Please do your own research. The information I share is only a catalyst to expanding ones confined consciousness. I have NO desire for anyone to blindly believe or agree with what I share. Seek the truth for yourself and put your own puzzle together that has been presented to you. I'm not here to teach, preach or lead, but rather assist in awakening the consciousness of the collective from its temporary dormancy.
Edward Bernays was one of those relatively unknown characters of history who, from “behind the scenes,” helped to shape American society — and, by logical extension, the world in general — more so than any president could have. A nephew of the famed sex-mad quack Sigmund Fraud, Bernays understood the science / art of manufacturing “public opinion” better than anyone.
During World War I, Woodrow Wilson called upon the services of the legendary ad man who would later train women to become smokers by linking the dirty habit with the women’s suffrage movement (here) — and who also trained many of us to crave “Bacon & Eggs” for breakfast (here). Under Bernays’ influence, the wartime Committee on Public Information instantly and successfully transformed the public image of the cultured peace-loving Germans into one of marauding, blood-thirsty, warmongering “Huns.” Reflecting upon his success with psychological manipulation during wartime, Bernays later described how the same tactics could be used to control the masses during peacetime.
Bernays:
“There was one basic lesson I learned in the CPI—that efforts comparable to those applied by the CPI to affect the attitudes of the enemy, of neutrals, and people of this country could be applied with equal facility to peacetime pursuits. In other words, what could be done for a nation at war could be done for organizations and people in a nation at peace.”
At the behest of his government paymasters, Bernays and his gang of Society Shapers got Americans to suddenly hating Germans.
In 1928, Bernays, in his book titled, “Propaganda,” really “let the cat out of the bag” for us “conspiracy theorists ™.” The “Father of Spin” as one biographer described him, wrote this:
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country….. If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it.”
Bernays knew what he was talking about because he himself was very, very close to the Society Shapers and Culture Creators who relied upon his evil expertise at manipulation.
1. The Easter Sunday March, 1929: Bernays got silly women smoking by branding cigarettes as “Freedom Torches.” // 2 & 3. Bernays’ books about propaganda and public opinion give valuable insight into the tactics of the Society Shapers who rule over us.
Bernays’ words teach us, from direct knowledge, that the “the masses” at large are like so many bits of malleable clay in the hands of the Society Shapers. Indeed, in the grand lobby of Rockefeller Center in New York, which houses the headquarters of the very Jewish NBC TV & Radio network, a billboard with the images of famous historical personages of NBC news and TV shows actually reads: “NBC: Shaping American culture since 1926” (bottom right corner). So, we know, by their own arrogant admission, that (((they))) do indeed shape society and create culture by getting “the masses” to passionately believe whatever the heck (((they))) bloody want them to perceive and believe — no matter how counter-intuitive or absurd (Think “modern art” or “the Holocaust” or “climate change” or “man-on-man marriage” or “choose your own gender” or “Social Distancing,” etc). That’s the “what” of the matter.
With that knowledge in mind, the remainder of this piece shall address the “how” of the phenomenon, from a psychological / philosophical perspective. If you’re an anti-conspiracy theorist who doubts that so many people — including those of high intelligence and accomplishment — can be so easily duped into believing this or that falsehood, then the following description of the Society-Shaping dynamic should, we hope, help you to understand that it’s really not all that difficult to “brainwash” 85-90% of the public — which is really all that (((they))) need in order to move their agenda items forward.
1 & 1a. If you’re ever in New York, check out the lobby at Rockefeller Center and see how proud NBC is of “shaping American culture since 1926” (their words!). // 3. The King of NBC from 1926 to 1970 was David Sarnoff (cough cough). During World War 2, Sarnoff headed up “psychological warfare” efforts in Europe and was ranked as a “Brigadier General” for that sneaky service. Through his News and TV Shows, Sarnoff, like Bernays, used the same tactics during peacetime to manipulate Americans. In accordance with his wishes, the fake “general” was buried with his medals.
Think of society as a large ballroom floor full of people buzzing about from one end to the other. In each of the four corners of the room, four “respected” speakers with mighty bullhorns scream out false information from atop elevated platforms. Unbeknown to the stirring “masses,” the Big Four, though seemingly situated far apart from one another, are actually all members of the same elite club and working in concert. They are part of a Mafia-like network of Society Shapers who incestuously associate and often inter-marry with other such high-end muckety-mucks.
In one corner, Big Newsmedia (Fake News) shouts out lies and half truths to the credulous crowd circulating around him — never mentioning certain “inconvenient” facts which could contradict the hidden agenda.
And in another far corner, Big Academia, in oh-so-serious tones of “gravitas,” echoes and reinforces what Big News is shouting. Smaller Academia (colleges, high schools, middle schools, K-5 elementary schools) all follow the lead of Big Academia.
From a third corner, Big Government, subtly or overtly backed by the threat of force, again shouts from the same script as his co-conspirators.
And finally, in the fourth corner, with perhaps the loudest bullhorn of them all, Big Hollywood — by way of cleverly embedded propaganda inserted into TV shows, movies and music — reaches the ears, hearts and empty minds of even the simplest dumb asses who neither finished High School, nor follow politics, nor watch the Nightly News.
By the time one of the unsuspecting and confused mob has finished a cycle of walking about from one end of the crowded floor to the other, his malleable mind will have been blasted, marinated and saturated in the most stupefying propaganda imaginable. Only Norman Normie won’t realize that the room is steeped in fakery because he has never been exposed to an opposing viewpoint. And if he does happen to chance across an awakened activist with another opinion, he’d probably denounce him as an “extremist” or “uneducated” or a “conspiracy theorist” simply because he has never heard such an opinion before. And should that errant truther begin to “red pill” more than a few normies, the Bullhorns of Bullshit will inevitably unload their toxic cannon fire at him — thus cowering other active truthers and curious initiates into silent submission.
* THE 4 CORNERS OF SOCIETY SHAPING
And yet, in spite of being mind-raped from all four corners of deceit, the brainwashing of the people is not yet complete. One final critical reinforcement step has to occur — and the beauty of it, from the perspective of the Society Shapers above, is that this final stage of the process will happen all by itself.
After having been prepped from all four corners, a target will inevitably hold a conversation with another unsuspecting boob about something that one or more of the Four Bullhorns had been blaring about. Maybe this talk will occur near a water cooler, or maybe over lunch in the building’s cafeteria. Deprived and devoid of any alternative information or opinion, Boob # 1 will inevitably repeat something that was blasted into his head. In response, Boobs # 2, 3 etc will all nod their empty heads in agreement. Here’s a real world example — which all of you have surely witnessed in real life — of how the reinforcement process worked to support the absurd fairy tale that was the “official explanation” behind 9/11 False Flag:
Normie #1: “They’re saying now that there were 19 suicide hijackers with box-cutters that hijacked those four planes.”
Normie #2: “That’s correct. And the fire from the jet fuel was so intense that it melted the steel support structures of the Twin Towers.”
Normie #3: “Bastards! They hate us for our freedom!”
Now, let’s try one related to the Stupid-19 scamdemic:
Normie #1: “I hear that the death toll now is up to 1,000,000 in the United States.”
Normie #2: “You’re not following the 6-foot social distancing rule. Step back, please.”
Normie #3: Why is our office even open, anyway? We should all be home sheltering-in-place.
You see, notwithstanding our advanced “intellects,” we humans – regardless of IQ’s, “education,” or professional accomplishments – remain social animals by nature. In this respect, we are very similar in our core impulses to cows, sheep, lemmings, fish or birds. It is the peer-approved validation of our opinions — even more so than the original and deafening blare of the Four Bull Horns of Bullshit which created it — that will not only mentally and emotionally seal the erroneous belief in concrete — but also automatically induce fear and loathing for the stray “conspiracy theorist” who dares to question it. That’s how Bernays’s grand game of mass deception and manufactured “consensus” works its Black magic on the group mind. And so, my dear newbies and normies, now that you understand the philosophical underpinnings of the surprisingly simple “secret” of Society Shaping, ask yourself this question: “How did I really come to “know” what I think I know?”
After the Four Bullhorns have numbed the people into a stupor, their reinforcing conversational consensus with one another makes the brain damage permanent. The sheeple fallaciously reason that if everyone else has also “independently” arrived at the opinion / attitude as they have, then it MUST BE “correct.”
We live in a world where the masses are delusional. They have been manipulated via engineered media hysteria into believing in an invisible “pandemic” that’s going to kill them if they don’t comply.
At first, the compliance demand was something like, “Wear these masks. You’ll only need to wear them until there’s a vaccine.” Once the vaccine became available, the compliance demand was ramped up to, “Take two shots and we’ll get back to normal.”
Now, of course, at the end of 2021, people are required to both take endless booster shots and keep wearing masks… all while social distancing and complying with endless lockdowns and covid quarantine camps, of course.
At this point, anyone going along with this insanity is clinically delusional and suffering from shared mass psychosis (or what’s called “mass formation” by some scientists). They are proving that they cannot cognitively parse the world around them in a meaningful way that supports their own continued existence.
Importantly, the fact that delusional thinking is widespread does not make it sane. Through media programming, censorship and authoritarian measures, entire nations can be ensnared under grotesque delusions. Look no further than North Korea if you need a current example, and then realize that North Korea-style censorship and propaganda has been on the march in the USA for several years now.
Anyone Who Trusts The Mainstream Media Is Both Delusional And Gullible
Virtually the entire corporate media establishment fell for the Jussie Smollett hate crime hoax. They fell for the Russia collusion hoax, and they fell for the “meat market” origins lie about the coronavirus. They also still push the fraudulent PCR “cases” lie that’s rooted in complete scientific fraud.
If there were any honest news trust rating system in place, every major media outlet would be rated with an “F” grade, since they’ve falsified or misreported nearly every major event over the last several years (including news about Nick Sandman and Kyle Rittenhouse, for example).
Any person who still believes the mainstream media has credibility is delusional (and gullible). Anyone who believes the CDC or FDA have “scientific authority” is either stupid or living in a fairy tale world. What we’ve all learned over the past two years — or should have learned if we were paying attention — is that when it matters most, every mainstream institution will deliberately deceive you even if such deception results in the loss of innocent human life.
Because of all this, it’s easy to identify gullible, delusional people in our society: They’re the ones still wearing masks! They’re the ones somehow still watching CNN, the pedophile network. They’re the ones still lining up for booster shots, somehow telling themselves that the reason they need booster shots is because all the previous shots have failed, yet this booster will magically work even though it’s the same shot from the same exact company.
Never forget the definition of insanity.
Delusional people will also tell you they believe women have a penis and men can get pregnant. These are the truly insane ones, and they’ve become so mass hypnotized into their fairy tale false realities that they’ve become completely disconnected from biological reality.
It’s truly bizarre that these are the same people who line up for vaccine booster shots, because if they really believed physiology was subjective, couldn’t they just decide to “self identify” as someone who’s already immune to covid? Why do they believe biology is real when it comes to vaccine injections but biology is imaginary when it comes to pregnancy and penises?
The answer, of course, is because they are mentally ill delusional lunatics. And by the laws of natural selection, they are gradually removing themselves from the human gene pool through vaccine-assisted suicide, which may be one of the few silver linings in this entire mess.
Signing up for spike protein depopulation injections really is a kind of global IQ test, and billions of people are failing it… with fatal consequences that will play out over the next ten years or so.
Don’t Even Try To Fit In With An Insane, Delusional Culture
For those of us who are still anchored in reality, it’s important to remember that there’s no need to try to conform to an insane, demonic culture or society. When society (or “sickciety”) has turned into a clown world of lunatics, trying to fit in is just a bizarre form of self-inflicted suffering. Instead of bending to the twisted will of the delusional masses, spend your time reconnecting with reality. That’s your consciousness anchor that prevents you from drifting off into la la libtard land.
How do you reconnect with reality?
Have a garden and grow some food. Touch soil. Save seeds. Experience reality through firsthand senses. Listen, touch, feel and see.
Take walks in nature. Experience the real world around you.
Avoid artificial worlds, augmented worlds and virtual reality. They enslave you in fake illusions. They sap your soul.
Connect with God and rediscover your spiritual self. Your soul is real. Consciousness is real. It may not be physical, but it’s the most real thing about human existence.
Connect with real people who are living in reality, and distance yourself from old “friends” who are delusional herd followers and gullible conformists.
Take time away from all screens. Although it’s great to gather information from those who have something valuable to share, don’t allow your life to be dominated by screens and mobile devices.
In today’s Situation Update podcast, I cover the nature of reality. It’s a wild ride through the delusions of a society gone mad… and how to maintain your sanity through it all. (Laughter is also a great anchoring tool, which is why I mock so many things happening in the world today).
New research out of Brown University has found that keeping children masked and locked up at home away from their friends has resulted in a 23 percent decline in their cognitive abilities. These and other Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) restrictions have been so destructive to children’s health that many of them are no longer able to communicate, either verbally or non-verbally.
For their research, Brown scientists analyzed 1,070 assessments given to 605 children in March 2020 when the lockdowns and mask mandates first began. Between March 2020 and July 2021, another 154 assessments were made from 118 children.
Another 39 children born in 2018 and 2019 who lived through the plandemic were also analyzed as part of the research. The three most accepted indicators of childhood development – early learning composite (ELC), verbal development quotient (VDQ), and non-verbal development quotient (NVDQ) – were all considered.
“The components of a child’s early learning correspond to his or her fine motor, visual reception, receptive, and expressive language scales,” reported Great Game India (GGI). “This scale can be considered the scale that’s equivalent to IQ score for early ears.”
What they learned from this compilation is that, on average, children’s IQ levels dropped by nearly one-quarter as a result of the government’s “saving lives” fascism.
“The results show that the early average results decreased by 23% from 100% in 2019 to 80% in 2020 and finally 77% in 2021,” GGI further explains.
“At the same time, the level of verbal development also dropped significantly, from an average of 100 in 2018 to 90 in 2020 and in 2021 down to around 70 … Nonverbal development quotient has been reduced similarly: from 105 in 2019 to 100 in 2020 and approximately 80 in 2021, respectively.”
Mask Mandates Have Greatly Damaged Children’s Normal Development
The study concluded that children born during the plandemic now have “significantly reduced verbal, motor and overall cognitive performance compared to children born pre-pandemic.”
One of the most damaging aspects of the plandemic for children has been the mask mandates, particularly at school. Children are supposed to socialize and be close to their friends and peers, not “distanced” and told to treat others like the walking plague.
The study explained this in detail, warning that “masks worn in public settings and in school or daycare settings may impact a range of early developing skills, such as attachment, facial processing, and socioemotional processing.”
According to the authors, the worst-off childhood demographic are young boys and children from poorer families who saw the lowest cognitive test scores as a result of the plandemic tyranny.
“Wealthy parents can reduce the effects of pandemic much more effectively,” GGI explained.
“Comparing yearly mean scores since 2011, controlling for age, gender, demographic, and socioeconomic indicators, we find striking evidence of declining overall cognitive functioning in children beginning in 2020 and continuing through 2021,” the study explains.
“We find that males appear significantly more impacted than females, and that higher socioeconomic status (SES, as measured by maternal education) helps buffer against this negative impact.”
On a more individual level using longitudinal pre- and during-pandemic trends in the same children from 2018 to 2021, the researchers observed a clear and noticeable decline in averages once the plandemic was launched.
“There are sensitive periods in early childhood development in which language development and emotional development are really rapidly developing for the first few years of life,” warned Ashley Ruba, a postdoctoral researcher from the University of Wisconsin – Madison‘s Child Emotion Lab, to CNN back in August.
As for the oxygen deprivation component, masks inhibit the normal exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes further brain damage.
Historical Court Case – The Fluoride Cover Up Will Soon Be Exposed
A historical trial weighing the risks of water fluoridation is set to begin in San Francisco on Monday June 8.
For the last four years, attorneys with the Fluoride Action Network have been fighting a legal battle against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over whether water fluoridation violates the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). A recent ruling by the judge in the case has now set the stage for a federal trial which will include three international experts in neurotoxicity testifying on the dangers of water fluoridation.
The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) is set to argue that water fluoridation violates the TSCA provisions which prohibit the “particular use” of a chemical which has been found to present an unreasonable risk to the general public. Under section 21 of the TSCA citizens are allowed to petition the EPA to regulate or ban individual chemicals.
The FAN began their legal battle in November 2016 when they joined with five organizations and five individuals to present a Citizens’ Petition under Section 21 of TSCA to the EPA. The Citizens’ Petition calls on the EPA to prohibit the addition of fluoridation chemicals to U.S. water based on the growing body of evidence showing that fluoride is a neurotoxin at doses currently used in communities around the United States.
The plaintiffs in the case include: FAN, Moms Against Fluoridation, Food & Water Watch, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, the International Academy of Oral Medicine and Toxicology and the Organic Consumers Association.
The plaintiffs’ have presented studies to the court detailing the evidence of neurotoxic harm as part of their Proposed Findings of Fact. Dr. Paul Connett, PhD, director of FAN, points to a number of recent studies detailing the affect of fluoridation on IQ levels.
“As of 2020 there have been 72 fluoride-IQ studies, of which 64 found a lower IQ among children with higher fluoride exposure,” Connett stated. “Many of the earlier studies were in places with elevated natural fluoride levels. There is now very strong evidence that fluoride damages both the fetal and infant brain at the levels used in artificially fluoridated areas.”
