Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence, which is why we have disdain for Jill Stein’s grasp on reality.
People who “just ask questions” are not being inquisitive when the answers are available. They are making a specific, (cowardly) statement about their beliefs. Leave the pseudoskepticism with FoodBabe and similar cranks.
If that was the concern (it’s not), then people should be advocating against being outside at night during the summer. They also shouldn’t turn on their heat during the winter or use blankets of any kind. Fire bad.
The skepticism and controversy comes from people that incorrectly assume chemicals and EMF have the same exact affect on the humans body. They’re not the same. At all.
Faith is also the belief in something in the presence of inadequate, incredible, or just plain misinterpreted evidence. I can’t speak for Jill Stein’s grasp on anything, however, she didn’t seem to be saying anything about wi-fi.
Well, JFC that’s something. Bathtub-meth and all the rest? I don’t need a full accounting, but did he, like Britt, actually kill a guy?
I don’t think I saw anyone say chemicals and EMF have the “same exact” effect on the human body, either. I don’t know, I can’t speak for them.
You do have the third-party option of Soltysik.
Wow, look at what this thread turned into. Beschizza, you magnificent bastard! Well stoked.
Read what the fucking World Health Organization (WHO) said in 2011. Her concerns are not unfounded. Every other first world country has better health than the best state in the US. When they say CAUTION, they are acting like responsible, humanitarian leaders. Not for-profit shitheads that you’re used to.
The authors of that paper have been accused of scaremongering using a number of poor-quality studies that made little attempt to control for other variables besides flouridation, see the discussion here.
Isn’t it more likely that the rest of the developed world is healthier because of universal health care? That seems nearly infinitely more plausible.
There are other, more recent, studies to consider as well, such as:
Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an
ecological association
( Exposure to fluoridated water and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder prevalence among children and adolescents in the United States: an ecological association | Environmental Health | Full Text )
It goes on to discuss some ideas for why this may be, for example, pointing out that silicofluoride-treated water react synergetically with lead and its update in the body is subsequently increased in systems where both are present together…
It’s a wizard. From Ralph Bakshi’s film Wizards named Avatar.
I see you’re “holistically” supportive of quackery.
Well, you know Harvard. That’s what they’re known for, after all. Quackery and more quackery. And surely there’s no aluminium industry that benefits by dumping their toxic waste into municipal water supplies across the land and being paid for it. There’s no solution like dilution when it comes to disposal, I guess!
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/antifluoridation-bad-science/
In this case.
Your source is yet again faulty.
That predates what I just posted!
I’m well aware. I saw it in the 70s.
“Mom always liked me better, you son of a bitch.”
That paper is critiqued on another post from the same site I linked to earlier. It appears that instead of starting out with the specific intent of looking for links between flouridation and ADD, they simply looked for associations between flouridation and a variety of problems, a poor methodology known as data dredging or p-hacking (the p-hacking link gives an interactive tool showing how you can create false impressions of statistically significant links this way). The article notes other problems with the study, like the fact that it determined ADHD by parental reports (when the likelihood of diagnosis or parental understanding of ADHD may depend on income/education) and didn’t actually test the flouride exposure of the children, just put them into “exposed” or “non-exposed” categories based on where they lived.
