teeth under the guns so that when they are rupp to do the oral cavity they would be more resistant to acid attack from the bacteria breaking down sure that was the mechanism that was believed for fifty  topical now if floyd works primarily on the outside of the tooth and not from inside the body why swallow fluoride an expert whose every tissue of the body to toxic substance when you can brush it on your teeth and spit it out if you want to but if you did brush your teeth and spit it out this way you not only protect yourself against florrie's toxic effects but you also soviet's a core problem because if you use that as your strategy then you're not forcing it on people that don't want it which is so unacceptable to many people there are a large number of people out there is it i don't care for it works i don't care if he's dangerous i don't want the government telling me that i have to put this substance in my body but i don't want to put it in my body that's just that's one single argument when you can get around the argument strategy to the one now being used in scope but they didn't why no event number three in two thousand and six the us national research council published its three year review of the remarkable thing about this review was that the panel chosen to look at the toxicology of fluoride in water and examine e p a s safe drinking water standards was the first balanced panel ever selected in the united states to look at anything to do there it is florida drinking water a scientific review of e p a standards you can get this online and search it for free they showed in this review and they didn't look at fluoridation per se causes many health problems that's not the argument the argument is where the fluoridation causes any health problems or the way i'd like to frame it is this is there an adequate margin of safety from the levels which we know causing harm in india and china and other places with high natural levels is there an etiquette magin the margin of safety to protect not the average person but relevant to water for days at point seven to one point two parts million come back to that in a second six days later the oral health division of the c d c said more or less the same thing the findings of the c report are consistent with the c d c s assessment that water is safe and healthy at the levels used for water for days and then one year later the national health and medical research council australia brushed aside these findings and that having been said they completely ignore the five hundred pages of this report incredible these statements by the eighty eight c d c and h m a c indicate three things one they don't know the difference in concentration and docs it's a self serving argument which they use again and again and again they say show me th australia in new zealand in ireland in canada and united states so that in itself is a self fulfilling prophecy they know they don't have many epidemiological studies but this confusing of concentration and dose is in excusable because if you had two populations one drinking one part per million and one drinking two parts per million even four parts  the doses by experience by these some of the individuals in these two populations in other words a high water consumer at the one part per million will be getting a higher dose in milligrams per day than a low wa consumer in the higher concentration and so to dismiss this on the basis of comparing concentrations is self serving scientific poppycock they have little notion of the basics of regulatory toxicology you can't simply just declare safety before you've done a careful risk assessment to calculate where the you've got an adequate margin of safety and i will be doing that a little bit later on the i q studies they didn't do that note no risk assessment was performed by either of these any of these three agents and  two in that review was an exposure analysis where they carefully calculated how much the kids and noble people in the population were getting exposed to fluoride and what they concluded the  this is not relevant to water for desean when these people have shown that some people are getting more than their recommended safe reference to most the point zero six milligrams or for a kilogram body weight put day and safe reference those dosage the thing i've circled is bottle fed infants bottle at fed infants are getting way over there the  before how can you say that this is not relevant to water for d so i put to use these statements from the a t f c d c and h m r c a political not scientific statements they are more intent on protecting the fluoridation program than they are protecting our children our residents our citizens they are working backwards when ever any evidence comes through that there's a problem then they junk that evidence they're working backwards because this program for some reason is more important to them than telling the truth informing the public protecting our health the propaganda used by public health officials this is the thing which upsets me more than anything i see absolutely no justification for a civil servant somebody who's paid by the taxpayer to spin message or even lie to the public that's just unacceptable there there are public relations agencies which will do that for any organization any industry but it shouldn't start with the civil servants maybe the politicians can spin and message they are in charge of policy but they should be fed accurate object if information and that is not happening with the public health service in this country and public health agencies in the various for dating countries around the world  early promoters of fertilization made it quite clear that a one part per million ten percent of the kids would have very mild dental for grosses what does that look like ten percent they said this wouldn't be recognized by anybody but a dentist this is the one extreme range of dental for us is the worst of their reminds of k but at the other end what you would see a white costs on the edge of the of the take this symmetrical and ok so that's what they thought the ten percent of kids would have this or something like it and that was justified that this was the tradeoff for reducing the kid's tooth decay so what did the c d c report in two thousand and ten they reported the forty one percent of all american children that's both living in florida known for it in communities had dental for osis and not all of it in the very mild you see the very mild there twenty eight point five percent not ten percent twenty eight point five percent but look at that eight point six percent mild mild is up to fifty percent of the enamel impacted on the affected tape and moderate or severe three point six percent that's one hundred percent of the impact we could argue about whether this is a health effect where this whether it causes psychological damage for kids who don't want to go on a date they don't want their partner to potential date to see that cas discussion but i don't want to go there i want to go to this which to me is the key question when freud is damaging the baby's growing to cells causing this condition dental for us and this is by a biochemical mechanism this is an internal mechanism it is a systemic effect not like the benefit which is largely topical this is a comes from inside the body what's it doing to other developing tissues and that's a question that was so event five since nine hundred ninety one extensive evidence has emerged that florida for damages the brains of of animals and humans and i do mean extensive is a huge weight of evidence on our side which is not counteracted by the proponents over forty animal studies shows that fluoride damages animal brain nine hundred animal studies shows that fluoride interferes with the animal learning ability memory they dosed the animals fluoride in show they perform less well in mazes and you know the de tox they set animals well established twelve studies which shows near zero behavioral deficits three human studies which shows the freud damages the fetal brain and last thirty eight out of forty four published studies indicate the freud lowest is associated with lowering  and then jang and i'm particularly fond of this i q studies