While the court will allow FAN to present evidence related to the harms caused by water fluoridation, the court has stated that the EPA cannot present information related to the purported benefits of fluoridation. The move was seen as a victory for FAN and opponents of fluoridation. The EPA also attempted to exclude three experts from speaking at the trial. However, the court over ruled the agency and will allow the expert testimony. Experts include Dr. Philippe Grandjean of Harvard and the University of Southern Denmark, Dr. Howard Hu of the University of Washington, and Dr. Bruce Lanphear of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia.
The trial is set to begin on June 8th via Zoom. I will be reporting on the trial for The Last American Vagabond. Stay tuned for daily video reports and articles.
What is Fluoride?
The substances added to municipal water supplies known by the name “fluoride” are actually a combination of unpurified byproducts of phosphate mining. In the United States thousands of tons of fluorosilicic acid is recovered from phosphoric acid plants and then used for water fluoridation. During this process the fluoride ion is created.
This process of taking waste from the phosphate industry and putting it into drinking water has long been criticized for its effects on human health and the environment. It is well known that water fluoridation has led to dental fluorosis for millions of children. This discoloring of the teeth was called “cosmetically objectionable” by the Centers for Disease Control.
Beyond the cosmetic effect there have been several studies indicating overwhelming health issues related to fluoride, especially for children. Another study found a connection between exposure to water fluoridated at relatively low concentrations and a reduced IQ among children.
As recent as September 2017 the journal Environmental Health Perspectives published the study “Prenatal Fluoride Exposure and Cognitive Outcomes in Children at 4 and 6–12 Years of Age in Mexico,” examining the results of prenatal exposure to fluoride and the potential health concerns. The researchers called the study “one of the first and largest longitudinal epidemiological studies to exist that either address the association of early life exposure to fluoride to childhood intelligence or study the association of fluoride and cognition using individual biomarker of fluoride exposure.” The study was funded in part by the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
The researchers found that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower scores on tests for cognitive function at age four, and between ages six and twelve. The researchers acknowledge that their results are “somewhat consistent” with past ecological studies which indicate children living in areas of high fluoride exposure have lower IQ scores than those in low-exposure areas.
A study published in the journal General Dentistry warns that infants are at risk of dental fluorosis due to overexposure from fluoride in commercially available infant foods. The researchers analyzed 360 different samples of 20 different foods ranging from fruits and vegetables, chicken, turkey, beef, and vegetarian dinners. Chicken products had the highest concentrations of fluoride, followed by turkey. The New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation (NYSCOF) reports that the fluoride levels were due to pesticides, fertilizers, soil, groundwater, and/or fluoridated water. The high levels found in the chicken and turkey can be attributed to “fluoride-saturated bone dust” involved in the process of mechanically separating the meat.
Another study published in Environmental Health found a potential connection between fluoride exposure and the prevalence of adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children. The researchers studied data on ADHD among children age four to seventeen collected in 2003, 2007 and 2011 as part of the National Survey of Children’s Health, as well as state water fluoridation data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) collected between 1992 and 2008 . It is the first study to analyze the relationship between exposure to fluoridated water and ADHD prevalence.
The team discovered that children living in areas with a majority of the population receiving fluoridated water from public water systems “tended to have a greater proportion of children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD. ” The researchers concluded that:
“this study has empirically demonstrated an association between more widespread exposure to fluoridated water and increased ADHD prevalence in U.S. children and adolescents, even after controlling for socioeconomic status (SES). The findings suggest that fluoridated water may be an environmental risk factor for ADHD.”
In addition to these studies related to fluoride and children, dozens of other studies have indicated a variety of health problems. A recent study published in the Journal of Analytical Chemistry indicates that fluoride ions found in fluoridated water and toothpaste may lead to an increase in Urinary Stone Disease (USD). The study was conducted by chemists from Russia and Australia, led by Pavel Nesterenko at the University of Tasmania. The team studied 20 urinary stones from patients at a Russian hospital and discovered fluoride ions in 80% of the stones. This could be due to high levels of fluoride in patients’ urine, possibly from drinking water containing fluorides and ingesting fluoride toothpaste.
A study published in the BMJ’s Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health confirmed fluoride’s negative effect on the thyroid gland and a possible connection to depression, weight gain, and other negative health effects. Researchers with the University of Kent in England examined thyroid activity for those in areas with fluoridated water and those without. The team examined 95 percent of the English population in 2012 and 2013 and found that high rates of underactive thyroid were 30% more likely in areas with high fluoride concentration. An underactive thyroid can lead to depression, weight gain, fatigue and aching muscles.
Question Everything, Come To Your Own Conclusions.
’ll never forget my Granddad’s last words to me just before he died. “Are you still holding the ladder?”
If you laughed at that joke, then first of all, I’ll save you a seat in hell. But secondly, you may have a higher-than-average IQ.
According to a study published in the Journal of Cognitive Processing, understanding and appreciating dark humor may signify a higher level of intelligence. So next time you laugh when you see a person tripping on a curb, you can put it down to your awesome intellect.
The study also found that those with the highest preference and for dark humor also had the highest verbal and nonverbal intelligence, as well as greater levels of emotional stability.
Knock knock
The type of humor used in the study was described as “a kind of humor that treats sinister subjects like death, disease, deformity, handicap or warfare with bitter amusement,” and states that it “is used to express the absurdity, insensitivity, paradox and cruelty of the modern world.”
The participants in the study were asked to read and rank various jokes,memes and were then asked questions about them. These questions related to how hard it was to understand the joke, how surprised they were by the joke’s content, whether the joke was novel to them and how interesting they found the joke. Those who enjoyed the darker jokes tended to be more highly educated.
The researchers reasoned that dark humor requires more brainpower to process how the jokes work compared to more standard gags. In particular, the researchers pointed out a construct of dark humor which they named “frame blending.”
This is where the premise of a joke is set up, or “framed,” in one way and then shifted into a different frame for comedic effect. Most humor is built this way —the incongruity of an unexpected twist in a joke leads to laughs.
But the “frame blending” of dark humor requires an extra step and more cognitive resources since the conscious mind would actually have to overcome its distaste for the inappropriate subject matter in order to get to the punchline of the joke.
Before you start working on your stand-up routine purely based on Helen Keller jokes, it’s worth mentioning the bottom end of the IQ bell curve also had a smaller but significantly pronounced tendency to laugh at the jokes presented in the study.
In fact it was only people of average intelligence that had trouble appreciating the darker jokes.
So next time someone tells you you’re being “inappropriate” because this is a “funeral, etc” you can remind them that it’s because of your higher than average IQ. Or your much lower than average IQ. Either way at least you’re not normal which I’m sure the person chastising you would agree with.
Why Are People Left- (or Right-) Handed? | Live Science
Lefties been a constant minority throughout human history.
Being a “righty” has historically carried distinct advantages over being “lefty”
The first time you picked up a crayon as a small child, you probably felt more comfortable and more natural drawing with one of your hands than the other one.
Excluding the small number of truly ambidextrous people — those who can use their right and left hands with equal ease — humans generally have a dominant hand (and side of their body) that they favor for everyday tasks.
Most people — about 85 to 90% — are right-handed, and there’s no population on Earth where left-handers are in the majority.
That uneven split has had some historic downsides for lefties. They’ve had to use scissors, desks, knives and notebooks that were designed with righties in mind. Many lefties were forced, against their natural inclination, to write with their right hands (including some famous examples like King George VI of England). They’ve been discriminated against and eyed with suspicion, as evidenced in the language used to describe lefties. “Right” in English obviously also means “correct.” The etymology of the word “sinister” can be traced back to the Latin word for “left.”
While the stigma against left-handedness has faded in most places, scientists are still confounded by the righty-lefty divide. Researchers are still trying to understand what makes people prefer one hand over the other and why righties dominate.
On an individual level, handedness might be determined at the earliest stages of development. Scientists reported in 2005 in the journal Neuropsychologia that fetuses will show a hand preference in the womb (by sucking the thumb of one hand), a proclivity that continues after they’re born.
While there’s no righty or lefty gene, DNA does seem to play a role in handedness. In a recent study published in Brain: A Journal of Neurology, researchers at the University of Oxford looked at the DNA of about 400,000 people in the U.K. and found that four regions of the genome are generally associated with left-handedness. Three out of these four regions were involved in brain development and structure. Some researchers hope that studying the biological differences between lefties and righties could shed light on how the brain develops specializations in its right and left hemispheres.
The right stuff
Trying to answer the question of handedness from an evolutionary perspective is also complicated. Researchers can detect handedness in the archaeological record by looking for certain anatomical traits in prehistoric skeletons, such as asymmetry in the size and density of arm bones, and by examining prehistoric tools.
“If you know how the tool was held and how it was used, then you can look at the wear traces” to determine if a lefty or righty used the tool, said Natalie Uomini, a senior scientist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History in Germany. Scientists can even look at the direction of diagonal scratches on fossilized teeth to see which hand people were using to tear off meat or animal hides in their mouths.
