IQ

Bombshell Study Confirms This Daily Drink Lowers IQ

Posted by

0


(Gelpi/Shutterstock)

These study findings were so controversial, they had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before being published. Their publication even warranted a special editor’s note justifying the journal’s decision to publish the story. Will the findings be taken seriously?

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ; a 2022 study by the same team will assess the neurotoxicity of early-life exposure to fluoride
  • In the earlier study, a 1 milligram per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.49-point decrease in IQ among boys only, while a 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score in both genders between ages 3 and 4
  • The findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre (SMC), two well-known front groups for the chemical industry
  • As of January 2022, there are at least 74 studies showing fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ; there are at least 60 that found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals
  • There are also more than 2,000 other studies detailing other health effects
  • Research published in 2017 found that, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. They also found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ

The August 19, 2019, issue of JAMA Pediatrics[1] delivered an unexpected bombshell: A U.S. and Canadian government-funded observational study found that drinking fluoridated water during pregnancy lowers children’s IQ.

The research, led by a Canadian team of researchers at York University in Ontario, looked at 512 mother-child pairs living in six Canadian cities. Fluoride levels were measured through urine samples collected during pregnancy.

They also estimated the women’s fluoride consumption based on the level of fluoride in the local water supply and how much water and tea each woman drank. The children’s IQ scores were then assessed between the ages of 3 and 4. As reported by the Fluoride Action Network (FAN):[2]

“They found that a 1 mg per liter increase in concentration of fluoride in mothers’ urine was associated with a 4.5-point decrease in IQ among boys, though not girls.

When the researchers measured fluoride exposure by examining the women’s fluid intake, they found lower IQ’s in both boys and girls: A 1 mg increase per day was associated with a 3.7 point IQ deficit in both genders.”

Support for the Importance of This Study

The findings were deemed so controversial, the study had to undergo additional peer-review and scrutiny before publication, making it one of the more important fluoride studies to date.

Its import is also demonstrated by the fact that it was accompanied by an editor’s note[3] explaining the journal’s decision to publish the study, and a podcast[4] featuring the chief editors of JAMA Pediatrics and JAMA Network Open, in which they discuss the study.

An additional editorial[5] by David Bellinger, Ph.D., a world-renowned neurotoxicity expert, also pointed out that “The hypothesis that fluoride is a neurodevelopmental toxicant must now be given serious consideration.” Few studies ever receive all of this added treatment. According to the editor’s note:[6]

“Publishing it serves as a testament to the fact that JAMA Pediatrics is committed to disseminating the best science based entirely on the rigor of the methods and the soundness of the hypotheses tested, regardless of how contentious the results may be.”

Chemical Industry Front Groups Defend Fluoride

Surprisingly, the findings were widely reported by most major media outlets, including Reuters,[7] The Washington Post,[8] CNN, NPR, Daily Beast and others, effectively reigniting the scientific debate about whether water fluoridation is a good idea.

Not surprisingly, the findings were hotly criticized by pro-fluoride agents, including the American Dental Association (ADA),[9] the American Council on Science and Health[10] (ACSH) and the Science Media Centre[11] (SMC).

It’s well worth noting that the ACSH and SMC are well-known front groups for the chemical industry, and they will defend all chemicals, regardless of what’s under discussion, so seeing dismissive articles from these groups is more or less par for the course. You can learn more about these groups in the articles hyperlinked above.

It’s also worth noting that Fox, which in 2014 made a similar study headline news,[12] wasn’t satisfied with just presenting the latest study as news and, instead, invited its resident doctor, Marc Siegel, to comment[13] — and that comment began by blaming tooth decay, not fluoride, on lower IQs. Siegel ended with a rambling diatribe against the study and a scathing criticism of JAMA Pediatrics for even having published it:

“I’m far more worried about tooth decay than I am about fluoride … There’s no way that fluoride would lower your IQ more than having tooth decay … It’s a ridiculous study … complete poppycock … The Journal of the American Medical Association Pediatrics should not have put this in.”

As for the ADA, it’s been promoting water fluoridation as a health benefit for over a century and a half. To change its stance would clearly result in a loss of face, and might even expose the association to liability. The loss of scientific credibility alone is likely enough to encourage the ADA to hold on to the status quo.

The same goes for the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which, despite the more than 2,700 studies[14] against it, maintains water fluoridation is one of the top 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century.[15]

AAP Support of Water Fluoridation Is Hypocritical

A bit tougher to explain is the American Academy of Pediatrics’ continued support of water fluoridation, despite a study linking fluoride intake among pregnant women with a “small dip” in their children’s IQ.[16]

Of any group, the AAP really should reconsider its stance on this issue, seeing how it has officially recognized the hazardous influence of hormone-disrupting chemicals on child development. Of course, the American Dental Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists went right along with the AAP, are apparently unconcerned about that “small” dip in IQ.

What’s hypocritical is that in 2018, the AAP issued a policy statement[17] warning parents to avoid endocrine-disrupting chemicals — commonly found in processed food, fast food wrappers and plastics, for example — and while fluoride was not specified as an example of a chemical to be avoided, research shows fluoride has hormone disrupting potential placing it in the exact same category. As noted by FAN:[18]

“Fluoride was definitively identified as an endocrine disruptor in a 2006 report[19] [20] by the U.S. National Research Council of the National Academies (NRC). This report states:

‘In summary, evidence of several types indicates that fluoride affects normal endocrine function or response … Fluoride is therefore an endocrine disruptor in the broad sense of altering normal endocrine function or response … The mechanisms of action … appear to include both direct and indirect mechanisms …”

Fluoride Action Network Addresses Study Critique

In the featured video, Paul Connett, Ph.D., founder and current director of the FAN, addresses some of the criticism and why this particular study is such an important wake-up call for health care practitioners and pregnant women.

“[Fluoride exposure] during pregnancy will lower the IQ of their children. Only if you think a child’s tooth is more important than a child’s brain would you not be disturbed by that,” Connett says. “You can repair a child’s tooth. You cannot repair a child’s brain once it’s been impacted during fetal development.”

One pro-fluoride critique against the JAMA Pediatric study is that it doesn’t show cause and effect. “Well, no epidemiological study proves cause and effect,” Connett says. “That’s a given! To say it doesn’t show cause and effect is a redundant statement.” Other pro-fluoride voices argue the effect size is small — only 4.49 IQ points[21] for boys, on average. However, as Connett points out:

“If you shift the entire population over by 3 or 4 IQ points, you would almost halve the number of geniuses in your society … and you would increase by about 50% the number of mentally handicapped children. So, on a population [basis] such shifts are highly, highly significant.”

