“Crazy Conspiracy” About Fluoride is Quietly Confirmed
October 10, 2024.png)
Key Takeaways
- NIH revelations that fluoride reduces child IQ sparks discussion of eroding confidence in health authorities.
- Skepticism about the NIH’s findings suggests growing distrust of institutional motives and the politicization of science.
- Some dismiss the fluoride controversy, seeing it as another manifestation of fear-based narratives that undermine rational discourse.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
1,500
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
A recent declaration by the National Health Institute (NIH) admitted fluoride exposure reduces children’s IQ, sparking public discussion. MIG Reports analysis shows concern over the health risks associated with fluoride, while skepticism regarding the findings also shapes the conversation. Though a smaller group is outright dismissive of the NIH’s conclusions, reactions generally reveal societal anxieties about health and institutional trust.
The government put fluoride in our water and attacked anyone who questioned it.
— Calley Means (@calleymeans) October 8, 2024
Now - the NIH (after major pressure) has declared it “reduces the IQ of children” and is “hazardous to human health” - and states are removing it from water.
This is under-covered news.
What Americans are Saying
.png)
MIG Reports data shows:
- 47.5% of the conversation centers on health concerns, with alarm about the implications of fluoride exposure on children’s cognitive development.
Worried Americans use emotional language, often referring to fluoride as a threat which experts and leaders have hidden. Voters emphasize the need for increased transparency and a reevaluation of the water supply, tying their concerns to broader distrust in governmental health institutions.
- 12.5% supports raising awareness about the potential dangers of fluoride exposure.
These voices urge further research and advocacy, pushing for policy changes, perhaps under the guidance of RFK Jr. in a second Trump administration—to protect children’s health. They emphasize a proactive approach, seeing this as an opportunity to address long-standing concerns about fluoride and promoting alternative measures for MAHA (make America healthy again).
- 30% of the discussion voices skepticism of the research itself.
This group questions the reliability of the NIH’s findings, with many suggesting the announcement may be politically motivated or part of a larger agenda. The language in these comments often references past public health controversies, such as vaccines. They say the fluoride debate fits into a broader narrative of eroding trust in scientific and government authorities.
- 10% of the commentary is dismissive of the revelation.
Uninterested voters either downplay the significance of the findings or outright reject them as sensationalism. They frame the NIH’s declaration as exaggerated, saying the risks of fluoride have been overstated for attention or ulterior motives.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)