Righties have dominated for as far back in the archaeological record as researchers can see, about 500,000 years, Uomini said. Neanderthals, our now-extinct human cousins, were also strongly right-handed.
That makes humans pretty strange among animals. Several nonhuman species, such as the other great apes, are individually handed, but the split between righties and lefties is typically closer to 50-50.
What caused our extreme bias toward right-handedness to evolve and persist? From an evolutionary perspective, if right-handedness evolved because it had some kind of advantage, then you might expect left-handers to disappear completely, Uomini told Live Science. She added that there are some disadvantages to being left-handed, such as higher frequencies ofwork accidents. Researchers also linked left-handedness to learning disabilities, in a study published in 2013 in Brain: A Journal of Neurology.
But there’s a leading theory to explain why left-handers have maintained a constant minority: the fighting hypothesis.
“The idea is that in hand-to-hand combat, or in combat with weapons, there is an evolutionary advantage to being a minority left-hander,” Uomini said. “If you’re left-handed, you have a surprise advantage because most people are used to fighting against right-handers.” That lefty advantage has been shown in one-on-one sports like fencing, scientists reported in 2010 in the journal Laterality.
If that hypothesis is correct, it would mean that even though the downsides to left-handedness were significant enough to keep lefties in the minority, lefties’ advantage in combat at least gave them a fighting chance against eventual extinction.
Kids Preferred Books to Screens So School Bans iPads and Brings Back Textbooks
More research and more experts warn that excessive screen use isn’t good for kids AND for a variety of reasons (see 1, 2, 3, 4).
Silicon Valley parents (aka tech inventors) have been sending their kids to private low-tech schools for many years and limiting their use of tech in their homes. More recently it’s been reported they’ve been going to desperate extremes to shield their kids from screens – like spying on their nannies.
Unfortunately, many public schools have become “high tech” – and that, of course, requires excessive amounts of screen time. Thanks to Healthy Food House for reporting about one private school in Australia that traded in their tech so students could learn happily ever after:
Kids Preferred Books to Screens So School Bans iPads and Brings Back Textbooks
Nowadays, technology has become one of the crucial aspects of living, and youngsters are becoming growingly dependent on their high-tech devices. This made numerous schools incorporate them in the classroom, and numerous parents believe they are essential for modern education.
However, numerous scientists and doctors warn about their excessive use and the effects of the digital era.
As a result, Reddam House Private School, located in Sydney’s eastern suburbs, has officially banned the use of iPads and gone back to regular textbooks. The school claims that it was done due to the feedback they received from students, who prefer pages to screens.
The school has used these devices for the past five years, but found that they do not improve the technology skills of the students but hindered their learning instead.
According to principal Dave Pitcairn, students were distracted by messages and other alerts and maintained that they learned better when searching through a textbook, as they found it easier to research and take notes.
He explained that they had not entirely gone away from hard copy, as they kept year 11 and 12 hard copy. When students got to year 11 and made the comparison between digital and hard copy, they preferred the hard copy. Namely, they found it much easier to navigate through the textbook with the hard copy.
He maintains that students learn better the more faculties they use, the more senses they use in research and reading and making notes.
IPads were only introduced in 2010 and adopted into classrooms in the subsequent years, and the conflicting research between iPads and textbooks reveals that there are pros and cons to everything.
Students were also shown to engage better with a physical textbook and to comprehend better when learning from actual printed textbooks.
We should not forget the effects of the blue light emitted by these devices, which might lead to permanent eye damage, and their use has been linked to mental health issues and delayed language development, obesity, sleeping and attention problems, and more.
Some even note that the use of digital devices could cause addiction, depression, chronic stress, and irritability.
Question Is maternal fluoride exposure during pregnancy associated with childhood IQ in a Canadian cohort receiving optimally fluoridated water?
Findings In this prospective birth cohort study, fluoride exposure during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years.
Meaning Fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be associated with adverse effects on child intellectual development, indicating the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy.Abstract
Importance The potential neurotoxicity associated with exposure to fluoride, which has generated controversy about community water fluoridation, remains unclear.
Objective To examine the association between fluoride exposure during pregnancy and IQ scores in a prospective birth cohort.
Design, Setting, and Participants This prospective, multicenter birth cohort study used information from the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals cohort. Children were born between 2008 and 2012; 41% lived in communities supplied with fluoridated municipal water. The study sample included 601 mother-child pairs recruited from 6 major cities in Canada; children were between ages 3 and 4 years at testing. Data were analyzed between March 2017 and January 2019.
Exposures Maternal urinary fluoride (MUFSG), adjusted for specific gravity and averaged across 3 trimesters available for 512 pregnant women, as well as self-reported maternal daily fluoride intake from water and beverage consumption available for 400 pregnant women.
Main Outcomes and Measures Children’s IQ was assessed at ages 3 to 4 years using the Wechsler Primary and Preschool Scale of Intelligence-III. Multiple linear regression analyses were used to examine covariate-adjusted associations between each fluoride exposure measure and IQ score.
Results Of 512 mother-child pairs, the mean (SD) age for enrollment for mothers was 32.3 (5.1) years, 463 (90%) were white, and 264 children (52%) were female. Data on MUFSG concentrations, IQ scores, and complete covariates were available for 512 mother-child pairs; data on maternal fluoride intake and children’s IQ were available for 400 of 601 mother-child pairs. Women living in areas with fluoridated tap water (n = 141) compared with nonfluoridated water (n = 228) had significantly higher mean (SD) MUFSG concentrations (0.69 [0.42] mg/L vs 0.40 [0.27] mg/L; P = .001; to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.05263) and fluoride intake levels (0.93 [0.43] vs 0.30 [0.26] mg of fluoride per day; P = .001). Children had mean (SD) Full Scale IQ scores of 107.16 (13.26), range 52-143, with girls showing significantly higher mean (SD) scores than boys: 109.56 (11.96) vs 104.61 (14.09); P = .001. There was a significant interaction (P = .02) between child sex and MUFSG (6.89; 95% CI, 0.96-12.82) indicating a differential association between boys and girls. A 1-mg/L increase in MUFSG was associated with a 4.49-point lower IQ score (95% CI, −8.38 to −0.60) in boys, but there was no statistically significant association with IQ scores in girls (B= 2.40; 95% CI, −2.53 to 7.33). A 1-mg higher daily intake of fluoride among pregnant women was associated with a 3.66 lower IQ score (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.14) in boys and girls.
Conclusions and Relevance In this study, maternal exposure to higher levels of fluoride during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children aged 3 to 4 years. These findings indicate the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy.Introduction
For decades, community water fluoridation has been used to prevent tooth decay. Water fluoridation is supplied to about 66% of US residents, 38% of Canadian residents, and 3% of European residents.1 In fluoridated communities, fluoride from water and beverages made with tap water makes up 60% to 80% of daily fluoride intake in adolescents and adults.2
Fluoride crosses the placenta,3 and laboratory studies show that it accumulates in brain regions involved in learning and memory4 and alters proteins and neurotransmitters in the central nervous system.5 Higher fluoride exposure from drinking water has been associated with lower children’s intelligence in a meta-analysis6 of 27 epidemiologic studies and in studies7,8 including biomarkers of fluoride exposure. However, most prior studies were cross-sectional and conducted in regions with higher water fluoride concentrations (0.88-31.6 mg/L; to convert to millimoles per liter, multiply by 0.05263) than levels considered optimal (ie, 0.7 mg/L) in North America.9 Further, most studies did not measure exposure during fetal brain development. In a longitudinal birth cohort study involving 299 mother-child pairs in Mexico City, Mexico, a 1-mg/L increase in maternal urinary fluoride (MUF) concentration was associated with a 6-point (95% CI, −10.84 to −1.74) lower IQ score among school-aged children.10 In this same cohort, MUF was also associated with more attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder–like symptoms.11 Urinary fluoride concentrations among pregnant women living in fluoridated communities in Canada are similar to concentrations among pregnant women living in Mexico City.12 However, it is unclear whether fluoride exposure during pregnancy is associated with cognitive deficits in a population receiving optimally fluoridated water.
This study examined whether exposure to fluoride during pregnancy was associated with IQ scores in children in a Canadian birth cohort in which 40% of the sample was supplied with fluoridated municipal water.MethodsStudy Cohort
Between 2008 and 2011, the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) program recruited 2001 pregnant women from 10 cities across Canada. Women who could communicate in English or French, were older than 18 years, and were within the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were recruited from prenatal clinics. Participants were not recruited if there was a known fetal abnormality, if they had any medical complications, or if there was illicit drug use during pregnancy. Additional details are in the cohort profile description.13
A subset of 610 children in the MIREC Study was evaluated for the developmental phase of the study at ages 3 to 4 years; these children were recruited from 6 of 10 cities included in the original cohort: Vancouver, Montreal, Kingston, Toronto, Hamilton, and Halifax. Owing to budgetary restraints, recruitment was restricted to the 6 cities with the most participants who fell into the age range required for the testing during the data collection period. Of the 610 children, 601 (98.5%) completed neurodevelopmental testing; 254 (42.3%) of these children lived in nonfluoridated regions and 180 (30%) lived in fluoridated regions; for 167 (27.7%) fluoridation status was unknown owing to missing water data or reported not drinking tap water (Figure 1).
