Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Water Fluoridation. By Professor Robert Isaacson, PhD. Distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton.



Here are some of the views and conclusions provided by Professor Robert Isaacson PhD, a Professor of Neurobehavioural Science and senior member of the United States National Research Council's Scientific Commitee who undertook the most comprehensive review yet undertaken of fluoride published by the United States National Academies in 2006.  After having spent three years as part of the scientific committee that examined the scientific evidence on fluoride, this was his view on how water fluoridation may contribute to neurological disorders and Down's syndrome. The full 12 page letter is available in the Appendix 2 of my orginal report titled "Human Toxicity, Environmental Impact and Legal Implications of Water Fluoridation" published in 2012.

Introduction to Professor Isaacson.


Robert Isaacson, PhD a distinguished professor of neurobehavioral science at the State University of New York in Binghamton. His research interests are in behavioral neuroscience, particularly the study of recovery from brain damage, functions of the limbic system, mechanisms responsible for neuronal cell death, and the neurotoxic effects of certain fluoride complexes. He is a past president of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society and is a recipient of the Society’s Lifetime Achievement Award. He serves on a number of editorial boards, including that of Brain Research. He has received fellow status in several scientific societies. He has served as chairperson and member of several committees of the Society for Neuroscience. In the past he has served as a member of grant review panels for the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, and the National Science Foundation. 


 Professor Isaacsons Views on Water Fluoridation.



 “ In 2003, I  accepted an invitation to join the National Research Council’s Committee formed to evaluate the EPA standards for the amount of fluoride that should be allowed in drinking water. In my more than three years working on the National Research Council Committee I learned about the many influences fluoride has on the nervous system and the brain. I also learned about the variety of ways in which people become exposed to it and the work that had been done in trying to determine if fluorides were a hazard to human health and well being. The results and recommendations of this Committee were published late in 2006.  Slowly, I came to the conclusion that there were strong experimental and clinical indications that fluorides present health hazards to people in many ways. The more I learned, the more I became convinced that the addition of fluorides to drinking water was, and is, a mistake. Accordingly, I decided to share some of my conclusions with any who might wish to know them.”

In his wide ranging opinion piece, Professor Isaacson discusses many aspects of fluoride on human health, including the accumulation of fluoride from all soucres, including water,  in the human body. He outlines that genetic and biological factors contribute to increased risk of toxicity or sensitivity to fluoride and noted that “there is no safe level of fluoride that would protect everyone” while warning that that “the very young and old are  most likely to be adversely affected after exposure to fluorides”. 

Professor Isaacon discusses the co-toxicity of fluoride with other toxins in particular alunimium, which forms complexes with fluoride resulting in greatly increased  bioabsorption of aluminium in humans. He further addressed the biological toxicity of silico fluorides which form when Hexafluorosilicic acid is used to artificially fluoridate drinking water. He observed that two toxins are produced from the use of Hexafluoriosilic acid, fluoride ions and silicon. According to Professor  Isaacson, seperate to the toxicity of fluoride, silicon can produce its own toxic effects, including the formation of solids (silica and silicates) that can lodge anywhere in the body. In addition Isaacson identifies that the silicon portion also can also generate destructive hydroxyl ions in many organs including the brain. In respect to enhanced toxicity Isaacson noted how fluoride acts to heighten the toxicity of other toxins, thereby contributing to further damage. Isaacson  also addresses the effect of fluoride complexes on the brain and the possible causal associations between fluoride complexes and neurological disease, including Alzheimer’s, while also contributing to disruption of other critical neurobiological pathways. 

Added to all of the other alterations in structure and function of the brain caused by fluorides, Professor Isaacson cautioned, “that the opportunity for mental and behavioral changes due to fluoride exposure are almost limitless.”
 

Professor Isaacson's views on water fluoridation and association with Down’s syndrome.


"During the period from 1956 to 1963, the endocrinologist, Ionel Rapaport, presented evidence of a link between fluoride exposure and the numbers of babies born with Down’s syndrome, (Trisomy 21).[i] For a number of years the only follow up to his work was in the form of epidemiological comparisons between the number of births of such children both to mothers living in fluoridated drinking water vs. the number of such born to mothers births in or non-fluoridated drinking water areas. The demographics of the two or more areas being compared were not fully taken into account in most of the studies. Maternal ages were also not taken into consideration. Overall, the “follow up” studies to Rapaport’s report were not decisive but none of them failed to rule out his original findings."

