Fluoridating water ban

This is significant, as the use of these very specific studies introduces a veritable Homerian epic of confounding details, some of which came up in our analysis of the eight low-level fluoride studies discussed above.

Among the most pressing of these are a lack of information on other confounding variables and the quality of the studies they utilized.

Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence.

Considering it is applied to entire populations or certain groups within a population, the definition is chemical warfare- a tool most useful to eugenicists who are intent on depopulation [sic] the planet.

This was a prospective cohort study (whose design is appropriate to infer causality) in New Zealand.

The study concluded that there was no evidence of a detrimental effect on IQ as a result of exposure to CWF.

These issues are noted by the “Most reports were fairly brief and complete information on covariates was not available” “Drinking water may contain other neurotoxicants, such as arsenic” “The studies [used in the meta-analysis] were generally of insufficient quality” Regarding the other neurotoxins that could be in the water, the authors of the Harvard Study make the (unsourced) claim that it is unlikely that other neurotoxicants are present in the groundwater of the areas their studies investigated.

As of the studies did not measure for other compounds, it is impossible to be sure in these specific cases; however, geochemists are not convinced that the same natural processes that lead to high fluoride concentrations don’t also yield high concentrations of other dangerous metals.


Leave a Reply