It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Harvard Now Insists that Fluoride Only Lowers IQ Levels Outside the United States

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:48 PM
Did they study nutritional sufficiency in these other countries? If you are raised with malnutrition, it will naturally lower your IQ, fluoridation or not. There's still no point in fluoridation of water, though. I mean, haven't countless studies shown that it has almost no effect on teeth quality at all?

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:59 PM
I guess they were threatened with their lives, the lives of their family, or their tenure.

In a sense they didn't quite opt out of their original study showing the truth.

They made this ones so ludicrous most would still know the truth, but they should have stuck with the truth and revealed the threats they got as well, and sued.

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by TheLegend
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

The Harvard review, which was published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, includes a comparison of IQ levels among children living in a village with an average fluoride concentration of 0.36 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to the IQ levels of children in another village with a fluoride concentration of 2.47 mg/L. Clearly, neither of these levels is above the federal government's maximum allowable concentration of 4 mg/L

If some of their recorded measurements were above 4 mg/l, than I'd like to know. But the only one mentioned is within our government's tolerable limit.

Unfortunately with the original article no longer available these figures are unable to be tested.

I recall reading the abstract of the study where, IIRC, it mentioned fluiride levels up to 20 times the US EPA limit - but of course neither myrecollection nor the quote you supplied can actually be checked any more.

nonetheless my comment about EPA limits was in reply to a particular message on here, and remains valid as a erply to that message.

Most of Harvard's statistics were taken from older Chinese studies.

"What is also striking is that the levels of the fluoride in the community where the lowered IQs were recorded were lower than the EPA's so-called 'safe' drinking water standard for fluoride of 4 ppm and far too close for comfort to the levels used in artificial fluoridation programs (0.7 – 1.2 ppm),"

Wamaio had an average of of 2.47 mg/L water fluoride and Xinhuai averaged 0.36 mg/L.
Both are within US regulation (4 mg/l).

Unless you find a Chinese village where they fluoridate the water with 80 mg/l (20x the US maximum and would be as toxic at that point as eating toothpaste), your recollection is simply wrong or was from bad info. China's fluoridation maximum is approximately the same as the US.
edit on 25-9-2012 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:25 PM
The entire fluoride thing is a mass mind control conspiracy..

It is a matter of record that sodium fluoride has been used for behavior control of populations.

In an "Address in Reply to the Governor's Speech to Parliament", Mr. Harley Rivers Dickinson, Liberal Party Member of the Victorian Parliament for South Barwon, Australia [In Australia, parliamentarian Mr. Harley Dickenson raised the issue in the Victorian Legislative council, which is recorded in the official Hansard report on August 12th, 1987] made a statement on the historical use of fluorides for behavior control.

Mr. Dickinson reveals that,

"At the end of the Second World War, the United States Government sent Charles Elliot Perkins, a research worker in chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology, to take charge of the vast Farben chemical plants in Germany. While there, he was told by German chemists of a scheme which had been worked out by them during the war and adopted by the German General Staff.

"This scheme was to control the population in any given area through mass medication of drinking water. In this scheme, sodium fluoride occupied a prominent place. .....

for mass behavioral control in Nazi Germany which is now being carried out in the USA.

In the article entitled Dumbing Down Society Part I: Foods, Beverages and Meds, I’ve mentioned research claiming that fluoride in drinking water had no beneficial effects on teeth. Studies are now confirming that fluoride has detrimental effects on teeth (imagine what it does to the brain).

USA admits adding fluoride to water is damaging teeth and has been a big experiment

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:32 PM
reply to post by TheLegend

These attempts are so ridiculous it hurts to even read such rubbish! They are finding it increasingly more difficult to pull the wool over our eyes. Now they are simply looking like idiots with each desperate attempt at manipulating and keeping at bay the truth.

posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:48 PM
Harvard admits they are retarded and has lost all prestige with ridiculous study after another within the last decade

Tell me something I already didn't foresee six years ago.

skool is for tools.

riddle me this?

how many li(v)es does it take to shake the fluoride into your orange juice?

ppm safe my what?
edit on 25-9-2012 by moniesisfun because: MABNED THE DAN!NAB STA

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:26 AM

Originally posted by TheLegend

Harvard Now Insists that Fluoride Only Lowers IQ Levels Outside the United States

If the US sheeple are dumb enough to believe that then the fluoride has done it dumbing us down job.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:33 AM
Does china not have higher IQ scores than america anymore? Also, since fluoride is so great for teeth, thus by implication Chinese citizens must have a much lower incidence of tooth decay..............Wait I am trying to solve another MSM riddle with logic what was I thinking? I need a shot of fluoride to dull my senses.

Please excuse my extremely dry sarcastic humor it is an effective outlet for my anger........

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:54 AM

Originally posted by Unity_99
I guess they were threatened with their lives, the lives of their family, or their tenure.

In a sense they didn't quite opt out of their original study showing the truth.

They made this ones so ludicrous most would still know the truth, but they should have stuck with the truth and revealed the threats they got as well, and sued.

I have been seeing this a lot lately.. Sometimes NASA does it too. Statements are made that cannot be possible if you check into them. They make the title as the powers like it, but the next lines usually contradict the title.

My conclusion:

Those in power have overstayed their welcome but still retain power by something very threatening, and yet they can only take on so many small incidents at a time. Can't wait till they really slip up and threaten people who cannot be threatened.

