|
|
|
|
|
|
by hombre_fatal
1075 days ago
|
|
|
> We observe that the average consumption of Fluoride is about an order of magnitude larger in the UK, yet, IQs are almost identical. Which hints that if such a relationship exists, it is not as pronounced (5 IQ points) as the article claims. Ecological comparisons are towards the bottom of the evidence hierarchy because there are any number of cofounders at play. For example you could accidentally conclude that smoking is healthy because smoking tracks with affluence in poorer countries. So I would reject the notion that we should or shouldn’t see IQ differences in very different populations which is why you want to do controlled research on different cohorts in the same population. Finally, a causal mechanism is only a cherry on top but it’s not necessary for strong causal inference. Our mechanistic explanations are repeatedly wrong and/or inexhaustive. Fortunately, we can perform good quality studies instead like mendelian randomization. |
|
|
At this point I think fluoride falls firmly into the category of "needs more research", but if you're pregnant it seems like actively trying to reduce your intake of fluoride is a sensible precaution since that's unlikely to have any negative effect on you or the kid, but if fluoride does cause problems you could dodge a bullet before the science catches up.