Now, all those issues are important, but the one that really concerns me is the impact
of fluoride on the brain.
When the baby is born, the blood-brain barrier is not fully formed.
In my view, this is not the time to expose the baby to 200 times the level of fluoride
than in mother's milk, which is what happens if you make up baby formula with fluoridated
tap water.
We now have over 150 animal studies in which fluoride damages the brain.
We have three fecal brain studies from aborted fetuses in China.
They compared aborted fetuses from high fluoride areas with low fluoride areas, and they see
damage to the brain.
We have behavioral studies, and we have 24 IQ studies, 24 studies which now show an association
between fairly modest exposure to fluoride and lowered IQ.
Most of those are from China, but there's two from Iran, there's one from Mexico, and
one from India.
When I say modest exposures, one study from China which is particularly interesting to
me because I visited the villages in China where this study was done, they looked at
a village at less than 0.7 parts per million of fluoride in the well water, natural, and
another village between 2.5 and 4.5.
And looking at those villages, you can't see any difference, I mean, same architecture,
same lifestyle, same food, same diet, same occupation, all rural farmers, the same.
But a 5 to 10 IQ drop across the whole age range for kids, you can see a shift in the
whole IQ.
And the threshold at which this occurs based upon extrapolation from all the data is 1.9
parts per million.
And I've argued and will continue to argue that that means there's not an adequate margin
of safety to protect the whole population of children in the United States or any other
fluoridated country.
After all, this study was done with 300 kids.
So for 300 kids, those drinking water at 1.9 or higher have a lowered IQ.
Now those children are all Chinese, all more or less the same diet, et cetera, very similar.
And when you take a known harm, when you see harm like this and you now say, you ask the
question, well if that dose causes harm, what dose would be safe for a much larger population?
We usually use a margin of safety of 10.
We divide the harmful dose that we've found, divide by 10 to come up with what we think
would be a safe dose for all the children.
Some people argue that you need more than 10 if it's a factor affecting children because
they're more sensitive.
But if you apply, if you assume that those kids in the study were drinking one litre
of water, that's 1.9 milligrams, if it's 1.9 parts per million, that's 1.9 milligrams
per litre.
If we assume they're drinking all one litre each, and this is fairly robust, I mean you
could assume half a litre, two litres, it doesn't make much difference, if you assume
that they're only drinking one litre of water, then they each were getting 1.9 milligrams
causing lowering of IQ.
Apply the safety factor, 1.9 divided by 10 is .19 milligrams.
That's one glass of water in a fluoridic community.
It's crazy, it's reckless, it's stupid, you can't do this.
But because the Public Health Authority has promoted this in the United States for over
50 years, 60 years, it's now, it was the US Public Health Service, but now it's focused
in the Centre of Disease Control, they're the big promoters of fluoridation.
They have wax lyrical about this for years and years and years.
They've told everybody it's safe and effective and they just don't have what it takes to
say we were wrong.
And there are now dangers there and they could throw in the fact that it's unnecessary because
if you want fluoride, you know, use fluoride toothpaste.
you