3 ms·
That is not a study of drinking water concentrations, but much higher naturally occurring levels. Its also has pretty poor confidence intervals: https://journa
by SigmundA 2y ago
That is not a study of drinking water concentrations, but much higher naturally occurring levels. Its also has pretty poor confidence intervals:
https://journalistsresource.org/home/how-to-read-this-study-a-meta-analysis-fluoride-childrens-iq/ https://journalistsresource.org/home/how-to-read-this-study-...
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2828430 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abst...
I would be careful throwing a single study around as proof of anything, here is one with a different conclusion:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220345241299352 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00220345241299...
- naasking 2y agoThe source of fluoride is irrelevant, the effect of fluoride is cumulative. If you get 0.7mg/L from drinking water and then add toothpaste and other sources, you could easily surmount the level where harmful effects occur.
- SigmundA 2y agoYou are making a lot of assumptions to fit your narrative, the higher natural source would also be cumulative with toothpaste etc. There is no conclusive data to support your assertion and there is a lot of data to support the benefits of fluoridation. Did you actually read any of what I posted to understand it or is your mind already made up?