because yang controlled for a lot of those confounding variables which they claim he didn't but he did and i'm interested because i went to the villages in china where these studies took place these villages were had a very stable population stable population for hundreds of years the same occupations rural farmers same housing conditions same diet same lifestyle same schooling everything that you think of was the same in these villages and sharing also controlled from lead exposure and idea in intake and he's just published another paper to show that as far as i asked nick was concerned  out of the way chinese journals fan has spent a lot of money getting many of these i q studies translated they used some of our translations and some of the others have been published in the journal fluoride which they completely ignore but anyway good choice and grand chain and a couple of others did a measure analysis in twenty seven of these studies they could do that because their methodology was more or less the same comparing the i q of children in the high throw right village with the low freud village in a couple of cases it was fluoride from coal burning but in most of the cases it was from floyd in the water the study was published in environmental health perspective says one of the leading environmental health journals in the world they acknowledge what nearly everybody has said about these studies is that they we would all like more information about what they did these often short articles and we would want to make sure that they controlled for all the confound in variables of their weaknesses in these studies and just as there are weaknesses in the studies which purport to show the but nevertheless what they also concluded that the results these were done in different parts of china india mexico and iran so many different places these were done and out of those twenty seven sites twenty six of them found the same result a learning of i q in the high fluoride village it's remarkable to get such consistency in something where your studies are distributed over a large geographical area and the average lowering of i q in these twenty six studies was seven i q points which is substantial as you'll see in a moment now the promoters claim that you can ignore the studies because the concentrations used in the high froid villages were too high concentration remember the same thing again comparing concentrations not bothering to calculate the dose but comparing concentrations as to the very high and most of the proponents have referred to two of the studies which were as high as  million does not give you an adequate margin of safety to protect all our kids drinking water between point seven and one point two which i should demonstrate in a moment but as i've already stressed comparing concentrations is simplistic and self serving what is needed is a margin of safety analysis which i should now do now the goal is to estimate a safe dose of floyd which we could confidently predict based upon these studies would protect old children in a large population from a lowered i q this is a standard procedure that the e p a has to do for whatever is looking at the toxicity of a substance and protecting the population remember not to protect the average person but protect the most vulnerable the overall goal is to find what we call the no observable adverse effect level and divide by a margin of safety to tend to protect the whole population so that's what we're aiming for now we start here we will stop this margin of safety study with the lowest concentration where low and i q high was found well here are five of the studies in the choice review this is their table or part of it and these were all statistically significant you can see all the drops of i q there and those are the levels of fluoride in the high flow rate village one point eight two two point nine two point five two point three eight now to be conservative we will deal with the lowest of those villages which was one point eight but that's a concentration milligrams per liter we've got to calculate a dose where we don't know what the dose is so the best we can do is to calculate a range let's make some and that's point nine to three point six again we have to be conservative let's take the lowest end of that range and say this is our lows to observable adverse effect level is point nine milligrams per day however if you don't have the know well which is what we're aiming for we've got to divide that by ten so you divide the low well by ten to get to the no well and point nine divided by ten is point zero nine milligrams per day and no observable adverse effects so now we're going to step four applying a safety margin of ten to protect the whole population including the most vulnerable we divide the know well by ten and now are safe level to protect all our kids from having a lowered i q is point zero zero nine milligrams per day let's calculate how much water a kid could drink then one part per million if the safe dose is point zero zero nine milligrams per day it's he she could only drink point zero zero nine liters a day which is nine milliliters which is two teaspoons of water in other words if that study in china one point eight parts a million is a valid study normal procedures would say that a kid in the united states shouldn't drink more than two teaspoons o some of you might be concerned about all the safety factors believe me that's what they use but let's lift one of the safety factors if we drop one safety factor of ten children of water that's less than a liter so any way you cut it once you've got these studies showing learning of i q these concentrations there is no margin of safety to protect all our kids from having their mental development impaired by drinking florida in the water and that's particularly true of bottle fed infants at the very beginning when their brains are developing but last time the last point in time that they should be exposed to fluoride and by the way could take this of little step further and calculate the the dose that a bottle fed baby would get an a and a breast fed baby would get and what comes out based upon these same numbers is that a breastfed baby is just about at the safe level so mother's milk protects our babies from fluoride not tap water but of course will if you're low income family you can't afford that so when they say that we go to florida for low income families poll only the babies that you least want to get david water our babies from low income families they're already have many strikes against them they're probably already have potentially lowered i q for all kinds of has published a study which shows that the lowest i q relates to the plasma flow right and that was this is the level of florida in the in the blood before it goes into the brain just before and you can see with all his data points there is a decrease in children's i q as the fluoride levels in the serum goes up so it's these measures of individual exposure which further strengthen our conclusions here now this is what for the grand that cause chemical brain drain that's his expression chemical brain drain effect of each toxic and may seem small but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious especially because the brain power  next generation is crucial to all of us and now i want to use a series of pitches to illustrate what he's getting at here and incidentally he's used the same pitch is a better draw in the mind in  videotape that's available on the web so you can look at his explanation but basically i q follows a normal distribution curve they the bell shaped curve the bell the heart of the bell is the average most people have an average if you're looking at height weight or in this case i q most people will be around the average that but look at the two tails of this bell shaped  the green the area under the curve that's the number of kids above an i q of about one hundred thirty those kids of very bright or geniuses so if you look at the green area as a fraction of the total area under that curve that's the fraction of kids in any population which is going to be very bright going to be genius level ok i want to get to geniuses maybe i need to push you down a little bit