Sun. May 19th, 2024

Professor of Neurobehavioral Science at the State University of New York in Binghamton.

Intro to Prof Isaacson

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.

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.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *