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

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Bottled water still comes from municipal water supplies. The only water that's not at risk of having fluoride is distilled water - which, coincidentally or not, is a form the government advises we not drink. Some Spring waters have very minimal fluoride however, like Ozarka Natural Spring Water, and I drink those. To find others that are 100% free of it however is impossible where I live.

And drinking aside, more fluoride is absorbed through the skin in showering than through drinking recommended levels of tap water (how scary is that?). It's also absorbed through clothes that have been washed, it's in our milk, fruits we eat, etc.

The Answerer here referenced some good material.
answers.yahoo.com...

A study by Professor Julian Andelman, Professor of Water Chemistry at the University of Pittsburg's Graduate School of Public Health, "found less chemical exposure from drinking the water than from using it to wash clothes or take a shower or a dip in the swimming pool". Every time you take a shower or go for a swim, you will be soaking it up. The percentage for skin absorption are as follows: Scalp - 32%, Ear Canal - 46%, Forehead - 36%, Plant of Foot - 13%, Forearm - 9%, Palm - 12%, male scrotum - 100%. Wearing clothes washed in fluoridated water is another source of fluoride.


So there's really no way to avoid the # in America. The best solution is to either move or find ways to get it out of your system because preventing it from getting in your system is basically impossible.


Did any of you see that?

"male scrotum - 100%"

Whazzafudge? Are they now being made from sponges? So the fluoride goes right to the lil swimmers?

I bought the whole reason for them being outside the body until this. Now, I think they should just tough out that temperature hike. You know. Have some.




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


get one of those showerheads with a filter in it. it won't take out all the fluoride, but will reduce it in half.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:42 AM
link   
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


So why should we have to pay for something to take out the fluoride, maybe to stimulate the economy? Pay to put it in and pay to take it out. I suppose that's a good alternative to getting fat.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by chasingbrahman
 


Well if the scrotum absorbs a high percentage, it is an effective birth control method. It can cause the sperm cells to get a deformed tail so they can't swim.
Is that what they mean about getting a little tail


CX

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   


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



......and INSIDE Harvard University.


I'd actually be embarrassed to think that the great minds that are within those walls can be turned so easily.

CX.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


If you want money for future projects, you have to make a deal with Deceit (devil). I am not saying our government is the devil, just that devil means deceit and our government is full of that, especially the FDA



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
retracted
edit on 26-9-2012 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


There's the exploit for pro-fluoridation I mentioned.

The truth is that there were studies with levels below the EPA limit of 4 ppm(mg/L) and they also lowered IQ.

The limit of 4 ppm(mg/L) isn't protective.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
 


Id like to see the original papers, or the Harvard study but I can't find them. The two sources that are quoting the papers are saying entirely different things.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
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.

www.kansas.com/2012/09/11/2485561/harvard-scientists-data-on-fluoride.html
Thanks for the link. It proves the story in the OP is a hoax, and it confirms that Natural News is NOT a reliable source. There was no retraction by Harvard as claimed, and that is only one lie among many others which can be seen by reading the Wichita Eagle article.

I'm disappointed in all the ATS sheeple who believe Natural news, you should know better.

I'm not saying you should like flouride, but use some discretion in your sources folks!
edit on 26-9-2012 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by moniesisfun
 


So why should we have to pay for something to take out the fluoride, maybe to stimulate the economy? Pay to put it in and pay to take it out. I suppose that's a good alternative to getting fat.


We shouldn't. You know the history same as I do. It's a byproduct of the aluminum industry. They dump it in the water instead of paying to have it safely stored somewhere.
edit on 26-9-2012 by moniesisfun because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're reaching by calling it a hoax.

It is a short sentence that describes exactly how pro-fluoridation promoters will interpret the conclusions of the study.

Did you not read how one of them is quoted doing just that?


Larry Hund, a pediatrician and leader in the pro-fluoride group Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, said he had taken the Harvard study with a grain of salt even before the researchers acknowledged that it didn’t address American fluoridated water.