As to the Topic at hand... I can't be bothered to care about it. I'm trapped in it. Best I can do is try and use my brain as much as possible to try and keep those connections alive.
edit on 9/26/2012 by Dustytoad because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:59 AM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

What I don't get is why they still fluoridate water - are people actually drinking tap water anymore? Most kids I see at school are drinking bottled water. I grew up in the country, far from city water, and have healthy teeth. I got all the fluoride I needed from fluoridated tooth paste. Methinks it would be cheaper to stop pumping toxins into city water and instead hand out free tubes of fluoridated tooth paste to inner city kids (ostensibly the reason they began fluoridating water in the first place, to ensure poorer city kids had healthy teeth).

A few things you might consider. First, topical treatment of fluoride actually does help promote stronger teeth, drinking it does little for your teeth, elevated levels can actually cause fluorosis and damage to the teeth.

Bottled water contains fluoride too, you have to specifically seek out the non fluoridated ones, it's usually on the bottle but that really depends on the regulations where you live, in some places a level below a certain threshold is allowed to be considered fluoride free.

Most bottled water in the US comes from the state where it's purchased, for a few reasons, mostly legality. That said, in many cases this bottled water comes from the very same reserves the city water comes from.

But there is a stark difference....

City water is tested. Tested constantly. It's kept in check within a strict regulated balance. Hundreds of tests a DAY for most places.

Bottled water is not regulated, no FDA oversight, and isn't required to be tested and held to the same standards that the water from your tap is.

I went 30 years without a single cavity. I used non-fluoridated toothpaste, my city does not fluoridate the water, and my parents allowed me to refuse the daily fluoride treatment they were providing at the school. It was the same stuff you'd get at the dentist, little cup of liquidy gell stuff.

In my late 20s I stopped bothering with the expensive non fluoridated toothpastes and just bought whatever was on sale. By age 30 I had my first cavity, 2 more followed. I'm back on the non-fluoridated toothpaste and won't be going back.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:09 AM
Who knows maybe GMO's cancel out the negative effects of fluoride ?

But it does seem funny

Welfare cutbacks, infrastructure cutbacks, medical cutbacks, education cutbacks DAMN WE'RE SO SKINT WE NEED TO CUT BACK ON EVERYTHING..........except fluoridation .....lets keep that up....infact let's spend more on it and make it more widespread ( NY,NJ,Portland to name a few )

Odd that

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:14 AM
Ahaha, it reminds me of France back in the 80's when the Chernobyl disaster happened, people were told that the radioactive clouds stopped at the frontiers.

Few years later, they finally admitted that it wasn't true (it took them years althrough most people knew it from the start).
edit on 26-9-2012 by BobbyTarass because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:16 AM
reply to post by TheLegend

AU Gubberment has been putting Fluoride in the water for decades.. Well we do have more forign university students than Australian University students...


I drink tank water, have been for years now... My teeth are really stuft, but at least I'm healthy.. Untill the gubberment comes round to my house and insists on installing Fluoride tablets in our rainwater tanks...

edit on 9/26/2012 by Ironclad because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 07:43 AM

Originally posted by TheLegend
Bottled water still comes from municipal water supplies.

That's only partially correct .. some bottled water comes from municipal supplies.. there are quite a few brands that are derived from natural sources like springs and aquifers.

Just pointing out that your statement sounded absolute.. which would be incorrect.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:03 AM
What a brilliant study I wonder who funded it?

I haven't had a good laugh like this in a long time.

What a fool believes......Bottom's up.

edit on 26-9-2012 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:20 AM
Either Harvard is studies are conducted by morons or they have gotten stupider and stupider as big money is influencing such comments on studies

Or, Harvard morons think that we the common people are dumber than a rock

Somebody needs to get their lying butts fired or we in America are officially a nation of official morons on private interest payroll.

Oh, wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is been happening for years

Another brilliant report comments coming from your corporate interest clowns.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:20 AM
Harvard's conclusion: it only lowers your IQ just a little bit if you live in the US. How absurd.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:20 AM

Originally posted by TheLegend
In light of the documentary, An Inconvenient Tooth, as well as upcoming state legislation to pass water fluoridation in many communities, Harvard has retracted their earlier findings.
Can someone please link me to this Harvard retraction?

The story doesn't link to it and I haven't found it yet. The OP source links back to Natural news which is not a very reliable source, and that refers back to some unspecified article in the Wichita Eagle. I'd like to read this Wichita Eagle article and see what it says, but my search for it so far only yielded this editorial, which doesn't even mention Harvard:

Wichita Eagle

Could this be a Natural News lie that a bunch of sheeple fell for because nobody bothered to check sources? And if not, then please show me the Harvard retraction. It may be on the Wichita Eagle site and I just haven't found it yet, but shouldn't they have linked to the story, if that's the source?

And if that is the source, isn't that an odd place for Harvard to publish a retraction? Many of you folks seem to be suspicious of everything else, but not of Natural News? I say be suspicious of everything, including natural news.

I'm not a pro-flouride person, I'm just trying to find out the real story here, and I haven't found it yet, so please help if you know it, and if you don't, a bunch of you may end up looking foolish if Harvard didn't really do what the natural news article claims.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:31 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

The study itself wasn't retracted in the scientific journal sense from Environmental Health Perspectives, but the comments were from a Wichita Eagle's question.

The answer is neutral, but gives a double-edged exploit for pro-fluoridation dentists while in an academic and realist way a slight advantage to opponents of fluoridation.

Harvard scientists: Data on fluoride, IQ not applicable in U.S.

By Dion Lefler
The Wichita Eagle

Published Tuesday, Sep. 11, 2012, at 7:55 p.m.
Updated Monday, Sep. 17, 2012, at 9:56 p.m.

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 09:51 AM
Do you guys know if activated charcoal is the only filter that removes fluoride?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in