The point of this article is that the evidence of what you are saying is unconvincing. Even if it _were_ real science [Note: actual science engages with critic

The point of this article is that the evidence of what you are saying is unconvincing. Even if it _were_ real science [Note: actual science engages with criticism and can withstand critique], the effect size being claimed is smaller than the margin of error on the tests. Being a programmer, I know plenty of miserable, incompetent and outright criminal people with high IQs: the idea that IQ alone is something to maximize is just weird eugenics. The impact of fluoride on actual social outcomes, measured by a double-blind study? That would be interesting. Maybe then we could talk about the ethics of inflicting life-long pain and suffering on children in favor of reducing their risk of unemployment by some small percentage. What is being put forward right now, though, offers chem trail levels of rigor: it isn't going to be convincing to anyone who doesn't really, REALLY want to believe.