Who produces data? People who are educated. Where are the people educated? Universities. Universities take money to support, either through endowments or by the government. Educated people are also paid. Research proposals are usually pre-approved. Data does not come from out of a vacuum. It's like the media. There is no such thing as an unbiased media. There is no such thing as unbiased data. It may appear that way to over zealous journalists, or over zealous scientists. . . but it isn't. It all depends on WHAT you decide to study, or WHAT you decide to cover. If certain things remain unstudied, or unreported on, then there are no data, or no information on those topics, are there? A well informed decision can not be made by the public, and the truth can not be arrived at by purposeful intention of the people that are holding the purse strings, yes? You can't "show the data" if the people running the system make full well sure there is no data that is of the proper quality to show. Look at the global warning debate for Christ's sake. It's a case study in obfuscation for ulterior motives. :bugeye: To top that all off. . . if the data does, occasionally exist, the people controlling the system CLOSE down others from doing the research and actually getting the data out there. I DID post some, but did you bother to read it? Probably not. There's all sorts of data and research showing the toxicity of putting Sodium Flouride in our water system, I posted a Harvard study. . . but, of course, I'm sure you didn't bother to look at it. If authority tells us it's safe, it's safe. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
To esotericist Sorry guy. You are wrong. There is no conspiracy. And there is heaps of data, generated in a non biased objective way. If you count the number of people who die of lung cancer each year in America, how is that number biased? It is only with interpretation of data that bias creeps in. Anything we discuss in this forum that consists of a debate on interpretation is grist for the mill. No problems there. If your interpretation is different to mine, then either of us might be right, or we might both be wrong. However, the actual data is seriously unlikely to be wrong.
Skeptical And yet, you fail to address the issue I raise, other than to say, no, you are wrong. Interesting. You are like a three year old putting his fingers in his ears and going, "blah blah blah, I can't hear you." Is what I am saying to uncomfortable for you to contemplate? I agree, bias creeps in with the interpretation of data, but it also creeps in, when there is a refusal, a general lack of funding or interest to do studies in countervailing hypothesis and theories. It most civilized western nations, it is well known that putting sodium fluoride in the water is hazardous to the populations health, so only in the U.S. do we still do it. And even here, it is only on the local level that this choice is mandated. Same as it is in Britain. Studies have found that there is no decrease in cavities by putting this industrial pollutant in the water. No where in the rest of Europe or the rest of the world is this horrid poisoning practiced. I won't say why we do it. You will just hurl Ad Hominem attacks at me. Likewise, only in the U.S. is Aspartame legal. Again, the studies have clearly shown it is cancerous. But we continue to use it in our food. The examples go on and on. And YES, they are backed with studies. And I suppose, you are right, they are open to interpretation, I guess that's why the rest of the world has made these things illegal in their countries, and they are legal in the U.S. By MY point is, follow the money. There are interpretations of these studies, and the lobbying of how to interpret these studies, has a financial reason, it is at the expense of the populace, and since the time these chemicals have been used on our populace, in comparison to other western populaces, cancer rates HAVE gone up. . . but again, you AREN'T going to see those studies done, that data ISN'T going to be available. WHY? I HAVE TOLD YOU WHY. BUT YOU AREN'T LISTENING TO ME. SCIENCE HAS A BIAS WHEN THE DATA ISN'T THERE.
do not underestimate the pressure of popular opinion to convince the elect to do things that are harmfull to the populace.. IOW..how much of the things that are wrong with the US are our own doing? we voted for these things.. what motivates us to vote for these things?
Esotericist I am sorry. You are wrong on so many levels. A minor example. The US is far from being the only country where fluoride is added to drinking water. It is widespread, including my country, New Zealand. My home uses rainwater, so I make sure I use toothpaste with added fluoride to gain the benefits. Fluoride is vital for healthy teeth. I had an interesting conversation with a dentist I know. He worked for a time in Queensland, Australia, which is the only state without fluoride addition. He described it as a dentist's dream. Rotten teeth were almost ubiquitous. He had more work, at high $$$$ than he could handle! The idiots who rant about the dangers of fluoride are ignorant of the science of toxicology. The most basic principle of which says ; The dose makes the poison. Meaning that if a poison is administered at sufficiently low dose, it is harmless. Guess what dose is given for fluoride? Aspartame is also legal here in NZ. I have a friend who works for the New Zealand Food Safety Authority. He passed me a copy of a document on aspartame, which clearly shows that it is safe. Read the following, which is an example of good science. http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/123-1311/4024/ And no. Aspartame does not cause cancer. Is science biased? No. Individual scientists may be, because they are human, and any human can be biased. However, science as a discipline involves various techniques to avoid bias, and rely upon credible, objective, and empirical data. As I always say. We can argue interpretations of data as long as you like. However, the data itself is normally sound. Only if the scientific studies that produce the data can be shown to be less than rigorous can we dispute data. In those cases, we must look to other studies that are more rigorous, to reveal reality. In areas where we lack even the basic data, then there is no basis for sound interpretations or conclusions. Everyone can speculate wildly. However, no rational person will take those speculations seriously. We have to wait till someone figures out a way to get good data.
Umm, time travel...duh. The funny thing is, when you read history, you see ancient people dying of cancer frequently enough, like the empress Theodora, wife of Justinian. Hippocrates even write that he thought it was caused by an excess of black bile (one of the four humours). If only he knew it was caused by time travelers.
lol..jesus is a time traveler.. oops..sorry wrong thread..they tend to merge in my brain after awhile..sorry
Typical arguments against drugs invariably fail because they bypass the most important step in any risk analysis: cost-benefit analysis. There's a reason tobacco is the world's most popular drug and it is not primarily addictiveness: it works! Nicotine is a mood leveler. If you're anxious it calms you down, if you're depressed it perks you up. Unlike all other common drugs, it takes the user to the center of his spectrum, rather than making him "high" or bringing him "down." What a concept: You don't even need to have enough self-awareness to know how you feel, nicotine will fix it! There are places in the world where people buy cigarettes that have been cut in half, because they can afford them. I've seen reports of interviews with these people, and they always say, "This is the only bright spot in my day." It's lately being acknowledged (finally!) that the way to solve the drug problem is to reduce demand rather than supply. The way to reduce demand is to figure out why people want drugs, and then solve that problem. Until then, individuals will continue to perform their own amateur-level cost-benefit analysis, and decide that the immediate benefits of smoking--the one or more bright spots in a day overwhelmed with anxiety and/or depression--far outweigh the risk of getting cancer some day in the distant future. As economists say, "the problem with long-term planning is that the short term always comes first." And BTW, at least here in the USA tobacco use has been declining for decades. Between 1964 and 2006 it fell from 42% of the population to 21%. According to Wikipedia the countries that lead the world in tobacco consumption are Russia, Indonesia, Laos, Ukraine, Belarus, Greece, Jordan and China.
Fraggle A small flaw in your reasoning. The good feeling from taking in nicotine is only true when starting the habit or increasing the habit. The thing is that the body adapts. When you first take nicotine into your body, it acts as a mild toxin on the nerves and provides a calming feeling. However, after a while, your body returns to the normal level of agitation under the influence of a steady diet of nicotine. If you try to reduce smoking, the nicotine level drops and the body responds with greater than normal agitation, which means discomfort. Only more nicotine will return it to 'normal'. The thing is, this 'normal' is the same as you had before you started smoking, with no nicotine. So nicotine actually gives no long term calming effect. Only short term. After that, the addiction is just a pain. If you fail to smoke as much as normal, you get agitated and uncomfortable, and you need your cancer stick just to return to normal. Pretty lousy 'benefit' to me.
