So this is what skeptics believe, eh?
February 3rd, 2010
|
| Share |
Natural News… GROAN. It’s that site that seems to put all the quackery, scaremongering and bad medical and enviornmental advice in one place. However one of the authors there thinks he has got skeptics all figured out, and knows exactly what we “skeptics” believe. Well, as a one who would generally consider myself a skeptic, I have some bad news for this guy: We don’t actually all believe the same things. Sure, amongst skeptics, there are some thing we tend to agree on, for example homeopathy – you’d have to be a complete nut job not to realize that bullshit stinks. Yet, on other things, I have found myself in disagreement with other skeptics quite frequently.
Thus I can only speak for myself, but I felt compelled to answer what this guy is telling me that I believe, because I believe that what he believes I believe is a bit unbelievable.
Skeptics believe that ALL vaccines are safe and effective (even if they’ve never been tested), that ALL people should be vaccinated, even against their will, and that there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given. So injecting all children with, for example, 900 vaccines all at the same time is believed to be perfectly safe and “good for your health.”
Vaccines, in general are safe and effective, but no person who knows the first thing about medical science would claim that a vaccine is safe and effective if it has not been tested. In fact, there have been many experimental formulas for vaccines that never made it to human trails because they were discovered to be unsafe or ineffective long before that step was reached. Vaccines are safe and effective because they are tested so thoroughly. Tested on animals, tested on tissue cultures, tested for purity and finally tested on humans, starting with small groups of volunteers followed by larger study groups and finally, only after this extensive testing are they approved for general use.
Of course they are not 100% safe. There is an astronomically small chance of contamination or an adverse reaction, but the probability of this is minuscule and far exceeded by the benefit. They are also not 100% effective. Some vaccines come very close to 100% effectiveness, but in individuals with compromised immune systems, they may not provide complete protection. This is, of course, why herd immunity is so important.
While there is no single theoretical limit to the number of vaccines a person could receive, giving a baby 900 injections of anything in one sitting would be ill advised. Just putting that much fluid in their circulatory system at once could be harmful.
Skeptics believe that fluoride chemicals derived from the scrubbers of coal-fired power plants are really good for human health. They’re so good, in fact, that they should be dumped into the water supply so that everyone is forced to drink those chemicals, regardless of their current level of exposure to fluoride from other sources.
Fluoride actually comes from a number of sources, the single largest being the mining of calcium fluoride. If fluoride is derived from the scrubber precipitate of coal burning power plants then it will need to go through some very selective extraction processes, as the material left in behind in the scrubbers is hodgepodge of various chemicals. Really, it doesn’t matter where it comes from, though. As long as the material is pure and of the same chemical composition it’s all the same.
Regardless of its source (which is rarely, if ever coal exhaust scrubbers) fluoride is added to municipal water supplies for good reason. A naturally occurring chemical, ionic fluoride can be found (in trace amounts) in numerous aquifers around the world. Many sources of drinking water have ample amounts of fluoride already. Decades of research proves beyond doubt that fluoride is a critical micro-nutrient, vital to building strong tooth enamel. In areas where it is already in the local water supply, this is a non-issue. In areas where it is not, it may be added. On rare occasions, fluoride levels are too high and must be reduced.
It should be noted that fluoride is not “dumped” in water as a means of getting rid of it. It actually costs money to produce the fluoride and then meter it out into municipal water supplies. Despite the cost, the return on this investment makes it one of the greatest bargains in public health policy. The effect is most evident in the lower classes, who would be less likely to have access to fluoride therapy or dental sealants.
Adding fluoride to water supplies with insufficient natural fluoride occurrence fulfills the commitment of water suppliers to provide the safest, most healthful and reliable water to citizens. If you hate it so much, you can drink bottled water, which is what most idiot yuppies do anyway.
Skeptics believe that many six-month-old infants need antidepressant drugs. In fact, they believe that people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time: Antidepressants, cholesterol drugs, blood pressure drugs, diabetes drugs, anti-anxiety drugs, sleeping drugs and more — simultaneously!
I don’t know of anyone who believes that six month old infants need antidepressants. The number of drugs a person can safely be on, the types of drugs and the age at which they are appropriate can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, by a physician. A person of any age can receive any number of drugs, safely if they are properly administered by a trained physician. Modern anti-depressants, blood pressure and cholesterol drugs are, by and large, extremely safe, when properly used.
There is no reason why multiple drugs can’t be used at the same time, as long as they have been reviewed for possible interactions. Although there is always a small possibility of dangerous side effects, these are generally outweighed by the benefits. Although, exactly when risk is outweighed by benefit is ultimately a choice that should be made by a patient, under the guidance and advice of a qualified doctor.
They also save lives, even in six month year olds. The fact of the matter is that the human body does not always work like it should, and many are alive today because an otherwise deadly condition was corrected or counteracted by pharmaceuticals.
