Why is there fluoride in SSRIs

[asecin]

so in conclusion reading through this whole thread now, i see fluoride is bad for you in excess only, and drinking tap water in excess is definitely detrimental to one's health.

i am glad to sum it up for anyone interested in this topic but has no time to go through the 8 pages (mostly filled with personal attacks by some people) and save their time :D

 

[sekio]

drinking tap water in excess is definitely detrimental to one's health.

Inasmuch as drinking water of any kind in excess is bad for you.

 

[P A]

no time to go through the 8 pages (mostly filled with personal attacks by some people

The overwhelming bulk of this thread was filled with fallacious conspiracy theorizing, Dread's excoriating critiques of Rickola's poor thinking, and a thoroughly interesting discussion of the ethical concerns underpinning implementation of health-related public policies; not 'personal attacks.'

And by the way, speaking of that whole 'ethics and policy' thing, where did Vecktor go?

 

[rickolasnice]

So, I admit it could be a potential concern.

More tests should be done, no?

It's also accepted knowledge that tap water with fluoride concentrations of <1ppm shouldn't be given to young babies..

And do you not think it's possible that somebody could drink twice as much water per day than the average person? Therefore putting them at risk.

 

[vecktor]

More tests should be done, no?

It's also accepted knowledge that tap water with fluoride concentrations of <1ppm shouldn't be given to young babies..

And do you not think it's possible that somebody could drink twice as much water per day than the average person? Therefore putting them at risk.

there is an absence of evidence showing that fluoride at low levels causes harm, that is not evidence for absence of harm.

If there is a risk from fluoride in water, then whether someone would be at higher risk by consuming more water is not certain as the increased amount of water would lead to increased excretion too.

My position is that the principle objection against fluoridation is ethical not practical.

I won't remove posts that are personal attacks, because they present a great example of how not to get your points across in a discussion.

 

[rickolasnice]

Also, bear in mind that the scientifically "safe" dose used to be 4ppm i believe..

 

[P A]

I won't remove posts that are personal attacks, because they present a great example of how not to get your points across in a discussion.

Was this directed at me?

I'm not sure how you might have otherwise construed the question in my last post, but it was referring strictly to the fluoridation discussion. And the trolley experiments.

 

[vecktor]

Was this directed at me?

I'm not sure how you might have otherwise construed the question in my last post, but it was referring strictly to the fluoridation discussion. And the trolley experiments.

not referring to anyone in particular. relax

v

 

[P A]

relax

...nobody's getting excited here. I was just wondering whether you had anything to add following my and Dread's responses.

 

[asecin]

PA why do you keep associating with dread ? once i replied to him specifically to try and figure out HIS stand point of view and yet you replied to me with your own idea of what he thinks.
and now for like i dont know which time you mention him again in your replies concerning other people's replies.

 

[P A]

PA why do you keep associating with dread ?

Because he and I share a stance opposed to that of Vecktor's on the topic of water fluoridation (a fact which, if you were capable of following the thread like a sensible, literate person, you should have already known). If you'll kindly read Vecktor's post on page 7, you'll find that he had posed the popular trolley dilemmas as an interesting exercise in illustrating interdividual differences in ethical leanings, indicating Dread and I in particular. Moreover, most of your 'counterarguments' directed at Dread were either personal in nature, wrongheaded, or completely off-base. Since at the time, Dread apparently had better things to do than respond to your post-ban drivel, I did. Much as it seems to perturb you, this is in fact my prerogative.

All of this should be glaringly obvious to anyone who has kept up with this bizarre thread, and should not require explanation.

and now for like i dont know which time you mention him again in your replies concerning other people's replies.

This embarrassing attempt at a coherent sentence doesn't even come close to complying with basic rules of English syntax. As such, I'm not going to bother attempting to decipher its obscure meaning, if indeed it has any at all. Try again.

also, pls gb2gradeschoolEnglishclass

 

[asecin]

Because he and I share a stance opposed to that of Vecktor's on the topic of water fluoridation (a fact which, if you were capable of following the thread like a sensible, literate person, you should have already known). If you'll kindly read Vecktor's post on page 7, you'll find that he had posed the popular trolley dilemmas as an interesting exercise in illustrating interdividual differences in ethical leanings, indicating Dread and I in particular. Moreover, most of your 'counterarguments' directed at Dread were either personal in nature, wrongheaded, or completely off-base. Since at the time, Dread apparently had better things to do than respond to your post-ban drivel, I did. Much as it seems to perturb you, this is in fact my prerogative.