This study was approved by the research ethics boards at Health Canada, York University, and Indiana University. All women signed informed consent forms for both mothers and children.Maternal Urinary Fluoride Concentration
We used the mean concentrations of MUF measured in urine spot samples collected across each trimester of pregnancy at a mean (SD) of 11.57 (1.57), 19.11 (2.39), and 33.11 (1.50) weeks of gestation. Owing to the variability of urinary fluoride measurement and fluoride absorption during pregnancy,14 we only included women who had all 3 urine samples. In our previous work, these samples were moderately correlated; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) ranged from 0.37 to 0.40.12
Urinary fluoride concentration was analyzed at the Indiana University School of Dentistry using a modification of the hexamethyldisiloxane (Sigma Chemical Co) microdiffusion procedure15 and described in our previous work.12 Fluoride concentration could be measured to 0.02 mg/L. We excluded 2 samples (0.002%) because the readings exceeded the highest concentration standard (5 mg/L) and there was less certainty of these being representative exposure values.
To account for variations in urine dilution at the time of measurement, we adjusted MUF concentrations for specific gravity (SG) using the following equation: MUFSG = MUFi × (SGM-1)/(SGi-1), where MUFSG is the SG-adjusted fluoride concentration (in milligrams of fluoride per liter), MUFi is the observed fluoride concentration, SGi is the SG of the individual urine sample, and SGM is the median SG for the cohort.16 For comparison, we also adjusted MUF using the same creatinine adjustment method that was used in the 2017 Mexican cohort.10Water Fluoride Concentration
Water treatment plants measured fluoride levels daily if fluoride was added to municipal drinking water and weekly or monthly if fluoride was not added to water.12 We matched participants’ postal codes with water treatment plant zones, allowing an estimation of water fluoride concentration for each woman by averaging water fluoride concentrations (in milligrams per liter) during the duration of pregnancy. We only included women who reported drinking tap water during pregnancy.Daily Fluoride Intake in Mothers
We obtained information on consumption of tap water and other water-based beverages (tea and coffee) from a self-report questionnaire completed by mothers during the first and third trimesters. This questionnaire was used in the original MREC cohort and has not been validated. Also, for this study, we developed methods to estimate and calculate fluoride intake that have not yet been validated. To estimate fluoride intake from tap water consumed per day (milligrams per day), we multiplied each woman’s consumption of water and beverages by her water fluoride concentration (averaged across pregnancy) and multiplied by 0.2 (fluoride content for a 200-mL cup). Because black tea contains a high fluoride content (2.6 mg/L),17,18we also estimated the amount of fluoride consumed from black tea by multiplying each cup of black tea by 0.52 mg (mean fluoride content in a 200-mL cup of black tea made with deionized water) and added this to the fluoride intake variable. Green tea also contains varying levels of fluoride; therefore, we used the mean for the green teas listed by the US Department of Agriculture (1.935 mg/L).18 We multiplied each cup of green tea by 0.387 mg (fluoride content in a 200-mL cup of green tea made with deionized water) and added this to the fluoride intake variable.Primary Outcomes
We assessed children’s intellectual abilities with the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Third Edition. Full Scale IQ (FSIQ), a measure of global intellectual functioning, was the primary outcome. We also assessed verbal IQ (VIQ), representing verbal reasoning and comprehension, and performance IQ (PIQ), representing nonverbal reasoning, spatial processing, and visual-motor skills.Covariates
We selected covariates from a set of established factors associated with fluoride metabolism (eg, time of void and time since last void) and children’s intellectual abilities (eg, child sex, maternal age, gestational age, and parity) (Table 1). Mother’s race/ethnicity was coded as white or other, and maternal education was coded as either bachelor’s degree or higher or trade school diploma or lower. The quality of a child’s home environment was measured by the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME)–Revised Edition19on a continuous scale. We also controlled for city and, in some models, included self-reported exposure to secondhand smoke (yes/no) as a covariate.Statistical Analyses
In our primary analysis, we used linear regression analyses to estimate the associations between our 2 measures of fluoride exposure (MUFSG and fluoride intake) and children’s FSIQ scores. In addition to providing the coefficient corresponding to a 1-mg difference in fluoride exposure, we also estimated coefficients corresponding to a fluoride exposure difference spanning the 25th to 75th percentile range (which corresponds to a 0.33 mg/L and 0.62 mg F/d difference in MUFSG and fluoride intake, respectively) as well as the 10th to 90th percentile range (which corresponds to a 0.70 mg/L and 1.04 mg F/d difference in MUFSG and fluoride intake, respectively).
We retained a covariate in the model if its P value was less than .20 or its inclusion changed the regression coefficient of the variable associated factor by more than 10% in any of the IQ models. Regression diagnostics confirmed that there were no collinearity issues in any of the IQ models with MUFSGor fluoride intake (variance inflation factor <2 for all covariates). Residuals from each model had approximately normal distributions, and their Q-Q plots revealed no extreme outliers. Plots of residuals against fitted values did not suggest any assumption violations and there were no substantial influential observations as measured by Cook distance. Including quadratic or natural-log effects of MUFSGor fluoride intake did not significantly improve the regression models. Thus, we present the more easily interpreted estimates from linear regression models. Additionally, we examined separate models with 2 linear splines to test whether the MUFSGassociation significantly differed between lower and higher levels of MUFSG based on 3 knots, which were set at 0.5 mg/L (mean MUFSG), 0.8 mg/L (threshold seen in the Mexican birth cohort),10 and 1 mg/L (optimal concentration in the United States until 2015).20 For fluoride intake, knots were set at 0.4 mg (mean fluoride intake), 0.8 mg, and 1 mg (in accordance with MUFSG). We also examined sex-specific associations in all models by testing the interactions between child sex and each fluoride measure.
In sensitivity analyses, we tested whether the associations between MUFSG and IQ were confounded by maternal blood concentrations of lead,21mercury,21 manganese,21,22 perfluoro-octanoic acid,23 or urinary arsenic.24 We also conducted sensitivity analyses by removing IQ scores that were greater than or less than 2.5 standard deviations from the sample mean. Additionally, we examined whether using MUF adjusted for creatinine instead of SG affected the results.
In additional analyses, we examined the association between our 2 measures of fluoride exposure (MUFSG and fluoride intake) with VIQ and PIQ. Additionally, we examined whether water fluoride concentration was associated with FSIQ, VIQ, and PIQ scores.
For all analyses, statistical significance tests with a type I error rate of 5% were used to test sex interactions, while 95% confidence intervals were used to estimate uncertainty. Analyses were conducted using R software (the R Foundation).25 The P value level of significance was .05, and all tests were 2-sided.Results
For the first measure of fluoride exposure, MUFSG, 512 of 601 mother-child pairs (85.2%) who completed the neurodevelopmental visit had urinary fluoride levels measured at each trimester of the mother’s pregnancy and complete covariate data (Figure 1); 89 (14.8%) were excluded for missing MUFSG at 1 or more trimesters (n = 75) or missing 1 or more covariates included in the regression (n = 14) (Figure 1). Of the 512 mother-child pairs with MUFSG data (and all covariates), 264 children were female (52%).
For the second measure of fluoride exposure, fluoride intake from maternal questionnaire, data were available for 400 of the original 601 mother-child pairs (66.6%): 201 women (33.4%) were excluded for reporting not drinking tap water (n = 59), living outside of the predefined water treatment plant zone (n = 108), missing beverage consumption data (n = 20), or missing covariate data (n = 14) (Figure 1).
Children had mean FSIQ scores in the average range (population normed) (mean [SD], 107.16 [13.26], range = 52-143), with girls (109.56 [11.96]) showing significantly higher scores than boys (104.61 [14.09]; P < .001) (Table 1). The demographic characteristics of the 512 mother-child pairs included in the primary analysis were not substantially different from the original MIREC cohort or subset of mother-child pairs without 3 urine samples (eTable 1 in the Supplement). Of the 400 mother-child pairs with fluoride intake data (and all covariates), 118 of 238 (50%) in the group living in a nonfluoridated region were female and 83 of 162 (51%) in the group living in a fluoridated region were female.Fluoride Measurements
The median MUFSG concentration was 0.41 mg/L (range, 0.06-2.44 mg/L). Mean MUFSG concentration was significantly higher among women (n = 141) who lived in communities with fluoridated drinking water (0.69 [0.42] mg/L) compared with women (n=228) who lived in communities without fluoridated drinking water (0.40 [0.27] mg/L; P < .001) (Table 1; Figure 2).
