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



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.
 
this is probably 95% false.... but just going to shoot it out there anyways - Isnt that why England has some of the worst teeth in the developed nations - the lack of fluoride in the water?... or that could be just my dentists lame attempt at humour.... carry on.
 
moltar said:
Actually Flouride does nothing for your teeth. There is absolutely no evidence that it does, and numerous research papers showing the opposite. Proper diet keeps teeth healthy.

Fluoride: Worse than We Thought

Weston A. Price Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Weston Price - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Exactly. Dental health is entirely dependent on diet and proper cleaning technique. There's no evidence that fluoride helps and communities that have no fluoride in the water don't suffer a higher instance of tooth decay.

I rather like this guy's video, and he's a dentist...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk]YouTube - Professional Perspectives: Fluoride in Tap Water[/ame] << watch this.

On a tube of toothpaste is says if you ingest 1/4 mg fluoride, you should "Call Poison Control"... yet 1/4 mg of fluoride in 8 oz of tap water is ok? How, on one hand, is it considered poison and, the other, you're told it's perfectly safe? It makes no sense.

moltar said:
Regular bottled water is just tap water that was (dubiously) filtered at some water purification plant, and sometimes they add a couple of minerals back into it. It'd "dead" water.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt this in a lot of cases, but it depends entirely on the brand and it's point of origin. The better locally bottled water in BC is glacial spring water sourced around Whistler/Blackcomb mountains. Lanjaron brand here in Spain is from the Sierra Nevada mountains. They contain trace natural minerals, calcium, magnesium, sodium, etc. including a minuscule amount of fluoride (<.03 mg/ liter in the case of Lanjaron).
 
Uzzz said:
this is probably 95% false.... but just going to shoot it out there anyways - Isnt that why England has some of the worst teeth in the developed nations - the lack of fluoride in the water?... or that could be just my dentists lame attempt at humour.... carry on.
Click to expand...

It's just a stereotype. Kind of like the stereotype that most American's are fat and ignorant.
 
SYSTEMIC FLUORIDE

The fluoride found in tap water is there to be ingested, not for the tap water to wash over your teeth. Some of you don't seem to understand that...
 
guerilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup, been following his dietary guidelines for a bit now and haven't been healthier! All lab tests come out great too.

Fatbat said:
I don't doubt this in a lot of cases, but it depends entirely on the brand and it's point of origin. The better locally bottled water in BC is glacial spring water sourced around Whistler/Blackcomb mountains.
Click to expand...

Dude, I LOVE that water. They sell it at the local health food store. I buy it all the time. The tastiest water I have ever drank. Just can't stop drinking it.
 
lschmidt said:
SYSTEMIC FLUORIDE

The fluoride found in tap water is there to be ingested, not for the tap water to wash over your teeth. Some of you don't seem to understand that...
Click to expand...

I clicked on the first result on google and got this:

hen water fluoridation first began in the 1940s, dentists believed that fluoride's main benefit came from ingesting fluoride during the early years of life. This belief held sway for over 40 years. However, it is now acknowledged by dental researchers to be incorrect. According to the Centers for Disease Control, fluoride's predominant effect is TOPICAL (direct contact with teeth) and not systemic (from ingestion).
Hence, there is no need to ingest fluoride to derive it's purported benefit for teeth.
As stated by the US Centers for Disease Control:
"[L]aboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children" (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940).
Click to expand...

Fluoride & Tooth Decay: Topical Vs. Systemic Effects
 
guerilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly. This fallacy is being used over and over. Concensus science is political science.
 
guerilla said:
Peer review is science by consensus.
Click to expand...

not exactly :


There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics are substantially different from that of a jury.

In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker...

The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions...

Often the decision of what counts as "good enough" falls entirely to the editor or organizer of the review. In other cases, referees will each be asked to make the call, with only general guidance from the coordinator on what stringency to apply...

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues as publications are read. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
  • Like
Reactions: BluuueJammm
Moxie said:
not exactly :


There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics are substantially different from that of a jury.

In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker...

The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions...

Often the decision of what counts as "good enough" falls entirely to the editor or organizer of the review. In other cases, referees will each be asked to make the call, with only general guidance from the coordinator on what stringency to apply...

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues as publications are read. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

+ rep. Peer review basically helps to keep scientists honest. Studies that are peer reviewed hold a massive amount more weight than ones that aren't.
 
Moxie said:
not exactly :


There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus. Thus the group dynamics are substantially different from that of a jury.

In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When an editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the editor often will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker...

The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach consensus or to persuade anyone to change their opinions...

Often the decision of what counts as "good enough" falls entirely to the editor or organizer of the review. In other cases, referees will each be asked to make the call, with only general guidance from the coordinator on what stringency to apply...

The process of peer review does not end after a paper completes the peer review process. After being put to press, and after 'the ink is dry', the process of peer review continues as publications are read. Readers will often send letters to the editor of a journal, or correspond with the editor via an on-line journal club. In this way, all 'peers' may offer review and critique of published literature.

Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


However the science is just as corrupt as any other industry. There are so many occasions where peer reviews are faked and bad science is taken with even more weight.

Scientists need grants, companies are willing to sponsor "research" and often demand certain outcomes. If you dig just below the surface you will find all these nasty things about "science".

Don't think that just because it has a label "science" it's must pure. Take everything with a grain of salt, and don't believe the hype.

I found science to be wrong on more than one occasion with my own experiments with health and wellness.
 
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the documentary Tapped, which shows how the bottled water industry works. Seeing that film made me abandon bottled water.

However, I don't drink unfiltered tap water (I have a distiller, and am buying a Big Berkey).

I hate getting into these kinds of debates, because they take on an almost religious tone on both sides, but I feel obligated to raise two points:
1. Did everyone miss the news about 3 weeks ago where the US gov't said that people are ingesting too much fluoride? Lot's of articles about it, here's a link to the NPR story: Officials Say Kids Getting Too Much Fluoride : NPR

2. Assuming fluoride in the water is just fine for you, that it's a drug for the benefit of all of our teeth, and there's no "conspiracy": doesn't it seem a bit reckless to administer a drug by placing it in the water supply? By doing so, you eliminate the ability to regulate dosages. Whether you agree with ingesting fluoride or not, administering fluoride in this manner is a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom