains (Varner, et al 1998).  Aluminium is implicated in the onset of Alzheimer's.  Fluoride and aluminium form an unholy alliance - a compound which is capable of crossing the blood-brain-barrier if it is compromised.

6) Run the risk of interfering with the normal functioning of the thyroid gland;

7) Run the risk of poisoning many enzymes in our body and interfering with the signalling mechanism of water soluble hormones, and

8) Make life miserable for those who are super-sensitive to fluoride exposure.

That’s a huge amount of risk for a very tiny benefit, especially when you can get the same benefit from toothpaste!" **

“The magnitude of [fluoridation's] effect is not large in absolute terms, is often not statistically significant and may not be of clinical significance.”  and "The few studies of communities where fluoridation has been withdrawn do not suggest significant increases in dental caries as a result."  ****

* Brunelle JA and JP Carlos (1990).  Recent trends in dental caries in U.S. children and the effect of water fluoridation.  Journal of Dental Research, Volume 69, pages 723-727.

** Direct quote from the North American  https://fluoridealert.org/content/ifin-290/

*** H&SC White Paper Select Committee, 16th March 2021: https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/63be5f8c-4159-4b85-9ec4-3ec4e8fe9828 at 11.43.00).

**** Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (1999).  Benefits and Risks of Water Fluoridation : An Update of the 1996 Federal-Provincial Sub-committee Report

 https://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/common/ministry/publications/reports/fluoridation/fluoridation.aspx

....   but Fluoride is Safe to Swallow, Isn't It?

A few of the hazards of swallowing fluoride are listed in Items 2-8 above.

At least 13 Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry and Medicine have either opposed fluoridation or expressed reservations about it. These include:

• Arvid Carlsson (Medicine/Physiology, 2000)
• Giulio Natta ( Chemistry, 1963),
• Nikolai Semenov (Chemistry, 1956),
• Sir Cyril Norman Hinshelwood (Chemistry, 1956),
• Hugo Theorell (Medicine, 1955),
• Walter Rudolf Hess (Medicine, 1949),
• Sir Robert Robinson (Chemistry, 1947),
• James B. Sumner (Chemistry, 1946),
• Artturi Virtanen (Chemistry, 1945),
• Adolf Butenandt (Chemistry, 1939),
• Corneille Jean-François Heymans (Medicine, 1938),
• William P. Murphy (Medicine, 1934),
• Hans von Euler-Chelpin (Chemistry, 1929).

 Nobel Laureate - James B Sumner - gave as his scientific opinion:

"We ought to go slowly [with water fluoridation].  Everybody knows fluorine and fluorides are very poisonous substances…We use them in enzyme chemistry to poison enzymes, those vital agents in the body.  That is the reason things are poisoned;  because the enzymes are poisoned and that is why animals and plants die.”

Dr. Arvid Carlsson, the 2000 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Medicine/Physiology, upon learning that fluoride works topically (locally) to prevent dental decay: “In pharmacology, if the effect is local (e.g., topical), it’s of course absolutely awkward to use it in any other way than as a local treatment.    I mean this is obvious.  You have the teeth there, they’re available for you, why drink the stuff?…  I see no reason at all for giving it in any other way than locally.”

FFAUK is not claiming that systemic fluoride kills people outright.  Its health-damaging effects are more subtle.  In cases of poor nutrition/processed food and with too much exposure to toxins, the human body gradually tips over into ill-health.  Unlike car engines which have a regular service, we humans continue year after year without appraising our health and the toxins to which are are daily exposed and which we bioaccumulate.  The majority of people fondly believe that our food sustains us and that all the vitamins and minerals which we need are contained in our food and drink.  But, these days, this is far from the truth.  Take, for example, the official view of the essential mineral, boron. 

Most people struggle to ingest 1mg/day of boron due to deficiency of boron in their food caused by modern farming practices.  And yet the therapeutic dose is 30mg/day to relieve the pain of arthritis with a maintenance dose of between 5-10mg/day as a preventative of illness.  For most people, supplementation is the only way to swallow enough boron.  But the official recommended daily dose is 3mg.   This is because manufacturers have been incorrectly convinced that boron is a poison.  A read of https://fluoridefreesudbury.wordpress.com/2019/01/19/boron-is-also-used-to-remove-accumulated-fluoride-and-heavy-metals-from-the-body/  explains the situation.

Toxins bioaccumulate in our bodies throughout life but how many of us register this fact and how many take steps to remove them?  In the case of boron, it supports the body and acts to remove toxins.  Without this brilliant mineral, fluoride remains in the body to damage its essential systems. 

An American  fluoride researcher, Dr John Yiamouyiannis, described fluoride as "the aging factor".  However, all the wisdom produced over the decades by awakened researchers has not been enough to influence successive poorly-advised pro-fluoridation Governments. 

We are born, we grow older, we age and then we die prematurely in poor health if we don't have "an oil change".