Fluoride and Cancer Exposé + IQ Follow-up

August 14, 2015 Featured, Fluoridation

Before getting into this exposé of the harmful effects of fluoride, we want to follow up with additional information from on our previous posting about fluoride and IQ.

Harvard IQ Researchers Respond to Pro-Fluoridation Criticism

The authors of the 2012 Harvard Meta-analysis (http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104912.pdf) that highlighted fluoride’s role as a developmental neurotoxin, Philippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, and Anna Choi, ScD, have written a letter responding to pro-fluoridation criticism of their work by Dr. Jonathan Broadbent (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24832151). Broadbent’s counter-study and Grandjean’s letter in response were both published in the American Journal of Public Health. In his response, Grandjean states,

“We are therefore concerned that the safety of elevated fluoride exposure is being exaggerated in ways similar to those employed by vested interests to misconstrue the scientific evidence of other neurotoxicants, such as lead, mercury, and certain pesticides. Firm dismissal of fluoride as a potential neurotoxic hazard would seem premature.”

This isn’t the first time Grandjean has responded to pro-fluoridation efforts to downplay the impact fluoride has on IQ. In December, he challenged the spin being used by fluoridation promoters. Grandjean’s commentary (Mottled fluoride debate) appears on his website (Chemical Brain Drain) and is printed in full below. Grandjean explained that for the children tested,

“Their lifetime exposures to fluoride from drinking water covered the full range allowed in the U.S. Among the findings, children with fluoride-induced mottling of their teeth – even the mildest forms that appears as whitish specks on the enamel – showed lower performance on some neuropsychological tests. This observation runs contrary to popular wisdom that the enamel effects represent a cosmetic problem only and not a sign of toxicity. At least one of five American children has some degree of mottling of their teeth.”

Fluoride and Cancer

There have been links of fluoride ingestion and cancer going back to studies in the 1970s. Two prominent researchers were John Yiamouyiannis PhD and Dean Burk PhD. Burk spoke before the 94th Congress about the association of fluoride and cancer. Dean Burk, PhD, a biochemist, was a co-founder of the National Cancer Institute and head of the Cytochemistry Sector for over 30 years. We are unable to locate a copy of his testimony online. One quote of Burk at this hearing found online is “In point of fact, fluoride causes more human cancer death, and causes it faster than any other chemical.” There is a short video on YouTube of Burk claiming that fluoride is responsible for 20% of cancer deaths, and that the effects of water fluoridation on cancer rates can be seen within one year of the initiation of fluoridation. That video is located here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClqK7XvfLg0

John Yiamouyiannis, PhD in biochemistry, was the founder of the Safe Water Foundation, USA. He was a biochemical editor at Chemical Abstracts Service where he became aware of the health-damaging effects of fluoride. The National Institute of Dental research asked CAS to silence John because of his anti-fluoridation activism or lose substantial US Public Health Service funding. He resigned from CAS. His experience is described in his book, Fluoride the Aging Factor. He also believed that fluoride is causing skin to wrinkle.

Yiamouyiannis and Burk produced a paper together titled “Fluoridation and Cancer: Age-Dependence of Cancer Mortality Related to Artificial Fluoridation.” http://fluoridealert.org/wp-content/uploads/yiamouyiannis-19772.pdf It was this paper that prompted the Congressional Hearing Dec 16, 1976: H12731-34. This led to a congressional committee to call for animal studies to determine whether fluoride caused cancer under laboratory conditions. The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) commissioned Battelle Memorial Institute labs to conduct the studies. The results of these studies were not released until 1990. They did show an increase of osteosarcoma in rats. This led to national attention and a cover story and article in Newsweek titled “Don’t Drink the Water”, Feb 5, 1990. Excerpts from this paper can be found at http://www.nofluoride.com/newsweek.cfm The NTP report threatened the fluoridation program. Connett covers how the Public Health Service, now the DHHS, and the National Cancer Institute attempted to contain the issue in his book, The Case Against Fluoride on page 183ff. Following this report, there were 3 successful lawsuits against fluoridation documented here: http://archive.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol142/Graham-final2.pdf

Phillippe Grandjean, MD, PhD, published a paper titled Extended follow-up of cancer incidence in fluoride-exposed workers, published in the May 2004 Journal of the National Cancer Institute. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15150310) In it, he showed that Danish workers at a cryolite mill who are exposed to high levels of fluoride dust without exposure to other occupational toxicants or carcinogens had excess incidences of primary cancer of the lungs and of urinary bladder tumors. Following these workers for 12 years, there was a greater than 90% mortality. Cryolite is used for aluminum production, and an increased risk of both bladder cancer, and lung cancer to a lesser extent, has been documented among aluminum production workers. Grandjean concluded that “fluoride should be considered a possible cause of bladder cancer and a contributory cause of primary lung cancer.”

J. William Hirzy, PhD, a senior scientist in Risk Assessment in the US Environmental Protection Agency is opposed to water fluoridation. He is past Senior Vice president of NTEU280, formerly the EPA HQ Professionals’ Union. The scientists at the EPA were opposed to fluoridation on several grounds, but the bureaucratic position has been for water fluoridation. He spoke before Congress June 29, 2000 against fluoridation. Watch his testimony here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lDVM He was interviewed following this by Michael Connett. That interview is found at: http://fluoridealert.org/content/hirzy-interview/ He called for an independent review of the tumor slides from the National Toxicology Program’s bioassay for fluoride, saying that they did show tumors, both oral, osteosarcoma, and a rare liver cancer, hepatocholangiocarcinoma (a cancer of the bile ducts). He states that that tumor incidence supported a finding of clear evidence of carcinogenicity of sodium fluoride. He goes on to state that if the tumors in the rats had not been downgraded by the NTP, fluoride would have been classified as a Probable Human Carcinogen. It would have required the EPA to set a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) of zero.

