dread, so you are saying people are gullible and easy to trick into believing into miracle cures without actual support of science ? WRONG.
What exactly is wrong about that statement? Are you saying people who believe in chakras and crystal healing are not gullible? How is that?
one example, few years medical journals state "high doses of vitamin e is good for the heart" even your favorite NCBI had many articles. so... what happens if you are in the position you need something for your heart and you read "science" and you know science should be done precise way and they wouldnt lie to people, do you go and buy vitamin e and start taking it for years ? THEN, few year later similar, or different medical journals say "vitamin e can cause heart damage" what do you do then ? were you gullible ? were you scammed by science ?
There's just so many things wrong with your arguments that I don't even know where to start.
Ok, for example, many years ago smoking tobacco was thought to have various health benefits. Then science marched on and it was found that it is incredibly harmful and causes lung cancer. If you had been alive at that time you'd probably been all "oh evil science has tricked me into smoking! now they say it's bad for me, I'll never believe in science again!"
Let's see if I can make this simple for you...
Scientists are not perfect nor infallible, nor does any real scientist claim to be. Scientists make observations based on experiments, and publish their findings based on the available data and methods. When new inventions are made, and new and better methods are found, obviously sometimes scientist discover that earlier scientists, working with older methods and tools, have been wrong. Here's what's great about science: they will point out the mistake and let people know the new information, no matter how long the contrary has been believed. So when time goes on, we know more and more about how things work. This is a good thing.
i think you have been scammed by science !
What a childish and simplistic argument.
but you say "well science always changes they find new evidence and they change their mistakes" how long does it take man few years until people do as what science previously has said its ok ? so by the time your favorite "science" proves that THEY WERE WRONG you have damage. so were you scammed, were you gullible, a complete moron to buy those science claims years ago ? how can you be wrong, it was science !
I'm facepalming so hard here I don't even...
So you want a convenient scapegoat. You want to blame an abstract entity, "science", for your own mistakes? It doesn't work that way.
Yes, there are people who do "bad science". People who publish results from sloppy experiments. If some "scientist" comes ahead with a study that says "eating 10kg of pineapple a day will make you immortal" and you go ahead and start doing it. Then, a few days later, groups of other scientists - this time, hard working professional scientists - review those results and refute the first study, and they let you know that eating that much pineapple is actually harmful and will probably kill you. Now, who is at fault here: science or you for jumping to conclusions too quickly? Hint: it's not science.
But the fact is, just because some people do bad science, does not make science itself any less valid as a method of acquiring information. Your argument is basically like this:
Some X is Y, therefore, all X is Y.
Can you see the error here? "Some scientific study is wrong, therefore, all of science is wrong" does not compute.
Why don't you look up
logical fallacy in wikipedia - oh I'm sorry, is that too
scientific for you?
ill tell you one reason why most of those greedy scientists publish those reports in journals so quick, money
This is just more drivel.
i can point out over 100 examples like this. i can go on all day tho. so my question is, since you admitted yourself, science changes all the time, why trust science ever ?
This is a common tactic of you nutjobs. You present one half-assed argument that doesn't even hold water, then you follow with "I can give a 100 more of these". Well, I'm sorry to inform you, but whether it's a baby-finger sized nugget you dug from your panties or a truckload of manure from the old farm, shit is still shit, and it won't be any less smelly.
Do you have a better alternative to science, then? I'm curious to know how you propose us to gather information if not by the scientific method and research. Although at this point I'm pretty convinced you're just trolling, and I'm not really expecting you to come up with anything resembling sentience, but hey, you never know.
--------
NEXT PATIENT!
---------
rickolasnice said:
Fluoridated water seems to have little to no effect on cavities, in fact, in some areas cavities have decreased since cessation of fluoridating water.
Bullshit. There's no statistically significant study that would show such a thing, that would rule out other factors, such as the prevalence of fluoridated toothpaste. The only argument you could possibly make is that since fluoridated toothpaste is so common, maybe water fluoridation is not strictly necessary. But that's again, with regards to the topic at hand, a total non-sequitur. As for these:
You posted the same link over and over, and each link points to pubmed search page with no search arguments.
