Tag: IQ

Low IQ in the Information Age

Hat tip Uncola

Guest post by the Zman

Watching the cable news channels Thursday night as they covered the attack on the Dallas police by the George Soros funded Black Live Matter, I was fascinated by some of the “man on the street” segments. The blacks they interviewed were not angry ghetto rats ready to break out with chants of “kill the pigs!” Instead, they were articulate, middle-class blacks more concerned with posting their selfie on Faceberg than the shootings. They went to the riot because it was the cool thing to do and all of a sudden it was really cool so they captured the moment with a selfie.

That’s the thing you can’t help but notice about this black anger spasm is that it is almost exclusively among middle-class blacks. In fact, it is among the blacks who are the greatest beneficiaries of the Civil Rights movement. The angry black guy today is most likely to be a mulatto at an Ivy League college, or in a government position, by the magic of affirmative action. Barack Obama, instead of being thankful for having not been born in Africa, walks around with a chip on his shoulder about race. He and the Mulatto Mafia that surrounds him are largely responsible for BLM.

Continue reading “Low IQ in the Information Age”

ARE WE BORN WITH AN IQ?

We’ve had many a discussion about IQ on this blog. The chart below seems to provide an unequivocal conclusion. The law of large numbers always wins. The good old statistical conclusions from normal distribution graphs are pretty clear. On an individual basis, there will be really smart white and black people. There also will be really dumb white and black people. But, according to this chart, the overall distribution of IQs shows whites having an average of 100 and blacks having an average of about 83.

When I see results like this, I ask why.

An IQ test measures intelligence based upon a myriad of questions. The test was created by humans. How much of my IQ score is simply based upon my genes? Are we born with an IQ score already ingrained? Does the white race automatically have a 17 point advantage over the black race?

Or, is IQ a function of education, upbringing, environment, and individual motivation? Are overall white IQ scores higher because they are more likely to be raised in two parent households and have access to better educational opportunities? Are overall black IQ scores lower because the majority are raised in one parent households and have less educational opportunities?

The question seems to be nature versus nurture. What do you think?


The Inevitability of Eugenics: A Race of Self-Designing Tinker Toys

Guest Post by Fred Reed

Mention of eugenics inevitably results in whoops of horror, gnashing of hair, rending of teeth, and discussion of Hitler. Occasionally, however, matters of importance merit discussion even if they lead to Hitler. If by “eugenics” is meant both the selective breeding of humans and genetic manipulation of ourselves, we will shortly have to discuss it, Fuehrer or no Fuehrer. Google on “Designer babies.”

To the gnashers and renders, eugenics always involves the killing of genetically inferior children, preferably by uniformed Nazis. A better term for this might be “first-degree murder.” Usually it would be.

On the other hand, medical ambiguities exist. What does one do in the case of genetically-related anencephaly? These babies, literally having no brain, can perhaps be kept alive forever at enormous expense, but nobody is there. What is the correct policy?

Eugenics can mean many things other than the killing of defective babies. Many of us already practice an informal, jackleg, shade-tree eugenics. If kids at CalTech, who are very highly selected for intelligence, marry each other partly in hopes of having intelligent children, this is eugenics. How terrible is it? (Oh god,I shouldn’t have said that. We’ll end up with federally mandated genetic affirmative action.)

Continue reading “The Inevitability of Eugenics: A Race of Self-Designing Tinker Toys”

Missouri: Taking the National Temperture

Guest Post by

 

It warms the heart of a curmudgeon: As I suppose we all have heard by now,  black semi-pro football players at the University  (sic) of Missouri have forced white officials to resign because of “White Privilege.” This Privilege is a great upsettance to them.

White Privilege is real, of course. It is a combination of high genetic intelligence, studiousness, a tendency toward intellectual exploration, the capacity to organize, sustained hard work, and conscientiousness. There is a reason why whites design Mars landers and black athletes do not.

To make this point clearly (See? It is my tendency toward intellectual exploration), let us consider the following questions:

How many of the black athletes, or black radicals at Missouri, or anywhere, have any business being at a university? How many have IQs below ninety? How many are way below? How many are studying real subjects, such as chemistry, languages, philosophy, literature, or history—as distinct from subjects for the enfeebled, Black Studies, Sociology, Education, and Breathing for Credit?

How many of the jocks can read? In many universities the black athletes are kept in special dorms and get high grades for courses they never attend and can’t spell. Is that happening in Missouri? Can we see their SATs? No one, I promise, will want to check.

Stray thought: If universities accepted only those with intelligence and interest, the noise level would drop appreciably. I am for it.

But the antics at Missouri are only one instance of a far larger disease. Daily the country ties itself in knots to keep blacks happy, which is impossible—to placate them, to soothe their disturbances, give them everything they want but can’t or won’t earn. Nothing satisfies them. They shut down political meetings, loot shoe stress, burn cities. We back away. Always we back away.

Continue reading “Missouri: Taking the National Temperture”

Diversity — or Meritocracy?

Guest Post by Patrick J. Buchanan

A voracious and eclectic reader, President Nixon instructed me to send him every few weeks 10 articles he would not normally see that were on interesting or important issues.

In 1971, I sent him an essay from The Atlantic, with reviews by Time and Newsweek, by Dr. Richard Herrnstein. My summary read:

“Basically, (Herrnstein) demonstrates that heredity, rather than environment, determines intelligence — and that the more we proceed to provide everyone with a ‘good environment’ the more heredity will become the dominant factor … in their success and social standing.”

In a 1994 obituary, The New York Times wrote that Herrnstein, though he “was often harassed … and his classes at Harvard were disrupted,” never recanted his heresy. He wrote “I.Q. and Meritocracy” in 1973, and in 1994 co-authored with Charles Murray the hugely controversial “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life.”

What brought this back was a piece buried in the “B” section of The Washington Post about the incoming class at Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology in Fairfax County.

TJ High is an elite magnet school that admits students based on their academic aptitude and achievement and offers “courses in differential equations, artificial intelligence and neuroscience.”

According to the Post, 70 percent of the incoming freshmen are Asians, the highest percentage ever for a school already 60 percent Asian. Ten years ago, the student body was 32 percent Asian.

White students make up 29 percent of the school today, but are only 22 percent of the entering class. The class of 2019 will have 346 Asians and 102 whites, but only 12 Hispanics and 8 blacks.

Of the 2,841 applicants for 2015, one in four Asians was admitted and one in eight whites, but only one in 16 Hispanics and one in 25 black students. Of low-income students, only one in 33 applicants got in.

What do these numbers tell us?

Thomas Jefferson High is a meritocracy where the ideological dictates of “diversity” do not apply. Second, Asian students, based either on nature or nurture, heredity or environment, or both, are, as of today, superior in the hard sciences to other ethnic groups.

Continue reading “Diversity — or Meritocracy?”

The 145 Solution

Guest Post by Fred Reed

Sapience, not Sentience

In the modest and unassuming manner natural to this column, I advance a small proposal for the emendation of such tatters of the Constitution as can be found: For voting in federal elections, we should employ a literacy test to disenfranchise the majority of the population, to the infinite betterment of the country. This wise move should be accompanied by an increase in the voting age to twenty-five.

The necessity cannot be denied. Consider the following:

Forty-three percent of Americans think Saddam Hussein was personally involved in 9/11.

Sixty-four percent cannot name the three branches of the federal government.

Fourteen percent are illiterate.

Twenty-six percent think the sun goes around the earth.

These numbers may be understood in various ways. To a curmudgeon, who obtains a sour satisfaction from the endless repetition of human folly, they provide the satisfactions of confirmation.  We all enjoy being right. In practical terms, they mean that democracy, or our mild approximation thereto, is a sham, a fraud, an impossibility, and a bad idea. No one so blankly ignorant, so mentally without furniture, so muddle-headed, limited, and barren, should be allowed within hailing range of a voting booth.

Such people cannot possibly know anything of national questions. Those who live in a featureless tundra of the mind usually do so from stupidity. It is unreasonable to blame them for a genetic condition over which they have no control, but it is equally unreasonable to allow them to vote. As for the fairly intelligent who through intellectual shiftlessness learn nothing, I have no patience with them. What possible cause is there for thinking the willfully dull, the deliberately ignorant, or the dull and ignorant, are ompetent to influence policy on matters that they cannot spell? Given that everyone today has access to virtually every book ever written and to the internet, there is little excuse for living in Oprah fog and Eminem darkness.

