GOVERNMENT AND TOP UNIVERSITY STUDIES: FLUORIDE LOWERS IQ AND CAUSES OTHER HEALTH PROBLEMS
The Harvard School for Public Health reports:
In a meta-analysis, researchers from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and China Medical University in Shenyang for the first time combined 27 studies and found strong indications that fluoride may adversely affect cognitive development in children. Based on the findings, the authors say that this risk should not be ignored, and that more research on fluoride’s impact on the developing brain is warranted.
The study [click for abstract] was published online in Environmental Health Perspectives on July 20, 2012.
Environmental Health Perspectives is a publication of the United States National Institutes of Health’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
Harvard’s announcement continues:
The average loss in IQ was reported as a standardized weighted mean difference of 0.45, which would be approximately equivalent to seven IQ points for commonly used IQ scores with a standard deviation of 15. Some studies suggested that even slightly increased fluoride exposure could be toxic to the brain. Thus, children in high-fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ scores than those who lived in low-fluoride areas. The children studied were up to 14 years of age, but the investigators speculate that any toxic effect on brain development may have happened earlier, and that the brain may not be fully capable of compensating for the toxicity.“Fluoride seems to fit in with lead, mercury, and other poisons that cause chemical brain drain,” Grandjean says. “The effect of each toxicant may seem small, but the combined damage on a population scale can be serious, especially because the brain power of the next generation is crucial to all of us.”
IMNSHO, studies like this point to systemic failure, but also point to failure by common citizens to at least TRY to correct this systemic failure. There should be continual efforts by activists to degrade the “brand” of the US government, as well as the Democratic and Republican brands, while also pointing out that in a democracy (even an extremely dysfunctional one, like ours), civic laziness is a choice, and blame doesn’t ever lie simply with “them” but also with “us”.
Thus, the purpose of degrading those brands is not for the sake of negativity, but rather to incite a responsible, democratic response, which would eventually re-habilitate, to some extent or the other, those brands.