Harvard Study Says Fluoridated Water is Causing Cognitive Disorders

reply to post by Laykilla


Notice Phage won't even touch my argument. It's because he knows it can't be defeated.


No...


It's most likely because you're a bore, just like your arguments.


But take heed, you are in good company in this thread.

reply to post by benrl

Maybe thats why Portlanders are SOOOOOO politically active and aware...

Not just Portland, Eugene is pretty active too and we just made the first banon neonicotinoid pesticides for the bees.
Get active in your community!

reply to post by sheepslayer247

Actually that batch of 27 Chinese studies is quite flawed, many not accounting for things like lead and mercury contamination.

But a big problem I see with these sorts of studies is that IQ scores can vary quite a bit because of various factors and those factors can be regional in nature. To see what I mean, here is a chart of estimated IQ scores by state for the US.
www-958.ibm.com...
Here's a study that takes a more careful approach to come to similar results:
State IQ

First notice that the range is quite narrow, only 8.3 points from highest to lowest and well within the average range. Not really significant yet that metastudy argues that a 7 point difference is meaningful.

But let's assume that fluoride does affect intelligence. This means that states with a high level of fluoridation should have a lower IQ rating.

The only water supplies with fluoride in Hawaii are on military bases so Hawaii should have a high IQ level, right? Nope right near the bottom.

Let's look at the state with the lowest IQ, Mississippi. Here are the population statistics:
No fluoride: 388,654
0.1-0.3 mg/l: 689,885
Out of a population of 3,128,344 served, 66% have high(ish) levels of fluoride in their drinking water.

Now, how about the state with the highest IQ, Massachusetts:
No fluoride: 1,963,435
0.05-0.3 mg/l: 627,420
Out of a population of 11,275,825 served, 75% have high(ish) levels of fluoride in their drinking water.

See any correlation? I don't. But these are estimated IQ levels but if nothing else it is apparent that there are (at least in the US) regional differences in IQ and they don't seem to be correlated with fluoridated water. Maybe something other than fluoride is at play. Some factor(s) that just could be very difficult to control for.


Oh, the fluoridation statistics can be found here. The fluoridation levels are a combination of natural and artificial.
apps.nccd.cdc.gov...

reply to post by Laykilla

but the simple fact is, the study doesn't refute my assertions.

Exactly, it may support it! That's what I'm trying to say!

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


This is amazing. I know that fluoride interacts with the pineal gland to cause problems -

One theory about the Fall of Rome was that it was caused by the lead aqueducts - lead poisoning in the water. I always thought that it would be interesting if America also fell due to inadvertent water poisoning from estrogen (birth control pills) and fluoride and the like.


reply to post by Phage


Phage, good analysis there of the source material. Thanks for that.

I read your signature, quite scary. At least you are at the point where you know yourself what is scientific.

reply to post by facelift


LoL the truth is boring, you must be one excited individual then, this planet has so little truth anywhere.

reply to post by darkbake

This is amazing. I know that fluoride interacts with the pineal gland to cause problems -

I suppose you're talking about that paper by Jennifer Luke. Questions:
1) The pineal gland also accumulates calcium and phosphorous. What problems does fluoride cause, specifically?
2) I do know the cadavers examined were of old men. Do you know if those old men drank fluoridated water? Do you know the concentration of fluoride?

I read your signature, quite scary. At least you are at the point where you know yourself what is scientific.

Apparently you miss the point of it.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


The article's author incorrectly says that "The Lancet" is a Harvard publication. For shame. The Lancet is owned by Elsevier. That said, this study is incredible - and hopefully, will push epigenetic science even more to the forefront of public health. Here's the original.

...In 2006, we did a systematic review and identified five industrial chemicals as developmental neurotoxicants: lead, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, arsenic, and toluene. Since 2006, epidemiological studies have documented six additional developmental neurotoxicants—manganese, fluoride, chlorpyrifos, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, tetrachloroethylene, and the polybrominated diphenyl ethers. We postulate that even more neurotoxicants remain undiscovered. To control the pandemic of developmental neurotoxicity, we propose a global prevention strategy. Untested chemicals should not be presumed to be safe to brain development, and chemicals in existing use and all new chemicals must therefore be tested for developmental neurotoxicity. To coordinate these efforts and to accelerate translation of science into prevention, we propose the urgent formation of a new international clearinghouse.

reply to post by Phage

Actually that batch of 27 Chinese studies is quite flawed, many not accounting for things like lead and mercury contamination.

