Aluminum & Dementia

The most persuasive argument against water fluoridation is that fluoride can contributes to the epidemic of dementia. Whilst proponents and opponents of fluoridation argue over the minute details of its direct impacts on health, an almost unnoticed revolution in the understanding of dementia in the elderly is set to render such debates trivial in comparison. New research into the relationship between aluminium poisoning and dementia has suddenly thrown a new spotlight on the contribution that water fluoridation could be making to the future burden of dementia within our society. We ignore this new understanding at the peril of both ourselves and our descendants.

The prevalence of dementia, and particularly Alzheimer’ s Disease (AD), is already a far greater health concern than cancer, and it’s expected to triple in the next thirty years. For years the cause of AD has been controversial, and the main contender as the causative agent, aluminium, has been a matter of hot dispute. “It’ s the third most common element in the Earth’s crust,” these environmentally illiterate ignoramuses claim, “It can’t possibly be toxic!” Well it is, and now we have the proof. Now things are about to change. In an authoritative review published last year in the highly regarded Journal of Alzheimer’ s Disease, Lucija Tomljenovic concludes unequivocally that aluminium accumulation in brain tissue over a lifetime is a leading cause of the onset of Alzheimer’ s Disease in the elderly.

She warns that “In stark contradiction with the abundance of research evidence . . there appear to be “several hostile intellectual attitudes” that reject the possibility that Al toxicity contributes to the growing incidence of AD. She says that the evidence that aluminium is not merely associated with AD, but actually contributes significantly to its development, “is built upon very solid experimental evidence and should not be dismissed.” 

As Tomljenovic says, resistance to the evidence that aluminium is a causative agent for dementia is extremely dangerous: “Such widely circulated opinions hamper implementation of preventive plans to lessen exposure to aluminium which, according to some leading scientists advice, would be the most sound and cost-effective approach to the growing incidence of Alzheimer’ s dementia.” 

She is particularly concerned over the practice of water fluoridation: “In spite of these observations, water fluoridation persists in USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, whilst most of Europe has abandoned this practice. . . .In fluoride-treated water, fluoroaluminates are the prevalentspecies. The enhanced transport of fluoroaluminates across the GI tract and the BBB [blood-brain barrier], in context to their highly neurotoxic potential, raises significant concerns about the prevalence of these compounds in drinking water of various countries” .

The practice of adding to our drinking water the very substance that is most likely to increase the risk of aluminium intoxication leading to Alzheimer’ s Disease in the elderly – fluoride – could not represent a more direct threat to the future welfare of increasing numbers of our elderly. Already one in five over the age of 80 develops dementia, and things are only going to get worse.

Now it is apparent that two rampant forms of man-madeenvironmentally- mediated epidemic disease – dental fluorosis and dementia – could quite easily be brought under control. But this requires both the health and water sectors to recognise their responsibilities and take appropriate action.

But even if we take action now to replace the aluminium-based flocculants that are almost universally used in modern water treatment with less hazardous substances, most of us will not see a significant reduction in the prevalence of Alzheimer’ s Disease within our own lifetimes. The latent development period for dementia appears to be sixty to seventy years, suggesting that exposure over many decades eventually causes an inexorable progression towards the onset of this dreadful result of chronic poisoning. 

DISCLAIMER: The issues raised by these papers are highly controversial within certain sectors of the medical and pharmacological sectors. The comments in this summary reflect my own personal interpretation of the reference sources identified here. They do not purport to provide medical opinion, and should not be taken as such. Anyone who may be concerned over their own or their family’s medical welfare should consult a qualified medical practitioner – please do not contact me, as I am unqualified tooffer any advice in medical matters.