A third manufactured controversy revolves around the fact that only boys were impacted by maternal urine levels of fluoride. Some hitch their critique of the study on this simple gender difference.

However, it should come as no surprise that boys and girls can be affected in different ways by the same toxic compound, as their development is affected by various hormones, including sex hormones, and toxins affect various hormones in different ways. We’ve seen this type of gender difference in many other instances as well.

“However you cut it, you have to be so wedded to fluoridation not to take this incredibly seriously,” Connett says. “Remember, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever — no scientific evidence — that a fetus exposed to fluoride has lowered dental decay.

There’s no evidence you’re protecting the baby from future decay during pregnancy. So, ANY evidence suggesting it may be damaging the brain has to be taken seriously …

We have potential harm [on the one side] … and on the other side you have something that is totally unnecessary. Why on earth would any doctor hesitate to advise pregnant women: ‘Don’t drink fluoridated water during pregnancy’?”

Other Studies Support Link Between Fluoride and IQ Loss

What’s more, as Connett so strongly points out, while this particular study has received a great deal of media attention, it’s not the only one raising a red flag. There are at least 74 studies listed in FAN’s scientific database showing that fluoride exposure damages children’s brains and lowers IQ.[22] There are at least 60 that found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and/or memory capacity of animals.[23]

There are also a couple of thousand other studies detailing other adverse health effects. When you add in animal research, there are more than 300 studies demonstrating fluoride can cause:[24]

  • Brain damage, especially when coupled with iodine deficiency
  • Reduced IQ
  • Impaired ability to learn and remember
  • Neurobehavioral deficits such as impaired visual-spatial organization
  • Impaired fetal brain development

In his video commentary, Connett briefly mentions the importance of the 2017 “Bashash study.” This was an international study effort led by professor Howard Hu, who at the time of the study’s publication was at the University of Toronto. The study is known as the “Bashash study” after the lead author, Morteza Bashash, Ph.D. The team also includes researchers from McGill, Harvard, Mount Sinai, Michigan, Indiana and the National Institute of Public Health of Mexico.

Funding for this research came from the U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The finalized study[25][26] was published in the September 2017 issue of Environmental Health Perspectives.

This study was remarkable for the fact that it followed participants for 12 years, involved several well-respected researchers, employed rigorous methodology and controlled for virtually all conceivable factors.

Here too, they found a strong relationship between the urinary level of fluoride in pregnant women and the subsequent IQ in their children. They also found a dose-dependent relationship, so the higher the mother’s urine level of fluoride, the lower the IQ in the offspring.

According to the Bashash study, compared to a mother who drinks fluoride-free water, a child of a mother who drinks water with 1 part per million of fluoride can be predicted to have an IQ that is 5 to 6 points lower. What’s more, they found there was no threshold below which fluoride did not affect IQ.

A New Study Will Assess Neurotoxicity on the Brain

In January 2022, York University announced that the same research team that found the connection between fluoride and children’s IQs has obtained close to $2 million from the National Institutes of Health to assess both the neurotoxicity of early-life exposure to fluoride and the thyroid-disrupting effects of fluoride in pregnancy.[27]

The researchers will use baby tooth dentin — tissue beneath the enamel — to measure fluoride “ring” markers on the dentin.

“Sampling tooth layers that correspond to specific life stages will provide critical information for when exposure occurred and how much reached the developing brain,” lead researcher Christine Till said in a press release.

“Our earlier research measured urinary fluoride levels in pregnant women, which does not tell us how much fluoride reached the fetus and when … The tooth dentin is an optimal biomarker because it will provide evidence that fluoride crosses the placenta. This will give a better understanding of the critical window of when exposure becomes harmful to the developing brain.”

Your Contributions Are Making a Difference

FAN is part of the Mercola Health Liberty Coalition, founded in 2011 — the mission of which is to inform and educate about the fraud and deceptions created by the junk food, chemical and pharmaceutical industries. Other Health Liberty partners include the National Vaccine Information Center, the Organic Consumers Association and Consumers for Dental Choice.

Not only has your support been helpful to catalyze the removal of fluoride but you have been able to help us make massive changes with two other health issues as well:

  • GMOs — When we first started, the average person in the U.S. did not know what GMOS were. Now, not only do they know but they are also aware how dangerous they are. Your support has allowed FOIA requests to be filed that produced critical evidence resulting in juries awarding plaintiffs billions of dollars from Bayer/Monsanto, with another 13,000 cases pending and a possibility of bankrupting this evil giant.
  • Dental mercury — Charlie Brown has coordinated worldwide bans on the use of mercury in dentistry that has already resulted in banning mercury in dentistry in many countries, with the likely complete elimination of amalgam within the next few years.

Again and again, we see “controversial” and “contentious” stances proven prudent and correct given enough time for sufficient science to accumulate. It’s important for you to recognize that your donations to these organizations through the years have allowed these successes to manifest. The latest JAMA Pediatrics study brings us another major step forward in the process to eliminate water fluoridation.

Editors Compare Anti-Fluoridation to Anti-Vaccine Sentiments

As noted by JAMA Pediatrics editor-in-chief, Dr. Dimitri Christakis, in the JAMA podcast (embedded above):

“Before there were anti-vaxxers there were anti-fluoriders, and the traditional teaching when I was going through residency in my early professional career was, ‘fluoride is completely safe and all of these people trying to take it out of the water are nuts. It’s the best thing that’s ever happened for children’s dental health and we need to push back and get it into every water system’ …

So, when I first saw this title [‘Association Between Maternal Fluoride Exposure During Fetal Development and IQ Scores in Offspring in Canada’], my initial inclination was, ‘What the hell?’”

Christakis goes on to express shock at the discovery that only 3% of European residents, while 66% of Americans and 38% of Canadians drink fluoridated water (statistics noted in the JAMA Pediatrics paper[28]), as he was under the assumption that all developed countries fluoridated all their water supplies. This just goes to show the general ignorance that still exists even among well-educated health professionals.