Continue reading “The 145 Solution”

DUMB & GETTING DUMBER ALL THE TIME

Why Worry? The Two Scariest Charts In The World

Submitted by Erico Matia Tavares via Sinclar & Co,

There are plenty of things to worry about these days. A cursory look through today’s (13 Sep 14) drudgereport.com sets the tone: the Pope says WWIII is underway; a senior Democrat accuses the Republicans of endangering civilization; drones are invading the privacy of citizens; militias are blocking traffic in the Mexican border; Feds run a US$589 billion budget deficit; the UK might fall apart; the Ebola epidemic is getting serious in Africa; a mystery virus spreads to NY and CT (and we could not resist adding this one: Hillary Clinton is doing yoga).

With all of this in our minds it is easy to forget, or at least put in proper context, the extraordinary progress that mankind has achieved over the centuries against remarkable odds. World population has steadily increased, proving Malthus wrong. Serious diseases like polio and smallpox, which affected even monarchs and presidents over the centuries, have been eradicated. We can crisscross the planet in less than 24 hours and put satellites in deep space. The baby boomers and their offspring are the most prosperous generations the world has ever seen.

This shows that with enough intelligence, political will, common sense and perseverance most challenges we face as a species can be overcome. This should provide a decent amount of hope that we can tackle whatever we are facing right now.

So why worry?

Well, what will happen if we start losing those qualities and values as a global society? Which is why we believe that the following graphs are the scariest in the world today:

WORLD IQ LEVEL OVER TIME

 

Source: MailOnline, University of Hartford.

 

INDEX OF MILITARY EXPENDITURES OVER TIME (1950 = 100)(a)

 

Source: SIPRI.

(a) Based on NATO expenditures (in 2011 constant US$), the longest data series publicly available.

The average world citizen is getting dumber while our means of doing harm are increasing. This trend is clearly not our friend.

Consider the following.

Countries around the world today spend over US$1.7 trillion on weaponry – more than the total global investment in energy supply. Beyond the manufacturers and suppliers downstream, this produces zero economic benefits (weapons become obsolete very quickly and do not generate any returns; on the contrary as, well, they blow stuff up) and the associated costs add to already bloated government debt levels. And that’s US$1.7 trillion less available each year to improve world education, food and fuel availability, the environment and shifting global demographics, all critical issues of the 21st century.

Also concerning is the fact that control over these weapons can be quickly lost, creating the prospect of blowbacks, never ending conflicts and major tragedies.

Prior to 1991, the Soviet Union had more than 27,000 nuclear warheads and plenty of weapons-grade uranium and plutonium to triple that number. While there have been no confirmed reports of missing or stolen former-Soviet nuclear weapons (astonishing given all the political and economic turmoil since then), there is ample evidence of a significant black market in nuclear materials. How long before someone in that rapidly expanding pool of idiots gets a hold of some is anybody’s guess.

Note: accidents can happen as well, adding to the unease of handling this type of firepower. For instance, in 1961, a B-52 carrying two nuclear bombs broke up in mid-air, dropping its nuclear payload very close to Goldsboro in North Carolina. Five of the six fuses designed to prevent a detonation failed in one of the bombs, with only the last one averting a nuclear explosion. That was an unbelievable close call.

And now turmoil is spreading across the Middle East yet again. With all the conflict going on, anyone showing up and volunteering to fight for one of the sides will be given free food and weapons, courtesy of the associated regional and international powers. Will those weapons stay there, concerning as that might already be for local populations, or will they be used elsewhere, even if the conflict is contained or resolved? As we all know fundamentalists – probably the most idiotic of the bunch – are ready to do anything.

Humanity cannot risk its future falling into the hands of increasingly lethal buffoons. The stakes are just too high now. Hopefully our leaders are paying attention, but this should concern us all. Let’s try to be smart about it – while the smart is still going.

DAWN OF THE DUMB

Aldous Huxley predicted this in Brave New World Revisited in 1958. Advancements in healthcare, technology, and the ability to prevent disease have allowed the weakest members of the gene pool to survive, rather than die off. As they reproduce, the average intelligence of the world declines.

Look around you. Do you really think the average person is more intelligent today than they were 30 years ago?

And then remember what the patron saint of TBP had to say:

“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”

George Carlin

We are surrounded by stupid people and they are getting stupider by the minute.

 

Are we becoming more STUPID? IQ scores are decreasing – and some experts argue it’s because humans have reached their intellectual peak

 

  • IQs have largely increased since the 1930s thanks to better living conditions and education – a trend known as the Flynn effect
  • But IQ test results suggest people in the UK, Denmark and Australia have become less intelligent in the past decade
  • Opinion is divided as to whether the downwards trend is long-term
  • Some studies have shown the average IQ of Westerners has plunged 10 points or more since Victorian times and others claim it will keep decreasing
  • But other experts argue that even if we are becoming more stupid, better healthcare and technology means the ‘problem’ will regulate itself

 

By Sarah Griffiths for MailOnline

Published: 08:50 EST, 21 August 2014 | Updated: 09:42 EST, 21 August 2014

 

Technology may be getting smarter, but humans are getting dumber, scientists have warned.

Evidence suggests that the IQs of people in the UK, Denmark and Australia have declined in the last decade.

Opinion is divided as to whether the trend is long-term, but some researchers believe that humans have already reached intellectual peak.

Dumb and dumber? Evidence suggests that the IQs of people in the UK, Denmark and Australia have declined in the last decade. Opinion is divided as to whether human intelligence will decrease over time. A study by the University of Hartford claims that the larger the global population becomes, the less intelligent we will be, dropping by around eight IQ points by the year 2110 - and other estimates are even more pesimistic

Dumb and dumber? Evidence suggests the IQs of people in the UK, Denmark and Australia have declined in the last decade. A study by the University of Hartford claims the larger the global population becomes, the less intelligent we will be, dropping by around eight IQ points by the year 2110 – and other estimates are even more pessimistic

An IQ test used to determine whether Danish men are fit to serve in the military has revealed scores have fallen by 1.5 points since 1998.

And standard tests issued in the UK and Australia echo the results, according to journalist Bob Holmes, writing in New Scientist.

The most pessimistic explanation as to why humans seem to be becoming less intelligent is that we have effectively reached our intellectual peak.

Between the 1930s and 1980s, the average IQ score in the US rose by three points and in post-war Japan and Denmark, test scores also increased significantly – a trend known as the ‘Flynn effect’.

This increase in intelligence was due to improved nutrition and living conditions – as well as better education – says James Flynn of the University of Otago, after whom the effect is named. 

An image of the future? Some experts believe we are starting to see the end of the Flynn effect in developed countries ¿ and that IQ scores are leveling out and even declining. Pessimistic scientists think that our descendants may struggle to understand subjects we can grasp (illustrated with a stock image)

Westerns have lost 14 IQ points on average since the Victorian age, according to a study published by the University of Amsterdam last year.

Jan te Nijenhuis thinks this could be because intelligent women tend to have less children than women who are not as clever, The Huffington Post reported.

The perceived link between IQ and fertility is a very contentious one.

Dr Nijenhuis studied the results of 14 intelligence studies conducted between 1884 and 2004 to come to his conclusion.

Each study measured peoples’ reaction times – how long they took to press a button after being prompted.

It is claimed that reaction time mirrors mental processing speed – so it reflects intelligence.

They found that visual reaction times averaged 194 milliseconds in the late 19th Century, but in 2004, they had increased to 275 milliseconds.

This would suggest that people have become less intelligent, they said.

Now some experts believe we are starting to see the end of the Flynn effect in developed countries – and that IQ scores are not just leveling out, but declining. 

Scientists including Dr Flynn think better education can reverse the trend and point out  the perceived decline could just be a blip. However, other scientists are not so optimistic.

Some believe the Flynn effect has masked a decline in the genetic basis for intelligence, so that while more people have been reaching their full potential, that potential itself has been declining.

Some have even contentiously said this could be because educated people are deciding to have fewer children, so that subsequent generations are largely made up of less intelligent people.

Richard Lynn, a psychologist at the University of Ulster, calculated the decline in humans’ genetic potential.

He used data on average IQs around the world in 1950 and 2000 to discover that our collective intelligence has dropped by one IQ point.

Dr Lynn predicts that if this trend continues, we could lose another 1.3 IQ points by 2050.

Michael Woodley, of the Free University of Brussels, Belgium, claims people’s reactions are slower than in Victorian times, and has linked it to a decline in our genetic potential.

Must try harder: Psychologist Richard Lynn calculated the decline in humans¿ genetic potential. He used data on average IQ test scores (illustrated) from around the world in 1950 and 2000 to discover that our collective intelligence has dropped by one IQ point.
 Must try harder: Psychologist Richard Lynn calculated the decline in humans’ genetic potential. He used data on average IQ test scores (illustrated) from around the world in 1950 and 2000 to discover that our collective intelligence has dropped by one IQ point.