Really? My condolences. Saying so doesn't mean it is true. I don't believe you, I did some research, you're wrong. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm Essentially? Only english speaking countries are stupid enough to do this idiotic practice. I'm unaware that they made toothpaste without fluoride, as that is the active ingrediant. My mother is a dental hygienist, you needn't preach to me about dental health. True enough, but after topical application, ingestion does nothing for ones teeth, that is a scientific fact. How does one control for how much fluoridated (poisoned) water a person ingests over a lifetime? I won't disagree that the dosage in water SEEMS at prime fascia negligible. However, fluoride is one of the most toxic of all heavy metals and being it is in one of the most used substances of daily household use, the longitudinal studies done for the build up of this toxin in the body do not justify it usage. http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-facts.htm 7. National Research Council. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C. p. 173-188. 8. Varner JA, et al. (1998). Chronic Administration of Aluminum-Fluoride and Sodium-Fluoride to Rats in Drinking Water: Alterations in Neuronal and Cerebrovascular Integrity.Brain Research. 784: 284-298. 9. Lin Fa-Fu, et al. (1991). The relationship of a low-iodine and high-fluoride environment to subclinical cretinism in Xinjiang. Iodine Deficiency Disorder Newsletter. Vol. 7. No. 3. 10. Xiang Q, et al. (2003a). Effect of fluoride in drinking water on children's intelligence. Fluoride 36: 84-94; 198-199. 11. NRC (2006). p. 189-224. 12. NRC (2006). p. 107-148. 13. National Toxicology Program. (1990). Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Fluoride in F344/N Rats and B6C3f1 Mice. Technical report Series No. 393. NIH Publ. No 91-2848. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, N.C. 14. Hoover RN, et al. (1991). Time trends for bone and joint cancers and osteosarcomas in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program. National Cancer Institute In: Review of Fluoride: Benefits and Risks. US Public Health Service. Appendix E & F. 15. Cohn PD. (1992). A Brief Report On The Association Of Drinking Water Fluoridation And The Incidence of Osteosarcoma Among Young Males. New Jersey Department of Health Environ. Health Service: 1- 17. 16. Bassin EB, Wypij D, Davis RB, Mittleman MA. (2006). Age-specific Fluoride Exposure in Drinking Water and Osteosarcoma (United States). Cancer Causes and Control 17: 421-8. 17. Johnson W, et al. (1979). Fluoridation and bone disease in renal patients. In: E Johansen, DR Taves, TO Olsen, Eds. Continuing Evaluation of the Use of Fluorides. AAAS Selected Symposium. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado. pp. 275-293. 18. Ittel TH, et al. (1992). Effect of fluoride on aluminum-induced bone disease in rats with renal failure. Kidney International 41: 1340-1348. 19. Ayoob S, Gupta AK. (2006). Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review on the Status and Stress Effects. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36:433–487
That's a lie. They knew it caused cancer when the FDA approved it for use here in the U.S. Apparently the big money masters got to your government too. My condolences. I didn't think it was legal in any other country, I'm shocked, really. You really should read more and do some more research into politics, science is run by money. Searle is was run by Donald Rumsfeld, that is why Aspartame is legal. PLEASE watch this and read some of this, ok. I doubt you will wish to read the fifty page appeal by the FDA to oppose the approval of aspartame, but, eh. . . cest le vie. A meeting with Donald Rumsfeld FDA then revoked the petition for aspartame approval because it could not be proven safe and causes brain tumors. http://www.wnho.net/fda_petition1.doc Aspartame Administered in Feed, Beginning Prenatally Through Life Span, Induces Cancers of the Liver and Lung in Male Swiss Mice http://dorway.com/dorwblog/ I found this EXTREMELY interesting. You are such a dupe. Your government implicitly trusts our government, and YOU implicitly trust YOUR government. Oh the horror. It is SO pathetic. You should come to me to save your ass. I know better than to trust my government. And your government is prostrate to mine. So why on earth would you prostrate yourself to a government that has no back bone to one as criminal as mine? http://www.mpwhi.com/fda_gate.htm Anyway, just another instance where CANCER IS MAN MADE!
