Fluoride update re IQ

weisses wrote: »

so you don't know the average but you do know its safe ....strange approach

weisses wrote: »

Ahh instead of actually trying to discuss it use the "peer reviewed" approach to kill the discussion

estudent wrote: »

So now you're depending on a freelance journalist in support of Water Fluoridation?
Sensationalist condescending twaddle or cutting edge journalism in your opinion?

Peter McGuire is a freelance journalist. See his linkedin profile. Irrespective your beliefs on Fluoridation, Peter's not someone I'd consider an authority on this issue. This quote by Dr. Frank Doyle is interesting. It's valid but in the context of Water Fluoridation, it's ambiguous and perhaps deliberately so in order to support the assertions of the author.

“We are all susceptible to confirmatory bias – only paying attention to evidence which fits in with our current beliefs. Nowadays, this could be even more problematic, as Facebook and Google have algorithms to show what they think you are more interested in, meaning that you are less exposed to ideas you don’t agree with.”

Is Mr. Doyle even talking about Water Fluoridation? He certainly works as a senior lecturer in psychology but where does this quote come from and in what context was it made?

I'll bet if you asked Mr. Doyle, he probably wasn't even referring to Water Fluoridation when he made the statement if he made it at all.

Peter quotes Stephen Lewandowsky on Conspiracy Theorists, once again taking his statement out of context.

Then there's David Robert Grimes, another freelancer session guitarist who knows nothing.

Article is pure trash written by a nobody.

estudent wrote: »

I think it's quite a good illustration of your own confirmation bias.
You cite an article as a way to support your beliefs about water fluoridation without properly validating/assessing the content.

The author, Peter McGuire thinks because he quotes 1 or 2 qualified medical professionals on the subject of something else entirely, the rest of the article somehow has merit?

Then he quotes some loser David Grimes (probably a close friend) who claims to have Phd in Medical Physics, a session guitarist and writer, but hasn't published a single paper in regard to psycho-pharmacology yet he's an expert on water fluoridation?

I really see no evidence to support fluoridation of water.

First of all, there's plenty of toothpaste, plenty of mouth wash and nobody can say they don't have access to a dentist in this country.

It's pointless.

estudent wrote: »

That's irrelevant. People should have the choice whether they want to drink fluoridated water or not.

estudent wrote: »

People need to drink water everyday and what you're essentially saying to the whole country is "We know what's best for you" which is just arrogance and anti democratic.

If you want to drink fluoridated water, that's your business but others shouldn't be forced to accept your ridiculous beliefs. The Catholic Church does that in Ireland already and have done for hundreds of years.

I'm advocating people have the choice and you appear to be against that so I have nothing else to add as we'd simply run around in circles.

I don't believe in forcing people to do something against their will...you on the other hand.

estudent wrote: »

You would be far better off opening a blog because all you're doing is soap boxing.
From what I can tell from your posts to date, you started this thread for your own amusement.

Nothing would possibly change your mind so why are we even debating anything, just go open a blog and tell the world what you think.

estudent wrote: »

Yes I did and it's quite clear from my previous posts. Maybe someone else will entertain you because I have better things to do.

luckypigeon wrote: »

hp://fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

He appears to be a legitimate doctor of chemistry.

There is an extensive list of references at the end, citing much scientific research among other sources.

The point about it being illegal and undemocratic to add drugs to everybody's water is incontrovertible in my view. i.e. your GP doesn't have the right to administer drugs to 70 percent of people in the country, regardless of their particular medical situation: why should the state?

It's worth noting that the big money interest in this controversy is behind the pro fluoride camp. For one thing because waste fluoride form the phosphate industry is what is apparently used in the water supply. So this doctor has been smeared here: QUACKWATCH.org SLASH 'CONNETT' The arguments (and counter-evidence), as you will see, are so thin in this smear article as to be non-existent, but there is plenty of unsupported, smearish rhetoric there.

It is interesting also to note that Ireland and the US both appear to be about 7 times ahead of the average country in terms of fluoride use in the water supply. According to my world view, it would be naive to think these two facts to be entirely unconnected. One's beliefs on this issue will really come down to what one thinks that a government (and its behind the scenes interests) are capable of; and what you think their agenda (if any) might be. As such, most people will accept a fairly benign, conservative and mainstream account of the government's actions and intentions, and a fewer number will adopt a more suspicious account more in line with past government/big business//state intelligence/elite atrocities and experiments that are well known matters of fact and free to read to read about. It is, on this level, a question of: what are governments capable of? And if they are capable of very dark things, what is it they want and hope to achieve via such dark actions? What motivates them? Do they act entirely alone when making odd decisions such as these - or are other interests also at play? Your answers to these questions will dictate where you stand on poisoned water.