It has previously been claimed that quick-witted people have fast reactions and Dr Woodley’s study showed people’s reaction times have slowed over the century – the equivalent to one IQ point per decade.

Jan te Nijenhuis, a psychology professor at the University of Amsterdam, says Westerners have lost an average of 14 IQ points since the Victoria Era.

He believes this is due to more intelligent women have fewer children than those who are less clever,The Huffington Post reported.

Dr Woodley and others think humans will gradually become less and less intelligent.

But Dr Flynn says if the decline in IQ scores is the end of the Flynn effect, scores should stabilise.

He thinks that even if humans do become more stupid, better healthcare and technology will mean that all people will have fewer children and the ‘problem’ will regulate itself.

ARE BRITISH TEENAGERS BECOMING LESS INTELLIGENT?

Tests carried out in 1980 and in 2008 showed that the average 14-year-old was two IQ points cleverer in 1980, according to a study published in 2009.

Scientists found that performance dropped the most dramatically in teenagers in the upper half of the intelligence scale, The Telegraph reported.

Brighter teens who took part in the study in 2008 were on average six IQ points less intelligent than their counterparts tested 28 years earlier.

Professor Fynn said the results could be the result of less intelligent youth culture.

He used data gathered in IQ tests on UK children and found that children aged between five and 10 saw their IQs increase by half a point per year over three decades.

‘Other studies have shown how pervasive teenage youth culture is, and what we see is parents’ influence on IQ slowly diminishing with age,’ he said.

‘…What we know is that youth culture is now more visually orientated around computer games than they are in terms of reading and holding conversations.’

PASS THE DONUTS & THE AMMUNITION

At least the average police officer has a below average IQ to go along with an above average waistline and an off the charts sociopathic desire to bully, intimidate and push citizens around. Plus they have lots and lots of military equipment provided by the DHS Gestapo with your tax dollars.

Hat tip Boston Bob

FBI: 80 Percent Of Police Officers Are Overweight

GARLAND (CBSDFW.COM) – The U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation released a new statistic, which states 8 out of every 10 law enforcement members are overweight.

Their findings have spurred the Garland Police Department make a plan for their officers to improve their fitness.

“I think it’s important for all of us to keep the weight down and stay in shape-especially this job. The stress that we incur at this job… this is a great way to relieve the stress and to keep the blood pressure down,” said Garland Assistant Chief Jeff Bryan.

Bryan said he spends most of his time at work behind a desk, but still hits the departments on-site gym three days a week.

Researchers have said law enforcement personnel are 25 times more likely to die from weight related cardiovascular disease than the actions of a criminal.

“When you’re in a life or death struggle, you’ve got to win that fight, said Bryan about the importance of keeping fit.

But an estimated 80 percent of law enforcement officers are overweight, according to the FBI.

“Do we have some that are overweight? Sure we do. But, not to that percentage,” said Garland police spokesperson Joe Harn.

He said their department works to cultivate a culture of fitness for many reasons.

“Somebody that did a full career in law enforcement? Average age was 60 — that’s when they died, at 60 years old. So what we found out is if we’re going to improve and overcome that stress, we’ve got to stay in shape, we’ve got to control our weight if we want to live longer,” said Harns.

A number of local law enforcement agencies provide on-site gyms to encourage lifelong physical fitness but admit that beyond the academy, there are no formal policies in place.

FLUORIDE MAKES YOU STUPID

Harvard Study Confirms Fluoride Reduces Children’s IQ

By Dr. Mercola

A recently published Harvard University meta-analysis funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has concluded that children who live in areas with highly fluoridated water have “significantly lower” IQ scores than those who live in low fluoride areas.

In a 32-page report that can be downloaded free of charge from Environmental Health Perspectives,1 the researchers said:

“A recent report from the U.S. National Research Council (NRC 2006)2 concluded that adverse effects of high fluoride concentrations in drinking water may be of concern and that additional research is warranted. Fluoride may cause neurotoxicity in laboratory animals, including effects on learning and memory…

To summarize the available literature, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies on increased fluoride exposure in drinking water and neurodevelopmental delays. We specifically targeted studies carried out in rural China that have not been widely disseminated, thus complementing the studies that have been included in previous reviews and risk assessment reports…

Findings from our meta-analyses of 27 studies published over 22 years suggest an inverse association between high fluoride exposure and children’s intelligence… The results suggest that fluoride may be a developmental neurotoxicant that affects brain development at exposures much below those that can cause toxicity in adults…

Serum-fluoride concentrations associated with high intakes from drinking-water may exceed 1 mg/L, or 50 Smol/L, thus more than 1000-times the levels of some other neurotoxicants that cause neurodevelopmental damage. Supporting the plausibility of our findings, rats exposed to 1 ppm (50 Smol/L) of water-fluoride for one year showed morphological alterations in the brain and increased levels of aluminum in brain tissue compared with controls…

 In conclusion, our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.