Christakis and JAMA Network Open editor-in-chief Dr. Frederick Rivara also express mutual surprise that the effect of water fluoridation on IQ was so great. They point out that a 5-point reduction is significant indeed, as it’s “on par with lead.”

Christakis goes on to discuss the fact that there have been other studies suggesting fluoride may be a neurotoxin. “Which, again, was totally news to me. I thought it was junk science,” he says. Rivara agrees, saying such studies have in the past been likened to “junk” anti-vaccine science.

Christakis admits he struggled with the findings — basically because of his preconceptions of the science. He certainly did not want to be the one putting out “junk science” that might lead to a deterioration of children’s dental health. This is precisely why the study was put through additional reviews to make sure the methodology and findings were sound. In the end, the research was solid enough to pass the tests.

It’s interesting to hear Christakis and Rivara talk about their struggle to accept the idea that water fluoridation may be harmful — at the very least until the child starts developing teeth. But even toddlers may be harmed, the pair admit, as toddlers and young children’s brains are still developing.

It’s even more interesting to hear them equate their struggles to that of the vaccine safety question for, indeed, the very same struggle to accept the idea that vaccines can cause harm is identical to the struggle to accept that water fluoridation may be damaging our children.

Both are considered unassailable public health victories, and no one wants to entertain the idea that we may inadvertently be causing grave harm on a populationwide basis. Yet that’s a very real probability, as this study shows (and many others as well).

Fluoride Is an Environmental Pollutant as Well

Overall, it makes absolutely no sense to fluoridate municipal water supplies. First of all, it’s forced medication without oversight — there’s no way to ascertain the dosage any given person is getting, or what effect it’s having on their health.

When it comes to fetuses and infants, water fluoridation is useless, as there’s no scientific evidence to even remotely suggest it has a beneficial impact on future dental health, and it certainly does not make sense to “prevent cavities” in those without teeth.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the fluoride in the water never ever touches a tooth. It’s simply flushed down the drain, becoming an environmental pollutant. As noted by Edward Groth III, a staff officer on the Environmental Studies Board, Commission on Natural Resources, with the National Research Council back in 1975:[29]

“Environmental contamination by fluorides exposes many organisms to potentially toxic effects and may exert some stress on the ecological interrelationships among plant and animal populations … [T]he available evidence does support the view that fluorides are pollutants with considerable potential for producing ecological damage.”

Groth’s article, “Fluoride Pollution,”[30] which appeared in the journal Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, summarizes the ecological impacts of low-level fluoride pollution, pointing out fluoride has been found to accumulate in the bodies of insects, birds and mammals, in some cases to potentially toxic levels, thus increasing fluoride levels in the food chain as a whole.

There are also reports of toxic effects in algae and freshwater vertebrates, and “indications that aquatic vegetation may also concentrate the element.” Substantial amounts of fluoride are also entering farmland, where it’s taken up by soil organisms.

“Possible conversion of fluoride into fluoracetate (more toxic than fluoride itself and related organic forms), and the likelihood that fluoride may enter into synergistic actions with other contaminants, greatly expand the potential for ecological damage by low-level fluoride contamination,” Groth writes.[31]

Water Fluoridation Is a Clear Form of Water Contamination

It’s also important to realize that the fluoride added to our water is an untreated industrial waste product from the fertilizer industry — not a pharmaceutical grade product — that is suddenly deemed a health product once it’s purposely added to water.

As long as the chemical is on the premises of a fertilizer company, it’s actually classified as hazardous waste, requiring costly disposal measures to comply with hazardous waste regulations.

This fluorosilicic acid is frequently contaminated with lead, arsenic, uranium, radium, aluminum and other industrial contaminants. In other words, water fluoridation can be likened to a legal water contamination scheme.

For a review of the oft-neglected history of water fluoridation, read through “Toxic Treatment: Fluoride’s Transformation from Industrial Waste to Public Health Miracle” in the March 2018 issue of Origins,[32] a joint publication by the history departments at The Ohio State University and Miami University. As noted in “Toxic Treatment:”

“Without the phosphate industry’s effluent, water fluoridation would be prohibitively expensive. And without fluoridation, the phosphate industry would be stuck with an expensive waste disposal problem.”

There’s also very little evidence to suggest water fluoridation actually has a beneficial impact on tooth decay, while there’s unequivocal evidence of harm, as it causes dental fluorosis. Origins writes:[33]

“Only a handful of countries fluoridate their water — such as Australia, Ireland, Singapore, and Brazil, in addition to the United States. Western European nations have largely rejected the practice. Nonetheless, dental decay in Western Europe has declined at the same rate as in the United States over the past half century …

This is not to vilify the early fluoridationists, who had legitimate reason to believe that they had found an easy and affordable way to counter a significant public health problem.

However, the arguments and data used to justify fluoridation in the mid-20th century — as well as the fierce commitment to the practice — remain largely unchanged, failing to take into account a shifting environmental context that may well have rendered it unnecessary or worse.”

Kids With Acute Respiratory Failure See Lower IQ Scores Later On

Posted by

0


Study finds children admitted to a PICU have lower scores than their siblings in future years

A photo of an anesthesiologist intubating a child in the ICU.

Children who received mechanical ventilation at a pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) had slightly worse cognitive outcomes in the long run compared with their siblings, a prospective cohort study found.

At 3 to 8 years after discharge from a PICU, kids who had received mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure had a mean estimated IQ of 101.5 versus 104.3 for their matched siblings (mean difference -2.8, 95% CI -5.4 to -0.2), reported R. Scott Watson, MD, MPH, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, and colleagues.

“The magnitude of the difference was small and of uncertain clinical importance,” they noted in JAMA. The study excluded children with severe neurocognitive impairment at discharge, they added.

While “these data provide the strongest evidence to date of the existence and epidemiology of PICS-p [post intensive care syndrome in children] after a single, typical episode of acute respiratory failure necessitating invasive ventilation among generally healthy children,” considering the study’s exclusions, the findings “likely underestimate the true magnitude of PICS-p,” wrote Steven Shein, MD, of Rainbow Babies & Children’s Hospital in Cleveland, and Alexandre Rotta, MD, of Duke University School of Medicine in Durham, North Carolina, in an accompanying editorial.

Nineteen PICU patients who underwent mechanical ventilation had an estimated IQ of ≤85 compared with eight of their siblings (P=0.03), and 20 patients had an estimated IQ score at least 15 points below their siblings versus only nine who scored 15 points above their siblings.

