Despite scientifically valid evidence to the contrary, the practice of water fluoridation continues to promote health in a manner most ‘safe and effective’.
But the strikes against the practice of water fluoridation are many and inform anything but superficial disputations.
Most notable of these include the research of pioneering toxicologist Dr. Phylis Mullenix who studied the neurotoxic effects of ingested sodium-fluoride during the 1980’s, along with the recently promulgated meta-analysis on the neurodevelopmental effects of ingested fluorides out of Harvard that was published (2012) in the prominent journal Environmental Health Perspectives.
Also adding to the case of anti-fluoridation activists is the well-documented book by Christopher Bryson titled The Fluoride Deception, which Mullenix was interviewed for. The book recounts, among other things, the obscure history of Dr. Harold Hodge who was among the chief medical advisors overseeing the employees of the Manhattan Project.
Hodge knew fluoride compounds were highly deleterious to the human organism (given a sufficient quantity). He knew this because it was his job to know it.
You see, one of the imperatives of the Manhattan Project was the enrichment of uranium. To do this, massive gaseous diffusion plants were constructed which utilized elemental fluorine for the filtering of heavier, less fissile uranium that was fed into the plants. There were accidents/fluoride exposures in these facilities and through them Hodge was to be made aware of the danger fluorides pose to the human body. All of this he hid slyly when shadowing the work of Dr. Phyllis Mullenix.
Mullenix was disturbed by the fact that Hodge knew in advance that her research would uncover relations between biological illness and fluorides. He said nothing, even when she was put in the line of fire by the National Institutes of Health. Her research ultimately lead to her losing her position at Forsyth in Boston. It was as if NIH acted as a defender of public myth, favoring to silence those that chose to move against close-minded consensus. But Mullenix’s work still speaks from the record.
And what of the 2012 Harvard meta-analysis? The authors of the study state that their,
How high must the exposure levels be to pose considerable risk?
The authors do not indicate.
Reading through the study though, it is certain that they do not unequivocally cater to anti-fluoridation arguments as they state the poor quality of the studies reviewed. Also, they write that the levels associated with health risk were 2-4mg/L, higher than what are typically encountered with fluoridated municipalities.
However, they do conclude that the practice of fluoridation should be re-evaluated with better studies while simultaneously admitting that the studies reviewed,
In addition to the above, a 2015 article coming forth from The Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health conveys the careful sentiments of Kent University researchers who have made the claim that fluoride in the water supply should be considered a contributing factor to the prevalence of hypothyroidism in the UK.
Hmmm… Why does this debate still continue?