All of this should be glaringly obvious to anyone who has kept up with this bizarre thread, and should not require explanation.



This embarrassing attempt at a coherent sentence doesn't even come close to complying with basic rules of English syntax. As such, I'm not going to bother attempting to decipher its obscure meaning, if indeed it has any at all. Try again.

also, pls gb2gradeschoolEnglishclass

it makes you look silly when write so much about something that makes so little sense to you.

was it mark twain who said that a man who spells only one way certainly lacks creativity ?

also i was in school long enough, dont want to have my mind institutionalized like yours.

 

[P A]

it makes you look silly when write so much about something that makes so little sense to you.

I suppose that this mysterious ignorance on my part is contrasted by your sage wisdom regarding...what topic again?

was it mark twain who said that a man who spells only one way certainly lacks creativity?

Not that I'm aware of. And I'm not so sure that I care. Samuel Clemens may have been a brilliant man, but he and I do have our differences of opinion, just as would be the case with any other man (or woman) of letters and his/her respective audience. That said, I'm pretty sure that you've either seriously botched that quote or misconstrued its intent. If you 'spell' differently than the Oxford English Dictionary or Webster, chances are that you're spelling incorrectly. This is a mark of idiocy, not creativity.

also i was in school long enough, dont want to have my mind institutionalized like yours.

There is truly no end to your self-confirming pomposity, is there? If I handle casual English in a more proficient manner than you (which, by the way, is no difficult feat), I'm suddenly an autist. If I respond to your inane jabbering, I am compulsively 'addicted' to such behavior. If I point out that your English skills are comparable to those of a sixth-grader, you mention how 'instutionalized' my mind must be (whatever that means). You seem to have a very difficult time acknowledging your own fumbles and shortcomings, or are simply incapable of addressing others in an intelligent (or intelligible) manner. So predictably, the bulk of your posts are either vacant in content, responding exclusively to rhetoric, or are total non sequiturs, the last one included.

 

[asecin]

I suppose that this mysterious ignorance on my part is contrasted by your sage wisdom regarding...what topic again?



Not that I'm aware of. And I'm not so sure that I care. Samuel Clemens may have been a brilliant man, but he and I do have our differences of opinion, just as would be the case with any other man (or woman) of letters and his/her respective audience. That said, I'm pretty sure that you've either seriously botched that quote or misconstrued its intent. If you 'spell' differently than the Oxford English Dictionary or Webster, chances are that you're spelling incorrectly. This is a mark of idiocy, not creativity.



There is truly no end to your self-confirming pomposity, is there? If I handle casual English in a more proficient manner than you (which, by the way, is no difficult feat), I'm suddenly an autist. <- it seems like you misunderstood
If I respond to your inane jabbering, I am compulsively 'addicted' to such behavior. <- you show attraction to such "behavior" by your constant ramblings. spending way more time than me on your replies and the way you defend yourself is a good indication
If I point out that your English skills are comparable to those of a sixth-grader, you mention how 'instutionalized' my mind must be (whatever that means). interesting how you say 6th grader (like you are with such status as to claim such thing) but not say 7th or 5th grade for example. this is just answering your own curiosity as of what i meant by instutionalized mind
You seem to have a very difficult time acknowledging your own fumbles and shortcomings, or are simply incapable of addressing others in an intelligent (or intelligible) manner. So predictably, the bulk of your posts are either vacant in content, responding exclusively to rhetoric, or are total non sequiturs, the last one included.is that a fact ?

ps: i told you to msg me in private if you have something to say so stop filling the thread with nonsense

 

[P A]

i told you to msg me in private if you have something to say

In case you've forgotten: you asked me a direct (and silly) question and then attempted further personal criticism, to which I unambiguously responded. This subsequently provoked another spat of yours. I'm not the one "filling the thread with nonsense" here.

