New Scientific Study: NO EVIDENCE Water Flouridation Helps Fights Cavities.

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by DivineVictoryX, Jul 8, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 1 of 3
  1. #1 DivineVictoryX, Jul 8, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2015
    A new and highly-needed scientific review has found that there's no real evidence linking water fluoridation with cavity prevention, further proving that the IQ-damaging substance known as sodium fluoride truly does not have a place in our water supply.
    It was back in 2012 that I shared with you the results from a major Harvard study that revealed the dark relationship between IQ levels and sodium fluoride consumption. Specifically, the Harvard researchers detailed the fact that children who lived in areas with high sodium fluoride content had ‘significantly lower' IQ than those in areas with less added fluoride content. What's more, this research was published in a federal government medical journal known as Environmental Health Perspectives.
    <ins class="adsbygoogle" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4569510391698920" data-ad-slot="0555374131" data-adsbygoogle-status="done" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-block;"><ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; display: inline-table; height: 280px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 336px; background-color: transparent;"></ins></ins>
    The researchers from Harvard specifically stated:
    <blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.4s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 10px 20px; border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); outline: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">“The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas.”
    </blockquote>Remember, this was back in 2012. So why has almost nothing changed? A particularly valid question when we note that in 2011, the government actually called for ‘lower fluoride levels' amid a growing body of research that it was negatively affecting the health of Americans.
    Fast forward to April of 2015, and finally the federal government decides to lower fluoride levels for the first time in 50 years. A monumental event in the history of water fluoridation and public health.
    Now, in June of 2015, another landmark study has hit: sodium fluoride in the water supply isn't even preventing cavities! Now is the time to make this a well-known study, instead of a footnote buried within the latest news feed. After all, it's huge news that this information is finally being displayed by the mainstream media after years of anti-fluoride activists enduring the label ‘conspiracy theorist.'
    Let's look at the piece by Newsweek entitled “Fluoridation May Not Prevent Cavities, Scientific Review Shows,” which states:
    <blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.4s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 10px 20px; border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); outline: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">“The review identified only three studies since 1975-of sufficient quality to be included-that addressed the effectiveness of fluoridation on tooth decay in the population at large. These papers determined that fluoridation does not reduce cavities to a statistically significant degree in permanent teeth, says study co-author Anne-Marie Glenny, a health science researcher at Manchester University in the United Kingdom. The authors found only seven other studies worthy of inclusion dating prior to 1975. “

    <ins class="adsbygoogle google-wide" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4569510391698920" data-ad-slot="4979007299" data-adsbygoogle-status="done" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px auto; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; width: 250px; height: 250px; display: block;"><ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; display: inline-table; height: 250px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 250px; background-color: transparent;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none; display: block; height: 250px; position: relative; visibility: visible; width: 250px; background-color: transparent;"><iframe width="250" height="250" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" allowfullscreen="true" id="aswift_1" name="aswift_1" style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.4s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; margin-bottom: 0px; border: none; outline: none; left: 0px; position: absolute; top: 0px; overflow: hidden !important;"></iframe></ins></ins></ins>
    </blockquote>Thomas Zoeller, a scientist at UMass-Amherst who played a role in the study, breaks it down:
    <blockquote style="box-sizing: border-box; transition: all 0.4s ease; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; margin-bottom: 20px; padding: 10px 20px; border-style: none none none solid; border-left-width: 5px; border-left-color: rgb(238, 238, 238); outline: none; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: 100%;">“I had assumed because of everything I'd heard that water fluoridation reduces cavities but I was completely amazed by the lack of evidence,” he says. “My prior view was completely reversed.”
    </blockquote>The fact is that the science is quite clear: true independent scientists that study the safety and effectiveness of sodium fluoride in the water supply simply cannot believe the lack of both safety and effectiveness. This latest study is just another example of how sodium fluoride's so-called ‘effectiveness' in the water supply is not based on solid scientific reasoning, but rather political pressure to assert the ‘cavity-preventing' benefits of water fluoridation.
    These ‘benefits,' however, never existed when it comes to water fluoridation. What does come from adding sodium fluoride into our water is a much more dangerous result: an attack on human IQ and overall health
    <br style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;"><br style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;">Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/new-scientific-review-no-evidence-water-fluoridation-prevents-cavities/#ixzz3fKXiwkmB <br style="box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-transition: all 0.4s ease; transition: all 0.4s ease; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: none; outline: none;">http://naturalsociety.com/new-scientific-review-no...




    There's no positives to Flouride being in the water it's ALL LIES from the government. Only negatives.
    Take the damn fluoride out of the water just like most of Europe has already done. This makes me sick.


    A conspiracy? Really spare me the BS




     
  2. #2 Fizzly, Jul 8, 2015
    I'm on my own private well and I'm dumber than horseshit.


    Explain that one pal! :mad:

     
  3. #3 Carne Seca, Jul 8, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 8, 2015
    And now for the rest of the story....


