Page 43 - Spring 2019 Journal

gland for those suffering from hyperthyroid- ism (overactive thyroid gland).31-37 Despite this knowledge, government agencies in the U.S. and other fluoridating countries have never seen fit to investigate a possible relationship between fluoride exposure and the rising level of hypo- thyroidism in their countries. Only recently have scientists reviewed the matter.38-41
A 2018 study, reported that while they could find no relationship between fluoride exposure and TSH levels (thyroid stimulating hormone and an indicator of hypothyroidism) and fluo- ridation status among the general population, they did find that for those who had low or even borderline iodine intake, fluoride exposure was associated with an increase in their TSH levels.42
The importance of this finding is that it gives a very plausible mechanism for why fluo- ride might lower IQ in children born to mothers with high fluoride exposure. When the fetus comes into existence it has no thyroid gland. It is entirely dependent on the mother’s thyroid levels for its early mental development. So any depression in the mother’s thyroid hormone lev- els will increase the risk of lowered IQ in their offspring (see Vyvyan Howard’s explanation of this situation in a PowerPoint presentation he gave in New Zealand in 2018).43
WARNING PREGNANT WOMEN
One of the sad consequences of the medi- cal community’s acceptance of the safety-and- effectiveness argument for water fluoridation, based upon dogma rather than upon the latest science, is that many doctors are oblivious of these findings. The result is that women are not being warned to avoid fluoride exposure during pregnancy. They are not being warned by their doctors, by health departments, by professional bodies or by the media. It has been left to non- governmental bodies like FAN to get the word out the best we can via social media, the Internet (see the Moms 2B Campaign),44 press releases,45 leaflets and talks. We have been trying to do so since 2017, but it is an extremely difficult task, as is the continuing battle to try to end the well-
entrenched practice of water fluoridation.
LAWSUIT PROVIDES NEW HOPE
In November 2016, the Fluoride Action
SPRING 2019
Network, along with Food & Water Watch, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology, Moms Against Fluoridation, the Organic Consumers Association and individuals, petitioned the EPA46 to ban the deliberate addition of fluoride to public drinking water under provisions in the Toxic Substances and Control Act.
We argued that “[t]he risk to the brain posed by fluoridation addi- tives is an unreasonable risk because, inter alia, it is now understood that fluoride’s predominant effect on tooth decay comes from topical contact with teeth, not ingestion. Since there is little benefit in swallow- ing fluoride, there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom. The addition of fluoridation chemicals to water thus represents the very type of unreasonable risk that EPA is duly authorized to prohibit pursuant to its powers and responsibilities under Section 6 of TSCA, and Petitioners urge the Agency to exercise its authority to do so.”
In September 201747 the EPA rejected our petition on its scientific merits. In response to an appeal from FAN, a federal court denied EPA’s motion to dismiss in December 2017.48
Also in December 201749 the EPA argued that no other studies should be added to the case after our petition was first delivered to them in November 2016. The court disagreed with EPA50 and ruled to allow new studies, such as those by Bashash and others discussed above. A trial date has been set to take place in federal district court in San Francisco in August 2019.
We are confident that we can win this case. In order to do so, it will require us to demonstrate three things: 1) that fluoride poses a hazard to the developing brain; 2) that there is a risk at current exposure levels (from all sources combined) in fluoridated communities; 3) that this is an unreasonable risk because there are other ways that tooth decay can be prevented.
Moreover, even if fluoride is one of those alternatives, there are other and more appropriate ways of delivering fluoride to the surface of teeth than putting fluoride into the drinking water. Indeed, the majority of countries worldwide that do not fluoridate their water have actually demonstrated this over many years.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
There are many ethical and scientific arguments against the seventy-
year practice of water fluoridation. The evidence that swallowing fluoride
reduces tooth decay remains weak. Not a single randomized controlled
trial has been attempted to demonstrate this, and promoters have relied
on studies with far weaker methodologies.65 Meanwhile, the number of
studies that indicate harm can be caused, even at the doses experienced
in fluoridated communities, has been growing, particularly studies on the brain.20,22,24,42,46
With such risks on the table, it is unconscionable, in our view, that governments continue to promote the deliberate addition of a known
Wise Traditions 41