This “demonstrates an overall downward shift in estimated IQ among patients,” Watson and colleagues noted. For context, they pointed out that lead exposure studies report a 6-point IQ shift, but even those “small changes in mean IQ can have important implications depending on the distribution of scores.”

As for secondary outcomes, PICU patients had significantly lower scores than matched siblings on nonverbal memory (mean difference -0.9, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.3), visuospatial skills (mean difference -0.9, 95% CI -1.8 to -0.1), and fine motor control (mean difference -3.1, 95% CI -4.9 to -1.4), and significantly higher scores on processing speed (mean difference 4.4, 95% CI 0.2-8.5). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes, including attention, verbal memory, expressive language, and executive function.

“Because of the potential for type I error due to multiple comparisons, findings for analyses of secondary endpoints should be interpreted as exploratory,” Watson and team wrote.

The study also showed that patients who were hospitalized at younger ages had worse outcomes. Those who scored “substantially lower” than their siblings had a median age of 2 months at PICU admission, while those who scored the same as or higher than their siblings had a median age of 1.4 years (mean difference -1.3 years, 95% CI -2.3 to -0.2), the study group said.

“These results suggest that the developing brain may be more susceptible to injury related to critical illness and associated therapies,” Shein and Rotta wrote. They noted that while a 2019 study suggested that general anesthesia in early infancy was not harmful in the long run, this analysis shows that might not be the case for children admitted to the PICU.

Watson and colleagues explained that children admitted to the PICU may receive days of anesthetics, while many hospitalized children may only receive them for a few hours.

In 2017, the FDA released a warning about anesthesia use in children younger than 3 years.

Study Details

From 2014 to 2018, 121 sibling pairs were tested, with 116 included in the primary outcome analysis. Two-thirds of the study population were white, 55 patients and 72 siblings were girls, and most generally came from middle and upper-middle-class families. Sixty-nine percent of patients were younger than their matched sibling.

Patients were included if they were 8 years old or younger at the beginning of the trial, had a Pediatric Cerebral Performance Category (PCPC) score of 1 (indicating normal neurocognitive function) prior to PICU admission, and a PCPC score ≤3 (no worse than moderate neurocognitive dysfunction) at discharge. Patients with a history of conditions associated with neurocognitive deficits were excluded.

Siblings were eligible if they were ages 4 to 16 at the time of neurocognitive testing, had a PCPC score of 1, and had the same biological parents as the patient and lived with the patient.

Patients were treated in the PICU at a median age of 1.0 years (interquartile range [IQR] 0.2-3.2), and patient follow-up occurred at a median age of 6.6 years (IQR 5.4-9.1). The most common respiratory conditions requiring PICU admission were bronchiolitis or asthma (44%) and pneumonia (37%).

IQ was estimated using age-appropriate Vocabulary and Block Design subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale as surrogates for the full-scale IQ test.

Watson and colleagues acknowledged that they relied on sib

Fluoride is a neurotoxin that damages your brain

Posted by

0


Image: Fluoride is a neurotoxin that damages your brain

For many people, fluoride has become a fact of life. The addition of fluoride to public water supplies en masse has made avoiding exposure to this toxin very difficult. While proponents of fluoride say that this “mineral” is essential for dental health, the truth is that fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Human beings do not need to consume fluoride to be healthy — and in fact, you are much better off without it.

While it is true that fluoride can be found in the Earth’s crust, the fluoride used in dental products and tap water is not derived from the Earth. Instead, water fluoridation relies on chemicals known as “silicofluorides.” These are byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry — and municipalities nationwide allow these chemicals to be dumped into the water supply for the explicit purpose of human consumption.

Fluoride is not the benign substance overzealous globalists would like for you to believe; it is a dangerous, neurotoxic substance that has been decried as a “soft kill” tactic of the global elite. At the very least, it’s a documented threat to human health.

Fluoride is toxic to your brain

While the CDC claims that water fluoridation is “one of 10 great public health achievements of the 20th century,” science shows that simply isn’t true. The CDC’s own data have shown that water fluoridation is contributing to increased rates of dental fluorosis (DF). In mild cases, DF appears as nothing more than white spots on the teeth, but more advanced cases can be disfiguring with severe damage to the tooth enamel. Statistics from 2004 indicate that 41 percent of adolescents aged 12 to 15 have dental fluorosis — a 400 percent increase in just 60 years.

Mother Nature’s micronutrient secret: Organic Broccoli Sprout Capsules now available, delivering 280mg of high-density nutrition, including the extraordinary “sulforaphane” and “glucosinolate” nutrients found only in cruciferous healing foods. Every lot laboratory tested. See availability here.

As you might surmise, fluoride’s deleterious effects do not end with damage to tooth enamel.

As Be Brain Fit reports, a recently published study in The Lancet recommended that fluoride be re-classified as a developmental neurotoxin — similar to lead, mercury, or arsenic.

Scientists have repeatedly documented evidence that suggests fluoride consumption reduces IQ in children. A study conducted in Mexico City, by scientists from the University of Toronto, University of Michigan, Harvard, McGill, and the national public health agency of Mexico, recently confirmed again that fluoride exposure negatively effects kids’ brains. 

“It found an average loss of 5 to 6 IQ points among children of mothers with urine fluoride levels of 1.5 mg/L compared to those with 0.5 mg/L. For an entire population, such a loss would be expected to halve the number of geniuses in society and double the number of mentally handicapped,” PR Newswire reports.

Fluoride isn’t just making people dumb

The neurotoxic compound isn’t just lowering people’s IQs — it’s doing far more than that. Recently published research has also linked fluoride exposure to an increased risk of ADHD. The researchers stated that there is a growing body of evidence which clearly demonstrates that fetuses are especially susceptible to the harmful effects of fluoride, and that their findings are right in line with that belief: Fluoride harms developing children.

Some evidence has also indicated that fluoride may be an indirect cause of Alzheimer’s disease. It’s believed that when aluminum and fluoride combine, fluoride helps transport aluminum across the blood-brain barrier. Be Brain Fit notes that aluminum fluoride in the brain has been linked to Alzheimer’s, as well.

Fluoride has been associated with a host of other issues, including nervous system degeneration and decreased pineal gland function. Beyond the fact that fluoride is clearly not good for you, water fluoridation is a questionable endeavor, if for no other reason than for the fact that the government has no business in mass medicating the people via the water supply.

