Kaj Roholm, in his study of fluoride
intoxication in Danish Cryolite workers published in 19372
stated that he did not think that fluoride crossed the placental
barrier. This opinion was based, primarily, on his failure
to see fluorosis in the deciduous teeth of offspring. However,
he was convinced that sufficient fluoride was passed through
the milk of contaminated female workers to cause fluorosis
in their children.
W.R. Cox, in 1953, published his personal account of multiple
problems in Chinchillas that were attributed to high fluoride
content of commercial animal feed.3
In 1951, when the probable cause was first identified, the
MD and the chemist involved from the University of Oregon
Medical School did not hesitate to state that fluoride penetrated
the placental barrier in animals.
Fluoride and Fertility
One of the major problems encountered in these valuable commercial
animals concerned fertility. After changing to a diet low
in fluoride there were increases in the number of offspring
born; the number of litters; and, the numbers born alive.
The adult mortality rate decreased from 14.6% in 1951 to 3.3%
in 1952. A number of abnormalities associated with the fluoride
-contaminated feed were passed on through multiple generations.
It is of more than passing interest to note that although
Cox found more than 1,400 studies that demonstrated adverse
effects of fluoride in animals, both wild and domestic, there
was a profound lack of knowledge and interest in these and
in the implications for humans. This was especially true for
possible soft tissue damage. It should come as no surprise
that Cox, a layman, was shocked by the fact that those professionals
exhibiting this lack of knowledge and disinterest were, at
this time, spearheading the campaign to fluoridate public
Freni, in a 1994 review,4 demonstrated
decreased fertility in most animals studied. High doses (i.e.,
430 ppm dietary fluoride in rats) showed anestrus with cumulative
generational effects. This phenomenon, according to Freni's
research, was first noted in 1933 and confirmed in 1984. His
paper presents multiple examples that lead him to state, without
equivocation, that fluoride easily crosses the placenta.
Freni participated in the 1991 Public Health Service review
of the toxicity of fluoride and in the NTP study that emphasized
the "cancer paradigm" discussed in Our Stolen Future.1
He was concerned about the implications of reproductive problems
that were encountered. As a result, in 1991, he searched for
reproductive studies that involved humans; but, he found none.
It may come as a surprise to recognize that, after 46 years
of fluoridation of drinking water, no study had taken place
on the effect of fluoride on the developing fetus!
Freni, in a complicated study, compared the total fertility
rate (TFR) in counties whose water supplies had at least 3
ppm fluoride. He found a negative TFR/fluoride association
that fitted in with the toxicity data on animals.
Freni presented several theories to account for the lowered
TFR. One, that fluoride lowers protein synthesis in osteoblasts;
the other, that fluoride inhibits the adenylyl cyclase system
in human spermatozoa.
Narayana and Chinoy referred in a 1994 paper5
to "the wide prevalence of infertility in the fluorosis-afflicted
human population in India and other parts of the globe."
In their study, mature rats were treated with sodium fluoride
(10mg/kg daily for 50 days). They found that fluoride interferes
with androgenesis and adversely impaired the target organ
structures. They suggested that the effect of fluoride may
be on receptor sites. That is, fluoride may alter the concentration
or configuration of the receptor, thereby inhibiting the action
of testosterone. The similarity of this action to that of
the hormone-disrupting chemicals, described in Our Stolen
Future is obvious. (Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening
Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? by Theo Colborn,
et al. See review Feb/March 1997, TLfDP, #163/164 pg. 122.)
Fluoride and the Brain
The 1991 review, Fluoride Benefits and Risks, published by
the USPHS6 states that there is "relative
impermability of the blood-brain barrier to fluoride."
No reference was made to fluoride effects on the brain.
In their 1978 book Fluoridation, the Great Dilemma, Waldbott,
Burgstahler and McKinney7 describe the
findings of Soviet physicians that 79% of patients with occupational
fluorosis demonstrate dysfunction of subcortical axial non-specific
structures of the brain.
Recent studies from China8,9 of the
relationship between residence in endemic fluorosis areas
in that country and IQ, contain references and discussions
that indicate that this has been reported upon since 1989.
