CDC now links high flouride in water to lower IQ in kids

(Joey) #1

Not sure what to make of this… high levels of flouride in drinking water are associated with reduced IQ points in children (perhaps 2-5 IQ points).

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4842470-fluoride-drinking-water-low-iq-children-hhs/

The zinger for me is this statement:

“The report said it did not find high fluoride exposure to have an impact on adult cognition.”

So apparently, while flouridated water lowers childhood IQ, it recovers when reaching adulthood - presumably while drinking the same water? :man_shrugging:

#2

I remember reading that 10yrs ago, like anything the powers that be don’t like hearing, it’s suppressed.

(Joey) #3

Apparently, the good news is that, after 10 yrs, the children’s IQ scores return back to pre-flouride levels. :thinking:

(Megan) #4

How did the study deal with all of the variables? I’m sure fluoridated water, if it has a negative effect, is only one of the things kids are exposed to that are harmful…

(KM) #5

I don’t see anything about children recovering their IQ points in adulthood. Am I missing something? All I’m seeing is that adults are not negatively impacted by fluoride while children are.

#6

I wonder if they mean an adult who was never exposed to fluoride as a child will not have an impact on IQ if they are then exposed as an adult?

I actually read somewhere recently that it’s bad for adults too though, but for other reasons. I was advised to never get it at the dentist. I’ll try to find where I read that and why it was bad…

#7

That I didn’t know! Good news! I’ve been fighting my kids dentist over toothpaste and they just prescribed him a super strong one with 4x the fluoride in it, they were about to kick me out after that “talk” ahahaha. Expensive enough getting that out of my house’s water and then crap like that. I’ve always equated their obsession with a known carcinogen with those docs years back that actually wanted to Statin-ize the water supply…OK!

#8

Even if it wasn’t Fluoride is a known carcinogen, that should be enough to end it right there. Then add in all the endocrine disruption plastics and phyto-estrogens we’re all ingesting. We’re screwed if you’re not on your game with avoiding as much as possible.

#9

Prior to the IQ thing, the argument was always that Fluoride is a known Carcinogen. Just not if you’re in the US, where they don’t dismiss other countries labeling it as such, by say stuff like “not enough evidence”. My county was playing with pulling it years ago, but it didn’t happen in the end.

(Peter - Don't Fear the Fat ) #10

I looked at this not long ago. Some water co in the UK add 1 milligram per liter of water. I thought that sounded like lot!
Those companies are -
Anglian Water Services Ltd, Northumbrian Water Ltd, South Staffordshire Water plc, Severn Trent plc, and United Utilities Water plc

(KM) #11

“The US Public Health Service (USPHS) recommends a fluoride level of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in drinking water”. So yes, in comparison 1 mg per liter is a lot. Glad to be on a well, although who knows what I’m getting instead of flouride. :grimacing:

(Bob M) #12

Try this instead:

Supposedly, it remineralizes teeth without the possible negative effects of fluoride, according to a dentist I follow on Threads. He did post some studies, which I looked at, which indicated the active ingredient, Hydroxyapatite, did as well as or better than fluoride at remineralizing teeth. I don’t know about the differences in any possible negative effects, though. Just his ideas.

Also, I remember that discuss of adding statins to water. Talk about going far beyond what the “science” says.

@MeganNZ This is the problem with any study that’s really an epidemiological study (which I assume this one is). I’ve seen arguments where they looked at fluoride in water but looked at two completely different locations with completely different groups of folks. Can’t really do anything with that info.

(Joey) #13

I assumed that these adults were once children… If as children their IQ was reduced by flouride but as adults it no longer is, they must have recovered. :wink:

(KM) #14

I think they’re talking about two different populations. Children, now, who are experiencing a drop in IQ, and adults, now, who either already experienced their childhood drop but are now capable of tolerating fluoride with no further drop, or adults, now, who were not fluoridated as children but seem to be unaffected by the current dosing in the water supply.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #15

Before we go bonkers believing or dismissing this study, let’s ask, as with all studies, N = what? What is the statistical significance? How serious is a 2-5 point drop in IQ? Is IQ even a valid measure of intelligence (lots of questions about that one!), how were the measurements done, how many times, and at what ages? Is this an epidemiological study or a randomised, controled trial? And so forth.

The thing that bemuses me is the matter of, so you observe that children are getting dental caries at an alarming rate, why put a substance in the public water supply, instead of returning the children’s diet to a healthier one? Why don’t dentists, of all people, know about the work of Weston A. Price, given that he was one of them? Why isn’t his work taught in dental schools?

Of course, sixty years ago, I was a little too young and too uneducated to be able to raise these points.

(Bob M) #16

It’s epidemiological:

The report determined children have lower IQs after being exposed to high levels of fluoride after reviewing epidemiology studies in Canada, China, India, Iran, Pakistan and Mexico.

That’s the main reason I find fluoride so tough. There are basically no RCTs. To do a good RCT, you’d have to go into a location and split people in that location into two groups, one which gets fluoride, one which does not, then follow them. Instead, what happens is they typically compare one group in one location, which has fluoridated water, with another group in a completely different location, without fluoridated water. All the negatives of epi studies come in.

And, I agree with Paul that one of the changes we could make is to avoid eating a lot or very much sugar.

(Central Florida Bob ) #17

I’d add to that they should be a group of kids and followed from birth until they’re in their mid-20s - or they’ve had their full adult teeth for maybe 10 years.

I was going to comment on this before: the commonly used explanation for why fluoride works is that it converts the mineral apatite to fluoroapatite, which is harder. The toothpaste you pointed out above (hydroxyapatite) is just that little bit different (hydroxy- versus fluoro-). Hydroxy- is harder than plain apatite but a little bit less hard than the fluoro- form, like 2% less energy in the bonds. I realize there are places where the sizes of the steps up to and above some level are what matters more than the absolute difference, but have no idea if 2% matters here at all.

I happen to know a guy through various hobbies who’s a retired endodontist and I asked him about this several months ago. He thinks if there’s any justification for fluoride it’s not in toothpaste, it’s in the water supply. The problem there is that you treat everybody to get at kids that don’t have adult teeth to make those adult teeth harder. The treatment apparently doesn’t help adults in any way and might only hurt.

Now add in that it might hurt the children more than it helps them reduce cavities.

(Central Florida Bob ) #18

I should have mentioned that apatite is the main mineral in the enamel in our teeth. It’s also the middle of hardness scale rockhounds and mineral collectors use, the Mohs hardness scale, measured by scratching minerals on each other.

(Joey) #19

Too late. I’ve gone bonkers years ago. :wink:

(Joey) #20

Unclear to me why that would be the case. But studies like this are trash, anyhow.

And just what does 2-5 IQ points actually mean in terms of mental capacity and function? My guess: it’s functionally meaningless.