*Below has nothing to do with above links*
You're damn right it hasn't, since the links you posted had no substance whatsoever.
We found that exposure to fluoride (F) in urine was associated with reduced Performance, Verbal, and Full IQ scores before and after adjusting for confounders. The same pattern was observed for models with F in water as the exposure variable.... The individual effect of F in urine indicated that for each mg increase of F in urine a decrease of 1.7 points in Full IQ might be expected.”
SOURCE: Rocha-Amador D, et al. (2007). Decreased intelligence in children and exposure to fluoride and arsenic in drinking water. Cadernos de Saude Publica 23(Suppl 4):S579-87.
How convenient for you that you refrain from posting links to the actual studies. Unfortunately for you, I managed to find the study in question. It's here:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-311X2007001600018&lng=en&nrm=iso
The studies linking fluoride with low IQ have been largely discredited, btw. They usually only show the effect with much higher dosages of fluoride than is recommended for tap water.
The same applies for this particular study you cite here. From the study:
Three rural communities in Mexico with contrasting levels of F and As in drinking water were studied: Moctezuma (F 0.8±1.4mg/L; As 5.8±1.3µg/L); Salitral (F 5.3±0.9mg/L; As 169±0.9µg/L) and 5 de Febrero (F 9.4±0.9mg/L; As 194±1.3µg/L).
Moctezuma is the only one here where the fluoride levels are within the recommendations. The other 2 sample areas have 5.3mg/L and 9.4mg/L, way over the recommended fluoride content - so in other words, this study sets the lowest point of reference to a place where fluoride contents are (near to) recommended levels, and two other sample areas with way higher levels, so for the purpose of proving the harmfulness of fluoride on
recommended dosages this study is absolutely worthless. So, it shows fluoride can be harmful if the dosage is 5-9 times the recommendation. Big deal! Almost anything is harmful if you take 5-9 times the recommended amount.
Next case:
"Based on the findings of this study, exposure of children to high levels of fluoride may carry the risk of impaired development of intelligence."
SOURCE: Seraj B, et al. (2006). [Effect of high fluoride concentration in drinking water on children’s intelligence]. Journal of Dental Medicine 19(2):80-86.
The same applies also to this study:
http://www.sid.ir/En/ViewPaper.asp?...F DENTAL MEDICINE;Summer 2006;19;2 (47);80;86
In this cross sectional study, 41 children were selected from the high fluoride area with 2.5mg/l (ppm) fluoride in the drinking water and 85 children were selected from low fluoride area with 0.4mg/l (ppm) fluoride in the drinking water. ... Results: In the high fluoride area the mean IQ of children (87.9±11) was significantly lower than in the low fluoride area (98.9±12.9) (P=0.025).
The recommended levels are around 1-1.5 mg/l. This study is also done with 2.5 times the recommended dosage. Thus, proving exactly nothing. And look at the error margins on those mean IQ:s...
Need I go on?
"it is apparent that fluorides have the ability to interfere with the functions of the brain."
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 187.
Ok, the same study says on page 4:
The committee did not evaluate the risks or
benefits of the lower fluoride concentrations (0.7 to
1.2 mg/L) used in water fluoridation. Therefore, the
committee’s conclusions regarding the potential for
adverse effects from fluoride at 2 to 4 mg/L in drink-
ing water do not apply at the lower water fluoride
levels commonly experienced by most U.S. citizens.
Are you starting to see a pattern here?
“Fluorides also increase the production of free radicals in the brain through several different biological pathways. These changes have a bearing on the possibility that fluorides act to increase the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease.”
SOURCE: National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p 186.
This is just a repeat of the last one. The same obviously applies here.
Conclusion: All your studies show that fluoride can be harmful in concentrations that are way over the recommended 1-1.5 mg/L. So what? This is nothing new. The dosage makes the poison. I have yet to see a single study that would question fluoride's safety on the dosage levels that are usually recommended for tap water.
Forget any mention of conspiracy theories.. fact is.. fluoridated water is bad.
Fact is... you can't get reliable facts from fear-mongering nutjob sites.