 Genes are not destiny: Environment and education still matter when it comes to intelligence

Posted by

0


Genes are not destiny: environment and education still matter when it comes to intelligence
Intelligence is about more than just biology. 

Recent research has suggested that academic performance, reading ability and IQ have a genetic basis. This reinforces the popular notion that intelligence and related cognitive capacities are somehow “in our genes”.

This has led some people to reject the importance of educational interventions on the grounds that spending money on nurture isn’t going to significantly affect the abilities nature has given us.

However, are not destiny. There is good evidence to show how effective environmental interventions can be for educational outcomes.

Genetics and intelligence

The way in which genes actually contribute to intelligent individuals is often overlooked.

Genes can act in a variety of ways to produce their effects. Some genes may alter brain chemistry so that a person is better able to learn. Other genes could cause behavioural , causing some people to self-select more stimulating environments.

And it is likely that the genetics of works at least in part by a genetic influence on the environment. This means that a genetic basis for intelligence is as much about one’snurture as about one’s nature.

Intelligence is the most widely studied trait in behavioural genetics. It is correlated with a suite of other characteristics ranging from income, to lifespan, to happiness.

Researchers have found a significant genetic contribution to intelligence differences using the method of heritability estimates.

These studies compare populations of identical (monozygotic) and fraternal (dizygotic) twins. Identical twins are genetically identical – they’re nature’s clones. Fraternal twins, like siblings, share an average of 50% of their genes.

If there is a heritable basis for intelligence, then should be more similar than fraternal twin pairs. This method gives researchers an idea of how heritable intelligence is, but tells us nothing about the actual genes involved.

Since the advent of gene sequencing, new techniques have allowed scientists to identify specific candidate genes that are correlated with intellectual outcomes.

More recently, researchers have investigated the relative effects of many specific genes working together. Earlier this year researchers at Kings College London used this method to explain a substantial proportion of exam score differences.

The standard interpretation of these kinds of results is that intelligence genes work through innate biological processes, causing individual differences. But this may not always be the case.

A thought experiment

Imagine two groups of children who have different versions of a candidate intelligence gene: Gene X.

Children with one version of this gene have an insatiable love for the musty smell of books. The other group of children feel the opposite way and detest the smell.

You can imagine the first group actively seeking out and surrounding themselves with books, while the second group actively avoids them. As a result, the first group of children will likely attain better reading scores than the second group, simply because of their increased exposure to books.

A genetic analysis of these results could easily lead researchers to declare that Gene X is the gene for reading ability. But it makes more sense to think of Gene X as a gene for smell preferences.

These smell preferences then cause environmental differences between the two groups, and it is the environment that plays the final part in generating differences in reading scores.

Nature via nurture

Genes can cause differences in brain development. But they can also predispose individuals to experience different kinds of environments. In behaviour genetics this is termed “gene-environment correlation”.

There are many ways in which people behave that could influence their environment. Personality differences will influence whether or not a child has the confidence to attend an extracurricular class. Differences in temperament will affect the kinds of resources children will seek out for themselves.

More social children might spend less time constructing an academically rich environment than those spending more time alone. If personality differences of this kind are correlated with, then it is likely that associated genetic effects are thought of as due to “intelligence genes”.

A danger with the genetic research of human abilities is the way in which findings are understood. If results are interpreted prematurely or incorrectly, then ineffective and potentially disastrous policy decisions could follow.

This was illustrated in the 1960s when prominent geneticist Arthur Jensen criticised the Head Start education program, which offers compensatory education to children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

One reason for its instigation was to bridge the divide in school performance between black and white American students. Jensen claimed that interventions of this type would be of no use because of the of intelligence.

This sparked debate about the causes of intelligence differences between racial groups, fuelling racism at a cultural and political level. Genetic accounts of intelligence differences between racial groups have since been debunked. We now know that these differences are due to associated environmental differences, including the prejudices some groups face within society today.

Unfortunately, racism still persists, as does prejudice in many other forms. Because of this, scientists and media professionals should be extra careful when they present findings about genetic causes.

There is more work to be done to uncover the environmental factors associated with genes. But we should pay close attention, as this information can be used to create a fairer education system for all.

Pre-term breastfeeding has been linked to better brain development, IQ, and academic achievement

Posted by

0


It actually changed babies’ brains.

A new study of pre-term babies has found that the more breast milk they have in the first 28 days of their life, the more likely they are to develop larger volumes in crucial brain regions.

Compared to pre-term babies whose initial diet included more pre-term formula, babies who consumed more breast milk also had better IQs, academic achievement, working memory, and motor function at seven years old.

“Our data support current recommendations for using mother’s milk to feed pre-term babies during their neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) hospitalisation,”said one of the team, Mandy Brown Belfort from the Boston Hospital & Medical Centre.

“This is not only important for mums, but also for hospitals, employers, and friends and family members, so that they can provide the support that’s needed during this time when mothers are under stress and working so hard to produce milk for their babies.”

Brown Belfort and her team analysed data from 180 pre-term babies born before 30 weeks gestation in the US between 2001 and 2003. Over the first 28 days after birth, they calculated how many days the infants received more than 50 percent whole breast milk as part of their nutritional intake.

 This was then correlated to certain mental and physical characteristics both at term equivalent (when the babies ‘should’ have been born), through to school age.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans were taken at both term equivalent and seven years to calculate the increase in grey and white matter volume across all major regions of the brain.

Interestingly, they found that infants who received more breast milk ended up developing more deep nuclear grey matter – an area important for processing and transmitting neural signals across the brain – and hippocampus volume by term equivalent, but this increase in brain volume appeared to even out by age seven.

 Publishing their results in The Journal of Pediatrics, the team suggests that this initial boost in brain volume could be due to the fact that the pre-term brain is more sensitive to the beneficial effects of breast milk at the very early stages of development.Much longer-lasting effects were found on the cognitive side of things, with the team finding that at age seven, the kids’ IQ was 0.5 points higher for every additional day they had more than 50 percent breast milk intake as infants, and 0.7 points higher per additional 10 mL of breast milk ingested.

They also linked higher breast milk intake to better motor function, academic achievement in reading and mathematics, working memory, language, and visual perception by the age of seven. Factors such as maternal education, family income, and maternal IQ were accounted for.