“They’re looking at fluoride levels 10 times what we see here in the U.S.,” he said. In addition, he pointed out that most of the studies were done in China and didn’t account for other factors that can influence IQ scores such as poverty, exposure to heavy metal pollution and dietary deficiencies.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
Id like to see the original papers, or the Harvard study but I can't find them. The two sources that are quoting the papers are saying entirely different things.
I'm inclined to believe the Wichita Eagle version for several reasons, one being they actually cite names and actual quotes from the Harvard scientists.

The Natural News article or its clone used in the OP don't use this type of responsible journalism but pick bits and pieces from the Wichita Eagle article and present them out of context to support their agenda.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I haven't seen the study in question, but if they only tested two parameters, that being IQ and fluoride levels, that hardly proves causation. And what the hell is the average American going to do with a few extra IQ points? Maybe they'll be able to calculate correct change without a cash register, but let's be honest, these fat stupid bastards aren't exactly going to set the world on fire with an IQ of 90 instead of 85.

I quit drinking fluoridated water about 8 months ago. My dentist asked me what id been up to because apparently there had actually been a noticable improvment in overall oral health. However, if its absorbed just as readily via showering and laundered clothes, how does one avoid it?
edit on 26-9-2012 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wujotvowujotvowujotvo
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


You're reaching by calling it a hoax.

It is a short sentence that describes exactly how pro-fluoridation promoters will interpret the conclusions of the study.

Did you not read how one of them is quoted doing just that?


Larry Hund, a pediatrician and leader in the pro-fluoride group Wichitans for Healthy Teeth, said he had taken the Harvard study with a grain of salt even before the researchers acknowledged that it didn’t address American fluoridated water.

“They’re looking at fluoride levels 10 times what we see here in the U.S.,” he said. In addition, he pointed out that most of the studies were done in China and didn’t account for other factors that can influence IQ scores such as poverty, exposure to heavy metal pollution and dietary deficiencies.
Of course I read that, and when I read the Wichita Eagle article, I understand why he says that. When I read the Natural news article, it makes him sound crazy. Yes I think it's a hoax, because it's claiming that Harvard is backing off of their results, and that's just an outright lie. They aren't doing that. When they say that 25 of the 27 studies they looked at were done in China, well that's the truth!



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 


A drop by a few points means ~ 1/3 of the people qualify as "gifted" and ~3X as many people qualify as "mentally challenged".

It makes a huge difference to society.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   
What the...? Has Harvard lost their minds?! They are supposed to be one of the top schools of academic thought in the United States and here they are releasing academic reports like this.

There findings simply do not make sound logic. How can the rest of the humanity have their I.Q. negatively effected by fluoride by somehow American are immune to the same side effects? This is a low moment for American academic thought. The rep. of Harvard University is now tarnished by the release of this report.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
fulltext pdf link. 634 KB

It was downloaded & mirrored online before Environmental Health Perspectives' website ehp.niehs.nih.gov underwent and still undergoes maintenance.

iaomt.guiadmin.com/wp-content/uploads/Choi-developmental-neurotox.pdf

Larry Hund selectively interpreted it.
edit on 26-9-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheLegend

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


au.ibtimes.com

Intense industry pressure to continue mass medicating Americans with fluoride chemicals via public water supplies has apparently influenced Harvard University researchers to backtrack on a recent study they conducted that verified fluoride chemicals lower IQ levels in children. We are now being told the absurd lie that fluoride is only detrimental to people in other countries, and that Americans need not worry about ingesting and bathing in the toxic brew here in the states
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 25-9-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)


eh eh
well when a population is fluoridated they can say what they want

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 26-9-2012 by HiGilgamesh because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 12:37 PM
link   
My head actually hurts trying to wrap my brain around "fluroide only does it's thing outside US borders". and Harvard- HARVARD???? Puts this absurdity out? I am sure there is cumulitive damage, and it doesnt matter WHERE one lives- mebbe gets accelrated in a place with more fluoride in the water... but, really?!

Explains the college educated numbskulls running the country, dont it?





new topics
top topics
 
51
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join