This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Fluoride

Jump to new

1. You don't have to post evidence if it is a known fact, I just cannot QUANTIFY it. Do you understand the concept or is it beyond your scope?

2. The evidence is around the first third. IF I get time I will point it out to you, I just assumed you knew this, since you are apparently proficient with respect to the document.

3. Again, another person who is not involved anywhere near the coalface, with extreme unwaivering views.

4. I was invited to join Golden key as well, in medicine. Medicine has an extremely high cut off and is crazily competitive too. I would also like to let you know how well I performed within my cohort (but like to remain anonymous), quite impressive really, but let's let big swinging dicks rest a bit.
 

Ooh... do I hear an echo, or is it a chorus... or maybe it's a Blind Man's Bluff!

I guess that's what you do when you close your eyes and mind to anything that challenges your bias.

Now Billy, be a good fella and pick up where you detoured off track, and go through the physiological process of fluoride and fluoridation on the teeth and other organs... and post up those fluorosis reference pictures that you use to categorize fluorosis.
 
medicowallet said:
1. You don't have to post evidence if it is a known fact, I just cannot QUANTIFY it. Do you understand the concept or is it beyond your scope?
Click to expand...

Oh yes you do... according to your own rules.

2. The evidence is around the first third. IF I get time I will point it out to you, I just assumed you knew this, since you are apparently proficient with respect to the document.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know what I know... but I'm sceptical about what you think you know... or at least what your bias wants us to believe.


Ooh... you ARE a skite.
 

Nice to know that your biggest achievement is at an undergraduate level.

When you get older, I hope this changes.

Whiskers said:
Oh yes you do... according to your own rules.
Click to expand...

Seriously whiskers,

it is not groundbreaking research, it is common knowledge.

It would be like me having to provide research saying that blue and yellow paint, when mixed makes green.

eg we know that fluoride causes fluorosis, but you cannot Quantify it WITHOUT EVIDENCE.



If these posts didn't amuse me such, then I would feel nothing but pity for you.

Also, you have just proven to me what a joke your education was, as clearly you have no clue about many things including statistics, research and critical analysis.

I would dearly love to meet you in person one day, just to put a face to one who is so opinionated, yet so clueless. This is why I assume that you are still in high school.
 
Whiskers said:
Just for the record (again in this thread) I completed my Business degree majoring in Accounting and Law ages ago...]
Click to expand...

That explains a lot.

No wonder he has no clue about anything related to science.

Go and get some education in science buddy, then come back here and debate about it. You sound like a fool at the moment.
 
Billyb said:
That explains a lot.

No wonder he has no clue about anything related to science.

Go and get some education in science buddy, then come back here and debate about it. You sound like a fool at the moment.
Click to expand...

Both you and medicowallet should know that you cannot debate with someone with Obsessive Compulsion Disorder.

Obsessions include;
(My bolds)
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/.../obsessive_compulsive_disorder_explained?open
 
This thread has become quite unnecessarily personal and nasty. For anyone to put down someone else's level of education, without any recognition of perhaps how hard that level of education may have been to come by due to the personal circumstances of that person, is rude, patronising and totally unnecessary.

And I would add that I have no idea about Whiskers' personal circumstances as regards his education or anything else. I am simply making a general statement about the supercilious and unduly personal nature of the insulting remarks in this thread.

By all means criticise someone's argument, but surely you can do so in an objective and factual way without resorting to personal denigration.
 

Yeah, but he started it

Seriously Julia, sometimes one needs to read all of the posts to understand the head banging that one needs to endure when dealing with a character such as Whiskers.

It is extremely frustrating when someone who has no motive except to inflame, keeps posting ridiculous, uninformed statements where people can read them. I am sorry for the thread, which has degraded, by Whisker's want, into a thread which continues to bring up old, disregarded topics, which I must defend.

If it means me pointing out their immaturity I will, if it then means that they try to gain authority in the argument by stating their qualifications in an extremely arrogant way, then I will point out the flaws in their understanding with due respect.

So, I understand your frustration, I feel it too, but I take offense that you clearly post this at myself and Billy, without reading Whisker's posts.

PS There is a function that allows private messages.
 
DB008 said:
http://iadr.confex.com/iadr/2008Toronto/techprogram/abstract_105335.htm


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18695947
Click to expand...

