The new research is the first to measure community water fluoridation exposure during childhood and any potential impact on cognition up to age 80.
The paper is here
The new research is the first to measure community water fluoridation exposure during childhood and any potential impact on cognition up to age 80.
The paper is here
Can we trust this study though? Everyone is dumb as shit now, the baseline has degraded, and people are more docile. Something is going on, somethings. I wouldn’t absolve flouride that crystallizes in the decision making part of the brain, and it in the soil and food to a huge degree, from aluminum smelting, because of a study. Given, you know, things.
Yeah I don’t care about studies either when my feelings are telling me otherwise.
You should care about the fact that studies will tell you roundup is safe, atrazine is safe, and the like. My sweet summer child, the system is corrupted. If you don’t know that yet, there is little hope for you.
Those things are safe, kiddo. We use this thing called evidence to determine that.
You either need more drugs or less drugs. Whatever level you’re at now is not working.
First of all, the answer is always more and better drugs. That you don’t know that indicts your understanding!
Second of all, you have no idea what you are defending, you trust the establishment and follow their lead. I would argue at this point to not question what you are told by the experts exposes you for a fool.
Yeah what do the experts know?
That is a good point, they know who pays them and who can take their living away from them. What were you fucking born yesterday? That last sentence was delivered in a yell.
I agree with you.
In a world of sheep be a Steve Jobs.
Dead from cancer because you think you know better than the experts?
I guess that answers that question.
Oh rather, and accepting what you are told without question is such a display of intelligence by the way! We’ve all seen how trustworthy the experts are, to not trust them, ha, right? GTFO. I don’t care how many half wits vote with you because they think they are right on this issue, you are, how can I not be offensive, a sheep. A particularly dumb one trusting your shepard to lead you to safety when you are heading to the slaughterhouse.
Nobody here is listening to you without question. That’s what bothers you.
Are you old enough to be using the internet?
If not, are you too old to be on the internet?
My honest answer, is to do your own research. To be more specific though, read the article. Then the study the article is based on. Then do a few google searches and read a few related studies. Look for a general consensus. How many studies are there. What methods do they use? Sample sizes?
Basically, validating this stuff requires work and critical thinking. It’s much easier to claim the institutions are corrupt, and that you don’t trust anything they say. Doing that also leaves you with nothing but popular opinion, rumors, and whatever you think sounds about right based on a knee jerk reaction.
How can anyone hold a conversation or argument about it when you look at data and go “no actually I don’t agree because spooky unrelated study on a different thing by a different journal like
10years ago”Edit: *26 years ago, mb friends
I did not reference any 10-year-old journal. I referenced a lack of faith in these United states.
You can talk your establishment bullshit all you want, all I said was I am not willing to concede the point that it is safe because of a study commissioned by someone.
Were you born yesterday? Or do you just not understand the world we live in? The answer is obviously the latter. Go back To sleep
I was referring to the (retracted) study by monsanto, saying Roundup was safe. I was actually underestimating though, the study was from 2000, so the study you referred to in terms of roundup is actually from 26 years ago :)
Though there was a study in 2019 bringing up a lot of the concerns, and I think that might be the one I was thinking of. https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/02/13/uw-study-exposure-to-chemical-in-roundup-increases-risk-for-cancer/
Also, just in case you were serious, hard to tell, I wasn’t born yesterday. I’d have a hard time typing if so.
Removed by mod
The trick here is to look at who is funding it and if the methods are correct. If it’s independent and competently done, it’s probably correct
“the system” doesn’t mean scientists are corrupt, it means your politicians are.
Are you for real? Do you not realize mercenary scientific outfits take jobs with the understanding of working backwards from the position their funders want them to be that’s and engineer those studies to come to that conclusion, which is in turn taken up by lobbyists and politicians and all that bullshit. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. The fact that you don’t realize this at this point, frankly it’s just fucking depressing. We are fucked because you are fucking, ahem, not so enlightened.
Source?
Dumbass
I think the top of the post you replied to is speaking out of hard earned personal wisdom. /S
That wouldn’t implicate fluoride, because not everyone was exposed to it. And the study indicates that fluoride exposure (on a community level, which would take into account soil and food) doesn’t make a difference.
There are huge levels of flouride in some foods, per National Geographic. California raisens are super high for instance.
And I’m not saying flouride is bad, only that I wouldn’t say it’s not bad because of a study and “experts.”
And it’s obviously death by a thousand cuts in the dumb department/low sperm count/90% loss of insects worldwide since the 90’s/crash of the frog populations, et al. Flouride is a bit player. Yet something is affecting our trust center, and it’s not all taxoplasmosis, we are being dosed, coincidentally or no by pollutions. It’s worse than you think.
While there are always biased studies, the data in this case comes from the Wisconsin Longitudinal Study, a broad health and social sciences study conducted by the University of Wisconsin that’s been ongoing since 1957. You can access the data yourself here.
Yet there might be limitations in what they’re looking at, changes in Behavior are subtle. And would be missed in such a study would they not? I am not declaring fluoride guilty, I am saying I would not absolve it.
Those kinds of issues would come into play if they were trying to establish a correlation between two things—it’s notoriously hard to eliminate confounding variables, spurious coincidences, etc.