Skeptics believe that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism and that the only things that can save people from viral infections are vaccines.
Actually, the opposite is true! The human body has an immune system which is a marvel of evolution and biology. If not for the ability of the human body to protect itself from viral infections, vaccines could not work, because vaccines work by stimulating the immune system. However, the immune system has its limitations and its potential problems. If the immune system were 100% perfect, people would never get sick!
One thing that the immune system can’t be expected to do is recognize foreign pathogens and produce the antibodies to destroy them if these pathogens have not been seen by the body before. When a virus enters the body, the immune system will respond, but by the time all the immune cells of the body have been activated to fight the virus, it may have already managed to gain hold of cells and produce a major infection. The immune system may be able to eventually kill off the virus and allow for recovery from the infection, but this is not a fight that is always won.
The key to allowing the immune system to stop a virus before it can become a full blown infection is to make sure that it can recognize the virus immediately and destroy it before it can invade the cells of the body. This is exactly what a vaccine does. It stimulates a response by using characteristic proteins or structures of the virus. It works with the immune system to defeat the virus by preparing defenses in advance.
Without vaccines, ,many viral infections would be far more common. Thanks to the immune system, many who contract these viruses would recover. Of those who recovered, some would retain their health. Others would not be so lucky and would be left with lifelong disability. Still others would not manage to win the battle with the pathogen and would die. Thus, without vaccines, some would still be saved, but many would not.
Skeptics believe that pregnancy is a disease and childbirth is a medical crisis. (They are opponents of natural childbirth.)
Childbirth is a perfectly natural act and millions of women have children outside medical settings and have perfectly healthy children and are healthy themselves. Of course, a significant number also die in child birth or lose their child in the process. This is actually the natural way for things to go. For most of human history, childbirth was one of the leading causes of death in women and infant mortality could be higher than ten percent.
When giving birth in a medical setting, with trained physicians on staff, the likelihood of death to the mother and child is reduced dramatically. Healthy women almost never die in childbirth when in a modern hospital. Most complications can be anticipated in advance and planned for. If necessary Cesarean sections can be used and do save lives (my brother would not have lived if not for an emergency c-section)
If a woman chooses to give birth outside a hospital, chances are she’ll have a healthy baby and survive the event, but the risk that she will not is, by most standards, extremely high.
Skeptics do not believe in hypnosis. This is especially hilarious since they are all prime examples of people who are easily hypnotized by mainstream influences.
That one is hard to answer without qualifying exactly what they mean by “hypnosis.” It is certainly true that people can be put into states where they do or say things that they later don’t remember or that they can be made to feel or believe things through a combination of suggestion and willing self-affirmation. Exactly how this can work and where the line between suggestion, idio-dynamic effects and altered states comes in is really something that I’m not qualified to really go into. I’m not a psychologist and this subject is fairly complicated.
I do know, however, that at least 90% of the claims of hypnotherapy and the classic image of having someone become completely unaware and able to be told anything by swinging a pocket watch in their face is complete bullshit.
Skeptics believe that there is no such thing as human consciousness. They do not believe in the mind; only in the physical brain. In fact, skeptics believe that they themselves are mindless automatons who have no free will, no soul and no consciousness whatsoever.
No, I don’t have a soul and that’s never really bothered me. I may still use the word in a metaphoric sense as in “rock and roll soothes the soul,” but if you mean a magic translucent version of myself that, when I die, is going to rise into the sky (or go into the ground), well then no. I do have a mind though. I have consciousness and self-awareness. It arises from my physical brain, but it’s still real, in the same way that software is real, even if it’s only magnetic variations on a spinning disk.
Yes, I have free will. I could lie and further this bullshit. I decided to oppose it. That was my choice.
Skeptics believe that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods (hilarious!).
If anything, it’s hilarious that anyone could be so stupid as to think that there is a such thing as “Living” foods. By the time you eat food, it’s generally been dead for some time, unless, perhaps you’re Ozzy Osbourn and like to bite the heads off of bats and such. There may be some life to your food, in the form of bacteria or other microbes on it. Most of these will be killed by your stomach acids anyway.
It’s not like it matters anyway. The food is still the same chemically and still has the same nutrition to it. What the hell kind of other compound would you expect if it were alive? What? The soul of the food? The life force? This ain’t Star Wars, idiot.
Skeptics believe that pesticides on the crops are safe, genetically modified foods are safe, and that any chemical food additive approved by the FDA is also safe. There is no advantage to buying organic food, they claim.