The median estimated fluoride intake was 0.39 mg per day (range, 0.01-2.65 mg). As expected, the mean (SD) fluoride intake was significantly higher for women (162 [40.5%]) who lived in communities with fluoridated drinking water (mean [SD], 0.93 [0.43] mg) than women (238 [59.5%]) who lived in communities without fluoridated drinking water (0.30 [0.26] mg; P < .001) (Table 1; Figure 2). The MUFSG was moderately correlated with fluoride intake (r = 0.49; P < .001) and water fluoride concentration (r = 0.37; P < .001).Maternal Urinary Fluoride Concentrations and IQ
Before covariate adjustment, a significant interaction (P for interaction = .03) between MUFSG and child sex (B = 7.24; 95% CI, 0.81- 13.67) indicated that MUFSG was associated with FSIQ in boys; an increase of 1 mg/L MUFSG was associated with a 5.01 (95% CI, −9.06 to −0.97; P = .02) lower FSIQ score in boys. In contrast, MUFSG was not significantly associated with FSIQ score in girls (B = 2.23; 95% CI, −2.77 to 7.23; P = .38) (Table 2).
Adjusting for covariates, a significant interaction (Pfor interaction = .02) between child sex and MUFSG(B = 6.89; 95% CI, 0.96-12.82) indicated that an increase of 1 mg/L of MUFSG was associated with a 4.49 (95% CI, −8.38 to −0.60; P = .02) lower FSIQ score for boys. An increase from the 10th to 90th percentile of MUFSG was associated with a 3.14 IQ decrement among boys (Table 2; Figure 3). In contrast, MUFSG was not significantly associated with FSIQ score in girls (B = 2.43; 95% CI, −2.51 to 7.36; P = .33).Estimated Fluoride Intake and IQ
A 1-mg increase in fluoride intake was associated with a 3.66 (95% CI, −7.16 to −0.15; P = .04) lower FSIQ score among boys and girls (Table 2; Figure 3). The interaction between child sex and fluoride intake was not statistically significant (B = 1.17; 95% CI, −4.08 to 6.41; P for interaction = .66).Sensitivity Analyses
Adjusting for lead, mercury, manganese, perfluorooctanoic acid, or arsenic concentrations did not substantially change the overall estimates of MUFSG for boys or girls (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Use of MUF adjusted for creatinine did not substantially alter the associations with FSIQ (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Including time of void and time since last void did not substantially change the regression coefficient of MUFSG among boys or girls.
Estimates for determining the association between MUFSG and PIQ showed a similar pattern with a statistically significant interaction between MUFSGand child sex (P for interaction = .007). An increase of 1 mg/L MUFSG was associated with a 4.63 (95% CI, −9.01 to −0.25; P = .04) lower PIQ score in boys, but the association was not statistically significant in girls (B = 4.51; 95% CI, −1.02 to 10.05; P = .11). An increase of 1 mg/L MUFSG was not significantly associated with VIQ in boys (B = −2.85; 95% CI, −6.65 to 0.95; P = .14) or girls (B = 0.55; 95% CI, −4.28 to 5.37; P = .82); the interaction between MUFSG and child sex was not statistically significant (P for interaction = .25) (eTable 3 in the Supplement).
Consistent with the findings on estimated maternal fluoride intake, increased water fluoride concentration (per 1 mg/L) was associated with a 5.29 (95% CI, −10.39 to −0.19) lower FSIQ score among boys and girls and a 13.79 (95% CI, −18.82 to −7.28) lower PIQ score (eTable 4 in the Supplement).Discussion
Using a prospective Canadian birth cohort, we found that estimated maternal exposure to higher fluoride levels during pregnancy was associated with lower IQ scores in children. This association was supported by converging findings from 2 measures of fluoride exposure during pregnancy. A difference in MUFSG spanning the interquartile range for the entire sample (ie, 0.33 mg/L), which is roughly the difference in MUFSG concentration for pregnant women living in a fluoridated vs a nonfluoridated community, was associated with a 1.5-point IQ decrement among boys. An increment of 0.70 mg/L in MUFSG concentration was associated with a 3-point IQ decrement in boys; about half of the women living in a fluoridated community have a MUFSG equal to or greater than 0.70 mg/L. These results did not change appreciably after controlling for other key exposures such as lead, arsenic, and mercury.
To our knowledge, this study is the first to estimate fluoride exposure in a large birth cohort receiving optimally fluoridated water. These findings are consistent with that of a Mexican birth cohort study that reported a 6.3 decrement in IQ in preschool-aged children compared with a 4.5 decrement for boys in our study for every 1 mg/L of MUF.10 The findings of the current study are also concordant with ecologic studies that have shown an association between higher levels of fluoride exposure and lower intellectual abilities in children.7,8,26Collectively, these findings support that fluoride exposure during pregnancy may be associated with neurocognitive deficits.
In contrast with the Mexican study,10 the association between higher MUFSG concentrations and lower IQ scores was observed only in boys but not in girls. Studies of fetal and early childhood fluoride exposure and IQ have rarely examined differences by sex; of those that did, some reported no differences by sex.10,27–29 Most rat studies have focused on fluoride exposure in male rats,30 although 1 study31 showed that male rats were more sensitive to neurocognitive effects of fetal exposure to fluoride. Testing whether boys are potentially more vulnerable to neurocognitive effects associated with fluoride exposure requires further investigation, especially considering that boys have a higher prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders such as ADHD, learning disabilities, and intellectual disabilities.32 Adverse effects of early exposure to fluoride may manifest differently for girls and boys, as shown with other neurotoxicants.33–36
The estimate of maternal fluoride intake during pregnancy in this study showed that an increase of 1 mg of fluoride was associated with a decrease of 3.7 IQ points across boys and girls. The finding observed for fluoride intake in both boys and girls may reflect postnatal exposure to fluoride, whereas MUF primarily captures prenatal exposure. Importantly, we excluded women who reported that they did not drink tap water and matched water fluoride measurements to time of pregnancy when estimating maternal fluoride intake. None of the fluoride concentrations measured in municipal drinking water were greater than the maximum acceptable concentration of 1.5 mg/L set by Health Canada; most (94.3%) were lower than the 0.7 mg/L level considered optimal.37
Water fluoridation was introduced in the 1950s to prevent dental caries before the widespread use of fluoridated dental products. Originally, the US Public Health Service set the optimal fluoride concentrations in water from 0.7 to 1.2 mg/L to achieve the maximum reduction in tooth decay and minimize the risk of enamel fluorosis.38 Fluorosis, or mottling, is a symptom of excess fluoride intake from any source occurring during the period of tooth development. In 2012, 68% of adolescents had very mild to severe enamel fluorosis.39 The higher prevalence of enamel fluorosis, especially in fluoridated areas,40 triggered renewed concern about excessive ingestion of fluoride. In 2015, in response to fluoride overexposure and rising rates of enamel fluorosis,39,41,42 the US Public Health Service recommended an optimal fluoride concentration of 0.7 mg/L, in line with the recommended level of fluoride added to drinking water in Canada to prevent caries. However, the beneficial effects of fluoride predominantly occur at the tooth surface after the teeth have erupted.43 Therefore, there is no benefit of systemic exposure to fluoride during pregnancy for the prevention of caries in offspring.44 The evidence showing an association between fluoride exposure and lower IQ scores raises a possible new concern about cumulative exposures to fluoride during pregnancy, even among pregnant women exposed to optimally fluoridated water.Strengths and Limitations
Our study has several strengths and limitations. First, urinary fluoride has a short half-life (approximately 5 hours) and depends on behaviors that were not controlled in our study, such as consumption of fluoride-free bottled water or swallowing toothpaste prior to urine sampling. We minimized this limitation by using 3 serial urine samples and tested for time of urine sample collection and time since last void, but these variables did not alter our results. Second, although higher maternal ingestion of fluoride corresponds to higher fetal plasma fluoride levels,45 even serial maternal urinary spot samples may not precisely represent fetal exposure throughout pregnancy. Third, while our analyses controlled for a comprehensive set of covariates, we did not have maternal IQ data. However, there is no evidence suggesting that fluoride exposure differs as a function of maternal IQ; our prior study did not observe a significant association between MUF levels and maternal education level.12 Moreover, a greater proportion of women living in fluoridated communities (124 [76%]) had a university-level degree compared with women living in nonfluoridated communities (158 [66%]). Nonetheless, despite our comprehensive array of covariates included, this observational study design could not address the possibility of other unmeasured residual confounding. Fourth, fluoride intake did not measure actual fluoride concentration in tap water in the participant’s home; Toronto, for example, has overlapping water treatment plants servicing the same household. Similarly, our fluoride intake estimate only considered fluoride from beverages; it did not include fluoride from other sources such as dental products or food. Furthermore, fluoride intake data were limited by self-report of mothers’ recall of beverage consumption per day, which was sampled at 2 points of pregnancy, and we lacked information regarding specific tea brand.17,18 In addition, our methods of estimating maternal fluoride intake have not been validated; however, we show construct validity with MUF. Fifth, this study did not include assessment of postnatal fluoride exposure or consumption. However, our future analyses will assess exposure to fluoride in the MIREC cohort in infancy and early childhood.Conclusions
In this prospective birth cohort study from 6 cities in Canada, higher levels of fluoride exposure during pregnancy were associated with lower IQ scores in children measured at age 3 to 4 years. These findings were observed at fluoride levels typically found in white North American women. This indicates the possible need to reduce fluoride intake during pregnancy.Back to topArticle Information
Corresponding Author: Christine Till, PhD, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada (ctill@yorku.ca).
