Philippe Grandjean MD & Philip J Landrigan MD:
“Neurodevelopmental disabilities, including autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and other cognitive impairments, affect millions of children worldwide, and some diagnoses seem to be increasing in frequency. Industrial chemicals that injure the developing brain are among the known causes for this rise in prevalence. In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.” [Source]
Additional reading:
> Related FAN Press Release
> Chemical brain drain update
> Rebuttal: Dr. Gary M. Whitford
afamildura.wordpress.com 
February 22, 2014 at 12:39
I am guessing that all those who are brainwashed like Chris who have a passionate love affair with hazardou$ wa$te (fluoride) wouldn’t even believe it if their own children had neurological impairment, kidney damage or cancer from these haz waste pollutants and co-contaminants. Don’t waste any more time on these uncaring, willfully and deliberately provocative/negligent/ignorant people who wouldn’t know The Precautionary Principle if it blasted them between their eyeballs.
Pingback: Fluoride Levels in Melbourne’s Water: Exposing the Red Herrings in Health Department Spin | Research Blog
February 17, 2014 at 06:21
An article in LANCET ( Vol 368, December 16, 2006, p. 2167-2178), by P
Grandjean, and PJ Landrigan purports to review the literature on the
developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Some journalists claim this
article reveals fluoride to be such a neurotoxin.
The article does no such thing. It does not use metaanalysis techniques to
examine previous research articles for their use of proper scientific methods.
Nor does it contain new data. And, while it claims to synthesize data banks from
all available sources, its bibliography is extremely short. For fluoride, only 4
articles are listed–3 from China, (2 from the same anti-fluoride journal, 1 in
Chinese only), and one on fluoride effects in rats. The CDC (Center for Disease
Control) consensus study of fluoride (*1) has a bibliography of 290 articles.
The authors’ main point is that there is a growing pandemic of
developmental disability, including autism and Cerebral Palsy, affecting 1 out of
every 6 children. They then use Lead as the neurotoxin model to prove that
other industrial chemicals must be the cause of such widespread harm to the
developing brain—which is more sensitive than the adult brain.
We pediatricians agree with always taking the safest approach: Avoiding
harm from any drug or chemical, if data on it is not yet clear. However, a MODEL
of lead proves nothing about fluoride. And the assumptions and data referred to
in this article offer no arguments that fluoride should be included on any
neurotoxin HARM list. Some of their data even support fluoridation.
A. The authors place on their HARM list every industrial chemical that has
ever been studied as a potential neurotoxin in laboratory animals. Their
assumption is that every chemicalis lead. But there is no science in lumping
every chemical as a neurotoxin without looking carefully at the data. And a
bibliography of 4 articles –out of hundreds–is not ‘looking carefully’).
The authors even admit: “Documentation of developmental effects in
human beings for the other compounds {fluoride, perchlorate} is poor.” (*2)
B. Their claim of high, and rising rates of autism, ADHD and CP makes for
good journalism to scare people, but again the authors admit that while “some
experts have reported the incidence might be increasing, there are few data to
sustain that position.” (*3). Similarly fear-provoking, but not accurate, is their
quote that 1 out of 6 children HAS a developmental disability. (*4)
C. Looking at the very short paragraph on Fluoride itself, the authors admit
that fluoride “is not shown in the panel as a substance proven to be neurotoxic
in man.” (*5) Yet they go on to list Fluoride is “an obvious candidate,” on the
basis of 3 Chinese references, none of which support their contention, (*6,7,8).
One concludes that “the current national {Chinese} standard of <1 mg/L is
safe," (*6). All were done in areas of high fluoride (4.5 and 3.15mg/L}–all far
above the levels proposed for dental fluoridation.
Grandjean's final sentence on Fluoride is: "These reports did not thoroughly
consider possible confounders, but do suggest further studies." (*9). His 3
studies only show how far anti-Fluoride writing has to go –to China, rather
than to the safe, 60+ years of experience in the US, where we can control such
confounders–to try to demonstrate that fluoridation has effects on the brain.
In conclusion, the Lancet article in no way supports fluoride as belonging
on the list of neurodevelopmental toxins.
February 17, 2014 at 14:45
What an arsehole. “Lets just keep up the Lead, because we say it’s okay.”
Give me that man. I want his blood….. friggin A hOLE.
x J.
On Sunday, February 16, 2014, Research Blog wrote: > chris commented: “An article in LANCET ( Vol 368, December 16, 2006, p. 2167-2178), by P Grandjean, and PJ Landrigan purports to review the literature on the developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals. Some journalists claim this article reveals fluoride to ” >
February 17, 2014 at 22:49
You’re a really funny guy, Chris. Our response: https://afamildura.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/rebuttal-dr-gary-m-whitford/