|HOME > Tanoro's Blog >|
Earlier today, an acquaintence on Facebook posted a graphic that I thought made some very extraordinary claims. The conversation was cut short for reasons that may become clear later, so I am going to reply here on my blog instead. For privacy reasons, I will refer to the other person in this coversation simply as "P". Please forgive the excessive grammar and typing errors.
Still want whiter teeth? Bunch of bullshit!
"Lowers I.Q."? "Makes you dumb"? "Autism"!? Now Fluoride causes austism too!? No way, I MUST see a published study about this.
Well, its a toxic waste, im sure its not good for you...but m looking all this up too. Definetly calcifies the pineal gland, your third eye, that wouldnt go making you smarter now would it?
I'd like to see a study on that too. I agree that the fluoride they put into water is a bi-product of fertilizer manufacturing, so you COULD call it waste if you like. As far as toxic, that depends on the dose. Literally any substance is toxic in high enough doses.
Oh, I like this one: "Interferes with White Blood Cell Production"? I drink fluoride water and I use a fluoride toothpaste and I have a consistently high white cell count. Granted, I'm merely an anecdote, but it does make that claim appear incorrect to me.
well continue usuing flouride and lets check back with you in a few years and see how your doing.. who needs a study when your still drinking it, time will tell no? theres plenty of info on what flouride does to the brain and pineal gland,,,do some homework,its all here.
No, P. Every time I research this topic, I reach the conclusion fluoride is safe. If you've reached a different conclusion, I need to know what you are using to get there. One of us made an error somewhere and I'd like to know if it was me. Let me be more clear: "I reach the conclusion that fluoride warrants no significant health concerns as it is being used in water and toothpaste."
really? so because its used in water and toothpaste it must be ok? then so is sugar and salt. and coca cola must be good for you too! so is burger king and mcdonalds. it must be ok because its legal right? lets not forget beer! its good for you, specailly with a nice ciggarrette in the smoking zone! yeah, otherwise they wouldnt let us consume that, just like they wouldnt let us consume fluoride, what was I thinking? rabbit holes are free of charge. try going down deep in a few.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Let me clarify again. When I see promotional posters and graphics like the one above, my first thought is, "Only an idiot would believe those." Promo graphics almost never contain any avenue to verify them as factual. They are designed that way to train people not to fact-check them - just believe them out of hand or not. By promoting the position, I am assuming you hold this as a positive claim to knowledge. Therefore, I'd like to know how I can fact-check your claim. I want to know if my information is correct or yours.
How did you respond? "I don't want to explain it. Go do your own homework. And by the way, if you think fluoride is safe, you must also think beer, sugar, salt, and cigarettes are good for you." I can easily locate peer reviewed papers showing that these things are hazardous. Show me a paper that shows fluoride is hazardous as it is being used.
Fluoride is good for you Christopher. Dont take a promotional posters word for it. Promotional posters by the way is not where ive read these findings. There is plenty of info online which state the many harms fluoride cases on the brain, gums, teeth brain and pineal gland. But if you thinik a promotional poster is where one finds this information then maybe you should look it up yourself. But if you want to think fluoride causes no harm to your body then thats also your free will. i am not here to proove anything to you Christopher.Do some research, and I dont mean de bunking promo posters. Go research fluoride effects on teeth, on pineal gland, then connect some dots as to why they have made it a fucking culture in america to walk around with your Evian water bottles anywhere you go in the world. And why that society is dumbed down to the max! Coincedence?
P, I want you to know that I'm not here to hassle you. I'm honestly not. It's a matter of: "I have encountered a person who has information different than mine. Am I wrong or is he?" I assume, in the event that you're the one mistaken, you'd be interested in knowing about it. I certainly am.
I find your comment, in many ways, condescending rather than helpful and you also successfully avoided providing what I requested...again. I am aware that there is plenty of info on this matter. Are you aware that much of it is likely to be bullshit? You don't seem concerned about that, as if a person who is possibly mistaken (me) doesn't need guidance toward truth. You seem to be convinced that the reason we don't agree is because you've done research and I have not. Therefore, encouragement is needed and not guidance. You are not even close, my good sir.
My methodology of verification is based on examination of the peer reviewed publications by the relevant experts in the relevant science journals. This avenue consistently leads me to conclude that fluoride is safe in the way that it is being used. Your avenue, whatever it is, leads you to a different conclusion. Which of us is wrong? I have no idea, because you refuse to tell me anything about where you get your information or how you check it! Instead, you assert your position is true, refuse to defend it, and assign homework to get me to go away.
That said and as per your suggestion, here is what I found on calcification of the pineal gland and its correlation with fluoridation. I was able to find only one 2001 study by J Luke published in Caries Research. I don't find this paper even remotely compelling for a few reasons. First, 48 citations in 11 years (MOST of them by the same small group of authors) indicates that the paper is of low impact. Authors P and M Connett cite this paper a lot, accounting for many of the 48 citations. I laughed out loud when I saw Gary Null among the citations as well. Having so few citations from such an invariant community of supporters means most experts who read the paper, didn't think it was compelling enough to use it. Secondly, the journal in which it was published is a somewhat new journal with no impact factor that I could find, so the author couldn't even get published in a reputable journal. Third, the paper has only one author, J Luke, which is highly irregular for legitimate research projects which usually result in many reputable authors contributing to the paper. Finally, I could not find this author's work nor anything similar research in ANY prestigious journal. I cannot dispute the research itself, not being an expert myself, but I also cannot be compelled by the opinions of just one author with no reasonable scientific consensus backing him. I can't claim any certainty on this, but this author has many warning signs of being a minority quack job where this paper is concerned.
I was also able to find a thesis (not peer reviewed) by the same author in the British Library, but nothing else. If you can find more, I'd like to see them, but make sure any sources to give me trace back to a verifiable piece of peer reviewed research.
I am aware that you're not here to prove anything, but you made a positive claim anyway, so you're stuck with it.
You have 4 options:
P, you are clearly not interested in truth or having intelligent conversation which might be useful to others. I am deeply skeptical that you know what you're talking about, you're perfectly ok misleading people with propaganda, and you resort to censorship when someone catches you. I have declined further communication from such people simply for being so dishonest, but I'll leave my channels open for you to correct this conflict. It's your call.
This blog is an editorial and contains only the opinions of the author. The author claims no expertise on most topics of discussion and this blog is not to be cited as an alternative for properly vetted journalism or scientific sources.comments powered by Disqus