From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In 1999, the Chief Medical Officer of England’s Department of Health commissioned what became known as the York Study of the efficacy and harm of fluoridation. It was conducted Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, part of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and is a department of the University of York. In 2003, in response to what the authors considered misrepresentation of their study, they released this statement: What the ‘York Review’ on the fluoridation of drinking water really found (Originally released : 28 October 2003). "What evidence we found suggested that water fluoridation was likely to have a beneficial effect, but that the range could be anywhere from a substantial benefit to a slight disbenefit to children’s teeth. This beneficial effect comes at the expense of an increase in the prevalence of fluorosis (mottled teeth). The quality of this evidence was poor."

"In 2006, two researchers, Philippe Grandjean and Philip Landrigan, conducted a review of existing studies and posited that certain industrial chemicals could contribute to neurobehavioral effects. It appears that they have updated their 2006 work and are recirculating it under the title “Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity,” which was published yesterday in the journal The Lancet."Criticism

A more recent scare started with a press release from the Harvard School of Public Health - Growing number of chemicals linked with brain disorders in children. This promoted a paper which went on-line less than a week ago - Grandjean & Landrigan (2014) The Lancet Neurology, 13(3) 330 – 338, March 2014. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. criticism This report cites the paper most quoted by anti-fluoridation activists: Choi et al (2012), Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. criticism



Related Sourcewatch