4 ms·
It's very interesting that the group level results (table 1) of this analysis seem entirely opposite when comparing western and non-western countries. As noted
by lalaland1125 2y ago
It's very interesting that the group level results (table 1) of this analysis seem entirely opposite when comparing western and non-western countries.
As noted by table 1, all the group level results indicating that fluoride has a negative impact on IQ come from China, India and Iran.
When you look at the studies done in western countries, in particular Canada, New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, Sweden, Denmark or Spain, you do not see negative IQ effects (Australia, Sweden, Denmark and Spain studies were not included in this meta analysis, but you can find links to studies from those countries in https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/06/fluoride-iq-jama-pediatrics-critiques-meta-analysis/ https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/06/fluoride-iq-jama-pediatr...).
- AlanYx 2y ago>As noted by this meta-analysis itself, all the results indicating that fluoride has a negative impact on IQ come from China, India and Iran. That's not accurate. Table 3 shows negative impact from data collected in Canada and Mexico as well.
- GettyVilla 2y agoThe Canadian and Mexican studies are invalid because they use spot urine to measure fetal fluoride exposure. Spot urine of the pregnant woman can't measure her chronic fluoride exposure. It can't tell us anything about what the fetus was exposed to. These are studies, regretfully, that might as well not have been written. They are not useful because they are invalid.
- AlanYx 2y agoI think you're referring to the Canadian and Mexican studies that were excluded from the meta-analysis. If you read the paper, two Canadian studies and three Mexican studies were excluded, but not all of them were. Table 3 only shows results from studies that were judged to be robust.
- beepbopboopp 2y agoThis feels a lot like the "blue-zone problem" in that it turned out blue zones were only prevalent in areas where they kept birth records poorly. I dont know much, but are less wealthy countries more statistically likely to create unreliable research or is that not a vector that seems to affect deep science?
- throw194553 2y agoChina and India are countries with highly trained good scientists, who work in a bad system. They have to make results constantly to keep officials happy. So there is a lot of research fraud. I don't know about Iran but it's probably similar. A lot depends on the field and institution but it's possible. (The West is really bad for research fraud too, but not as bad.) This meta analysis tries to look for high "risk of bias" based on methodology. But it doesn't look like they consider the possibility of fraud, only bad methodology and statistics.
- ramblenode 2y ago> They have to make results constantly to keep officials happy. So there is a lot of research fraud. What's surprising is that if there was fraud one would expect the results to go in the other direction since fluoridation is the official policy.
- throw194553 2y agothere may also be political pressure, but mainly there is just a strong demand for more papers, which means getting results that are publishable. "fluoridation has no effect on IQ" would be less publishable. same as in the west, but the western bureaucrats are more realistic and more focused on quality so the pressure is not as strong.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> have to make results constantly to keep officials happy Ironically, there is probably some public pressure in the West to publish findings that make fluoride look bad. Why solve actual problems when you can defeat imaginary ones?