Study Claiming Fluoride Does Not Lower IQ is Flawed

37 Comments

NEW YORKMay 27, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A recent New Zealand study published in the American Journal of Public Health, which claims to exonerate a link between fluoride and lowered IQ, is scientifically flawed and reveals blatant examiner bias, says the Fluoride Action Network (FAN).

The study’s co-author, pro-fluoridation activist and dentist Jonathan Broadbent, claimed: “Our findings will hopefully help to put another nail in the coffin of the complete canard that fluoridating water is somehow harmful to children’s development.”  However, the limitations of Broadbent’s study mean it is inconclusive at best.

Paul Connett, PhD, FAN Executor Director says, “Even if this study was high quality science, which it is not, it could not cancel out over 100 animal and 45+ human studies showing fluoride can cause brain deficits. Broadbent’s research has serious weaknesses.”

For example:

1) The study’s small sample size of non-water-fluoridated subjects (99 compared to 891 water-fluoridated subjects) means it has low ability to detect an effect. Even worse, 139 subjects took fluoride tablets, but Broadbent does not say which. Since fluoride tablets are only recommended for children living in non-water-fluoridated areas, there may have been little difference in total fluoride intake between his comparison groups. Broadbent’s failure to consider total fluoride exposure may thus explain why he found “no effect”.

2) Broadbent falsely criticizes 27 previous studies linking fluoride to children’s lower IQ – implying they didn’t adjust for any potentially confounding variables like lead, iodine, arsenic, nutrition, parent’s IQ, urban/rural and fluoride from other sources.  In fact, several of the studies did control for these factors.  A good example is Xiang’s work, which has controlled for lead, iodine, arsenic, urban/rural, fluoride from all sources, parent’s education, and socio-economic status (SES).  Ironically, Broadbent failed to adjust for most of these factors in his own study despite having access to information on many of them.

3) Of the four factors Broadbent did adjust for, most were only crudely controlled. For example, SES was determined solely by the father’s occupation and classified into just 3 levels. Inadequate adjustment for SES could obscure a lowering of IQ caused by fluoride, because almost all of the non-water-fluoridated children came from one outlying town that had lower SES than the fluoridated areas.

“Broadbent is one of New Zealand’s leading political promoters of fluoridation.  He is a dentist not a developmental neurotoxicologist,” says Connett.  “This single weak study is hardly sufficient to outweigh the substantial body of evidence showing fluoride’s potential to harm the developing brain at relatively low exposure levels.”

> Source

Advertisements

Author: AFA Mildura

Administrator, Anti-Fluoridation Association of Mildura

37 thoughts on “Study Claiming Fluoride Does Not Lower IQ is Flawed

  1. Typical Pseudoscience from the proponents of fluoridation.

    They’d write anything to protect their FRAUD!!

  2. The most important issue is really about a) precautionary principle; (particularly as we are using a scrubber waste from industry);b) informed consent; c) then the constitutional argument where in particular the 1973 Fluoridation Act is illegal, I believe any one who is complicit in making, supplying and adding HFSA to tap water is liable and accountable to the Law, also as concentration and dose are not the same and no water meter has any certification as accurate. Illegal ethically that TGA does not have a finding on a Therapeutic Good. The Hippocratic oath doesn’t apply to our medicos any more, it has been bastardised. Informed consent and the constitution should be applicable. If this heinous act is being stopped overseas, what has our Australian Government signed us up to which is causing them to not review the polluting/poisoning of our main staple OUR DRINKING WATER. Phosphate Rock is formed from “bird poo” would we knowingly eat it or drink it? We even cringe if a bird drops a load on us – put simply the whole matter is ‘crap’ is not good for teeth and is even more harmful to our organs. Lead, cadmium, arsenic, mercury and other heavy metals are not welcome in our water supply. There has been so much hoo ha with the QUIT campaign, cigarettes contain these heavy metals also -that tells me HFSA is a strong contender for causing all kinds of disease including cancer.

  3. “Broadbent failed to adjust for most of these factors in his own study despite having access to information on many of them.” The evidence to this? New Zealand is well in the safety range of lead/arsenic in our water that neither will have any effect on IQ.