Esotericist The internet is full of crackpot web sites. These include tha anti-fluoride and the anti-aspartame web sites. They are classics of cherry picking data. Both fluoride and aspartame have had literally thousands of studies. A few will, purely by the laws of chance, have negative results. This makes them look harmful, if and only if, you cherry pick the few studies that come up with negatives. Now frankly, I do not have time to go through thousands of studies myself, and I can assure you that I have no desire to do anything so boring and futile. Nor do I believe the stuff I see on the internet, or which people like you post as references. You are paranoid about government publications. That is your pathology. The simple fact is that government organisations like the American NIH, my country's Department of Health, and the equivalents in Australia, Canada, Britain and western nations everywhere, are solid, sound and professional. In spite of your paranoia, and probably irrational conspiracy theories, these orgaisations can be trusted. Not only that, but they do go through all the thousands of studies on fluoride and aspartame. Their final conclusions are far more valid than your crackpot internet sites. I have personal contacts in the New Zealand Food Safety Authority, and they assure me that both aspartame, and fluoride at recommended use levels are totally safe. I accept their professional assessment, and I totally reject the half baked opinions of crackpots. If that is not good enough for you, check the web sites from reputable medical and dental bodies. The American Medical Association. The Mayo Clinic. The American Dental Association. etc. And forget the opinions of crackpots.
That's probably not so true of the people who are buying one or two half-cigarettes a day in Berzerkistan. I've known Americans who smoked less than once a day and they seemed to be just fine. Moderation seems to be the key to everything. That's why I decided to be a Moderator. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You bet. Moderation is not always in order. For example, I can't imagine a situation in which settling for less than absolute integrity would be appropriate.
I can. When someone is blatantly using your integrity to exploit you unfairly. My personal philosophy requires compromise and a careful balance between extremes. I distrust anything too extremist, including extremism in integrity. Sometimes practicality should rule.
Do you think all diseases are man made or just cancer? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Fluoride. Source: Wikipedia
There is an easy way to recognise crackpot web sites. If a web site makes claims that are contrary to that which is well known to be correct, then those writing those claims will attack reputable sources. So, if you see a web site that makes claims related to health matters, and it attacks the views of government, university, and research institutes that deal with health matters, that web site is run by crackpots. I se this sort of thing rather sadly often. In America, crackpots attack the NIH, FDA, and EPA. Reason? Because those government organisations tell what is true, and the crackpots are telling what is false. Thus, they have to lie about the truth coming from the reputable body. The fluoride and aspartame issues are classics. There is no harm from small doses of fluoride in drinking water, or from aspartame as a sweetener. Reputable bodies tell the truth about this. Crackpots opposing aspartame and fluoride attack the reputable bodies. Detecting crackpottery 1.01
Skeptical, I really don't know what your background is, but it is certainly NOT in government. The mere fact that you would call any of the NIH, FDA, and EPA a "reputable body" speaks volumes about your ignorance of governance. Many of these so called regulatory agencies are anything but. They are merely mouthpieces, nay, government trade organizations for the trade groups they represent. I really cannot have a reasoned and intelligent conversation with someone that only hurls ad hominem attacks at me, uses fallacious appeals to authority to back up their false claims, and refuses to read evidence from the FDA itself. If you don't even know the history of HOW fluoride or aspartame were approved, how can you speak to either their efficacy or their safety? You can't. You trust in the assurances of others, who in turn trust in the assurances of others, who in turn, trust in the assurances of trade groups, whose only interest is profits, not peoples health. None of them actually take time to review the studies. It is something that is assumed. Disgusting how the money trail, compartmentalization and Freemasonry work. :bugeye: Bahhhh Bahhhh. . . John, I am aware that Fluoride occurs naturally in many sources of water. The difference is, the naturally occurring fluoride occurs as a compound called calcium fluoride and the toxic industrial pollutant they add to water is sodium fluoride. There's two reasons this is important. First, the latter is 85 times more toxic. Second, the common antidote for fluoride poisoning is calcium. This information can be found in a study which proved this out, named, "Comparative Toxicity of Fluorine Compounds." I don't have access to a University System or Lexus Nexus, so I can not provide a link. This information is not readily available to the public. Do some research though. I do not expect you to want to know it anyway. If you nay sayers have no interest in reading the FDA's petition to stop the approval of aspartame, why would you care to actually look into this issue and do the research to find out the truth? Your juvenile tactics more than show to me you aren't interested in honest discussion and truth anyhow. I do compliment you on your humor, it has always brought me a smile and has always been your strong point. Every court needs it's Jester kind sir. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