“Overall, it seems that greater exposure to breast milk is associated not only with higher general intelligence, but also with better academic achievement, memory, and motor function in children who were born very pre-term,” the team reports.

So what does this mean for new mums?

While the study is limited by the fact that it can only show a correlation between certain physical and cognitive advantages and a higher intake of breast milk,previous studies have suggested that the link could be due to the fact that specific nutrients in breast milk that are either absent from formula or are there in lower amounts.

As suggested by this study, this could be having a real effect on the lives of pre-term babies.

Of course, until scientists can confirm that, there’s no reason for mums of pre-term babies to freak out. Instead, Brown Belfort says the results show how important it is for mums to be given as much support as possible to help them increase breastfeeding frequency, because for some women, this can be anything but easy.

“Many mothers of preterm babies have difficulty providing breast milk for their babies, and we need to work hard to ensure that these mothers have the best possible support systems in place to maximise their ability to meet their own feeding goals,” says Brown Belfort.

“It’s also important to note that there are so many factors that influence a baby’s development, with breast milk being just one,” she adds.

General Anesthesia Before Age 36 Months Does Not Impair IQ

Posted by

0


Healthy children who undergo a single episode of general anesthesia before age 36 months show no statistically significant differences in IQ scores later in childhood compared with their unexposed siblings, a new study suggests.

“There was no significant difference in IQ scores between the children who were exposed to anesthesia and siblings who were not,” lead author Lena S. Sun, MD, said in a Columbia University Center news release. “We also saw no difference in most of the secondary outcomes, although more children in the group exposed to anesthesia exhibited internalizing behavior that required further clinical evaluation. That’s an area that needs to be further explored.”

Dr Sun, from the Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital–New York Presbyterian, Columbia University Medical Center, New York City, and colleagues present their findings in an article published online June 6 in JAMA.

The study included 105 sibling pairs; one sibling in each pair had undergone a single exposure to general inhaled anesthetic (43 sevoflurane, 5 isoflurane, and 57 both sevoflurane and isoflurane) for inguinal hernia repair before age 36 months. The children underwent assessment at ages 8 to 15 years for the primary analysis of an increased risk for impaired global functioning. Between 97 and 105 sibling pairs also underwent analysis for the secondary outcomes of abnormal domain-specific neurocognitive functions and behavior.

Overall, the mean IQ scores were similar between the exposed cohort (full-scale IQ, 111 [95% confidence interval (CI), 108 – 113]; performance IQ, 108 [95% CI, 105 – 111]; verbal IQ, 111 [95% CI, 108 – 114]) and the unexposed siblings (full-scale IQ, 111 [95% CI, 108 – 113]; performance IQ, 107 [95% CI, 105 – 110]; verbal IQ, 111; 95% CI, 109 – 114]).

In addition, the between-group differences were not statistically significant when the researchers divided the cohort according to age of exposure: 0 to 11 months (full score difference, 1; 95% CI, −4.1 to 6.1), 12 to 23 months (1; 95% CI, −3.4 to 5.4), and at 24 to 36 months (−1; 95% CI, −5.8 to 3.8). Similarly, there was no significant differences seen when the researchers stratified the group based on duration of exposure: 0 to 59 minutes of exposure (full score difference, 2; 95% CI, −4 to 8), 60 to 119 minutes of exposure (0; 95% CI, −3.4 to 3.4), and 120 or more minutes of exposure (−2; (95% CI, −8.2 to 4.2).

A number of children received general anesthesia after 36 months (18 exposed and 23 unexposed siblings); however, subset analyses taking these later exposures into account did not alter the primary finding.

Secondary Outcomes

Statistically significant differences were found between exposed and unexposed siblings in terms of verbal fluency (difference, −1; 95% CI, −1.7 to −0.3); behavior (Child Behavior Checklist; internalizing: difference, 3.2 [95% CI, 1.1 – 5.3]; externalizing: difference, 2.1 [95% CI, 0 – 4.2], and total problems: difference, 2.7 [95% CI, 0.6 – 4.7]); and adaptive behavior (Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition; social composite: difference, −3.3; 95% CI, −6.1 to −0.6).
There were no statistically significantly differences between siblings in the remaining secondary outcomes of domain-specific neurocognitive functions of memory, learning, motor or processing speed, visuospatial function, attention, language, executive function, and other areas of adaptive behavior.

“Differences in mean behavior scores between exposed and unexposed siblings became statistically nonsignificant after adjustment for sex. However, even after adjustment for sex, more exposed children had clinically abnormal internalizing behavior scores than unexposed siblings. With the limited number of exposed girls and same-sex female sibling pairs, further analysis to examine the apparent sex exposure interaction in behavior was not possible,” the authors write.

Artificial intelligence systems found to have the IQ of a 4-year-old .

Posted by

0


They’re gaining on us!

A series of tests designed to challenge some of the best AI systems in the world has pitted them against the human IQ (Intelligence Quotient) test to find that their intelligence currently sits at the level of a 4-year-old child.

Conducted by a team from the University of Illinois in the US, the tests found that our most advanced AI systems match the average toddler in terms of smartness. When the age was upped to seven, the software programs found themselves well beaten.

The IQ test is just one measure of intelligence, of course, and computers are way ahead of us in some tasks (like the speed of their calculations). What the test tries to do is assess the ability of someone to rationally understand the world around them – it’s in this particular area of self-awareness where software is still some way behind.

An MIT-developed AI machine called ConceptNet – which academics have been working on since the 1990s – was one of the systems tested. The computer scored highly on vocabulary and similarities, averagely well on information, and poorly on word reasoning and comprehension.

IQ tests vary in scope and format depending on the age of the person taking it. In this case, questions such as “where can you find a penguin?” or “what is a house?” were asked. Test subjects might be asked to identify something based on clues about it, or asked “why do we shake hands?” As you can see, those are the types of queries that computers might have trouble relating to.

In some cases, the research team broke down the question in several different ways to see how the ConceptNet system would respond, but the answers were often puzzling. For example, when told “this animal has a mane if it is male”, “this is an animal that lives in Africa” and “this a big yellowish-brown cat”, the computer came back with the following list of potential matches: dog, farm, creature, home, and cat.

“Common sense should at the very least confine the answer to animals, and should also make the simple inference that if the clues say it is a cat, then types of cats are the only alternatives to be considered,” Ohlsson told MIT Technology Review.