Professor Isaacson stated that probably the best collection of relevant data upon which to examine the contribution of fluoridation to DS comes from a study of births of children born in two areas of Atlanta, Georgia, as reported by Erickson et al. in 1976. [ii] 

He added that "two different estimates of the number of Down’s children and normal children were presented. One estimate of Down’s syndrome births was made by the examination of copies of birth certificates and the other was based on hospital records. A re-examination of Erickson’s data by Burgstahler[iii] showed an overall enhancement of Down’s syndrome births to mothers from the fluoridated area. Later, in 1998 Takahashi did a fine grain analysis of data from a number of sources that included the corrected numbers from the 1966 Erickson report.[iv] In the Takahashi report a clear-cut relationship between fluoride exposure and the number of affected children was found in mothers 30 years of age and younger."


Importantly, Professor Isaacson noted in an investigation that he and Professor Juan C. Molino[v] undertook they found the same age-fluoride-Down’s syndrome birth effect. 

Professor Isaacson continued: "In his report Takahashi extended the analysis of his data through the use of a regression analysis. He wanted to determine if there could be any dose that would not increase the likelihood of having a Down’s syndrome child. According to his calculations there was no such dose. All doses of fluoride caused some enhancement of the likelihood of a woman having such a child. There are other data supporting the idea that fluorides can induce genetic alterations. Evidence indicating biochemical interactions of fluoride with the genetic mechanisms of cell division are presented in the NRC report on Fluoride in the Drinking Water"


In ending Professor Isaacson, as a senior member of the National Academies of United States added the following cautionary advice. “When the possible benefits and possible dangers of fluoride are considered there really is no comparison. Consider the following: There is no known benefit of adding any form of fluoride to our drinking water. Who would want to increase chances of having a less than perfect child? Who would wish to take a chance on a possible reduction of their own mental capacity? Who would want to have their personality altered by fluoride induced alterations in their brain chemistry? Who would want to increase their odds of developing Alzheimer’s disease? Eliminating the addition of fluoride to our drinking water would remove these possibilities. The cost of doing this is zero. In fact it would enrich the communities now adding fluorides to their drinking water.”

Robert L. Isaacson
Department of Psychology and Center for Developmental and Behavioral Neuroscience,  Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY.


[i] Rapaport, I. 1956. Contribution to the study of mongolism: Pathogenicity of fluorine [in French]. Bull. Acad. Nat. Med. Paris 140(28-29):529-531.
[ii] Erickson, J.D., G.P. Oakley, J.W. Flynt, and S. Hay. 1976. Water fluoridation and congenital malformation: No association. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 93(5):981-984.
[iii] Burgstahler, A. W. (1966) Fluoridated water and Down’s syndrome. Long abstract of a report of the 21st Conference of the International Society for Brain Research, Budapest.
[iv] Takahashi, K. (1998) Fluoride-linked Down syndrome births and their estimated occurrence due to water fluoridation. Fluoride, 31: 61-73.
[v] Juan Carlos Molina is the Director of the Ferryra Research Institute at the University of Cordoba, Argentina, as well as holding his distinguished professor position there. He also is a visiting research professor at Binghamton University.



1 comment:

  1. The following is from the section, "Professor Isaacson's views on water fluoridation and association with Down’s syndrome,” Water Fluoridation by Professor Robert Isaacson, PhD (Wednesday, October 22, 2014).

    “During the period from 1956 to 1963, the endocrinologist, Ionel Rapaport, presented evidence of a link between fluoride exposure and the numbers of babies born with Down’s syndrome, (Trisomy 21).[i] For a number of years the only follow up to his work was in the form of epidemiological comparisons between the number of births of such children both to mothers living in fluoridated drinking water vs. the number of such born to mothers births in or non-fluoridated drinking water areas. The demographics of the two or more areas being compared were not fully taken into account in most of the studies. Maternal ages were also not taken into consideration. Overall, the “follow up” studies to Rapaport’s report were not decisive but none of them failed to rule out his original findings."

    Please clarify:
    Professor Isaacson is quoted as saying, “none of them failed to rule out his original findings.”

    Does Professor Isaacson mean exactly that, or does he mean, “none of them ruled out his original findings”?

    ReplyDelete