Future research should formally evaluate dose-response relations based on individual-level measures of exposure over time, including more precise prenatal exposure assessment and more extensive standardized measures of neurobehavioral performance, in addition to improving assessment and control of potential confounders.“

Studies have Repeatedly Linked Fluoride to Reduced IQ and Brain Damage

There are so many scientific studies showing the direct, toxic effects of fluoride on your body, it’s truly remarkable that it’s NOT considered a scientific consensus by now. Despite the evidence against it, fluoride is still added to 70 percent of U.S. public drinking water supplies.

It amazes me that the medical (and dental) communities are so stubbornly resistant to connect the dots when it comes to the skyrocketing increase of cognitive decline in adults, and behavioral issues in children (ADD, ADHD, depression and learning disabilities of all kinds). In fact, there have been over 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage.3 Fluoride can also increase manganese absorption, compounding problems since manganese in drinking water has also been linked to lower IQ in children.

Reported effects of fluoride on your brain include:

Reduction in nicotinic acetylcholine receptors Damage to your hippocampus Formation of beta-amyloid plaques (the classic brain abnormality in Alzheimer’s disease)
Reduction in lipid content Damage to purkinje cells Exacerbation of lesions induced by iodine deficiency
Impaired antioxidant defense systems Increased uptake of aluminum Accumulation of fluoride in your pineal gland

Six Facts You Need to Know About Water Fluoridation

Click here to expand

Harmful Effects have Been Known for Half a Century…

What is perhaps most surprising is that the harmful effects of fluoride have been known by conventional medical organizations for over half a century. For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) stated in their September 18, 1943 issue that fluorides are general protoplasmic poisons that change the permeability of the cell membrane by certain enzymes. And, an editorial published in the Journal of the American Dental Association, October 1, 1944, stated:

“Drinking water containing as little as 1.2 ppm fluoride will cause developmental disturbances. We cannot run the risk of producing such serious systemic disturbances. The potentialities for harm outweigh those for good.”

Part of the problem is that it’s an accumulative toxin that, over time, can lead to significant health problems that are not immediately linked to fluoride over-exposure. In a 2005 paper entitled “Fluoride—A Modern Toxic Waste,” Lita Lee, Ph.D. writes:4

“Yiamouyiannis’ book, “Fluoride, The Aging Factor,” documents the cumulative effect of tissue damage by fluoride, commonly seen as aging (collagen damage), skin rashes and acne, gastrointestinal disorders, and many other conditions, including osteoporosis. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and the Safe Water Foundation reported that 30,000 to 50,000 excess deaths occur in the United States each year in areas in which the water contains only one ppm fluoride.

… Fluoride suppresses the immune system: Fluoride inhibits the movement of white blood cells by 70%, thereby decreasing their ability to reach their target. Yiamouyiannis cites 15 references in his pamphlet, Lifesavers Guide to Fluoridation, that document immunosuppressive effects of as little as 10% of the amount of fluoride used in fluoridated water… Immunosuppressive effects run the gamut, from a cold that won’t go away to increased risk of cancer and other infectious diseases.”

Studies have shown that fluoride toxicity can lead to a wide variety of health problems, including:

Increased lead absorption Disrupts synthesis of collagen Hyperactivity and/or lethargy Muscle disorders
Thyroid disease Arthritis Dementia Bone fractures
Lowered thyroid function Bone cancer (osteosarcoma) Inactivates 62 enzymes and inhibits more than 100 Inhibited formation of antibodies
Genetic damage  and cell death Increased tumor and cancer rate Disrupted immune system Damaged sperm and increased infertility

Suppressed Science: Fluoride Link to Cancer

Long-lost research linking fluoride to cancer has resurfaced in a Dutch film clip featuring Dr. Dean Burk, who in 1937 co-founded the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) and headed its cytochemistry department for over 30 years. In the taped interview, he equates water fluoridation to “public murder,” referring to a study that had been done on the 10 largest U.S. cities with fluoridation compared to the 10 largest without it.

