Dr. Gary M. Whitford: Fluoride & Neurotoxicity
YouTube video – Uploaded on Dec 12, 2012
1. Animal studies
Dr. Whitford cites his own study (Whitford et al. 2009) to imply that fluoride has not been shown to damage the animal brain. However, he conveniently leaves out the substantial body of evidence that indicates the opposite. For a list of animal and biochemical studies in chronological order, refer to Connett et al. 2010 (Appendix I, pp. 277-286).
2. Chinese IQ studies
Dr. Whitford claims that IQ studies out of China are non-credible and therefore encourages people not to take them seriously. However, he conveniently neglects to mention that the National Research Council took these studies seriously, in terms of warranting further targeted research. According to the NRC’s 2006 report (p. 223):
“The possibility has been raised by the studies conducted in China that fluoride can lower intellectual abilities. Thus, studies of populations exposed to different concentrations of fluoride in drinking water should include measurements of reasoning ability, problem solving, IQ, and short-and long-term memory. Care should be taken to ensure that proper testing methods are used, that all sources of exposure to fluoride are assessed, and that comparison populations have similar cultures and socioeconomic status.”
3. Choi et al. 2012
Dr. Whitford again chooses to dismiss the aforementioned IQ studies for methodological reasons and suggests the authors have expressed uncertainty to the point of rendering all studies utterly irrelevant. But here is what the authors themselves say:
“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain. The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us” (Grandjean, HSPH).
“As research on other neurotoxicants has shown, a shift to the left of IQ distributions in a population will have substantial impacts, especially among those in the high and low ranges of the IQ distribution” (Choi et al. Environ Health Perspect. Response).
“These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S. On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present. We therefore recommend further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard” (Choi & Grandjean, HSPH).
Dr. Whitford claims the hazards are “virtually none,” but Grandjean disagrees:
“Chemical brain drain should not be disregarded. The average IQ deficit in children exposed to increased levels of fluoride in drinking water was found to correspond to about 7 points – a sizable difference.”