    “means it has low ability to detect an effect”
    Still had the statistical power. But please if anyone thinks otherwise, please show your workings.

    “but Broadbent does not say which”
    And? He still controlled for it.

    “In fact, several”
    Only several? So in that case yes most didn’t control. The ones that did control it, how much fluoride did they test for?

    “He is a dentist not a developmental neurotoxicologist”
    He’s not just a dentist, even ignoring that, did you not look at all the other names? The Journal itself checks over the results too.

    “Even if this study was high quality science”
    Actually it was. I believe he won an award over this.

    Did the person who wrote this actually read the study and try to understand it? If you actually think there’s flaws in this study go write to the Journal then you will get your answer. But like the rest of the anti-fluoride groups that find “problems” won’t actually get it checked and instead continue to spread misinformation.

    • Hi Zammbi, I think you should take this up with the Executive Director of the Fluoride Action Network: http://fluoridealert.org/about/team/

      • The executive director of FAN, Paul Connett, while professing to be the world expert on fluoridation, actually has no credentials in that area. He has done absolutely no research on fluoride or fluoridation, and his scientific publications in this area amount to 2 “letters to the editor” and part of a review in a shonky journal.

        There is absolutely no point in debating the issue with him – he is a politcal quack. However, those critics of Broadbent et al (2014) who think they have a valid scientific criticism should write their own letter to the Editor of the jounral where the issues can be aired and dicussed. If there are problems this is important and it is the normal porocess in science.

        However, no one seems willing to do this which suggests to me they don’t feel they have any scientificaly valid criticisms they can make.

        • Now who owns these journals, who sponsors & controls these? I bet that editor is a fluoride poison pusher fanatic as you are!
          If he, or she would be against it, he/she would be out of their job in no time!

          • Danny, here is info on the journal where Broadbent et al was published:

            “The American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) is dedicated to the publication of original work in research, research methods, and program evaluation in the field of public health. The mission of the journal is to advance public health research, policy, practice, and education.

            AJPH, first published in 1911, is the official journal of the American Public Health Association. The official version of the journal is the online version.”

            His paper was of course peer reviewed, not left to the editor’s discretion as in the case of the shonky journal Connett used.

            Sounds like you are a conspiracy theorist!

        • You’re funny, Ken. Still waiting for you to grow the balls to go toe-to-toe with Connett in a live public debate. Looking forward to watching the video recording of that one on YouTube. 😉

          • Do you not think it significant the Paul Connett never cites our debate? It is not mentioned on his web site and the anti-fluoride activists pretend it never happened.

            He had more the half of the content of the debate – yet I think he just could not handle the way his arguments were exposed as false.

            In contrast I cite it all the time – Fluoride debate http://wp.me/P4J79-7vC

            My pick is that he would not agree to a future debate. He has already thrown his toys out of the cot and packed a sad on the last one.

        • Wow, someone is a little butthurt. Everyone please pay attention to Ken’s post above. I’m going to show you how radicals like Ken distort the truth and have to lie to discredit those who disagree with their extreme views on fluoridation.

          Paul Connett, Ph.D. is actually a very well respected chemist who received his bachelors degree in Natural Sciences from Cambridge University (one of the most prestigious schools in the world), and his doctorate in Chemistry from Dartmouth College (Ivy League…yes, another one of the best schools in the world), and is a Professor Emeritus in Environmental Chemistry at St. Lawrence University (another high level private school, where he taught for 22 years).

          Paul has researched fluoride’s toxicity for the past 20 years (how about you Ken?), and in the summer of 2000 was invited by the York University team to provide testimony before their now famous review of fluoridation for the British government…yeah, the review that showed that those “thousands of studies showing fluoridation is safe” were actually inconsistent, of poor quality, and not specific to water fluoridation as much as the topical use of pharmaceutical fluoride. (Hey Ken, did they invite you to testify as an expert before that panel? )

          In 2000, he was also invited (as an expert) by the Irish government to testify before the Irish Ministry of Health’s Fluoridation Forum (Ken, were you invited?).

