Note - Please read this carefully as it relates to a controversial topic.
I monitor research on ASD, and am becoming concerned regarding recent research results from China which appear to provide evidence that fluoridation of water does have potential negative effects on brain functioning of people who are autistic, or who may have degenerative brain conditions. The research appears to support claims made repeatedly by some neuroscientists since the 1990's, but which until now have probably been dismissed through lack of funding for research, lack of interest, and the acceptance of pro-fluoride arguments and logic. My concern relates to pro-fluoride evidence-based public health decisions in UK and Australia that may have focussed upon effects on "normal" brain functioning, as opposed to sub-group populations which have different neurological functioning. The recent research from China is now presenting an alternate, and disturbing, view of potential effects of fluoride.
There are many opponents to fluoridation, for various reasons. However many have been ignored or discounted through continual reference to scientific evidence-based practice, despite the large amount of current evidence that counters claims of any real benefits of fluoridation. Fluoridation of water is regulated by State governments in Australia, and is seen by many to be an unethical application of policy that removes freedom of choice. There are potential human rights violations. Many families with ASD are too financially pressed to access reverse osmosis water filters or alternative water supplies. Similarly, there is a lack of resources to legally challenge this practice as has been done in several American states.
So the thing that troubles me most is this:- What national processes are in place, with regard to policy and awareness, that proactively monitors fluoride research? What processes and policy offer the ability to intervene in the increasingly likely event of future supporting data that replicates the Chinese study, or produces new supporting data? Does a bland acceptance of public health policy in Australia determine that action will be reactive? How much evidence is required? Who is supporting funding into research? How long will the ASD population be involuntarily exposed to this potential risk factor? Is this a numbers case? Does anyone really care? Would the government act if more people were affected, for example those with Alzhiemer's?
Can anyone give insight as to who or what, if anything, exists that offers those with ASD protection or advocacy on this? Does anyone critically examine all evidence and data on fluoride as it relates to ASD, as opposed to the "normal" population? This is not about panic and outrageous, or unscientific, claims. This is about logical and proactive precautionary measures to protect the wellbeing and rights of a marginalised and silent minority.
Fluoride
I have been researching fluoride in water for the "neurotypical" population and have found many risks for this population let alone the ASD population. It would make sense that those with ASD would be just as susceptable if not more as they tend to have physiological systems that are more sensitive. Here is a letter written to the Queensland Government regarding this issue. There are many more doctors who have signed the letter but I have only included the main author. As well here is a website that may be beneficial in your quest for more information, http://www.poisonfluoride.com/pfpc/html/members.html
The Premier of Queensland
Queensland Minister for Health
Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Deputy Lord Mayor of Brisbane
Councillors, all Cities and Shires of Queensland
We wish to express our grave concerns regarding renewed proposals to fluoridate Queensland’s water supplies. Fluoridation began at a time when asbestos lined our pipes, when lead was added to petrol, and DDT was regarded as safe and effective. These chemicals have now been banned, but fluoridation remains untouched
(www.fluoridealert.org/absurdity.htm).
Research is now raising doubts about fluoridation’s effectiveness. Data compiled by the World Health Organization shows tooth decay has declined at a similar rate in all Western Countries, irrespective of each country’s water or salt fluoridation status
(www.fluoridealert.org/WHO-DMFT.htm).
New evidence for potential serious harm from long-term fluoride ingestion is also emerging. This evidence is summarised on the following web sites: www.fluoridealert.org/limeback.htm and www.fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm .
It is extraordinary that the same people who reject abundant global evidence about the association between fluoride ingestion and organ damage (e.g. to bones, teeth, glands, or immune system), embrace the questionable science used to support its benefits. They ignore the many confounding possible influences in this research. This includes sugar consumption (averaging 1 kg per week per person in Australia) much of which is hidden, other nutritional influences, general dental hygiene, use of floss and movements in population.
Recent studies by several eminent researchers strongly suggest that fluoride works primarily by topical means through direct action on the surface of the teeth via toothpaste, or gels used in dental treatments (www.slweb.org/bibliography.html see: XIII, 'topical versus systemic effects'), (Centers for Disease Control {CDC}1999 and 2001). Ingestion of fluoride through drinking fluoridated water is not essential nor effective for caries reduction.
Hardy Limeback, PhD, DDS, BSc, (Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto and Past President of the Canadian Association for Dental Research) apologised in 1999 for inadvertently misleading both his colleagues and dental students in his support for fluoridation. Addressing them he concluded: “For the past 15 years, I had refused to study the toxicology information that is readily available to anyone. Poisoning our children was the furthest thing from my mind” (www.fluoridealert.org/news/1537.html).
The fluoridating agent most commonly used is a hazardous contaminated industrial - grade product from the phosphate fertilizer industry (www.fluoridealert.org/phosphate/ overview .htm). We strongly reject the notion that placing a chronic poison in our water supplies is clever preventive medicine.
We represent 1500 doctors, dentists, scientists and others working in the interests of public health who are primarily interested in prevention and early intervention in disease processes.
The question of fluoridation was considered with care, openness and good representation by the Lord Mayor’s Task Force in 1997 which came down clearly against fluoridating Brisbane’s water supply (www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-4/314-232.htm ). It is astounding that this issue could again be raised in Queensland in an apparently coordinated national campaign. No new evidence has been put forward to our knowledge that would warrant a revision of the 1997 decision.
We will urge Queenslanders to study the evidence showing potential serious harm from long - term fluoride ingestion and to inform their councillors and state members how they feel about this matter.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Doug Everingham MBBS
1972-75 Australian Minister for Health
World Health Assembly 1975
National Delegation Leader
and Vice-President for Western Pacific WHO region