HARM TO FETUSES
November 26, 2012, Updated January 2, 2012
This is a revision of a letter to the Snohomish Health District Board found at https://www.fluoride-class-action.com/press-releases/11-26-12-fetuses.
On October 9, 2012, Dr. Mark Goldbaum made a speech to the Snohomish County Board of Health on the subject of fluoridation. The speech was similar to the speech he gave to the Everett City Council on June 6, 2012, and to the Board of Health Program and Policy Committee on August 23, 2012.
Dr. Goldbaum presented the same PowerPoint slides on all three occasions.
One of the board members asked Dr. Goldbaum, “One of the studies talked about fluoridation and the fetus Do you know anything about those studies?”
Dr. Goldbaum said, “There have been studies … [unintelligible]. There has never been any documentation that any fetuses have been harmed by [the] low levels of fluoride in the public water system.”
Dr. Goldbaum is wrong again. There is strong evidence that fetuses are being harmed as their mothers drink fluorosilicic water and eat food made with fluorosilicic water. Fluoride passes through the placental barrier into the fetus. The fetus is not less but more vulnerable than a newborn, because his/her cells are dividing even more rapidly than those of the newborn.
A study of newborn infants found
“There were significant differences in the neonatal behavioral eurological [urinary] assessment score and neonatal behavioral score between the subjects in the endemic fluoride areas and the control group. There were also significant differences in the non-biological visual orientation reaction and biological visual and auditory orientation reaction between the two groups. It is concluded that fluoride is toxic to neurodevelopment and that excessive fluoride intake during pregnancy can cause adverse effects on neonatal neurobehavioral development”.
A study of aborted fetuses found that
“The … accumulation of fluoride in the brain tissue can disrupt the synthesis of certain neurotransmitters and receptors in nerve cells, leading to neural dysplasia or other damage”.
Another study of aborted fetuses found
“The numerical density of volume, the volume density, and the surface density of the mitochondria were significantly reduced. The results showed that chronic fluorosis in the course of intrauterine fetal life may produce certain harmful effects on the developing brain of the fetus”.
A 2012 Harvard review of 27 studies found convincing evidence that drinking fluoridated water lowers IQ. Presumably some of that harm occurs while the fetus is in utero because fluoride crosses the placental barrier, and even more cell division is going on in the fetus than in the infant.
The work of Dr. Phillis Mullenix, one of the writers of the 2006 NRC Report on Fluoride, showed that rats consuming fluoride at a level sufficient to produce the same blood fluoride level as is present in humans who drink “optimally” fluoridated water, showed convincing evidence of brain damage. She lost her position for questioning the safety and effectiveness of fluoridation.
The EPA is developing a Database of Developmental Neurotoxicants. Fluoride is one of the neurotoxicants listed. The database looks at human and animal studies where the exposure to various toxins including fluoride has taken place during pregnancy or during the period before weaning, the EPA concluded that fluoride fell into the class of chemicals regarding which there was “substantial evidence of fluoride’s developmental neurotoxicity”.
Animals are negatively impacted by drinking water fluoridated at “optimal levels”. Dr. William Burgsthaler and others point this out here, as does Dr. Bruce Spittle (pp. 50-58).
Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr., told me about mothers in Atlanta: She said, “As soon as they started adding that stuff to the water, young, healthy wives started having stillbirths – spontaneous abortions”. Alveda says this is a civil rights issue. No correlational studies have been done to confirm or deny this observation of Alveda and the women of Atlanta.
Blacks, Hispanics, and the poor in general are more likely to be the ones with the worst cases of fluorosis – brown spots on the teeth, with pitted and even chalky teeth – and with a disproportionate number of stillborns.
Dr. Mark Goldbaum says that “fluoridation is … safe”, however, he lacks the qualifications to make such an assertion, just as he lacks the qualifications to assert that fetuses are not being harmed by fluoridation. The Board of Health needs to consult with real experts on such questions.
I am asking Dr. Goldbaum to study these journal articles and to reply in writing to this letter. I am asking him to change his position on adding fluorosilicic acid to our drinking water and to advise the Snohomish County Board of Health to withdraw its endorsement of fluoridation.
Sincerely,James Robert Deal, Attorney Informal Coordinator of Everett Safe Water WSBA Number 8103
The latest revision of letter can be read online at www.Fluoride-Class-Action.com/press-releases/11-26-12-fetuses
and at www.fluorde-class-action.com/fetuses
Fluoride Supplements Banned for Pregnant Women
On October 24, 1966, the following report was published in the Drug News Weekly:
In a statement of policy in the Oct. 20 Federal Register, FDA said that these products are misbranded and are subject to regulatory proceeding if offered for prenatal tooth strengthening and decay prevention. Drugs may be legally sold with such claims only if the evidence of effectiveness is shown in an approved New Drug Application.
FDA left the door open for further study on the effects of fluoride for prenatal use. Drugs not labeled in accordance with the policy statement and shipped after Dec. 19 will be hit with regulatory action, FDA said.
Title 21-FOOD AND DRUGS
Chapter I-Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
PART 3-STATEMENTS OF GENERAL POLICY OR INTERPRETATION
Oral Prenatal Drugs Containing Fluorides for Human Use
A number of vitamin-mineral preparations containing fluorides for prenatal use and intended or represented to be beneficial to tooth development in the fetus or in the prevention of dental caries in the offspring have appeared on the market in the last few years. These preparations and any other fiuoride containing drugs offered for the same uses are not generally recognized as effective for these purposes by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs.
Accordingly, under the authority vested in the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (secs. 502 (a), (f), 505, 701(a), 52 Stat. 1050, 1051, 1052, as amended, l055; 21 U.S.C. 352 (a), (f), 355, 371(a)) and delegated by him to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (21 CFR 2.120; 31 F.R. 3008), Part 3 is amended by adding thereto a new statement of policy, as follows:
§ 3.53 Oral prenatal drugs containing fluorides intended for human use.
(a) The Food and Drug Administration finds that there is neither substantial evidence of effectiveness nor a general recognition by qualified experts that prenatal drug preparations containing fluorides are beneficial to tooth development in the fetus or in the prevention of dental caries in the offspring.
(b) Any such drug preparation that is so labeled, represented, or advertised will be regarded as misbranded and subject to regulatory proceedings unless such recommendations are covered by a new drug application, including substantial evidence of effectiveness, approved pursuant to section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
(c) A completed and signed “Notice of Claimed Investigational Exemption for a New Drug,” ‘Form FD-1571 set forth in §130.8 of this chapter, must be submitted to cover clinical investigations to obtain evidence that such preparations are effective for such uses.
(d) Regulatory proceedings may be initiated with respect to drug preparations labeled contrary to the provisions of this statement and shipped within the jurisdiction of the act after 60 days from the date of publication of this statement in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
Federal Register, Vol. 31, No. 264, Thursday, October 20, 1966