“There Is Little Doubt” About Fluoride’s Neurotoxicity, New Research Says
Posted on Wednesday, February 26th, 2020
Back in 2014, a lot of holistically-minded folks got really excited about a paper in The Lancet Neurology, as it very clearly identified fluoride, among 10 other chemical elements and compounds, as being neurotoxic to children.
But fluoride wasn’t it’s only concern. Rather, in reviewing some of the newer science on “developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals,” the authors made a much broader case.
We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity.
That’s an important case to be made. But what about fluoride in particular?
Over the past several years, many new studies have been done on fluoride’s effects on developing brains, and these are the focus of a new literature review by one of the authors of the original Lancet paper, Philippe Grandjean of the Harvard School of Public Health. The paper was published late last fall in Environmental Health.
Previous assessment of neurotoxicity risks associated with elevated fluoride intake relied on cross-sectional and ecological epidemiology studies and findings from experimental studies of elevated exposures. The evidence base has greatly expanded in recent years, with 14 cross-sectional studies since 2012, and now also three prospective studies of high quality and documentation of individual exposure levels. Thus, there is little doubt that developmental neurotoxicity is a serious risk associated with elevated fluoride exposure, whether due to community water fluoridation, natural fluoride release from soil minerals, or tea consumption, especially when the exposure occurs during early development. Even the most informative epidemiological studies involve some uncertainties, but imprecision of the exposure assessment most likely results in an underestimation of the risk. [emphasis added]
Of course, the brain isn’t the only part of the body affected by fluoride. Other research has shown harmful effects on the thyroid and pineal glands, for instance, along with the cardiovascular system, the skeletal system, and more – “ every part of the human body,” according to this well-referenced white paper from the IAOMT.
Along with that, consider that fluoride’s benefits are modest at best. Despite the claims, it does not appear to prevent decay. One 2017 study, for instance, found that roughly a third of all children developed caries, whether they received fluoride treatments or not.
This well-conducted trial failed to demonstrate that the intervention kept children caries free, but there was evidence that once children get caries, it slowed down its progression.
What actually prevents decay is something we’ve known about for a long time now, starting with replacing the sugar and white flour products (processed carbs that are digested as sugar) with a nutrient-dense diet, including plenty of the fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K) and minerals (especially calcium and phosphorous), as these support ongoing remineralization of your teeth.
This is also part of supporting a healthy biological terrain, ensuring that the body is able to properly assimilate and use what you feed it.
Yes, that can be harder to achieve, especially as a matter of public vs. personal health, but it is known to work – and there certainly are no side effects.