How the government is brain washing us all through the water supply.

[wf_prospect]

I've studied nutrition, natural health and naturally healing chronic diseases for over 6 years so I can offer you guys some insights. There is no debate, flouride is a byproduct of the aluminum manufacturing process and extremely hazardous to your health. The worst part is there are very few water filters that can take it out of your water supply.

Fluoride is used in rat poisons, psychiatric drugs, military nerve gases and was originally used by Nazis on the Jews in the death camps (100% historical fact.. the Nazis were in fact the first ones to develop and use fluoride). Sounds like conspiracy but you can Google the official documents for yourself.

Think fluoride is good for your teeth, bones or your health?

-Why is it that if your child swallows a pea sized bit of toothpaste you need to call poison control: fluoride is poisonous when ingested.

-Think it's good for your teeth? Research DENTAL FLOUROSIS <- Clicky. Why is it too much fluoride in the water causes your teeth to develop like this?

-But I'm just brushing not swallowing it. Negative. Capillaries in the mouth take in large amounts of fluoride while brushing, the same way they absorb nicotine from cigars.

That's just touching on it lightly, there are way to many solid facts to dispute the dangers, clinical reports, scientific data, etc. In fact because of constant complains the FDA finally agreed to reduce fluoride in water and released reports admitting it's dangerous.

PS - David Icke is a fucknut, I feel bad for the kid in that video who was listening to that deranged lunatic at 8 years old.

 

[justo_tx]

I've studied nutrition, natural health and naturally healing chronic diseases for over 6 years so I can offer you guys some insights.

But what if your sources aren't worth a shit? (yeah I know, perish the thought, everybody in this thread thinks they're internet sources/youtube experts are like Moses coming down off Mt. Sinai)

 

[Mightier]

I found science to be wrong on more than one occasion with my own experiments with health and wellness.

"Science" isn't wrong. Maybe conventional wisdom is wrong or a theory is wrong, but saying "science" is wrong is fucking retarded.

Edit: And, yeah, there's a lot of back-patting that goes on in the scientific fields, but there is also an incredible amount of good research that is done and, unlike nearly every other field, science constantly proves itself wrong and adapts. Yeah, the system is a little fucked, but implying that all scientific publications are "good old boy clubs" where everyone wants to give everyone else a handjob or that are in the pocket of the government to keep the common man down is, again, fucking retarded.

 

[moltar]

"Science" isn't wrong. Maybe conventional wisdom is wrong or a theory is wrong, but saying "science" is wrong is fucking retarded.

Yes, you are right, I should have said "scientific wisdom" or "scientific findings". Basically, the information presented by the scientific community.

Edit: And, yeah, there's a lot of back-patting that goes on in the scientific fields, but there is also an incredible amount of good research that is done and, unlike nearly every other field, science constantly proves itself wrong and adapts. Yeah, the system is a little fucked, but implying that all scientific publications are "good old boy clubs" where everyone wants to give everyone else a handjob or that are in the pocket of the government to keep the common man down is, again, fucking retarded.

But how can you trust the science, knowing that there is a lot of corruption going on? How do you know that what you are reading is legit and not a result of some corrupt scientist trying to make profit?

 

[guerilla]

not exactly

Consensus or majority. Either way, it's argumentum ad populum, and not a scientific method.

From the wiki article you linked to

The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.

 

[justo_tx]

what if i buy bottled water

The only bottled water I buy has been heavily fermented.

 

[guerilla]

Studies that are peer reviewed hold a massive amount more weight than ones that aren't.

So you're saying that science is a matter of collective opinion? The earth is flat if enough scientists agree with that premise?

Peer review basically helps to keep scientists honest.

This didn't happen with climategate. Peer review limited access, controlled journals, attacked dissident scientists, and suppressed the truth and alternative points of view.

Peer review in this case, one of the largest and most controversial scientific claims of our time, was clearly shown to be an impediment to science, not an enabler of honesty.

Scientists are just like politicians, bus drivers, affiliate marketers, strippers, soldiers and catholic priests. Individual actors motivated by their own self-interest, not some superhuman spirituality or morality.

 

[MSTeacher]

Scientists are just like politicians, bus drivers, affiliate marketers, strippers, soldiers and catholic priests. Individual actors motivated by their own self-interest, not some superhuman spirituality or morality.

And unlike bus drivers they are often motivated by mega mega huge interests funding their work. Unfavorable results = no more funding, no more playing in the lab, no more hobnobbing at cocktail parties, etc.

"Can you run an experiment proving x?"

"Well, the scientific method-"

"Fuck the scientific method. Do you want the grant or not?"

"So...what exactly do you want to prove?"

 

[amanda11]

My city tap water contains pesticides, fluoride, herbicide and left over blood from leaking tampons. Yet I still drink it unfiltered. Why? I don't give a FUCK.

George Carlin explains everything.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnmMNdiCz_s]YouTube - George Carlin - fear of germs[/ame]

 

[Moxie]

Consensus or majority. Either way, it's argumentum ad populum, and not a scientific method.

Peer review is suppose to be a quality control check on the scientific method. Most published work is a small piece of a puzzle that we will never see 100% of the pieces for. The same reviewer can approve two "pieces" that might suggest opposite conclusions.

The public is drawn to black and white arguments, while science is more about trying to determine probabilities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change seems rather opinionated, but even they estimate an up to 9.9% chance that natural forces are causing most of the warming.

Scientists are just like politicians

Judge Orders Bush Administration to Issue Global Warming Report - Bloomberg
Bush Administration Has Pressured Half Of Gov't Scientists To Downplay Global Warming

 

[BluuueJammm]

So you're saying that science is a matter of collective opinion? The earth is flat if enough scientists agree with that premise?

But the collective opinion isn't just peoples random guesses, it's opinion based on studies that are tested and retested by others on a constant basis.

I don't have a problem with science being wrong sometimes, once the data points to something being incorrect more studies are carried out and the scientific consensus updated. Scientific opinion is based on the available data at the time, but it is based on data.

This didn't happen with climategate. Peer review limited access, controlled journals, attacked dissident scientists, and suppressed the truth and alternative points of view.

Peer review in this case, one of the largest and most controversial scientific claims of our time, was clearly shown to be an impediment to science, not an enabler of honesty.

Scientists are just like politicians, bus drivers, affiliate marketers, strippers, soldiers and catholic priests. Individual actors motivated by their own self-interest, not some superhuman spirituality or morality.

Well I haven't got time to get in to this properly, but climategate really isn't as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be as I'm sure you are aware.

Of course some scientists have an agenda, peer review is meant to help weed them out by having others redo and test the studies. Do you really think it would be better if studies went untested and unverified by others?

 

[geomark]

I drink rain water

 

[ly2 from WF]

I drink rain water

your name is rainman amirite?

 

[FrontIE]

I dont drink water, i only drink bottled fluoride..

One time, someone but some water in my flouride and the whole day I felt stupid


fuck that it just a little ignorant kid, whose mom has given him ratpoison once on every weekday and probably twice on sundays

 

[clyde]

Peer review is science by consensus. When everyone agreed the earth was flat, that was peer review.

The facts don't require a consensus. Facts aren't made true by a majority opinion.

I don't know much about Price except his dietary guidelines are really good, I'm just saying, peer review is not a scientific method.

Peer review is just a method to keep scientific journals/publications pure. It has nothing to do with the scientific process. Didn't really read what you was referring to though so apologize in advance.

From Wiki,

Peer review evaluation

Scientific journals use a process of peer review, in which scientists' manuscripts are submitted by editors of scientific journals to (usually one to three) fellow (usually anonymous) scientists familiar with the field for evaluation. The referees may or may not recommend publication, publication with suggested modifications, or, sometimes, publication in another journal. This serves to keep the scientific literature free of unscientific or pseudoscientific work, to help cut down on obvious errors, and generally otherwise to improve the quality of the material.

 

[guerilla]

Peer review is suppose to be a quality control check on the scientific method.

Think about this for a minute.

 

[Uzzz]

and in other news...
Calgary council votes to stop fluoridating city water - CTV News

"Calgary's drinking water could soon be fluoride-free. City aldermen voted by a margin of 10 to 3 on Tuesday to eliminate the mineral from its water supply."

 

[guerilla]

But the collective opinion isn't just peoples random guesses, it's opinion based on studies that are tested and retested by others on a constant basis.

I never claimed they were based on random guesses.

I asked you if more scientists agreeing could make a fact true or false. Does the nature of a fact change as more people agree with it?

Scientific opinion is based on the available data at the time, but it is based on data.

You cannot possibly know the psychological motivations of each and every scientist making an opinion.

Well I haven't got time to get in to this properly, but climategate really isn't as cut and dry as you are trying to make it out to be as I'm sure you are aware.

I'm just working from the emails. They speak for themselves.

Of course some scientists have an agenda

I thought you said that their agenda was data first.

Do you really think it would be better if studies went untested and unverified by others?

This is a red herring and avoids my argument completely.

I don't think more people testing to a conclusion can make a conclusion right.

The facts are either true or not, regardless of who agrees with them.

 

[FrontIE]

But the collective opinion isn't just peoples random guesses, it's opinion based on studies that are tested and retested by others on a constant basis.

I don't have a problem with science being wrong sometimes, once the data points to something being incorrect more studies are carried out and the scientific consensus updated. Scientific opinion is based on the available data at the time, but it is based on data.

That first part is such a postmodern statment. In the end there is an objective truth. And that does not depend on collective opinions. If 100% of population agrees and tests something that is completely untrue, does it make it true? As with previous example, if we all agree that the earth is flat, is it indeed flat?

Also, Scientific opinion is based on data.. Kind of agree, but would go futher. It actually is based on a PERCEIVED data and on our understanding of that data. So scientist 10 thousand years ago after seeing a car, would say its a fast monster. But that only because he has no reference point and internally links this experience to what he has already seen and translates this experience to his own past.

So all in all, you cant trust your own facts or "data" , and neither can you trust "scientsist" data or opinions.

But truth is out there , looks at us , shows us the middle finger and laughs, because he does not give rats ass to what we think or what our opinion is

 

[SeoReborn]

Truth is truth, peer reviewed or not, consensus or not.