Nevertheless, important AI breakthroughs are arriving a rapid rate. Experts think improvements in machine learning and natural language capabilities (see Siri, Google Now, and Cortana) will lead to AI systems that are much better at thinking like humans in the next few years.

Infections May Cause Cognitive Impairment And Lower Your IQ.

Posted by

0


Infections may impact the brain directly or through peripheral inflammation, which targets the immune system and the central nervous system.

IQ (intelligence quotient) is oft a controversial measure of someone’s smarts — so take this new study with a grain of salt. Researchers from Aarhus University in Denmark have released a new report claiming that infections might be linked to impaired cognitive ability when it’s measured by IQ. In other words, getting seriously ill from an infection might have a negative impact on your brain and ability to think.

The researchers examined 190,000 Danish people born between 1974 and 1994, who had their IQ measured between 2006 and 2012. Among these Danes, 35 percent had been in the hospital for an infection before their IQ test. The researchers found that participants who had been hospitalized with an infection had an IQ score 1.76 lower than average, while people with five or more hospitalizations due to infections had an IQ score that was 9.44 lower than the average.

“Our research shows a correlation between hospitalization due to infection and impaired cognition corresponding to an IQ score of 1.76 lower than the average,” Dr. Michael Erikson Benrós of the National Centre for Register-Based Research at Aarhus, an author of the study, said in the press release. “Infections in the brain affected the cognitive ability the most, but many other types of infections severe enough to require hospitalization can also impair a patient’s cognitive ability. Moreover, it seems that the immune system itself can affect the brain to such an extent that the person’s cognitive ability measured by an IQ test will also be impaired many years after the infection has been cured.”

Immune System And Mental Health

The authors hypothesize that infections can impact the brain through peripheral inflammation — or inflammation of the immune system and central nervous system that has been linked to neurocognitive function.

“Infections have previously been associated with both depression and schizophrenia, and it has also been proven to affect the cognitive ability of patients suffering from dementia,” Benrós said in the press release. “This is the first major study to suggest that infections can also affect the brain and the cognitive ability in healthy individuals.”

Past research also points to a potential link between the immune system and mental health. A study released in 2013 found that inflammation was linked to cognitive aging and increased the risk of dementia. Another study published in JAMA Psychiatry found that children who had high levels of a protein that’s released into the blood in response to infection were at a higher risk of developing depression and psychosis later on.

“Inflammation may be a common mechanism that influences both our physical and mental health,” Professor Peter Jones, an author of that study and the Head of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge, said in the press release. “It is possible that early life adversity and stress lead to persistent increase in levels of IL-6 and other inflammatory markers in our body, which, in turn, increase the risk of a number of chronic physical and mental illness.”

Meanwhile, the most recent study is the first to delve into the infection and IQ connection, though past controversial research had identified a link between warmer countries that had increased rates of malaria and other diseases, and lower average IQ. Whether that study is completely flawed or not, in general it’s difficult to measure overall intelligence simply by IQ, especially when in the context of different nationalities, since so many other factors (like poverty and education) must be taken into account. Thus, the researchers will have to do some more work to better understand how infection, inflammation, and the immune system might cause cognitive impairment — and perhaps going farther than simply using IQ as a tool for measure.

Source: Benros M, Sørensen H, Nielsen P, Nordentoft M, Mortensen P, Petersen L. The Association between Infections and General Cognitive Ability in Young Men — A Nationwide Study. PLOS ONE. 2015

Breastfeeding For More Than 12 Months Leads To Higher IQ Scores And Higher Income At Age 30

Posted by

0


breastfeeding
Babies breastfed for a year or more have better performance on intelligence tests, greater school achievement, and higher monthly incomes as 30-year-olds. 

“Those subjects who were breastfed for 12 months or more had higher IQ, a difference of 3.7 points, more years of education, and higher monthly income, a difference of about $100 per month, than those who were breastfed for less than one month,” said Dr. Bernardo Lessa Horta, associate professor at Federal University of Pelotas in Brazil, in a podcast with Lancet Global Health. (For the study, “breastfed for less than a month” included children who were never breastfed at all.)

The study was launched in 1982 in Pelotas, Brazil. A full 30 years later, the researchers returned to the participants and collected information on their IQ scores, educational attainment, and monthly income. Of the original 5,914 neonates enrolled, the researchers were able to track a substantial portion: 3,493 total participants.

Importance of the Study

While past research has found higher intelligence scores among breastfed babies, what is so significant about this study is the researchers were able to collect more complete information on breastfeeding duration and also followed for a longer period. And, by using a population-based birth cohort, the breast feeding practices had no association with income level. Most of the evidence of higher intelligence test scores among breastfed babies comes from high-income countries, where middle-class and higher-class mothers are more likely to breastfeed their babies than lower income mothers — certainly in the United States, breastfeeding ratesreflect this trend. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports higher income and older mothers are more likely to breastfeed than their peers.)

With evidence coming from first-world countries “where breastfeeding is positively associated with higher socioeconomic status,” Horta explained, “there’s always a question of whether the effect that has been observed in other studies is a consequence of breastfeeding by itself or has the result been confounded by socioeconomic status.” Specifically, higher income babies are most likely eating better quality food and this could be impacting IQ test scores.

However, in Pelotas, it is rare for mothers to not breastfeed, so the evidence from this study, which included follow-up on more than 60 percent of the original participants, is inclusive and irrespective of income.

Asked why breastfeeding would result in higher IQ, Horta unhesitatingly told the Lancet, “Breast milk is rich in long-chain saturated fatty acids and this is essential for brain development.” And from there, he believes, future earning-power is a given. “The positive effect of breastfeeding on IQ leads to a higher income,” he added.

Source: Victora CG, Horta BL, de Mola CL, et al. Association between breastfeeding and intelligence, educational attainment, and income at 30 years of age: a prospective birth cohort study from Brazil. The Lancet. 2015.

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ

Posted by

2


Harvard University researchers’ review of fluoride/brain studies concludes “our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.” It was published online July 20 in Environmental Health Perspectives, a US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences’ journal (1), reports the NYS Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, Inc. (NYSCOF)

“The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas,” write Choi et al.

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

Further, the EPA says fluoride is a chemical “with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.”