There isn’t any advantage to buying “organic” food. The food doesn’t care if it absorbs nutrient chemicals that came from a factory or a cow’s butt. They’re all the same. Genetically modified foods are generally 100% safe. They’re made of the same stuff as any other food – water, salt, starches, proteins, cellulose, glucose etc. Aside from very rare allergy issues, which are thoroughly tested for, they present no risk at all. Only sophisticated genetic tests can even tell the difference between genetically modified and conventional foods, and even those may not be able to tell the difference once the food has been cooked.
Insecticides are always very thoroughly tested, and are very tightly regulated. Because most insecticides are water soluble, they usually have been washed away from the food long before it reaches the consumer. The trace amounts remaining have never been conclusively linked to any health problem in humans, despite a great deal of research.
In general, food products approved by the FDA (or any other government’s equivalent agency) are perfectly safe and have been subjected to a battery of tests. Most of the “additives” are far less scary than they’re made out to be. On rare occasions, a substance that was approved is banned, but this is extremely rare. In most cases, profit-driven companies have enough incentive to test their products for safety and avoid dangerous additives because of the hundreds of thousands of blood thirsty lawyers who are always waiting to suck them dry at the first sign of liability.
Skeptics believe that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration. Water is inert, they say, and the water your toilet is identical to water from a natural spring (assuming the chemical composition is the same, anyway).
I’m not sure what they mean by “no role in human health other than basic hydration,” because hydration is pretty fundamental and water has a vital role in numerous biochemical reactions. However, as long as you have enough water, then it doesn’t matter where it came from. Water is water is water. The only thing different might be a slightly different isotopic ratio (which rarely is of consequence). Other than that, the water in your toilet is the same as the water from a spring. There may be different things dissolved in it, but other than that, H2O is H2O.
By the way: when I flush my toilet, the water goes into a septic system. It eventually peculates out into the water table where it filters through the soil and eventually either evaporates or slowly drips down into the aquifer. Spring water comes from ground water, and ground water is replenished by precipitation which comes from evaporation. In other words: the water from a spring will likely end up in a toilet or vice-versa.
At my age, I’ve already produced well over a thousand gallons of urine. I’ve traveled the world and peed in many places. Chances are you’ve drank a few molecules of water that was once in my urine. Shocking, isn’t it?
Skeptics believe that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health. (The ignorance of this intellectual position is breathtaking…)
Phytochemical are a term describing certain chemicals in plants. No, they’re not inert. If they were inert they wouldn’t degrade or react or be produced by anything, they’re just sit there and do nothing, like helium and argon do. There are nutrients in plants which are of benefit, but it’s hard to qualify this one, since there’s no universal definition of what a “phytochemical” is.
Whatever the case, although some nutrients are vital to good health, super-dosing yourself with any nutrient is never going to act like some kind of amazing cure-all that will get rid of anything that ales you. The ignorance of that intellectual position is breathtaking.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010 at 8:30 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Good Science, Just LAME, Misc, Obfuscation, Paranormal, Quackery. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:18 pm
OK so substitute ‘Jews’ for ‘Skeptics’ and you immediately can see the similarities this rubbish has with the mimeographed hate literature that was being passed out last century, before it was made illegal to do so.
The technique is to present the other side in a way that carries implications that threaten target audience’s cultural values thus hardening their resistance and increase their willingness to support alternative arguments, ( yours) no matter how lacking in evidence.
That is why the repeated phrase ‘Skeptics believe that’ starts each of these assertions, the writer is setting up a classic us vs them frame, ridiculing opponents as corrupt or devoid of reason. In this case the approach encourages the target audience to experience scientific debates as contests between warring cultural factions — and to pick sides accordingly.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2010 at 9:33 pm
reading thru the various blogs I have seen something very telling.
The mad scree of these types of people are just like the ones seen on TV marketing.
Lots of statements, arm waving but no references to any real research or testing.
i.e. Natural cures THEY don’t want you to KNOW.
The skeptx however will throw out statements but as in your blog above, your statements are backed up in BLUE to go look at the source information, where the others like Natural News gives no BLUE, to jump to the evidence of the statement. Whenever I read or hear statements that do not give back up points I know I’m being fed BS. And as you so well pointed out the Natural News information is pure BS. Good post.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:21 pm
DV82XL said:
A few of them are accurate in terms of what I believe. He either made it sound very diabolical or got the context wrong, but I do believe that I do not have a “soul” and I also believe that there are no nutrients in “live food” versus “dead food”. Although whether food is ever “alive” a bit of a difficult question. There are some microbes alive in food, but that’s just incidental. For the food itself, meat is clearly not alive, but plant matter is a harder one to pin down. You can eat things like seeds or leaves that at the time of consuption do quality as “alive” in that they’re a viable life form that, if not eaten could continue to grow or develop. But there’s no reason why a viable sunflower seed would be any better than one that’s been irradiated, frozen and otherwise is unable to germinate.