But it’s far more straightforward to establish a lack of correlation, which is what this study does.
Removed by mod
To fight forces like big oil, we need to be able to focus our efforts appropriately. Indiscriminately attributing everything to big oil serves their purposes as much as complacency does.
Removed by mod
Working at a university is part of the “establishment”? What the fuck does that even mean
That means you are dumb, the group of them have the collective experience of over 100 years of academic and research work. These people are the literal definition of experts.
Your lack of any actual investigation means that your suspicion is something that the rest of us should not trust.
Removed by mod
Yooo same!
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
So what criteria do you have for thinking a thing is true? Why the quotes around experts?
Because In our society the experts are often the last ones you can trust. They are paid and influenced by Monied interests.
Crossing corporate interests will get one of these experts de expertified. And or they will find something to destroy them with, be it sexual in nature or not.
And all I am saying here is that I would not admit that fluoride does not have an effect on human behavior and or health because of these experts and their studies.
Am I wrong? ( no.)
That’s a whole lotta words to avoid answering a pretty simple question.
What criteria do you have for thinking a thing is true?
Removed by mod
That’s a correlation, not a causation. It’s infinitely more likely it’s the mass propaganda outlets that have only gotten more effective. Especially with the advent of algorithms and the brainwashing brick.
The one does not preclude the other, it in fact amplifies it. Mark my words, we are being systematically poisoned in multiple ways, be flouride one of them or no, and the fact you would argue against that at this point would lead me to classify you as a sheep, a particularly ill informed one at that.
“even if what I’m saying is factually incorrect I’m still right and you’re still wrong.”
Incredible, thank you for distilling your world view for us
Acknowledging a lack of certainty as you do exposes you. Don’t let a few score half wits convince you otherwise. You are ignorant, not engaging on issues, just following the lead of an establishment that has lied to us every step of the way for our entire lives, progressively getting worse.
I have an exciting investment opportunity for you by the way, because I see how intelligent you are! Ha ha.
No it doesn’t. I think the fact that they’ve looked long term for links and found none does male a song argument however. Yes we are being poisoned in multiple ways. But we can generally prove them.
I just want to complement your honest to goodness tin foil hat beliefs. Don’t forget to mention the homosexual amphibians. And more than anything else, Godspeed in your quest for loosely connected facts!
Removed by mod
A couple of the dumbest people I know believe that fluoride is bad for you
So you don’t respond with any intellectual points but, that some dumb people think that so obviously the opposite is true. Yet dumb people also think what you think. So piss off, your argument Falls flat outside of this Echo chamber of fucking sheep.
you have to have some intellectual points to respond with intellectual points. Human beings if baseline inteligence was less can certainly do the scientific method properly. Its a procudure and does not require hawking level intellect to work with. The studies do not require any new field of math or such. You points he was resbonding to where your feelings. you feel baseline intellect is degraded (which if it was would not give a feel for the intellect of the average scientist), you freel something is going one. you would not absolve flouride based on your feelings.
Removed by mod
People arent dumber. People have always been dumb. The difference is that the internet exposes this idiocy more, makes it easier for idiots to organize and influence the world, and uses marketing and propaganda to take advantage of this dumbness. But the dumbness itself isn’t new or increasing.
Removed by mod
The President being dumber than any president before, and frankly dumber than most people in many ways, doesn’t mean that humanity as a whole has become collectively stupider.
In the 50s doctors had recommendations for the healthiest cigarettes. In the 70s, they thought they could give people drugs to unlock superhuman mental abilities. In the 90s, people thought mortal kombat was responsible for gun violence. In the 2010s, we thought that social media would free the world from corporate media control and misinformation (and not that it leads to shit like Trump). And today we have people who outsource their every thought, question, and task to an AI chat bot.
Now that last one will almost certainly lead to dumber people. Average IQs fluctuate, and are in part dependent on good health and nutrition and the ability to regularly exercise logic and critical thinking at a young age. As people outsource more of their critical thinking to a robot, they may very well get dumber. But on the whole, as it is now, we’ve always had smart people and we’ve always had dumb people. Your bias towards seeing more dumb people is just that, a bias. You’ll see what you’re looking for. But a single point of reference is never going to be a good judge for the whole system.
Removed by mod
Well you’re certainly helping your own case by demonstrating unintelligent discourse. Denial without cause, assertions without supporting reason or evidence, vague implied claims that can’t be refuted because you didnt give enough detail to understand what you’re even really claiming, a call to action without any actual suggestion of what action to take, personal attacks (apparently using talk-to-text “question mark”), and then your mic drop was “I’ll help you through this” without doing anything helpful whatsoever. Wow. What a spectacularly useless comment. Impressive in it’s pointlessness.
LMAO has this dude genuinely been yelling into his phone this whole time?
Please explain the chemical process that results in “fluoride crystallizing in the decision making part of the brain”.
Sodium Flouride is a naturally occuring salt in ground water. The water purification process for public water systems removes the Flouride, and it needs to be put back in to maintain dental health. This was directly observed and figured out in the 1940’s.
Removed by mod
Just DM’d to me from this fuckin guy: