Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Fluoride may be doing more harm than good

I will say this: when I looked up the bio for Leona Wen, I was expecting to see . . . well, I'm not sure exactly, but not what I did see, which is someone with outstanding and perhaps impeccable credentials with a very long and distinguished career in public service.

So hers is an opinion probably worth taking seriously. That said, it's not clear how much background or knowledge she has in this particular area. There's more to assessing health interventions than reading a few papers, which of course she knows but she might not have put all that much work into her column.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Here is the US study published in jama.

jamanetwork.com

Maternal Urinary Fluoride and Child Neurobehavior at Age 36 Months

This cohort study analyzes associations of specific gravity–adjusted maternal urinary fluoride with child neurobehavioral development at 36 months among a cohort of individuals in Los Angeles, California.
jamanetwork.com jamanetwork.com

Here is the DHH's review of the data. That should include links to the dozen or so studies.

"After evaluating studies published through October 2023, the NTP Monograph concluded there is moderate confidence in the scientific evidence that showed an association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children."

Fluoride Exposure: Neurodevelopment and Cognition

ntp.niehs.nih.gov ntp.niehs.nih.gov
Click to expand...
I’ll read this. I really will. But before I get to that I want to make sure you understand the importance of this phrase you pasted:

“association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children”

“Association” is not the same as causation. And so even this conclusion appears to be stopping short of where you think it does.
 
Paine said:
I’d like to see more literature about the connections between fluoride and IQ. It’s worth looking into, sure. To focus on it when there are a plethora of other much more pressing public health issues is silly. Seems like a way to distract from actual issues.
Click to expand...
The studies being cited here are not even about consumption of fluoride. They are about prenatal exposure. There are ways to address prenatal exposure that don't require a complete ban everywhere.

You are right in your last sentence, and your previous generalization. Distracting from actual issues since 1972 could very well be the GOP's slogan.
 
How many IQ points are we talking? Everybody knows perception is more important than reality. And if you got janked out teeth, people are gonna assume you're dumb. So if fluoride is only carving off a few points, the impact of looking like a moron may be greater than the loss of IQ points from fluoride.

Serious side question... am I the only one now wondering whether gt = FJ?
 
UNCBAdookJD said:
I have to think overall fluoride just isn’t a big deal one way or the other. A huge percentage of people drink bottled and another huge percentage drink water they’ve filtered, which generally removes the fluoride. I’m open to further study on this, but clean drinking water has far bigger issues than fluoride.
Click to expand...
It's about four nonverbal IQ points. That's actually a lot.

I was looking for that Forrest Gump quote to prove I was on my gif game but for him it was actually five little points.
 
Last edited:
Milk and Cookies said:
I’ll read this. I really will. But before I get to that I want to make sure you understand the importance of this phrase you pasted:

“association between higher levels of fluoride and lower IQ in children”

“Association” is not the same as causation. And so even this conclusion appears to be stopping short of where you think it does.
Click to expand...
Sure. And how is anyone going to prove causation? Are you proposing to dose moms and kids with high-levels of fluoride? In the absence of some sort of controlled study with human beings filling in for lab rats, I think we need to look at the dozen or so studies that are out there and start considering that fluoride as we are currently using it in some locales might very well cause a loss of IQ points.

So yes. I understand very well that there is no proof of causation. I also understand that there is mounting evidence that fluoride does cause lower IQ in children.

I would be interested in your genuine thoughts after you read it. I was seriously a skeptic just before reading that Washington Post column and looking at some of these journal articles. Now I think anyone that just dismisses it because RFK Jr espouses that is making a huge mistake.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
Sure. And how is anyone going to prove causation? Are you proposing to dose moms and kids with high-levels of fluoride? In the absence of some sort of controlled study with human beings filling in for lab rats, I think we need to look at the dozen or so studies that are out there and start considering that fluoride as we are currently using it in some locales might very well cause a loss of IQ points.

So yes. I understand very well that there is no proof of causation. I also understand that there is mounting evidence that fluoride does cause lower IQ in children.

