People have suspected for a while, but it was not as clear as this new larger study. This is much more difficult to dismiss.
If the math was solid, you'd have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't.
Because you know more then the editors at Jama? Without explaining why?
Returning to the math, I did the calculations and here is the margin of error for each group: 11%, 9%, 9%. Their common error (the overlapping region of area) is the interval 87.79-104.95. The IQ scores from each group (94.91, 96.29, 96.47) are well within that margin of error. If you perform a t-test on 3-Ca vs. 3-placibo you'll see that the difference is not statistically significant.
I'm sorry but if you've done even the most minimal study of fluoride levels, this is something you'd know - not because it's proven but because the extrapolated data going back from decades makes sense.
To the point - the movie Doctor Strangelove even goes as far as to mock this controversy. So, I restate my claim. If you know nothing of this, then it's because you haven't researched it.
How do fluoride levels alone prove anything? Also fluoride levels of (or in) what? You make vague claims that you think are to support some point that is not clear.