Fluoride (fluosilicic acid) is added to US water supplies at approximately 1 part per million attempting to reduce tooth decay.

Water was the only fluoride source in the studies reviewed and was based on high water fluoride levels. However, they point out research by Ding (2011) suggested that low water fluoride levels had significant negative associations with children’s intelligence.

Choi et al. write, “Although fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in animal models and acute fluoride poisoning causes neurotoxicity in adults, very little is known of its effects on children’s neurodevelopment. They recommend more brain/fluoride research on children and at individual-level doses.

“It’s senseless to keep subjecting our children to this ongoing fluoridation experiment to satisfy the political agenda of special-interest groups,” says attorney Paul Beeber, NYSCOF President. “Even if fluoridation reduced cavities, is tooth health more important than brain health? It’s time to put politics aside and stop artificial fluoridation everywhere,” says Beeber.

After reviewing fluoride toxicological data, the NRC reported in 2006, “It’s apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain.”

Choi’s team writes, “Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature.”

Fluoride accumulates in the body. Even low doses are harmful to babies, the thyroid, kidney patients and heavy water-drinkers. There are even doubts about fluoridation’s effectiveness (2). New York CityLegislationis pending to stop fluoridation. Many communities have already stopped.

Infant formula when mixed with fluoridated water delivers 100-200 times more fluoride than breastmilk. (3)

FLUORIDE & INTELLIGENCE: THE 37 STUDIES

 

Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

As of May 2013, a total of 43 studies have investigated the relationship between fluoride and human intelligence, and a total of 19 studies have investigated the relationship fluoride andlearning/memoryin animals. Of these investigations, 37 of the 43 human studies have found that elevated fluoride exposure is associated with reduced IQ, while 19 of the 20 animal studies have found that fluoride exposure impairs the learning and memory capacity of animals. The human studies, which are based on IQ examinations of over 11,000 children, provide compelling evidence that fluoride exposure during the early years of life can damage a child’s developing brain.

After reviewing 27 of these studies, a team of Harvard scientists concluded that fluoride’s effect on the young brain should now be a “high research priority.” (Choi, et al 2012). Other reviewers have reached similar conclusions, including the prestigiousNational Research Council (NRC), and scientists in the Neurotoxicology Divisionof the Environmental Protection Agency (Mundy, et al).

Quick Facts About the 37 Studies:

  • Location of Studies: China (28), India (5), Iran (3), and Mexico (1).
  • Sources of Fluoride Exposure: 31 of the 37 IQ studies involved communities where the predominant source of fluoride exposure was water; six studies investigated fluoride exposure from coal burning.
  • Fluoride Levels in Water: IQ reductions have been significantly associated with fluoride levels of just 0.88 mg/L among children with iodine deficiency. (Lin 1991) Other studies have found IQ reductions at 1.8 ppm (Xu 1994); 1.9 ppm (Xiang 2003a,b); 0.3-3.0 ppm (Ding 2011); 2.0 ppm (Yao 1996, 1997); 2.1-3.2 ppm (An 1992); 2.3 ppm (Trivedi 2012); 2.38 ppm (Poureslami 2011); 2.45 ppm (Eswar 2011); 2.5 ppm (Seraj 2006); 2.85 ppm (Hong 2001); 2.97 ppm (Wang 2001, Yang 1994); 3.1 ppm (Seraj 2012); 3.15 ppm (Lu 2000); and 4.12 ppm (Zhao 1996).
  • Fluoride Levels in Urine: 12 of the 37 IQ studies have provided data on the level of fluoride in the children’s urine. 8 of these 12 studies reported that the average urine fluoride level was below 4 mg/l, and 6 reported average fluoride levels below 3 mg/L. To put these levels in perspective, a study from England found that 5.6% of the adult population in fluoridated areas have urinary fluoride levels exceeding 3 mg/L, and 1.1% have levels exceeding 4 mg/L. (Mansfield 1999) Although there is an appalling absence of urinary fluoride data among children in the United States, the excess ingestion of fluoride toothpaste among some young children is almost certain to produce urinary fluoride levels that exceed 2 ppm in a portion of the child population.
Harvard Study Finds Fluoride Lowers IQ - Published in Federal Gov't Journal

Methodological Limitations

As both the NRC and Harvard reviews have correctly pointed out, many of the fluoride/IQ studies have used relatively simple designs and have failed to adequately control for all of the factors that can impact a child’s intelligence (e.g., parental education, socioeconomic status, lead and arsenic exposure). For several reasons, however, it is extremely unlikely that these limitations can explain the association between fluoride and IQ.

First, some of the fluoride/IQ studies have controlled for the key relevant factors, and significant associations between fluoride and reduced IQ were still observed. This fact was confirmed in the Harvard review, which reported that the association between fluoride and IQ remains significant when considering only those studies that controlled for certain key factors (e.g., arsenic, iodine, etc). Indeed, the two studies that controlled for the largest number of factors (Rocha Amador 2007; Xiang 2003a,b) reported some of the largest associations between fluoride and IQ to date.

Second, the association between fluoride and reduced IQ in children is predicted by, and entirely consistent with, a large body of other evidence. Other human studies, for example, have found associations between fluoride and neurobehavior in ways consistent with fluoride being a neurotoxin. In addition, animal studies have repeatedly found that fluoride impairs the learning and memory capacity of rats under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. An even larger body of animal research has found that fluoride can directly damage the brain, a finding that has been confirmed in studies of aborted human fetuses from high-fluoride areas.

Finally, it is worth considering that before any of the studies finding reduced IQ in humans were known in the western world, a team of U.S. scientists at a Harvard-affiliated research center predicted (based on behavioral effects they observed in fluoride-treated animals) that fluoride might be capable of reducing IQ in humans. (Mullenix 1995)

Summary

When considering their consistency with numerous animal studies, it is very unlikely that the 37 human studies finding associations between fluoride and reduced IQ can allbe a random fluke. The question today, therefore, is less whether fluoride reduces IQ, but at what dose, at what time, and how this dose and time varies based on an individual’s nutritional status, health status, and exposure to other contaminants (e.g., aluminum, arsenic, lead, etc). Of particular concern is fluoride’s effect on children born to women with suboptimal iodine intake during the time of pregnancy, and/or fluoride’s effects on infants and toddlers with suboptimal iodine intake themselves. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, approximately 12% of the U.S. population has deficient exposure to iodine.