I would be interested in your genuine thoughts after you read it. I was seriously a skeptic just before reading that Washington Post column and looking at some of these journal articles. Now I think anyone that just dismisses it because RFK Jr espouses that is making a huge mistake.
Click to expand...
I still don't see any rush. There's only about 50-100 more important things.
 
BlooVooDoo said:
Is it? Based on what outcomes?
Click to expand...
According to this nih article which is talking about something a little different, one IQ point correlates to 1.4% greater earnings. I assume they use earnings because it's a quantitative measure but If we can improve society by 5% by removing fluoride from the water, huge if, that seems like a slam dunk.
Monetary Valuation of Children’s Cognitive Outcomes in Economic Evaluations from a Societal Perspective: A Review - PMC.

Eta: here is probably a better way of thinking about it. According to this Duke study, leaded gasoline caused 170 million Americans to lose about 4.8 IQ points on average.

today.duke.edu

Lead Exposure in Last Century Shrank IQ Scores of Half of Americans | Duke Today

today.duke.edu today.duke.edu
 
Last edited:
gtyellowjacket said:
According to this nih article which is talking about something a little different, one IQ point correlates to 1.4% greater earnings. I assume they use earnings because it's a quantitative measure but If we can improve society by 5% by removing fluoride from the water, huge if, that seems like a slam dunk.
Monetary Valuation of Children’s Cognitive Outcomes in Economic Evaluations from a Societal Perspective: A Review - PMC.
Click to expand...
I don’t think your underlying assumptions are safe - 1) that this effect is linear and predictive for small changes and 2) that the effect of raising the average IQ of Americans by 4 points is going to increase average earnings by 5%. I mean, if every kid’s IQ goes up by the same amount, relative standings won’t change.
Also, IME, people are less limited by innate brain power than opportunity and effort.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
According to this nih article which is talking about something a little different, one IQ point correlates to 1.4% greater earnings. I assume they use earnings because it's a quantitative measure but If we can improve society by 5% by removing fluoride from the water, huge if, that seems like a slam dunk.
Monetary Valuation of Children’s Cognitive Outcomes in Economic Evaluations from a Societal Perspective: A Review - PMC.

Eta: here is probably a better way of thinking about it. According to this Duke study, leaded gasoline caused 170 million Americans to lose about 4.8 IQ points on average.

today.duke.edu

Lead Exposure in Last Century Shrank IQ Scores of Half of Americans | Duke Today

today.duke.edu today.duke.edu
Click to expand...
And if you think that prenatal exposure to tiny amounts of flouride is going to have an effect at all comparable to prenatal exposure to lead AND environmental exposure to lead during all of childhood -- environmental exposure that is not limited to water but includes inhalation and other forms of ingestion -- then you're sillier than we thought.
 
grimes70 said:
Someone posted similar a while back. Needs posting on ths thread.

images.jpg

Click to expand...

Brilliant dark comedy and satire - Slim Pickens is superb, as is Peter Sellers playing 3 (maybe 4, I don't remember) different characters. What's striking is how prophetic that sixty-year old movie has turned out to be in describing our 21st Century insanity and nighmare. Batshit crazy right-wing general triggers World War Three and the Apocalypse because he's paranoid about commies putting flouride into water supplies and he's convinced it has rendered him impotent and sterile. Not at all hard to see Trumpers believing the same.

General Jack Ripper: "Nineteen hundred and forty-six. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works."

Group Captain Mandrake: "Uh, Jack, Jack, listen... tell me, tell me, Jack. When did you first... become... well, develop this theory?"

Ripper: "Well, I, uh... I... I... first became aware of it, Mandrake, during the physical act of love...Yes, a uh, a profound sense of fatigue... a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I... I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of essence."

Mandrake: "Hmm"

Ripper: "I can assure you it has not recurred, Mandrake. Women uh... women sense my power and they seek the life essence. I, uh... I do not avoid women, Mandrake."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top