october 18, 2018
The FAN team shall never forget the date September 19, 2017. We had concluded our FAN conference in Washington DC on Sept 18 and we were preparing to journey home. In the early hours of the morning we got the news that a rigorous and high-quality US-government funded study had been published that confirmed our worst fears about fluoride’s ability to impact the mental development of young children. The scientific bombshell was that this harm occurred in the womb! Since then – at least in our circles – the name of the lead author –Bashash- has become a household word. Now just over one year later in October 2018, three more papers have been published in the Environment International and the Environmental Health Perspectives. These include a second paper by Bashash et al.
The Fluoride Action Network’s Executive Director, Paul Connett, PhD, has filmed a response to these three papers. Please click on the link below to watch, then please share the video with local decisionmakers and neighbors. You can also share FAN’s video post on Facebook. See video:
Here are those three papers and a brief explanation why they are important:
Till C, Green R, Grundy JG, Hornung R, Neufeld R, Martinez-Mier A, Ayotte P, Muckle G, Lanphear. Community Water Fluoridation and Urinary Fluoride Concentrations in a National Sample of Pregnant Women in Canada, Environmental Health Perspectives.
In this study (partially funded by the US National Institutes of Health) the urinary levels of fluoride in pregnant mothers was measured in ten large cities in Canada (7 fluoridated, 3 not). The authors found the same range of urinary fluoride levels in the Canadian women as in the Mexican city study (Bashash et al., 2017). The mean values in the fluoridated Canadian communities were almost identical to the Mexican City study (0.91 versus 0.87 ppm). We should note two things a) the large sample size used (N=1566 women) and b) the maternal urinary fluoride (UF) was analyzed exactly the same way as in the Bashash study (i.e. adjusting for urinary creatinine). This allows us to make direct comparisons across the two studies.
This rebuts the simplistic claim by the ADA (issued within a few minutes of the publication of the Bashash study on Sept 19, 2017) that the results were not relevant to the USA.