Author Contributions: Ms Green and Dr Till had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Green, Lanphear, Martinez-Mier, Ayotte, Muckle, Till.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Green, Flora, Martinez-Mier, Muckle, Till.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Green, Lanphear, Martinez-Mier, Ayotte, Till.
Supervision: Flora, Till.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lanphear reports serving as an expert witness in an upcoming case involving the US Environmental Protection Agency and water fluoridation, but will not receive any payment. Dr Hornung reported personal fees from York University during the conduct of the study. Dr Martinez-Mier reported grants from the National Institutes of Health during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support: This study was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Science (grant R21ES027044). The Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals Study was supported by the Chemicals Management Plan at Health Canada, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment, and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (grant MOP-81285).
Additional Contributions: We thank Nicole Lupien, BA, Stéphanie Bastien, BA, and Romy-Leigh McMaster, BA (Centre de Recherche, CHU Sainte-Justine), and the MIREC Study Coordinating Staff for their administrative support, as well as the MIREC study group of investigators and site investigators; Alain Leblanc, PhD, Insitut National de Santé Publique du Québec, for measuring the urinary creatinine; Christine Buckley, MSc, Frank Lippert, PhD, and Prithvi Chandrappa, MSc (Indiana University School of Dentistry), for their analysis of urinary fluoride at the Indiana University School of Dentistry; Maddy Blazer, BA, York University, for assisting with preparation of the manuscript; Linda Farmus, MA, York University, for statistical consulting; and John Minnery, PhD, Public Health Ontario, for his valuable engineering advice regarding water fluoridation. We also thank staff affiliated with community water treatment plants who helped to provide water fluoride data for this study. No compensation was received from a funding sponsor for these contributions.References1.Public Health Agency of Canada. The state of Community Water Fluoridation (CWF) across Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/services/health/publications/healthy-living/community-water-fluoridation-across-canada-2017.html. Accessed June 15, 2018.2.United States Environmental Protection Agency. Fluoride: Relative Source Contribution Analysis. Vol 820-R-10-0. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-03/documents/comment-response-report-peer-review-fluoride-exposure.pdf. Published 2010. Accessed May 18, 2017.3.Ron M, Singer L, Menczel J, Kidroni G. Fluoride concentration in amniotic fluid and fetal cord and maternal plasma. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1986;21(4):213-218. doi:10.1016/0028-2243(86)90018-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref4.Pereira M, Dombrowski PA, Losso EM, Chioca LR, Da Cunha C, Andreatini R. Memory impairment induced by sodium fluoride is associated with changes in brain monoamine levels. Neurotox Res. 2011;19(1):55-62. doi:10.1007/s12640-009-9139-5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref5.Jiang C, Zhang S, Liu H, et al. Low glucose utilization and neurodegenerative changes caused by sodium fluoride exposure in rat’s developmental brain. Neuromolecular Med. 2014;16(1):94-105. doi:10.1007/s12017-013-8260-zPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref6.Choi AL, Sun G, Zhang Y, Grandjean P. Developmental fluoride neurotoxicity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(10):1362-1368. doi:10.1289/ehp.1104912PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref7.Das K, Mondal NK. Dental fluorosis and urinary fluoride concentration as a reflection of fluoride exposure and its impact on IQ level and BMI of children of Laxmisagar, Simlapal Block of Bankura District, W.B., India. Environ Monit Assess. 2016;188(4):218. doi:10.1007/s10661-016-5219-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref8.Valdez Jiménez L, López Guzmán OD, Cervantes Flores M, et al. In utero exposure to fluoride and cognitive development delay in infants. Neurotoxicology. 2017;59:65-70. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2016.12.011PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref9.U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Panel on Community Water Fluoridation. U.S. public health service recommendation for fluoride concentration in drinking water for the prevention of dental caries. Public Health Rep. 2015;130(1):21-28. doi:10.1177/003335491513000408PubMedGoogle Scholar10.Bashash M, Thomas D, Hu H, et al. Prenatal fluoride exposure and cognitive outcomes in children at 4 and 6 – 12 years of age in Mexico. Enviromental Heal Perspect. 2017;1:1-12.PubMedGoogle Scholar11.Bashash M, Marchand M, Hu H, et al. Prenatal fluoride exposure and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in children at 6-12 years of age in Mexico City. Environ Int. 2018;121(Pt 1):658-666. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.09.017PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref12.Till C, Green R, Grundy JG, et al. Community water fluoridation and urinary fluoride concentrations in a national sample of pregnant women in Canada. Environ Health Perspect. 2018;126(10):107001. doi:10.1289/EHP3546PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref13.Arbuckle TE, Fraser WD, Fisher M, et al. Cohort profile: the maternal-infant research on environmental chemicals research platform. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013;27(4):415-425. doi:10.1111/ppe.12061PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref14.Opydo-Szymaczek J, Borysewicz-Lewicka M. Urinary fluoride levels for assessment of fluoride exposure of pregnant women in Poznan, Poland. Fluoride. 2005;38(4):312-317.Google Scholar15.Martínez-Mier EA, Cury JA, Heilman JR, et al. Development of gold standard ion-selective electrode-based methods for fluoride analysis. Caries Res. 2011;45(1):3-12. doi:10.1159/000321657PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref16.Macpherson S, Arbuckle TE, Fisher M. Adjusting urinary chemical biomarkers for hydration status during pregnancy. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2018;28:481-493. doi:10.1038/s41370-018-0043-zGoogle Scholar17.Waugh DT, Potter W, Limeback H, Godfrey M. Risk Assessment of fluoride intake from tea in the Republic of Ireland and its implications for public health and water fluoridation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(3):259. doi:10.3390/ijerph13030259PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref18.USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center Agricultural Research Service. USDA National Fluoride Database of Selected Beverages and Foods. http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/80400525/Data/Fluoride/F02.pdf. Published 2005. Accessed May 18, 2017.19.Caldwell B, Bradley R. Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME): Revised Edition. Little Rock, Arkansas: University of Arkansas; 1984.20.Rabb-Waytowich D. Water fluoridation in Canada: past and present. J Can Dent Assoc. 2009;75(6):451-454.PubMedGoogle Scholar21.Arbuckle TE, Liang CL, Morisset A-S, et al; MIREC Study Group. Maternal and fetal exposure to cadmium, lead, manganese and mercury: the MIREC study. Chemosphere. 2016;163:270-282. doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.08.023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref22.Dion L-A, Saint-Amour D, Sauvé S, Barbeau B, Mergler D, Bouchard MF. Changes in water manganese levels and longitudinal assessment of intellectual function in children exposed through drinking water. Neurotoxicology. 2018;64:118-125. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2017.08.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref23.Vélez MP, Arbuckle TE, Fraser WD. Maternal exposure to perfluorinated chemicals and reduced fecundity: the MIREC study. Hum Reprod. 2015;30(3):701-709. doi:10.1093/humrep/deu350PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref24.Ettinger AS, Arbuckle TE, Fisher M, et al; MIREC Study Group. Arsenic levels among pregnant women and newborns in Canada: results from the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) cohort. Environ Res. 2017;153:8-16. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2016.11.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref25.Team RCR. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation; 2013.26.Choi AL, Zhang Y, Sun G, et al. Association of lifetime exposure to fluoride and cognitive functions in Chinese children: a pilot study. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2015;47:96-101. doi:10.1016/j.ntt.2014.11.001PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref27.Lu Y, Sun ZR, Wu LN, Wang X, Lu W, Liu SS. Effect of high-fluoride water on intelligence in children. Fluoride. 2000;33(2):74-78.Google Scholar28.Zhao LB, Liang GH, Zhang DN, Wu XR. Effect of high fluoride water supply on children’s intelligence. Fluoride. 1996;29(4):190-192.Google Scholar29.Xiang Q, Liang Y, Chen L, et al. Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children’s intelligence. Fluoride. 2003;36(2):84-94.Google Scholar30.McPherson CA, Zhang G, Gilliam R, et al. An evaluation of neurotoxicity following fluoride exposure from gestational through adult ages in Long-Evans hooded rats. Neurotox Res. 2018;34(4):781-798. doi:10.1007/s12640-018-9870-xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref31.Mullenix PJ, Denbesten PK, Schunior A, Kernan WJ. Neurotoxicity of sodium fluoride in rats. Neurotoxicol Teratol. 1995;17(2):169-177. doi:10.1016/0892-0362(94)00070-TPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref32.Boyle CA, Boulet S, Schieve LA, et al. Trends in the prevalence of developmental disabilities in US Children, 1997–2008. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/05/19/peds.2010-2989. Published 2011. Accessed May 30, 2017.33.Gochfeld M. Sex differences in human and animal toxicology. Toxicol Pathol. 