          In November 2001, Paul (together with Dr. Phyllis Mullenix) were invited by the American College of Toxicology (as fluoride experts) to debate proponents, but like you Ken, the proponents refused.

          In January of 2003, Paul presented a keynote address on a weight of evidence analysis of the impact on water fluoridation on bone quality at the XXVth Conference of the International Society for Fluoride Research held in Dunedin, New Zealand.

          In March 2003, Paul was invited by the US Environmental Protection Agency (as a foremost expert) to present at their annual Science Forum in Washington, DC.

          On August 12, 2003, Paul gave an invited presentation to the US National Research Council committee reviewing the safety of the US EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for fluoride in drinking water. YUP, THE NOW FAMOUS NRC REPORT. (Hey Ken, were you invited to this…who’s the expert now, bitch).

          On May 13, 2004, Paul gave an invited presentation on the dangers of fluoridation to the Irish Parliamentary Committee on Health and Children.

          In 2005, Paul presented a paper on Fluoridation and Osteosarcoma to a conference organized by the International Society for Fluoride Research and held in Wiesbaden, Germany.

          In 2008, Paul presented the case against fluoridation to a parliamentary committee in the Knesset, Israel.

          In 2009, Paul was an invited panelist in three public forums organized by the South Central Strategic Health Authority (SHA) in Southampton, UK.

          In 2010, Paul provided testimony in a public consultation organized by the Science Committee on Health and the Environmental Research (SCHER) of the EU in Brussels.

          ….and the list just keeps going on. Wow Ken, it appears that the U.S., British, Irish, New Zealand, EU, and Israeli governments all seem to consider Dr. Connett an expert on fluoridation…everyone except you, a peon who wasn’t invited to anything.

          In regard to publications (since you seem to put so much emphasis on this), Paul co-authored the book “The Case Against Fluoride”, which includes over 80 pages of just scientific references supporting his opposition to the practice. How many books have you written about fluoridation Ken? His book also won a U.S. National Health Information Award in 2011, and has nothing but good reviews from many health professionals and scientists.

          In regard to Broadbent, he was bent on promoting fluoridation with this report before he even announced that he was undertaking it. He has been a well known proponent and propaganda monger for years on the issue (see video of Broadbent before undertaking his report–nothing bias here…yeah right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7vdlzJlGAs

          I wonder what Harvard researcher Phillip Grandjean thinks about the Getbent…I mean Broadbent study…oh wait, he commented on it here: http://braindrain.dk/2014/06/fluoride-good-for-teeth-bad-for-brains/

          Even if this study was high quality science, which it is not, it could not cancel out over 100 animal and 45+ human studies showing fluoride can cause brain deficits.

          So in conclusion, Ken is a little bitch who has to lie to discredit those who disagree with him in an attempt to make the opponents look as feeble minded as he is on the subject, when in fact they stand head and shoulders above him shitting on his head.

          Who’s the expert now bitch?

          • Fred, you seem upset. I guess you don’t like the home truths about your hero.

            Paul has not done any original research on fluoride. Cherry picking and misrepresenting the literature is not research – Christ even someone as dim as Declan Waugh regularly does that. (Oops, have I stood on your toes again?)

            A book is not a peer reviewed research publication – and Paul’s book is full of typical cherry picking and misrepresentation.

            What you have described is pure political a activism – I freely admit I can’t match Paul’s record with that.

            However, the debate I had with him I believe showed he could not support many of his claims. He even acknowledge some were mistaken. And very tellingly he refuses to cite that debate on his web site whereas I cit it all the time – despite the fact his contributions take up ore than half of it.

            Have a read of it “Fluoride debate http://wp.me/P4J79-7vC – you can even download it as a PDF.

            • Hello Parrot, (Kenny Baby), as I stated on your “OPEN PARACHUTE” website, the proponents of fluoridation are the “CHERRY PICKING CHAMPIONS OF THE UNIVERSE!”

              And EVERY single time we the fluoride fighters state anything against these POISON PUSHERS they come back with the exact same statements against us/the fluoride fighters.

