Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
51
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Here are the pertinent quotes from the Harvard Researchers:




“These results do not allow us to make any judgment regarding possible levels of risk at levels of exposure typical for water fluoridation in the U.S.,” the researchers said in an e-mail response to questions from The Eagle. “On the other hand, neither can it be concluded that no risk is present.”





“further research to clarify what role fluoride exposure levels may play in possible adverse effects on brain development, so that future risk assessments can properly take into regard this possible hazard.”


SOURCE

What the researchers from Harvard actually said was that this data can't be used to extrapolate effects in the U.S. because most all water supplies are fluoridated at 0.7-1.2 ppm and this study compared 2 water supplies with fluoride levels of 0.3 ppm and 2.3 ppm (roughly) so you can't use that to determine what a level of 1.2 ppm might do. WHICH IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT!

I am vehemently anti-fluoride, but when both sides twist and twist and twist the truth it takes my annoyance to new levels. The relevant information is this: Fluoride is shown to be a neurotoxin, an endocrin disruptor, to effect the brain in unknown ways, to interupt immune function, and to interfere with thyroid function - not to mention that it accumulates in bones, in your pineal gland, and maybe other places I'm unaware of. FYI, most of those claims are backed up HERE and are based on research conducted by the Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water at the National Research Council (whom I would expect to be pro-fluoride but still admit that it's potentially BAD).

So, in short, keep it out of the water, but stop spreading disinformation.

DENY IGNORANCE!
edit on 26-9-2012 by UdonNiedtuno because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:40 PM
link   
ARGH! What is happening?!?! Harvard is meant to be one of the world's most prestigious and renowned universities and yet, they're publishing studies that are an obvious attempt at misinformation. What is wrong with these people? Do they not have an ounce of empathy for the world that they # in.

Then again, I'm sure some group of bloody wankers who are part of the alumni have some kind of influence at Harvard.

Btw, if it supposedly only affects the IQ in children, then isn't that more worrisome? Children are the future of this world, and retardation in neurological development will have a detrimental effect on the future. A world full of docile lumps of meat.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by UdonNiedtuno
 


So, basically, it's a clever play on words that the majority won't be able to discern? They may as well just say that fluoride is actually a magical vitamin that'll make you feel better.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:13 PM
link   
What happened is that Natural News used a headline loaded with tangled meanings that isn't a hoax, just needs understanding; portraying the exact steps fierce fluoride promoters typically react.

The Harvard authors didn't say it can't apply to US. There is a comprehension disconnect here...

The problem is the selective pick of concentration levels from the meta-analysis above 4 ppm(mg/L), to dismiss as not applicable to US, when there were studies below 4 ppm(mg/L) that negatively affected IQ - relevant for US EPA regulatory policy.

One limitation of methodology is that it wasn't aimed to look for a specific concentration threshold where fluoride starts to lower IQ, but a study for that path not taken into the analysis was given for that direction.

Larry Hund reacted as is typical of promoters.

If you must criticise a recent Natural News article headline, this fits, no honest description of the press conference and scientific testimony, but still not a hoax :

Children born to parents who eat GM wheat may DIE before age five, warn scientists
www.naturalnews.com/037261_GM_wheat_liver_failure_fatalities.html
 


pg 15 reader / 14 in print

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


We did not find conclusive evidence of publication bias, though there was substantial
heterogeneity among studies. Drinking-water may contain other neurotoxicants, such as arsenic,
but exclusion of studies including arsenic and iodine as co-exposures in a sensitivity analysis
resulted in a lower estimate, although the difference was not significant. The exposed groups
had access to drinking-water with fluoride concentrations up to 11.5 mg/L (Wang et al. 2007),
thus in many cases concentrations were above the levels of 0.7-1.2 mg/L (HHS) and 4.0 mg/L
(US EPA) considered acceptable in the US. A recent cross-sectional study based on individual level
measure of exposures suggested that low levels of water fluoride (range 0.24 to 2.84 mg/L)
had significant negative associations with child’s intelligence (Ding et al. 2011). This study was
not included in our meta-analysis, which focused only on studies with exposed and reference
groups, thereby precluding estimation of dose-related effects.
edit on 26-9-2012 by wujotvowujotvowujotvo because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno
What the researchers from Harvard actually said was that this data can't be used to extrapolate effects in the U.S. because most all water supplies are fluoridated at 0.7-1.2 ppm and this study compared 2 water supplies with fluoride levels of 0.3 ppm and 2.3 ppm (roughly) so you can't use that to determine what a level of 1.2 ppm might do. WHICH IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT!
And, it also compared 0.8 ppm to 7.0 ppm!