2017;45(1):172-189. doi:10.1177/0192623316677327PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref34.Arbuckle TE. Are there sex and gender differences in acute exposure to chemicals in the same setting? Environ Res. 2006;101(2):195-204. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2005.08.015PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref35.Desrochers-Couture M, Oulhote Y, Arbuckle TE, et al. Prenatal, concurrent, and sex-specific associations between blood lead concentrations and IQ in preschool Canadian children. Environ Int. 2018;121(Pt 2):1235-1242. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.10.043PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref36.Evans SF, Kobrosly RW, Barrett ES, et al. Prenatal bisphenol A exposure and maternally reported behavior in boys and girls. Neurotoxicology. 2014;45:91-99. doi:10.1016/j.neuro.2014.10.003PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref37.Health Canada. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality: Guideline Technical Document. Ottawa, Ontario: Ottawa, Ontario, Air and Climate Change Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada; 2010.38.Martinez-Mier EA, Shone DB, Buckley CM, Ando M, Lippert F, Soto-Rojas AE. Relationship between enamel fluorosis severity and fluoride content. J Dent. 2016;46:42-46. doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2016.01.007PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref39.Wiener RC, Shen C, Findley P, Tan X, Sambamoorthi U. Dental fluorosis over time: a comparison of national health and nutrition examination survey data from 2001-2002 and 2011-2012. J Dent Hyg. 2018;92(1):23-29.PubMedGoogle Scholar40.National Research Council (NRC). Fluoride in drinking water: a scientific review of EPA’s standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.41.Beltrán-Aguilar ED, Barker L, Dye BA. Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis in the United States, 1999-2004. NCHS Data Brief. 2010;(53):1-8.PubMedGoogle Scholar42.Warren JJ, Kanellis MJ, Levy SM. Fluorosis of the primary dentition: what does it mean for permanent teeth? J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130(3):347-356. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0204PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref43.Limeback H. A re-examination of the pre-eruptive and post-eruptive mechanism of the anti-caries effects of fluoride: is there any anti-caries benefit from swallowing fluoride? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1999;27(1):62-71. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0528.1999.tb01993.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref44.Takahashi R, Ota E, Hoshi K, et al. Fluoride supplementation (with tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) in pregnant women for preventing dental caries in the primary teeth of their children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;10(10):CD011850. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011850.pub2PubMedGoogle Scholar45.Gedalia I, Zukerman H, Leventhal H. Fluoride content of teeth and bones of human fetuses: in areas with about 1 ppm of fluoride in drinking water. J Am Dent Assoc. 1965;71(5):1121-1123. doi:10.14219/jada.archive.1965.0051
Emotion is a wide range of observable behaviors, expressed feelings, and changes in the state of mind and body. Feelings, emotions, our likes, and dislikes, give our individual lives meaning and cause us to be happy or unhappy, satisfied or dissatisfied. Intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Emotional Intelligence is the ability to deal with other people successfully. By understanding one’s own feelings they can understand and evaluate others .According to Daniel Goleman, there are five main elements of emotional intelligence.
Self-Awareness
Self-Regulation
Motivation
Empathy
Social Skills
Self-Awareness
This is the ability to recognize and understand ones moods, motivations, and abilities. Also understanding the effects they have on others. Goleman says to achieve a state of complete self-awareness, an individual must be able to monitor their emotional state and identify their emotions. Traits that prove an individual as emotionally mature include: confidence, the ability to laugh at ones self and their mistakes, and the awareness of how you are perceived by others. Example: By reading the reaction of someone else, you know how you are perceived by them.
(Goleman)
Self-Regulation This is the ability to control ones impulses, the ability to think before you speak/react, and the ability to express yourself appropriately. Goleman defines emotional maturity in this component as being able to take responsibility for your actions, being able to adapt to change, and the ability to respond appropriately to other peoples irrational emotions or behavior. Example: If someone is screaming at you, you know that they are not always angry at you. You have the ability to understand they may be angry at a particular situation and feel they need to take it out on someone. You do not take this personally or react angry back.
(Goleman) Motivation This is having an interest in learning and self-improvement. It is having the strength to keep going when there are obstacles in life. It is setting goals and following through with them. Goleman would define an emotional mature individual in this category to have traits such as having initiative and the commitment to complete a task, and having perseverance in the face of adversity. Example: One who chooses internal motivation driven goals instead of exterior motivation driven goals. Internal motivation driven goals are things such as earning a college degree or becoming a healthier person; things that show self improvement. Exterior motivation driven goals are things that flaunt wealth or status. This is setting goals such as having the next newest and nicest car. Example: If a student fails a class, they see this as an opportunity to learn and retake the class without self doubt. They do not let failure get in the way of their goal. (Goleman)
Empathy This is the ability to understand other peoples emotions and reactions. Empathy can only be achieved if self-awareness is achieved. Goleman believes that one must be able to understand themselves before they can understand others. Emotional maturity in this category includes people having traits such as perception of others, being interested in other peoples worries and concerns, the ability to anticipate someones emotional response to a problem or situation, and the understanding of societies norms and why people act the way they do. Example: Being able to understand cope with someone elses hardships or sadness. When you fully understand yourself and why you feel the things you feel, you can understand other peoples even if they are different than you. (Goleman)
Social Skills This is the ability to pick up on jokes, sarcasm, customer service, maintaining friendships and relationships, and finding common ground with others. Goleman states that emotional maturity in this component defines someone who has good communication skills, good time management, the ability to be a leader or manage a group of people, and the ability to resolve difficult situations or conflicts using negotiation or persuasion. Example: Someone in a “boss” position usually has a good grasp on handling all different types of personalities. If two of their employees are having a conflict, they can find common ground and resolve the issue in a civilized and fair manner. (Goleman)
We all know that the corporate media has no interest in shedding light on certain societal issues, and it seems that many people are awakening to the reality that if we want to know the truth, we have to go out and find it for ourselves.
Censorship of the news is as old as government itself, and for last 40 years, watchdog groups have kept a record of each year’s most censored, under-reported on, and important issues.
Project Censored keeps this tradition alive with its end of year report.
“The presentation of the Top 25 stories of 2017-2018 extends the tradition originated by Professor Carl Jensen and his Sonoma State University students in 1976, while reflecting how the expansion of the Project to include affiliate faculty and students from campuses across North America has made the Project even more diverse and robust.
“During this year’s cycle, Project Censored reviewed over 300 Validated Independent News stories (VINs) representing the collective efforts of 351 college students and 15 professors from 13 college and university campuses that participated in the Project’s Campus Affiliates Program during the past year.” [Source]
The following top 5 censored stories as excerpted from Project Censored. Serious food for thought, for those out there paying attention:
5. Washington Post Bans Employees from Using Social Media to Criticize Sponsors
In June 2017, Andrew Beaujon reported in the Washingtonian on a new policy at the Washington Post that prohibits the Post’s employees from conduct on social media that “adversely affects The Post’s customers,… – Read more
4. How Big Wireless Convinced Us Cell Phones and Wi-Fi are Safe
A Kaiser Permanente study (published December 2017 in Scientific Reports) conducted controlled research testing on hundreds of pregnant women in the San Francisco Bay area and found that those who had been exposed… – Read more
3. World’s Richest One Percent Continue to Become Wealthier
In November 2017, the Guardian reported on Credit Suisse’s global wealth report, which found that the richest 1 percent of the world now owns more than half of the world’s wealth. As… – Read more
2. “Open-Source” Intelligence Secrets Sold to Highest Bidders
In March 2017, WikiLeaks released Vault 7, which consisted of some 8,761 leaked confidential Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) documents and files from 2013 to 2016, detailing the agency’s vast arsenal… – Read more
1. Global Decline in Rule of Law as Basic Human Rights Diminish
A 2018 survey conducted in response to global concerns about rising authoritarianism and nationalism shows a major decrease in nations adhering to basic human rights.
As the Guardian reported, the World Justice Project… – Read more
The World We Live In 