Not to mention the question of the validity of the concept of "IQ" to begin with. One of the reasons for geographical variation may simply be due to linguistic differences, an issue in a linguistically diverse country like China. A standardized test might also be an arbitrary test. That is, in fact, a major political issue in the US at the moment.

I need to send this story to my uncle

reply to post by Corruption Exposed

Nice to read a civilized thread about the Fluoridation of the public's water supply.
The only thing I have to offer is that a 5 stage reverse osmosis system will get rid of all the nasty stuff.
Yes you will still get Fluoridated via canned soup and foods, but hey knocking out the water born poison is a start.
We do the home made soup thing here and use our RO water for everything we can use it for.
Fluoride free toothpaste as well.

What does tick me off is that 7 counselors in a city of over 75 K can block a vote on water Fluoridation, but try as they might the people of our city started bitching real loud and clear that they wanted a vote.

Good news is that this vote is coming very soon and I am sure the poison will be removed from our public water supply at that time.
Even if they knock out the Fluoride we are certainly going to keep our filtration system for all the other crap that is in our water supply.

S&F

Regards, Iwinder

Hmm... writing about this will make me seem a huge ass... but ... so what?

I used to think fluoridation fears were reactionary, b.s., new-agey, science phobic ranting... but thinking about it, I was a ferociously smart kid (not to brag [too much] but "genius," "prodigy" and "gifted" were thrown around) who drank well water without fluoride who then moved to a metro area with fluoride in the tap water and who fairly rapidly became just a rather bright adult... and as time does what it does, my cognitive ability is lessening faster than age would account for and I'm now very aware of my brains' limitations.

I don't think genius applies anymore... not even close. It's hard to gauge one's own intelligence, but where I could hold chains of branching thoughts for as long as I wanted, had a great memory and could play several games of chess in my head simultaneously and even win most of them... now I cannot.

Sure, other factors might be the true cause... but there might really might be something to this topic. Besides, my formerly perfect teeth are rotting out anyway... so to heck with fluoridated water. Why take the chance on our most valuable asset? Keep the dentists in business!

Although, I have to say, not seeing the inevitable conclusions for human activity as clearly does make for more relative happiness. Being smart on this planet is depressing.

ETA and see? I was stupid enough to post this.

reply to post by Phage


I think that the calcification of the pineal gland through the gathering of calcium deposits inhibits its functioning. I would assume that, since the fluoride also makes deposits in the pineal gland, it could also impair the functioning. My thesis paper for graduating college involved talking to Dr. Rick Strassman, among others, about the pineal gland and its role in '___' production.

He did a series of studies funded by the government in California in the 90's where they looked at the effect of '___' injected intravenously and got some interesting results. Those studies definitely suggest that it plays a role in the imagination.

In fact, some researchers in northern Europe discovered a village where everyone was still acting youthful, and took notes on their diet - researchers later on then figured out that it was abundant in vitamin K2, and were able to use that to formulate a way to decalcify the pineal gland.

I was giving you a compliment, Phage - not myself - apparently you missed the point of that. You don't need to resort to personal attacks, not everyone is going to be at your level. As I said, I appreciate your analysis.

Back to the original point, we do know that fluoride accumulates on the pineal gland as well as calcium, and that calcium deposits are correlated with age (because it takes time to deposit them, more than likely) but also some loss in cognitive functioning specific to Alzheimers.

The following is speculation as far as I know - but since the pineal gland calcifies in around 40% of the population by the time they are 17, one could say that at this time much youth is lost - and youth is needed in order to explore the world and create function sets for use later in life. That is one direction where my research paper headed, and where I have been spending the past 5 extra years researching.

If calcium deposits can cause interference in pineal functioning, it is not too far of a leap to assume that fluoride deposits can do the same.

Wikipedia: Pineal Gland

Phage
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

Actually that batch of 27 Chinese studies is quite flawed, many not accounting for things like lead and mercury contamination.

But a big problem I see with these sorts of studies is that IQ scores can vary quite a bit because of various factors and those factors can be regional in nature. To see what I mean, here is a chart of estimated IQ scores by state for the US.
www-958.ibm.com...
Here's a study that takes a more careful approach to come to similar results:
State IQ

First notice that the range is quite narrow, only 8.3 points from highest to lowest and well within the average range. Not really significant yet that metastudy argues that a 7 point difference is meaningful.

