The new research is the first to measure community water fluoridation exposure during childhood and any potential impact on cognition up to age 80.
The paper is here
The new research is the first to measure community water fluoridation exposure during childhood and any potential impact on cognition up to age 80.
The paper is here
That wouldn’t implicate fluoride, because not everyone was exposed to it. And the study indicates that fluoride exposure (on a community level, which would take into account soil and food) doesn’t make a difference.
There are huge levels of flouride in some foods, per National Geographic. California raisens are super high for instance.
And I’m not saying flouride is bad, only that I wouldn’t say it’s not bad because of a study and “experts.”
And it’s obviously death by a thousand cuts in the dumb department/low sperm count/90% loss of insects worldwide since the 90’s/crash of the frog populations, et al. Flouride is a bit player. Yet something is affecting our trust center, and it’s not all taxoplasmosis, we are being dosed, coincidentally or no by pollutions. It’s worse than you think.
While there are always biased studies, the data in this case comes from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, a broad health and social sciences study conducted by the University of Wisconsin that’s been ongoing since 1957. You can access the data yourself here.
Yet there might be limitations in what they’re looking at, changes in Behavior are subtle. And would be missed in such a study would they not? I am not declaring fluoride guilty, I am saying I would not absolve it.
Those kinds of issues would come into play if they were trying to establish a correlation between two things—it’s notoriously hard to eliminate confounding variables, spurious coincidences, etc.
But it’s far more straightforward to establish a lack of correlation, which is what this study does.
Removed by mod
To fight forces like big oil, we need to be able to focus our efforts appropriately. Indiscriminately attributing everything to big oil serves their purposes as much as complacency does.
Removed by mod
Now see, strokes are a different matter. Studies from China (where naturally-occurring fluoride levels in some places can range from 1.2 to 4.5 mg/L, far exceeding the U.S. recommended level of 0.7 mg/L) have indeed found a correlation between very high fluoride exposure and stroke risk.
Working at a university is part of the “establishment”? What the fuck does that even mean
That means you are dumb, the group of them have the collective experience of over 100 years of academic and research work. These people are the literal definition of experts.
Your lack of any actual investigation means that your suspicion is something that the rest of us should not trust.
Removed by mod
Yooo same!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
So what criteria do you have for thinking a thing is true? Why the quotes around experts?
Because In our society the experts are often the last ones you can trust. They are paid and influenced by Monied interests.
Crossing corporate interests will get one of these experts de expertified. And or they will find something to destroy them with, be it sexual in nature or not.
And all I am saying here is that I would not admit that fluoride does not have an effect on human behavior and or health because of these experts and their studies.
Am I wrong? ( no.)
That’s a whole lotta words to avoid answering a pretty simple question.
What criteria do you have for thinking a thing is true?
Removed by mod