              Now here’s 353 pages of “CHERRY PICKING CRAP” which is farmed out every time a fluoride fighter asks to many questions about hydrofluorosilicic acid’s safe and effectiveness, for the medical authorities here in Australia:

              http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/eh41_2.pdf

              That’s the science used by your sort Kenny Baby and it’s called Pseudoscience and all the proponents of water fluoridation knows that this is the case!!!!!!

              That’s really original isn’t it Parrot, Kenny Baby.

              A really fantastic MARKETING PLOY like the statement we keep hearing from PARROTS just like you Kenny Baby, “WATER FLUORIDATION IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!!!!!!”

              Just chalk on a blackboard to me and many others like me Kenny Baby and still with absolutely NO SCIENCE in sight!!!!!!

              And the video below is your mate Dr Harold C. Hodge marketing water fluoridation, yes that’s right, that’s the Dr who injected patients with radio active substances without their permission and/or their knowledge.

              What a NICE GUY/”Dr!”

              WOW that’s great science Kenny Baby!!!!

              I keep asking you, but you never answer this question, where is the “ORIGINAL PUBLISHED PEER REVIEWED” paper that “PROVES” without a shadow of a doubt that calcium fluoride, sodium fluoride & last but not least, HYDROFLUOROSILICIC ACID is “SAFE AND EFFECTIVE” to ingest.

              That’s not too much to ask is it Kenny Baby, or is what the proponents of water fluoridation the likes of you, are just telling the public “BIG FAT FRAUDULENT LIES?”

              Have a nice day Kenny Baby and all the fluoride fighters the likes of myself are awaiting your reply with bated breath.

              And thank you again afamildura as well for all your work and fluoride fighting efforts against the Pseudoscience of water fluoridation and its pathetically taunting proponents and blights on the human race, the likes of peon, Kenny Baby.

              Now this information below was written by a Dentist, Dr Jim Maxey, DDS.

              In addition to the high phosphorous and calcium mineral content of the well water some of the water
              also contained the element fluoride

              That fluoride in the well water was found to poison the cells that are involved with normal tooth
              development thus causing interference in normal tooth calcification process resulting in mottling and disfigured teeth.

              To give you some documentation that calcium and phosphorous are important to the calcification of teeth, today, in this year of 2009, if someone has sensitive teeth due to enamel erosion or there is a
              high decay rate, there is prescription toothpaste called Soothe RX that is made with an intentional
              very high concentration of calcium and phosphorous to be used to recalcify damaged tooth structure.
              Not many people are aware of this toothpaste because of the need for a prescription to obtain it.

              http://www.qve.qc.ca/afq/audio-video/Fluoride_Fraud-Maxey-DDS_book.pdf

            • Wow, Ken, you cite your own blog religiously, then continually complain that others don’t cite it for you as well. Poor Ken, is the view count on your little “debate” too low? It’s interesting that your opponent’s Facebook page now has over 48,000 Likes [ https://www.facebook.com/FluorideActionNetwork ]. Jealous?

              • You reckon that’s the problem – Paul does not want to link the open parachute for the debate or the PDF file? Perhaps I should send him the file to place on his on web site?

                Mind you he could have done that already – I am picking he want’s to avoid bringing attention to it.

                By the way, I can assure you there is nothing religious about me. That’s why Danny and I get on so well! 🙂

                • Put it this way, Ken…

                  I’ve never heard of Connett refusing a live public debate. So I think it’s time you sorted this out man to man, in front of a live audience and have it video recorded. If Connett shies away from a debate with you like this, then I’ll start to believe he is truly fearful of your arguments, but I would be incredibly surprised if this happened since he has always been willing to take on even the most powerful fluoridation promoters anywhere in the world.

                  Meanwhile, he is not obliged to link to your blog. If you want exposure for your blog, that’s your job to promote it, not his and all your complaining on the matter doesn’t impress me. What would impress me is seeing you go toe-to-toe in a live debate, as I have said previously.

                  All I see so far is slander, bitching and whining. That doesn’t even make me blink.

                  • I couldn’t agree with you more afamildura.