The study clearly demonstrated that deaths from cancer abruptly rose in as little as a year or two after fluoridation began. This and other studies linking fluoride to cancer were government-ordered but were quickly buried once fluoride was found to be linked to dramatic increases in cancer.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

There’s no doubt about it: Fluoride should not be ingested. At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you’re stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it’s very difficult to filter out of your water once it’s added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network5 has a game plan to END water fluoridation in both Canada and the United States.

I urge you to join the anti-fluoride movement in Canada and United States by contacting the representative for your area below.

Contact Information for Canadian Communities:

  1. If you live in Ontario, Canada, please join the ongoing effort by contacting Diane Sprules at [email protected].
  2. The point-of-contact for Toronto, Canada is Aliss Terpstra. You may email her at [email protected].

Contact Information for American Communities:

We’re also going to address three US communities: Portland, Wichita, and Phoenix:

  1. Portland, Oregon: Even though residents have voted down fluoridation three separate times, the pro-fluoride lobbying is now working to influence city councilors to ignore the public and pass fluoridation without another vote.  If you live in the Portland area, please contact FAN’s Oregon point person, Kimberly Kaminski.  You can email her at [email protected].  Portland residents will be battling a very well financed campaign by the ADA, Delta Dental and the PEW Charitable Trust.  Please consider making a donation to Oregon Citizens for Safe Drinking Water.
  2. Witchita, Kansas: The pro-fluoride lobby has also targeted Wichita for forced fluoridation.  If you live in Kansas and would like to help protect the safety of the citiy’s drinking water, please contact Fluoride Free Kansas at fluoridefreekansas.org/contact-us
  3. Phoenix, Arizona — The city council is reassessing their fluoridation program.  The issue was raised by Councilman Tom Simplot and local fluoride-free campaigners.  The city currently spends more than $500,000 annually on fluoridation, and currently joins only 9 other Arizona communities in fluoridating their water.  The city council is expected to study the issue and meet on September 11, when it will hold further hearings and decide the fate of the practice.  If you live in the Phoenix area and would like to get involved, please contact FAN’s Phoenix coordinator.

Join the Fight to Get Fluoride Out of Drinking Water

 

There’s no doubt about it: fluoride should not be ingested. Even scientists from the EPA’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory have classified fluoride as a “chemical having substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Furthermore, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 41 percent of American adolescents now have dental fluorosis—unattractive discoloration and mottling of the teeth that indicate overexposure to fluoride. Clearly, children are being overexposed, and their health and development put in jeopardy. Why?

At least when it comes to topical application, you have a choice. You can easily buy fluoride-free toothpaste and mouthwash. But you’re stuck with whatever your community puts in the water, and it’s very difficult to filter out of your water once it’s added. Many do not have the resources or the knowledge to do so.

The only real solution is to stop the archaic practice of water fluoridation in the first place. Fortunately, the Fluoride Action Network has a game plan to END water fluoridation, both in the United States and Canada. Clean pure water is a prerequisite to optimal health. Industrial chemicals, drugs and other toxic additives really have no place in our water supplies. So, please, support the anti-fluoride movement by making a donation to the Fluoride Action Network today.

A Troublesome Inheritance

Guest Post by Fred Reed

 

Wading in the Zeitgeist

May 17, 2014

Apparently like everybody who can read, still a probable majority in the US, I have just finished Nicholas Wade’s A Troublesome Inheritance, which deals with the genetics of human behavior, race, intelligence, how they came about, and related things about which one must never, ever state the obvious. It is a fine book: cogent, well informed, devoid of political propaganda. Anyone interested in the foregoing matters should read it. If you are a Democrat, have it shipped in a package marked Weird Sex Books to protect your reputation.

It is creating a great disturbance among professors, the right-thinking press, those college students who have heard of it, race panders, and related herbivores. This is curious. Reduced to a sentence, Wade says that genetics has a lot to do with human outcomes. Its major conclusions have been accepted or suspected forever in every blue-collar bar in the country. Yet they are a shock in faculty lounges. It is interesting to consider the pattern of views:

The Lounge: Race is a social construct. It doesn’t biologically exist.

Wade: Yes it does. (He demonstrates this with things like base-pair repeats and single-nucleotide polymorphisms, a bit messy to go into here.)

Joe’s: Sure, race exists. Just look.

(If it doesn’t, then everyone who has received benefits based on race should repay them, and face fraud charges.)