The proverbial 'glass house' and 'first stone' come to mind.

 

[asecin]

so you made a mistake responding. im glad you are realizing it by this point and admit devious fault

 

[P A]

so you made a mistake responding. im glad you are realizing it by this point and admit devious fault

Why, yes sir, what a fantastic troll you are!

 

[asecin]

depends what your definition of a troll is. i dont discuss this with you only to entertain myself because i have better things to do. i do it because i feel insulted the way you explain yourself. it really bothers me and it bothers others here i have noticed.


[edit] btw the reply before that was sarcastic if you didnt get it

 

[dread]

Oy, I have returned from a nice christmas celebration (that's right, you don't have to be religious to celebrate christmas... for the record) and what do I see... the discussion was getting interesting and rational when I left, and now it has deteriorated back to more manual manure propulsion from the anti-science front. BTW, cheers PA for taking up the frontline while I was gone...

Where should I begin? I'll go over most of the posts that catch my eye, if there's something any of you want my comment on don't hesitate to bring it up...

Im not going to tell you of what i see as alternative since you seem ungrateful and very bitter in your arguments

That's a cop-out if I ever saw one. You're just making up more excuses. To put it simply: put up or shut up.

PA, with all due respect, i enjoyed what you wrote but next time i reply to someone else discussing this with them specifically, do not reply to me answering for them, ok ?
i am sure he doesnt need a defender. i dont know if he is cute or not, but still let him answer for himself
ktnx

Like said, this is an open board, and this is an open discussion, not a debate. You're making more excuses not to defend your arguments. Why?

so try again moron.

and also i guess you are one of "those" who is superbly antisocial and prefers to be an autist as you stated, yet you are addicted responding to people online. interesting !

(mostly filled with personal attacks by some people)

Funny. You're constantly accusing everyone else of "personal attacks", but it looks to me that the only one using personal attacks and ad hominems is you.

Could it be that you can't really support any of your arguments, and thus resort to trying to "turn the tables"... I'm constantly amazed by this tactic, which I have also observed from the religious fundamentalists (for all I know, you could well be one of them, your mannerism and debating style - not to mention distrust to science - certainly is similar) where you first make an outlandish claim, and when support for the claim is called for, you resort to throwing insults and then suddenly accuse everyone else for making personal attacks...

Perhaps it's just the mentality that religious indoctrination makes your brain used to, but here in the real world, repeating something over and over doesn't somehow make it true, even if you really really wish it to be.

--- and now for something completely different - I hope ---

It's also accepted knowledge that tap water with fluoride concentrations of <1ppm shouldn't be given to young babies..

And do you not think it's possible that somebody could drink twice as much water per day than the average person? Therefore putting them at risk.

Accepted by whom? Don't use weasel words.

As for the 2nd part, it doesn't quite work like that. Increasing the water intake does not necessarily increase fluoride intake proportionally.

there is an absence of evidence showing that fluoride at low levels causes harm, that is not evidence for absence of harm.

True, but studies have been done on the harmfulness of fluoride, and no real evidence of harm has been presented. So at this point, I feel that we have sufficient information to assume that fluoride is most likely relatively harmless, and the burden of proof is on the one claiming such harmfulness to exist.

I'm just saying.

My position is that the principle objection against fluoridation is ethical not practical.

So... do you also object naturally occuring fluoride?

Also, bear in mind that the scientifically "safe" dose used to be 4ppm i believe..

Even if this is true, what exactly is the relevance of this?

 

[rickolasnice]

Re: fluoride and babies - search for it.. babies under 6 months shouldn't be given fluoridated water as it goes over the recommended amount of intake per body weight (cos babies drink more water in relation to their body mass.. or somethin like that..)

Re: safe dosage used to be 4ppm: Well then they discovered it's not safe at 4ppm. How long till they discover it's not safe at 1ppm? They had evidence to say fluoride was safe at 4ppm.. as you are now using evidence to say it is safe at 1ppm..