                  • Still, I am picking Paul would refuse another on-line debate similar to our exchange as he does not fare well when his claims can be examined in detail.

                    As for refusing live debates, Connett refused the challenge of a debate in Wellington on his last visit.

                    I note, also, your own refusal to discuss details of the exchange between Paul and me despite making vague criticisms. You ran off with your tail between your legs when I asked for details.

              • By the way, who is your mate Darryl? Boy does he have a problem.

                • ‘Ken Oath I have a problem Kenny Baby, I have a big problem with people like you, because you don’t reply to the hard questions with the real science do you!!!!!!

                  (Oops, have I stood on your toes again?)

                  What goes around comes around Kenny Baby!!!!!!!

                  There’s nothing like KARMA is there!

                  Why can’t you answer my questions let alone Prof Connett’s questions or is it because you can’t or won’t answer them?

                  That’s all you and your mates do when you get asked the hard questions.

                  Your proponents of fluoride BIBLE tell you to do when that happens, just don’t answer any of the hard questions and or you have to taunt the person asking the questions because your lot don’t have the guts to answer them with honest answers:

                  COMMUNITY WATER FLUORIDATION IN AMERICA:

                  THE UNPRINCIPLED OPPOSITION

                  Michael W. Easley, D.D.S., M.P.H., Associate Professor
                  Department of Oral Biology; School of Dental Medicine
                  State University of New York at Buffalo [1999]

                  THE UNPRINCIPLED OPPOSITION AND THE TECHNIQUES THEY EMPLOY:

                  1 NEUTRALIZING POLITICIANS

                  2 THE SECOND TECHNIQUE USED BY ANTIFLUORIDATIONISTS IS KNOWN AS THE BIG LIE

                  3 THE THIRD TECHNIQUE INVOLVES THE USE OF HALF-TRUTHS WHERE AN OUT-OF-CONTROL STATEMENT IS USED TO IMPLY A CAUSE-AND-EFFECT RELATIONSHIP WITH SOME EVIL RESULT ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY FLUORIDATION

                  4 A FOURTH TECHNIQUE INVOLVES UTILIZATION OF INNUENDO

                  5 A FIFTH TECHNIQUE INVOLVES THE QUOTING OF INACCURATE STATEMENTS AND THE USE OF STATEMENTS OUT OF CONTEXT

                  6 ANOTHER TECHNIQUE INVOLVES QUOTING OF EXPERTS

                  7 THE SEVENTH TECHNIQUE INVOLVES THE CONSPIRACY GAMBIT

                  8 ANOTHER TECHNIQUE EMPLOYS THE USE OF SCARE WORDS

                  9 THE NINTH TECHNIQUE INVOLVES THE DEBATE PLOY:

                  THE OPPONENTS OF FLUORIDATION OFTEN TRY TO ENTICE UNSUSPECTING MEDIA COMMENTATORS, GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, OR PROGRAM PLANNERS INTO HOLDING A DEBATE ON THE “PROS AND CONS” OF FLUORIDATION, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO CONS TO FLUORIDATION.

                  TWO ADDITIONAL TECHNIQUES OF HEALTH TERRORISTS NOT LISTED BY BERNHARDT & SPRAGUE INCLUDE THE USE OF INVENTED ORGANIZATIONS AND SUBVERSION OF THE MEDIA

                  http://www.dentalwatch.org/fl/opposition.pdf

                  See, we know all your tactics Kenny Baby and as everyone else can see, there is no science to be seen here so move along Kenny Baby, move along.

                  • I don’t think he & his ilk believe in Karma Darryl, if he did, I doubt he & his ilk would be doing the dirty work, that they are doing! He’ll probably claim that Karma has to do with religion, or something like that?

                    Unfortunately for the parrot & his ilk, Karma is very real. I bet they will eventually find this out the hard way, whether they like it, or not!!

                    These two informative websites certainly show this to be very true! And it’s pretty much scientific too!!

                    http://www.victorzammit.com/
                    +
                    http://www.cfpf.org.uk/

                    I’m including these two sites here, so the parrot & his ilk, are unable to easily mislead people, with their dark links! 😛

          • Hi, just a comment for Fred that I posted on Ken’s blog – in case he misses it;

            “Fascinating Fred…I had a quick look at the references you provided via Connets CV

            http://www.americanhealthstudies.org/connett.bio.html

            You will be interested to note that this reference..