The National Federation of Federal Employees Local 2050 became the Chapter 280 of the National Treasury Employees Union in April 1998. It took a stand opposing fluoridation of drinking water supplies. The union then was comprised of and represented the approximately 1500 scientists, lawyers, engineers, and other professional employees at EPA Headquarters here in Washington, D.C. Their opposition to drinking water fluoridation was based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology, and dental fluorosis. http://fluoridealert.org/articles/epa-union/

There is an interview of William Marcus, PhD, former Senior Science Advisor in the EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, conducted in 1995, concerning the National Toxicology Program’s animal study on fluoride and cancer. It can be found here: http://fluoridealert.org/content/marcus-interview/ He states that the levels of the fluoride that caused the cancers in the animals were actually lower than those levels seen in people who are ingesting lower amounts but for longer periods of time. He goes on to state that every cancer found in the study was downgraded. He went to an investigator in Congress who investigated this with his staff and found out that the scientists at the NTP had been coerced to change their findings. Due to his criticisms of the tumor downgradings, Dr. Marcus was fired by the EPA. The US Secretary of Labor, Robert Reich, later ruled that EPA fired Marcus out of “retaliation” for Marcus’ stance on fluoride and ordered EPA to reinstate Marcus with full back pay and compensation.

The type of cancer of particular concern with fluoride, although not the only type, is osteosarcoma, especially in males. There is a host of studies showing fluoride’s ability to cause mutations (a principal trigger mechanism for inducing a cell to become cancerous). Bone pathology other than cancer occurs as well. Five epidemiological studies have shown a higher rate of hip fractures in fluoridated vs non-fluoridated communities.

Fluoride will cause osteoarthritis. I suspect that the incidence of arthritis is increasing. We can now see people in their 30’s and 40’s walk around like they were 70 or older. This excludes rheumatoid and other inflammatory arthritis. Page 10 of the National Research Council 2006 report states that more studies of communities with drinking water containing fluoride at 2 mg/L or more are needed to assess potential bone fracture risk at these higher concentrations. On page 164 they state: “Two small studies have raised the possibility of an increased incidence of spina bifida occulta in fluorosis-prone areas in India; larger, well-controlled studies are needed to evaluate that possibility further.” On page 259, they state: “It is paramount that careful biochemical studies be conducted to determine what fluoride concentrations occur in the bone and surrounding interstitial fluids from exposure to fluoride in drinking water at up to 4 mg/L, because bone marrow is the source of the progenitors that produce the immune system cells.” And on page 288, they state “Further research on a possible effect of fluoride on bladder cancer risk should be conducted.” http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11571/fluoride-in-drinking-water-a-scientific-review-of-epas-standards

“We observed that for males diagnosed before the age of 20 years, fluoride level in drinking water during growth was associated with an increased risk of osteosarcoma, demonstrating a peak in the odds ratios from 6 to 8 years of age. All of our models were remarkably robust in showing this effect, which coincides with the mid-childhood growth spurt.” Bassin, et al., Cancer, Causes & Control, 2006 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Bassin+fluoride+osteosarcoma A national case control study published in 2006 by Elise Bassin and other Harvard scientists found that boys exposed to fluoridated water during their 6th, 7th, and 8th years of life (the mid-childhood growth spurt) had a significantly elevated risk of developing osteosarcoma during adolescence. Other studies have not shown any link between fluoridation and cancer. Bassin’s study was different because she looked at the age when the boys were exposed to fluoride, during their 6th, 7th, and 8th years of life (the mid-childhood growth spurt) and found they had a significantly elevated risk of developing osteosarcoma during adolescence. This makes sense when you consider that bone is the principal site of fluoride accumulation, particularly during the growth spurts of childhood. Fluoride is a mutagen, and fluoride stimulates the proliferation of osteoblasts (bone-forming cells) which may “increase the risk for some of the dividing cells to become malignant.” (NRC 2006).

– Sandra Young, M.D.
Secure Arkansas’ Physician Advisor

– – – – –

1417975173_Pic-of-osteosarcoma-cancerous-bone-and-healthy-bone.jpg

Attention Osteosarcoma Victims and Attorneys:

If your child has developed osteosarcoma because of fluoride, you may be eligible to seek compensation for your losses and suffering.

A product liability lawsuit can help the families and children who have developed osteosarcoma. Even if your child has died, their death and your suffering does not have to be in vain. You may still be eligible to seek compensation and hold those who knew about the risks of fluoride liable for your losses.

A lawsuit can help you receive compensation for all related past and future medical expenses, loss of income, reduced earning potential, diminished quality of life or reduced lifespan, pain and suffering, loss of companionship, and more.

The phosphate industry and other producers of fluorosilicic acid have long known the risks associated with fluoride but have failed to adequately warn the public about the dangers of fluoride. Municipalities and their water departments may also be held liable under the same grounds. Additional entities may also be culpable.

If you would like to learn more about your legal rights and options, please contact your attorney.

Once again, please print off this research paper so you can pass this along to other doctors & dentists you may know. The websites are linked (embedded), but we’ve also left the hyperlinks in their original format so those of you who print this article may reference them.

As always, you can find our articles posted on our website: SecureArkansas.com . The Search box is a handy tool.