Chinese studies indicate that the influence of a high fluoride
environment on intelligence may occur early in development
such as during the stages of embryonic life or infancy when
differentiation and growth are more rapid. Ultramicroscopic
study of embryonic brain tissue obtained from termination
of pregnancy operations in endemic fluorosis areas showed
"differentiation of brain nerve cells were poor, and
brain development was delayed."8
The studies of Li et al.8 (soot fluorosis)
and Zhao et al.9 (water supply fluorosis)
compare the IQ status of children living in high fluoride
areas to those in low fluoride areas. A graph constructed
from Li's data shows a flattening, in the high fluoride population,
of the normal "Bell Curve" distribution of IQ. The
data of both the Li and Zhao studies show a shift of the curve
toward the low IQ (<70 IQ) end in the high fluoride group.
Both studies demonstrate that IQ is lower in all age groups
in the high fluoride areas compared to those in the low fluoride
areas. This finding suggests neurological damage in early
development; that is, in utero. (see figures)
Other causes of lowered IQ appear to have been ruled out.
These include: iodine deficiency; other congenital and acquired
diseases; and cultural and ethnic differences. Dietary differences,
which are known to play an important role in dental and skeletal
fluorosis were not specifically accounted for although the
authors mention "similar circumstances of material life."
These studies present evidence that, as is the case with
infertility, brain dysfunction is prevalent in endemic fluorosis
areas in countries outside of those in which deliberate fluoridation
of drinking water is practiced. When the rising prevalence
of dental fluorosis and the high dietary intakes of fluoride
in fluoridated areas are taken into consideration, it may
be said that large areas of endemic fluorosis have now been
created in Canada, the US and other fluoridated countries
pursuant to the policies of their respective Administrations.
How much responsibility can be attributed to fluoride for
the fertility and behavioral problems addressed by the authors
of Our Stolen Future?
Are the fluoridated countries seriously looking for possible
associations? It has been pointed to previously that research
into the association between fluoride and human reproductive
problems was not undertaken until 1991, 46 years after the
start of fluoridation. What is the status with regard to possible
links with the signs and symptoms of brain dysfunction?
In 1995, the 50th Anniversary of fluoridation in the US,
and Canada, Mullenix, Denbesten et al. published a study of
the neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats.10
The authors state: "[T]his is the first laboratory study
to demonstrate that CNS functional output is vulnerable to
fluoride, that the effects on behaviour depend on the age
at exposure and that fluoride accumulates in brain tissue."
The authors state further that "[E]xperience with other
developmental neurotoxins prompts expectations that changes
in behavioural function will be comparable across species,
especially humans and rats."
This study demonstrated generic behavioural pattern disruption
that the authors point to as indicative of a potential for
motor dysfunction, IQ deficits and learning disabilities in
humans. The authors point out that the plasma levels in their
rat model (0.059 to 0.640 ppm fluoride) are similar to those
reported in humans exposed to high levels of fluoride.
These authors refer to early Chinese studies in their paper
and point out that high levels of fluoride in drinking water
(i.e., 3 to 11 ppm) affect the nervous system directly without
first causing physical deformations from skeletal fluorosis.
This latter is currently used as the ultimate indicator of
intoxication in discussions by proponents of fluoridation.
"Still unexplained," the authors continue, "is
the possibility that fluoride exposure is linked to subtle
The characteristics of the latter and the implications for
society are well-described in Our Stolen Future even though
the causative agents named are the hormone-disrupting chemicals.
Fluoride and "The Paradoxical Effect"
Our Stolen Future emphasizes the importance of the "paradoxical
effect" in establishing the biological effects of toxins
and, more particularly, the hormone-disrupting artificial
chemicals. The authors credit Frederick Von Saal's investigations,
which began in 1976, with the demonstration of a "U-shaped"
response curve for DES. This illustrates the "paradoxical
response"; that is, the response increases for a time
and then diminishes with even higher doses.
This phenomenon in which a high dose may paradoxically cause
less damage than a lower dose was described in a 1964 article
by Schatz, Schalscha and Schatz.11 These
authors show that paradoxical effects are not isolated phenomena
but are broadly operative and of widespread importance in
the biochemistry and physiology of many living systems under
many different conditions.