But let's assume that fluoride does affect intelligence. This means that states with a high level of fluoridation should have a lower IQ rating.

The only water supplies with fluoride in Hawaii are on military bases so Hawaii should have a high IQ level, right? Nope right near the bottom.

Let's look at the state with the lowest IQ, Mississippi. Here are the population statistics:
No fluoride: 388,654
0.1-0.3 mg/l: 689,885
Out of a population of 3,128,344 served, 66% have high(ish) levels of fluoride in their drinking water.

Now, how about the state with the highest IQ, Massachusetts:
No fluoride: 1,963,435
0.05-0.3 mg/l: 627,420
Out of a population of 11,275,825 served, 75% have high(ish) levels of fluoride in their drinking water.

See any correlation? I don't. But these are estimated IQ levels but if nothing else it is apparent that there are (at least in the US) regional differences in IQ and they don't seem to be correlated with fluoridated water. Maybe something other than fluoride is at play. Some factor(s) that just could be very difficult to control for.


Oh, the fluoridation statistics can be found here. The fluoridation levels are a combination of natural and artificial.
apps.nccd.cdc.gov...

edit on 3/11/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

i am curious but what makes the study you are quoting any more relevant than the one you are disputing?

I would guess this is the same one as the lancet journal, top peer reveiwed medical journal.

download.thelancet.com...

And flouride just grouped in with lead and arsenic. A major poison. Though many of us knew this already, avoid wherever possible. Though in our juices, and any prepared food as it is, in other words, no matter how much you avoid we're probably get some anyway.

People need to unite to get it out of their water systems.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


I know for fact this has been mentioned before in these forums but worth mentioning again - the video, which is on youtube - An Inconvenient Tooth.

reply to post by hopenotfeariswhatweneed

i am curious but what makes the study you are quoting any more relevant than the one you are disputing?

Which study that I'm quoting? The ones estimating state IQ's?
I did point out that those are estimates but because two different methods come up with similar results does indicate that the basic idea, that IQ varies regionally with the US, is valid. There are other studies which show that it allow occurs on a global basis.
www.scientificamerican.com...


The point is, IQ is a slippery thing to use in this sort of study because it is a variable which can be influenced by a variety of things which are not known. To attribute slight statistical differences in IQ to fluoride in drinking water doesn't seem to be a valid approach. The comparison I made above seems to indicate this.

reply to post by Phage

To attribute slight statistical differences in IQ to fluoride in drinking water doesn't seem to be a valid approach.

I agree with this. When it comes to medicating people It's a good idea to understand that with any substance, any drug, that one size does not fit all.

The only valid approach to whether or not fluoride is in a persons body, either dropping their IQ or strengthening their teeth, would be to leave the decision to the individual.

I wish some politician would explain to me why they all scatter like cockroaches whenever the subject of fluoridated water comes up. They just outright refuse to justify it.

Most municipalities in this country add fluoride to their water supplies and never give a good reason, or in most cases, give no reason at all. You have to go out of your way to find toothpaste without fluoride, so where's the need to add it to water? No study has ever proven that ingesting fluoride by drinking it helps prevent cavities in any way, and yet they waste money on purchasing it by the ton and forcing people who can't afford bottled water to drink it.

Maybe it's a conspiracy against the poor and the ignorant or maybe they're paid off by the aluminum industry to allow our water supply to be their toxic waste dump, but in any case, I want to know.

reply to post by AntiNWO

No study has ever proven that ingesting fluoride by drinking it helps prevent cavities in any way,

Really? Are you sure? Have you looked?

While 6-year-old children who had not ingested fluoridated water showed higher dft in the WF-ceased area than in the non-WF area, 11-year-old children in the WF-ceased area who had ingested fluoridated water for approximately 4 years after birth showed significantly lower DMFT than those in the non-WF area. This suggests that the systemic effect of fluoride intake through water fluoridation could be important for the prevention of dental caries.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com... 12%3A00+GMT+%2806%3A00-08%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance&userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=

In this nationally representative sample of Australian adults, caries-preventive effects of water fluoridation were at least as great in adults born before widespread implementation of fluoridation as after widespread implementation of fluoridation.

jdr.sagepub.com...

Conclusion: Dental caries prevalence decreased as the fluoride concentration in the water increased. Thus negative association was seen between dental caries and water fluoride levels.

182.48.228.18:8080...

Want more?

The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.

jdr.sagepub.com...