            2006, Connett P, Water fluoridation: Critical difference was overlooked. British Medicalk Journal, Jun 16;322(7300):1486-

            Refers to a non existent journal…. “British Medicalk Journal”, perhaps Connet made a typo in his CV and meant ” British Medical Journal”

            (Who makes a mistake on their CV…?)

            Anyway, I will give the fair Doctor benefit of doubt here.

            So I try and find this article in the British Medical Journal and go figure…I can’t find it!!

            In 2006 there are four journals 3rd June, 7553, 10th June, 7554, 17th June, 7555 and 24th June 7556.

            None dated 16th June.

            Oddly, the Volume number, 322 appears correct for this time but the journal number 7330 is way off as you can see (7553- 7556)

            So…I try to look it up via the journal number 7300. This is where it gets interesting…

            This journal was printed in 2001, NOT 2006 (Another typo maybe? or something more dishonest?) – 13 years ago!

            This reference relates to a LETTER TO THE EDITOR written by Connet regarding a meta analysis of fluoridation and Bone Fractures that concluded ” the evidence relating fluoridation to fractures is weak and shows no significant effect either way”

            Are you serious Fred?

            This reference is;

            Not research
            Not peer reviewed
            littered with mistakes
            Opinion

            Do you have the courage of your convictions to comment?”

          • Wow Fred,

            I had a look at the other “Paper” Mr Dr Professor Connet wrote on Fluoride.

            Int J Occup Environ Health. 2006 Jan-Mar;12(1):88-91.

            Looks like this is just another “comment” or “opinion” on some real research.

            In this Journal, Connet appears to simply comment on how he disagrees with two previous articles that he disagrees with…have a guess…yep you got it – these two articles use scientific evidence (not opinion) to support public fluoridation

            Note that these are the only two “Papers” Connet has included in his CV that purport to be written on Fluoride.

            Don’t you think it is more than just a little dishonest to use personal opinions, send them off to a journal for publication and then cite them as “Papers” on your CV?

            The wool sure has been pulled over your eyes, I bet you feel a bit silly now.

            It’s all out there for the world to see Fred
            Feel free to call me out, show me where I have made a mistake…go on…

            Call me names if you wish 🙂

  4. Thankyou afamildura, your work is appreciated!

    ℬ⊥ẘ…

    It’s interesting to note, how the parrot (Ken), from the previous post, is a fluoride fanatic poison pusher!
    Has anyone noticed, that his links on his site, are not really enlightening in any way!? Obviously, the lunatic prefers the majority of the masses to be dumbed down, if he got his way, that is!

    IMHO, he & his criminal ilk are likely deliberately, knowingly & intentionally trying to keep the masses in darkness & ignorance!
    The more ignorant & dumbed down the masses are, desto easier it will be, for the cabal to control & manipulate them (us the99%), as these psychos see fit for their very own selfish & greedy ends!

    We all have the power to connect with god, or the universe, esp. when the pineal gland is working/functioning as it should be.
    I don’t think it is any coincidence, that the parrot and his ilk with their dark links, are doing this unknowingly?!!


    ┏━┳┳┳┓ ┏━┳━━┳┳┳┓
    ┃━┫┃┃┃ ┃┗┣┓┏┫┃┃┃
    ┃┏╋┓┃┃ ┃┏┃┃┃┃┃┃┃
    ┗┛┗━┻┛ ┗━┛┗┛┗━━┛
    What (most) people don’t know about the Pineal Gland is that it connects your soul to your body. Once your pineal gland is activated to the world of spirituality, it may seem as if you have the godlike power of knowing everything that’s going around you. A properly tuned pineal gland will take you to the other dimension, which is also known astral projection or remote viewing. This proper frequency can be achieved through meditation, yoga or some sort of occult method.

    Details therein:⇙
    http://tinyurl.com/l3x3f7y ☜ ☑

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s