    In July 2012, anti-fluoride activists circulated an article from a journal called Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP) to support their claim that fluoride lowers IQ scores in children. There are several reasons why the claim being made by opponents lacks credibility.
    • The EHP article reviewed studies on IQ scores for children living in areas of China, Mongolia and Iran where the water supplies have unusually high, natural fluoride levels. In many cases, the high-fluoride areas were significantly higher than the levels used to fluoridate public water systems in the U.S. In fact, the high-fluoride areas in these countries reached levels as high as 11.5 mg/L - more than 10 times higher than the optimal level used in the U.S.
    • This article offers a meta-analysis, and its credibility hinges on whether good-quality studies are reviewed. Yet the article's co-authors admit that “each of the [studies] reviewed had deficiencies, in some cases rather serious, which limit the conclusions that can be drawn.” Although the studies compared high-fluoride with low-fluoride areas, the authors acknowledge that “the actual exposures of the individual children are not known.”
    • The two Harvard researchers who reviewed these studies have distanced themselves from the way in which anti-fluoride activists have misrepresented their article. After contacting these researchers, the Wichita Eagle newspaper reported, “While the studies the Harvard team reviewed did indicate that very high levels of fluoride could be linked to lower IQs among schoolchildren, the data is not particularly applicable here because it came from foreign sources where fluoride levels are multiple times higher than they are in American tap water.”
    • The Harvard researchers wrote in their article that the average standardized mean difference (0.45) in IQ scores “may be within the measurement error of IQ testing.” Despite web pages claiming that the article “confirms” that fluoride reduces IQ scores, the Harvard co-authors did not reach a firm conclusion, writing instead that “our results support the possibility of adverse effects …” Indeed, their article called for more and better-quality research, including more “precise” data on the children involved and assurances that other factors have been ruled out as reasons for the IQ differences.
    • Given the small difference in IQ scores, it's possible that arsenic levels, school quality, nutrition, parents' educational levels or other factors could have shaped the results. The authors also added that “reports of lead concentrations in the study villages in China were not available”- another factor that could not be ruled out. A British research team reviewed similar Chinese studies, found “basic errors” in them, and reported that “water supplies may be contaminated with other chemicals such as arsenic, which may affect IQ.”
    • Between the 1940s and the 1990s, the average IQ scores of Americans improved 15 points. This gain (approximately 3 IQ points per decade) came during the same period when fluoridation steadily expanded to serve millions and millions of additional Americans.

     
  4. #4 Fizzly, Jul 8, 2015
    Haha, there goes another conspiracy. :(


    But it's so much more interesting to believe that the government is conspiring with fluoride manufacturers to secretly poison the public.

     
  5. #5 ajroxit, Jul 8, 2015
    hey, divine victory....what is your retort?
     
  6. #6 Carne Seca, Jul 8, 2015
    His usual M.O.. Ignore it and move on to the next conspiracy theory.
     
  7. #7 nativetongues, Jul 9, 2015
    Thank you for debunking this shit. Didn't feel like mounting a response but someone needs to make this blade see his own confirmation bias.
     
  8. #8 Fizzly, Jul 9, 2015
    So where's the Divine Spammer? :confused:
     
  9. #9 chiefton8, Jul 9, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 9, 2015
    Nice find. Interestingly, I wrote a criticism of the same bs fluoride article here on GC immediately after it was published back in July of 2012. http://forum.grasscity.com/science-nature/1082940-...


    There are some differences of course, but they're criticism is oddly similar to what I wrote here on GC, using many of the same quotes I pulled from the paper...makes me wonder if it's just coincidence. Probably, since the paper really was that bad most anyone scientifically literate could tear it to shreds. [​IMG]
     
  10. #10 baldwookie, Jul 16, 2015
    This is idiotic, divine you really have zero understanding of how our economy works. How the fuck would our govt pay for all their cool tech and military shit if we were all stupid fucks who didn't make enough money to tax. Where would our militarily and economic edge come from if we dumbed down the population? Don't confuse fluoride in the water, with your mother dropping you constantly as a child... That sir, is why you are dumb.
     
  11. #11 Delphinidins, Oct 2, 2015
    I recently came across this video on a natural health website about fluoride he talks about how in 27 studies 26/27 of them showed lowering of IQ in children. Many more other studies and research he mentions.



     
  12. #12 jmick, Oct 2, 2015
    Yeah, look at how stupid kids are today..................................
     
  13. #13 101 BIG TEX 101, Oct 2, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2015
    does this mean I should stop adding colgate to my brita filtered water?




    lol


    :)
     
  14. #14 Dr. Sheldon Cooper, Oct 2, 2015
    There's no evidence that demonstrates this. And studies can be horribly biased. Especially if a "health" website is citing them.
     
  15. #15 Delphinidins, Oct 2, 2015
    lol
     
  16. #16 SlowMo, Oct 2, 2015
    New theory - conspiracy theories germinate from lower IQs and contribute to further widespread IQ lowering. But then again, so does brainwashing students day in and day out in tens of thousands of status quo schools across the land into believing only what their teachers and the prevailing bullshit deems acceptable.

     
  17. #17 bwood, Oct 2, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2015
    breaking news!!! toxic medical waste is no bueno




    Theres a reason Hitler was so fond of this chemical, protip it wasnt because he liked his prisoners to have pearly whites. But this is a touchy subject people dont like knowing they are forced to ingest chemicals without their consent so expect some butthurt.





    Maybe im just old fashioned and dont like taking random toxic chemicals per the status quo



     
  18. #18 Fizzly, Oct 2, 2015
    I agree with all that, plus will add another factor.


    Americans are spoiled. They take all their daily needs for granted: Water, food, shelter, clothing -- things which MILLIONS of people in the world struggle every day to get, and often fail. They don't have time for much else besides surviving.


    But fat, overfed, lazy Americans with material comforts that much of the world cannot comprehend, have a lot of spare time to dream up nonsense.

     
  19. #19 bwood, Oct 2, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 2, 2015
    yes being against ingesting industrial waste products for absolutely no valid reason is just dreaming up nonsense.


    haha what spineless jellyfish we have in this world nowadays.


    I prefer my medicine to be a little less shady then that sorry. That level of drugging puts Bill Cosby to shame.


    "fat, overfed,lazy" ahhh now you're just projecting.

     
  20. #20 101 BIG TEX 101, Oct 2, 2015
    does this mean my environment is actually *kinda* poisoning me?


    :)
     
Page 1 of 3
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page