Schatz et al. point to the different terms that investigators
have used when they encountered this phenomenon. They describe
the way in which conditioning leads investigators to think
only in linear dose relationships thereby leading them to
attribute deviations to experimental error or experimental
The paper presents examples to illustrate that paradoxical
effects are real, not artifacts. The authors state that "[P]aradoxical
effects have been produced by radiation, temperature, mutagenic
and carcinogenic chemicals, fluoride, steroid hormones, dextran,
detergents, trace metals, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides,
germicides, antibiotics, drugs and a host of other agents."
It is noteworthy that fluoride is included in the list of
chemicals that may produce a paradoxical effect. They show,
as an example, the curve of inhibition of human prostatic
acid phosphatase. "[A]s the fluoride concentration is
increased over a thousand-fold range, the extent of inhibition
rises, attains a maximum that may approach 100% and subsequently
In a recent paper,12 Schatz compared
low level fluoridation with low level radiation: "[T]he
occurrence of paradoxical effects with low level fluoridation
and low level radiation shows that there is no threshold level
below which fluoride and radiation are harmless."
Recognition of the importance of the paradoxical effect and
the way in which research may be blinded by continued pursuit
of the "linear dose relationship" and the "cancer
paradigm" is essential if we are to determine the nature
of all the elements that conspire to steal our future.
The similarities between the DES story, that is well-told
in Our Stolen Future, and the story of the fluoridation of
drinking water is striking. In both, numerous animal studies
have been declared to be irrelevant. Both DES and fluoridation
of water supplies have been shown to be without effect for
the purposes claimed -- the prevention of abortion in the
case of DES and of tooth decay in the case of fluoridation.
DES continued to be prescribed for several decades after it
had been discredited; fluoridation is being pushed now as
hard as ever with the full support of the Administration,
the Public Health Service and professional organizations representing
Dentistry and Medicine, especially Pediatrics.
The failure of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
to act on DES is described in Our Stolen Future. This failure
to act is repeated in the case of the human consumption of
Is the future being stolen? Yes. There are many medical problems
that can be attributed to the hormone-disrupting chemicals
and other substances, including fluoride. Lowered fertility
and brain dysfunction are just two of these for which there
is mounting evidence.
The message is clear. Action is required immediately. However,
such action must be inclusive not selective, as suggested
in Our Stolen Future.
Richard G. Foulkes, BA, MD
Abbotsford, British Columbia
1. Colborn, T., Dumanoski, D., Myers, J.P.,
Our Stolen Future, Dutton, Penguin Books U.S.A., New York,
2. Roholm, K., Fluorine Intoxication -
A Clinical-Hygienic Study, H.K. Lewis, London, 1937.
3. Cox, W.R., Hello Test AnimalsÉChinchillas
or You and Your Grandchildren, The Olsen Publishing Co.,
Milwaukie, Wisc., 195l.
4. Freni, S.C., Exposure to High Fluoride
Concentrations in Drinking Water is Associated With Decreased
Birth Rates, Jour Toxicol and Environ. Health; 42; 109-121;
5. Narayana, M.V., Chinoy, N.J., Effect
of fluoride on Rat Testicular Steroidogenesis, Fluoride,
27; 1; 7-12, 1994.
6. Dept of Health and Human Services, USPHS,
Fluoride Benefits and Risks. February 1991.
7. Waldbott, G.L., Burgstahler, A.W., McKinney,
H.L., Fluoridation, the Great Dilemma, Coronado Press, Lawrence,
8. Li, X.S., Zhi, J.L., Gao, R.O., Effect
of Fluoride Exposure on Intelligence of Children, Fluoride
28; 4; 189-192; 1995.
9. Zhao, Liang, G.H., Zhang, D., Wu, X.,
Effect of a High Fluoride Water Supply on Children's Intelligence,
1995 Pending Publication.
10. Mullenix, P.J., Denbesten, P.K., Schunior,
A., Kernan, W.J., Neurotoxicity of Sodium Fluoride in Rats,
Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 17;2; 169-177; 1995.
11. Schatz, A., Schalscha, E,B., Schatz,
V., Soil Organic Matter as a Natural Chelating Material,
Part 2, The Occurrence and Importance of Paradoxical Concentration
Effects in Biological Systems, Compost Science 5; 22-30;
12. Schatz, A., Low Level Fluoridation
and Low Level Radiation - Two Case Histories of Misconduct
of Science, Published by A. Schatz, PhD, Philadelphia, PA,