That is of real concern Dannyboy.

I had read it before and am still doing some research as to why the US Public Health Authorities and even our own Health Authorities pay little or no attention to this.

For all the short comings of China's political regime, they seem to have a very impartial view and do produce a lot of research on the adverse effects of fluoride in all it's forms in their own country. I have to give them credit for that.
 

Well there are a few reasons as to why

1. It is not proven
2. I have consumed fluoridated water for many years and it hasn't affected my iq
3. You are accusing our administration of a conspiracy that China has exposed.
 
I am not commenting on the content of the discussion because I long ago lost interest in it, when it clearly became some sort of contest of oneupmanship.

I simply really dislike personal attacks by anyone on anyone else and believe you should be able to present your point of view without denigrating what you see as someone's inferior level of education compared with your own, about which we are left in no doubt.

If that is not possible, why can't you just agree to disagree, and move on.
 

1. I guess you do not understand tongue in cheek remarks such as "don't hold your breath"... actually Julia, I hope you didn't take it TOO literally.


"don't hold your breath lol." I note you conveniently left off the lol.

2. You do seem to stalk my posts a lot. I could also note that it was you who then wrote the post above, not me, and with the history of your posts against mine, that is significant.

Julia, why can't you agree to disagree with my posts and move on?

you seem to be good at giving out advice that you do not adhere to.

3. As for intelligence, it is over-rated and also very very circumstantial. I have a knowledge of health, and very little in many other areas, but in the instance of this forum, there are some very extremely obvious points that are misconstrued, and even though Billy is clearly the most experienced person, I think there are people here who are misleading others with their "qualifications".

It is not arrogant to state your qualifications if they are relevant.

4. Have you read the prior posts or are you commenting on one post in isolation?
 
medicowallet said:
eg we know that fluoride causes fluorosis, but you cannot Quantify it WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...

But that is the whole point as Billy knows, there is "evidence " of how the research quantifies fluorosis.

I mentioned earlier the Dean index that all the old original research and most of your approved peer reviewed sources use. I also mentioned there are better indicies being used today in some research.

To get back to the issue I was after before you and billy started back peddling and personality assisanation, as a dentist he has available to him pictorial evidence of those indicies or at least one of them that the Australian Dental Association subscribes to.

One would think it a pretty simple request and easy chore for a dentist to produce those reference pictures so we can all see what he means by insignificant, minor, moderate and major fluorosis.

Once again, Either you or Billy produce the evidence (pictures) to demonstarte what you mean by the various degrees of fluorosis.

Then we can gradually move on in an orderly progression to the more serious effects of fluoride/fluoridation.
 

1. Why can't you produce peer reviewed info on fluorosis in Australia? Or show it where fluoridation is similar to ours?

2. I guess by your renewed, mature stance, you will refrain from putting words into my mouth, and also from misrepresenting my position intentionally, (eg Vitamin D)

If you can somehow manage that, then, yes, civility will return to this thread, if not, then I cannot see how it can.
 
medicowallet said:
Well there are a few reasons as to why

1. It is not proven
Click to expand...

I'm inclined to believe it is, as research in other countries corroborates it. But you are invited to explain why you think it's not proven.

2. I have consumed fluoridated water for many years and it hasn't affected my iq
Click to expand...

Yeah, brain dead alcoholics and cancer ridden smokers say that too, often with a wink and a smile in their ignorance. It's a bit like going deaf... you will often be the last to know.

I believe you when you say you have or at least had "knowledge'' but seriously you are not demonstrating much intelligence with your commentary here. You might consider that (and 2.) food for thought in a somber moment.

3. You are accusing our administration of a conspiracy that China has exposed.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but you eloberate further on what you mean and I'll comment further.
 

1. Show me the evidence and I'll change my mind. Where is the evidence? where is it quantified? Where is it significant? Where is the cost-benefit detrimental?

Remember cost-benefit?

2. I can say it, as the effect is not known.

3. I am saying that to believe the cost-benefit is so out of whack, and that the study is credible, then the government is knowingly committing a massive conspiracy. Unlike something like AGW where the debate is credible on both sides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Deception: use + abuse of information by governments + terrorists
Replies
2
Views
5K
reichstag911
R
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
R
New York Times GOLD article
Replies
3
Views
9K
Mofra
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...