The Lounge: No genetic or group differences in intelligence exist.

Wade: Yes they do, they are measurable, and came about through natural selection.

Joe’s: Sure, everybody knows Jews are smart, blacks aren’t, and the Chinese and Japanese must be too because look at what they’ve done.

Now, races are genetic subspecies, slightly blurred at the edges, of Homo (doubtfully) sapiens, just as Dobermans and Chows are subspecies of dog. Any dog breeder will tell you that Chihuahuas and Great Danes are not social constructs. Only a professor could think otherwise. The breeder will also say that Border Collies are smarter than beagles. This is genetic, not due to Border Collie Privilege.

He will further assert from experience that much of behavior is genetic. If you think the personalities of pit bulls and cocker spaniels are equally warm and fuzzy, you probably need to stay away from dogs.

It is also clear to inhabitants of the real world that genetic differences in behavior exist between sexes. Raise a heifer (for readers under thirty, that’s a little-girl cow) and a little-boy cow completely apart from other cows, so they learn nothing from cow culture. After they reach puberty, go into their field, throw rocks at them, and observe the differences in their reactions. (Put me in your will before doing this.)

Genes count. It’s how things are.

Much more interesting, because less obvious, is the case Wade makes for a genetic element in differences in behavior between genetically distinct groups. For example, East Asians consistently come out ahead of Caucasians on tests of intelligence, yet Caucasians dominate by a wide margin in inventiveness. Why is this? Wade asserts, somewhat speculatively but with a lot of evidence, that natural selection has shaped the Chinese and Japanese to form collectively-oriented, hierarchical societies, not favorable to independent thought.

While the collectiveness of East Asians  might be argued, it fits a lot of observation. I am reminded of the Asian proverb, “The nail that stands up will be driven down,” and Johnny Paycheck singing, “You can take this job and shove it.”

In the US, Asians way outperform Caucasians in the hard sciences. For example, CalTech is perhaps the most demanding technical school in the country, and does not practice affirmative action. It is 1% black, 8.3% Hispanic, and 40% Asian. Yet a list of founders of high-tech firms shows very few Asians.

How did we get where we are? Through natural selection, says Wade. It is indisputable that selection can alter a species or subspecies. The unnatural selection which we call selective breeding produces animals of different sizes and shapes, and temperament. Why would we think that human animals are different? If flu regularly killed those susceptible to it, presumably those genetically resistant would come to predominate. This is both reasonable and observable.

However, the thoughtful may be uneasy with some of this. Boilerplate evolutionary theory holds that when a beneficial mutation accidentally arises, its possessor has an advantage in the struggle for survival, has more children, and thus passes on the new trait. This makes sense, at least if the mutation does something really desirable.

But.

Wade points out that certain Asians, due to a mutation, have hair with thicker hair shafts. One is hard pressed to see how slightly coarser hair would promote survival so efficaciously as to result in having more children. It is not clear why it would be an advantage at all. In the absence of reason or evidence, various solutions may be adduced: thick hair cushioned the blows of clubs, or girls thought it was sexy and said yes, or…something. It smacks of desperation.

While traits conferring very small or no advantage spread through populations, many that would seem to offer great advantage in surviving and reproducing do not. No mutations are needed to produce the phenomenal eyesight of Ted Williams, the brains of Stephen Hawlking, the body of Mohamed Ali, or the phenomenal running endurance of the Tarahumara Indians: The genes already exist. Would not these things, at least in the pre-modern world, have produced much more advantage than coarse hair, or some slight tendency toward collectivism, and thus have become general?

And it has always seemed curious to me, though not necessarily inexplicable, that a brain which evolved to make pointed sticks for hunting, and crude clothes, should just happen to be able to produce Mozart’s music, Renoir, tensor calculus, and Mars landers. Such minds existed 2500 years ago, as for example Euclid, Archimedes, and Plato. It looks like evolutionary overkill.

A minor defect of the book, understandable since Wade works for a very PC newspaper and may want to keep his job, is that he dances away from the conclusions to be drawn from what he says. Differences among people are actually small, he asserts, and only in cumulative effects on societies do they really count. Yet he puts the mean IQ of Sub-Saharan Africans at 67, of Europeans at 100, and of Jews at 115. He also says that four of every thousand Europeans have IQs in excess of 140, but 23 Jews. These are huge differences and, if real, have equally huge implications.

Which would surprise no one at Joe’s Bar.