The proposed level in Wichita was 0.7 ppm which is below the control group of 0.8 ppm which resulted in the "smarter" kids, and 7.0 really IS 10 times higher than 0.7.

So yeah, I'm not crazy about fluoride either, but the disinfo and distortions of facts are ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by roblot
 


The dampening of IQ in adults is preferred by countries, do you think any country would admit to using it to dope workers and taxpayers. The problem is that the fluoride in kids makes them forget the brainwashing



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I would tend to agree to some extent, it isn't the fluoride that is making Americans dumber it is the over breeding of close genetic lines that is truly leading to the moronification of the American populace.

The fluoride only augments what genetics is doing.

Derek



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 03:46 PM
link   
omg! thats hilarious

Dear Harvard,
I'm sorry, but anyone who buys that has been drinking way too much flouride

~ Me



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Chinese fluoride is a homeland security matter

Yes, it is, because the poison that is called fluoride in the US that is been forced into our drinking water is a matter of national security, as the fluoride is not longer manufacture or "bypass produce" made in America, it comes from China

So in the name of some, elite profiting priorities our children and the unborn gets to be poisoned with water

Now, anybody there a pro fluoride apologists? .



The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland Inc. was formed in 1960 as a grass roots network of citizens with a 50-year-old mission to educate the public of the complete fraud of the practice called water fluoridation.

Recently, it has come to my attention in an engineering report for the city of Boulder, Colo., that they did an evaluation of fluoridation chemicals and sources and found that much of the fluoride chemicals used for water fluoridation are now coming out of China with arsenic and lead levels of 50 and 40 milligrams respectively per bag and non-existent regulatory monitoring of the salt or acid compounds from these imports.


So do we really know how much poison in the name of fluoride is actually in our water? or is just what China lets US officials know.

times-news.com...



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno
What the researchers from Harvard actually said was that this data can't be used to extrapolate effects in the U.S. because most all water supplies are fluoridated at 0.7-1.2 ppm and this study compared 2 water supplies with fluoride levels of 0.3 ppm and 2.3 ppm (roughly) so you can't use that to determine what a level of 1.2 ppm might do. WHICH IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT!


.7-1.2 ppm is what's recommended but the maximum allowed in the US is 4.0 ppm.
water.epa.gov...

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) = 4 mg/L or 4 ppm

Millions of Americans are exposed to 2-4ppm in the US still.


Originally posted by Arbitrageur
And, it also compared 0.8 ppm to 7.0 ppm!

Red herring.
Here's the raw source. I'll quote some of the studies they used that fell between the 1-4ppm US range - most of the studies they used in their meta-analysis did so. The only reason they would focus on very few outliers (extremes in a data set) is to intentionally misrepresent their own findings to serve special interests. The majority of the studies they used had levels within acceptable limit for the US government and almost all had an independently negative correlation.
And several (I think 5 that I'm about to quote) had reference groups below Wichita's .7ppm - the lowest being .34 ppm compared to 0.88ppm (which still showed an adverse affect).

iaomt.guiadmin.com...


Xu et al. 1994 Shandong,
China
97 32 8-14 Drinking water 1.8 mg/L (high)
0.8 mg/L (reference)
Binet-Siman Children had lower IQ
scores in high fluoride area
than those who lived in the
reference area



Yao et al. 1996 Liaoning,
China
266 270 8-12 Drinking water 2-11mg/L (high)
1 mg/L (reference)
Average IQ scores of
children residing in
exposed fluoride areas
were lower than those in
the reference area



Li et al. 1995 Guizhou,
China
681 226 8-13 Urine,
Dental Fluorosis
1.81-2.69 mg/L (high);
1.02 mg/L (reference);
Children living in fluorosis
areas had lower IQ scores
than children living in non-
fluorosis areas



Lin et al. 1991 Xinjiang,
China
33 86 7-14 Drinking
water
0.88mg/L (high);
0.34 mg/L (reference)
Children in the high
fluoride (low iodine) area
had lower IQ scores
compared with the children
from the reference fluoride
(low iodine) areas



Yao et al. 1997 Liaoning,
China
188 314 7-14 Drinking water 2 mg/L(exposed)
0.4 mg/L (reference)
IQ scores of children in the
high fluoride area were
lower than those of
children in the reference
area



