Education stuff is more of a political talking point than reality. In reality US education spending per student has continually increased and is always near the top of the world. As of 2019 we're 4th in the world for spending on elementary/secondary spending $15,500 per student contrasted against $11,300 for the OECD average. [1] Of course we are having increasingly poor educational outcomes in spite of spending more, more, and more. So if there is a causal relationship between the reversal of the Flynn Effect and poor educational outcomes, it would seem much more likely that the former is causing the latter.

And I'm certain one could trivially dig up data correlating the decline of IQ in New York to fluoridation. The Flynn Effect reversal began in the 90s, and New York began fluoridating their water in 1965, so there's an excellent age correlation there. But that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. What matters are more controlled studies determining definitively whether fluoride is intellectually harmful by using fluoride levels in urine to control for various confounding variables (people in the same regions getting fluoride from multiple sources, consuming more/less products with fluoride, etc). And we do have those studies, and the answer is yes it is.

That certainly doesn't mean it's the sole cause for the reversal of the Flynn Effect as its seen across the developed world, and many countries do not add fluoride to their water. But it is likely a contributing factor. In recent decades we have begun moving far faster than we're capable of evaluating the consequences of, and long-term consequences may well be stacking from multiple sources of mistakes.

[1] - https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cmd/education-exp...

Absolutely. And nutrition in general, the internet, and a large number of other factors. Starting around the 90s the world started changing far faster than we were able to measure the consequences of in many different domains. That's even when the rates of autism and other mental disorders also started to skyrocket. That's why I think it's a viable contributing factor rather than the alpha and omega.

But it's relevant here because most people don't know that general intelligence levels (so far as IQ can measure) have begun to decrease, to the point that the GP here was overtly mocking the mere possibility of such as a [implied] practical impossibility.

> Do you think bodily autonomy is absolute?

No. When decisions I take could affect others, that can, in a limited way, justify overriding bodily autonomy. E.g. preventing someone with an infectious disease from spreading it by quarantining them. Or when they can't make their own decisions, e.g. if they're children, suffering dementia, or are unconscious and time is critical.

> Believe it or not, a doctor won't amputate a limb

I struggle to understand how this is a reasonable, much less charitable, interpretation of my words. Bodily autonomy does not include commanding others. But people can refuse care, even when it is medically sound. Except in very limited circumstances, doctors may not force procedures or medicine on unwilling patients.

> Or do you mean that your opinion should trump that of any doctor or expert in any field when the issue pertains to your person? If that's the case, I wonder why you choose to participate in society at all, given that you're uncomfortable with the idea that other people might know more than you.

One does not at all follow from the other. Experts in the field will tell me excessive sweets are bad for me (and I believe them) - should they get to put a block my credit card so it cannot be used to buy unhealthy snacks, only healthy food?

I have humored your post, now please explain to me: How does believing people have a right to refuse medical treatment imply I am uncomfortable with others being more knowledgeable?

Not just regular toxic chemicals, either, through the is plenty of that. Quite a bit of radiation too.

And companies that adulterate, misrepresent and obfuscate what they put in food as well. No-one is putting corn syrup or brominated vegetable oil in food with any intention other than money money money.

In fact, if I were an evil subgenius and really actively wanted to damage the IQs of the nation for some nefarious purpose, and it has to be substance-based, I'd avoid things with annoying oversight like public drinking water and vaccines and focus on food and pollution as a vector. If challenged, I just say "why do you hate my freedom to make a profit and provide jobs". Sure, the FDA and EPA exist, but even then you can get away with far, far more in those areas. Food wise, HFCS, BVO, etc, pollution wise, almost everything to with plastics or polymers, oil, coal, gas the list goes on and on.