Lu et al. 2000 Tianjin,
China
60 58 10-12 Drinking water 3.15 mg/L (high)
0.37 mg/L (reference)
Children in the high
fluoride area scored
significantly lower IQ
scores than those in the
reference area



Hong et al.
2001
SShandong,
China
85 32 8-14 Drinking water 2.90 mg/L (high)
0.75 mg/L (reference)
Average IQ scores were
significantly lower in high
fluoride group (and iodine)
than the reference group



Seraj et al. 2006 Tehran,
Iran
Drinking water 2.5 mg/L(high)
0.4 mg/L (reference)
The mean IQ of children in
the high fluoride area was
significantly lower than
that from the reference
fluoride area



Li et al. 2009
Hunan,
China
60 20 8-12 Coal burning 1.24-2.34 mg/L (high)
0.962 mg/L (reference)
Mean IQ was lower in
children in coal-burning
areas compared to those in
the reference group



Poureslami
et al. 2011
Iran 59 60 6-9 Drinking
Water
2.38 mg/L (high)
0.41 mg/L (reference)
Raven Children in the high
fluoride group scored
significantly lower than
those in reference group


Remove the 7ppm and 13ppm studies, you will have the same results.
edit on 26-9-2012 by TheLegend because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
REMEMBER AMERICANS

YOU ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO VOTE FOR TWO PEOPLE

YOU SIT ON YOUR SOFAS AND WATCH WRESTLING ENJOY BEING FREE

DRINK YOUR MOUTH WASH BECAUSE ITS GOOD FOR YOU ONLY ON YOUR LAND

YOUR DIRT HAS MAGICAL PROPERTIES.

What your Citizens should be saying to your politicians is that you will be seeing them in Valhalla before they REMOVE the corruption from the ranks of leadership.

Just thought I might add I have Documentation that says I am insane so don't listen to what I have to say obviously it is not common sense.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLegend
 



Originally posted by TheLegend
Remove the 7ppm and 13ppm studies, you will have the same results.

Exactly. I can't believe anyone would buy Harvard's explanation.

So 100% of the studies they used showed that fluoride had an adverse affect (each study viewed independently).
Approximately 10% of the studies were using levels far above 4.0ppm.
So, let's just ignore the other 90% that says exactly the same thing, with or without that 10% included.
We're fine, because we're Americans.

Where do I get sheered? I have a coupon.




Don't be gentle.
edit on 26-9-2012 by MasonicFantom because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by freedomwv
 




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?


Maybe it has something to do with other chemicals that Americans are subjected to.. maybe a chemical changes the way flouride reacts to people living in America, or those effected by 'chemtrails?'





Just a thought



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLegend
 


Wow, this is scary stuff.

Thanks for sharing.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLegend
 


Let those muppets serve Evil.What you reap is what you sow.They will suffer the lies they have manifested.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by UdonNiedtuno

What the researchers from Harvard actually said was that this data can't be used to extrapolate effects in the U.S. because most all water supplies are fluoridated at 0.7-1.2 ppm and this study compared 2 water supplies with fluoride levels of 0.3 ppm and 2.3 ppm (roughly) so you can't use that to determine what a level of 1.2 ppm might do. WHICH IS SCIENTIFICALLY CORRECT!

I


If fluoride has a cumulative affect on the body and cannot be eliminated from it naturally, then i would think that they could use the data to extrapolate what half as much fluoride exposure would do to Americans.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:50 PM
link   
well not sending my kid there, took them 60 years to figure that out, i thought they were smart ^^ oh wait isnt there a big cheating scandel going on there atm,nm



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
It's not worth arguing fluoride. Move out into the country and put in a well. After the cities get abandoned and property values plummet than maybe they will remove the fluoride from the water. If a third of the residents of a city file a class action lawsuit on the city than at least the city will have to pay a lot of legal expenses to make up for their poisoning of their citizens. Fluoride is the basis for many medicines and pesticides, it shouldn't be added to water. What if the machinery delivering it to the supply screws up or human error causes a massive amount to be put into the water. Dead people can't sue.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 03:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


A lot of bottled water is tap water.



posted on Sep, 27 2012 @ 06:03 AM
link   
I expect from Harward to say Hitler was a good guy, he wanted just to give anti-depresive to prisoners in the concetration camps. Sodium Flouride = rat poison, anti depressant, tooth cleaning substance.

However time will tell. Rockfeller version of history will tell us.






top topics



 
51
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join