I’d love to hear the explanation of some of these things.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:28 pm
drbuzz0 said:
You’re a glutton for punishment.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:30 pm
DV82XL said:
Come to think of it, you’re probably right. I’ve never really heard a consistent and logical explanation for these things and the explanations I have heard are very painful to listen to.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:46 pm
Actually, doctor, the “DEAD” food vs “LIVING” foods is a reference to the cooked vs raw foods idea. I’ve seen this one quite a bit… raw foods are better for you, they’re “what nature intended,” you can get better nutrition by adding raw foods to your diet, etc.
http://www.living-foods.com/
Interestingly enough, the whole idea is exactly WRONG. Cooked food ends up being a far better source of nutrition than uncooked food:
http://blog.jonudell.net/2010/01/19/we-what-we-eat-what-they-eat/
On the other hand, you can lose some nutrients by cooking, so a mix of cooked and uncooked is not a bad idea. But I’m really not into the Raw Foods Movement as a general thing.
Quote Comment
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Micah said:
Yeah, I’ve heard that.
Just one thing: please don’t call me doctor. I’m not a doctor and I don’t want to insinuate that I am or somehow equate myself to those who are real doctors.
The reason I used the name DrBuzz0 was that it was a name I came up with a long time ago and has been used as the interpolable name for all internet communications (IM’s, forums, skype etc)
When I first started this site I was going to be semi-annonymous and just use the screen name, but I then changed my mind on that and now I’m pretty open about my actual identity.
That’s the long story. Anyways, I don’t want to offend anyone with that one.
Micah said:
Yeah, I don’t think it makes that big a difference. Cooking doesn’t destroy minerals and it may reduce some vitamins but that’s not usually a big deal. In the industrial world, our biggest nutritional problem is that we get too much in terms of calories and such. Vitamin deficiencies are pretty rare.
There are some minerals that many get sub-optimal levels of: zinc comes to mind. Possibly iodine as well. Very few people have critical decencies of these, but many have sub-optimal levels.
But when it comes to vitamins, there’s not a lot of reason for concern. The average American/Canadian/European/Australian is nowhere near in danger of scurvy, and it really doesn’t seem to matter if you get 400% of the nutritional requirement or 200% for a given vitamin or 800% – as long as it’s more than 100% you’re fine.
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 1:29 am
Micah said:
Nature does not have intentions. That seems to be what these people don’t get. Nature just is. It is just the sate of things. There is no plan to it and no desires or intentions.
Evolution is the one force that has some level of order to it in living things, because it influences things to become more fit for an enviornment. However, evolution doesn’t care about health or longevity, as long as the organism produces offspring. As far as evolution is concerned if you have 100 offspring and 50 of them die a horrible and painful death after birth, then you’re still a success because 50 survived to create more offspring. It doesn’t care if your life sucks, as long as you make babies, you are evolutionary successful.
Also the result of biology is rarely perfect and usually far from it. Yes, our immune systems are pretty amazing and usually do us quite well, but they fail pretty often too.
WE often have to step in with a scalpul and cut out a piece of misbehaving tissue or reroute some arteries that are not working up to par. That should make anyone realize how imperfect things are. Sometimes we need to try to stop the body from killing itself!
Micah said:
Yeah, well I don’t think any sane person eats exclusively raw or cooked food. I fail to see any single benefit from this. Also, raw foods of many kinds are a great way to get food poisoning. This is especially true of meats, but even with plant based stuff, cooking always lessens the chance of getting sick from it because it was contaminated with something.
We also used to eat “raw” ad “natural” water that was not disinfected. The problem with that water was that it often was not “dead” and that’s why people died of cholera and typhoid.
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 5:04 am
“…. but I felt compelled to answer what this guy is telling me that I believe, because I believe that what he believes I believe is a bit unbelievable.”
That is beyond belief! Superb! You have brightened my day. Thank you so much.
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 8:43 am
This is what I commented in the article.
Oooohh, you nearly got me there!
Good one mister Adams, you had me going there for a moment. Excellent indeed. Your deadpan delivery of these outragous, unsubstatniated, prejudist claims in a completely deadpan manner is a such a funny satirical depiction of a zealous anti-skeptic.
Good to see those doubtful of skepticism hasn’t lost their sense of humor. I applaud you, because this is an extremely clever self-critical article that greatly highlights the dangers of falling for preconcieved ideas. With this piece, you masterfully show the importance of being respectful of those with differing viewpoints, and to analyze your own claims in an honest and open manner, so that you don’t fall for the temptation to lash out hatefully against those with differing opinions. The danger of that of course being that you would make a complete arse of yourself.
Your cautionary tale I will pass on to many otehrs so that they can read your clever and intelligent text, and heed your warning. Good day to you!
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 10:52 am
I’m not an expert on fluoridation of water so I refer to documents written by people who are. These experts disagree with your assessment of the fluoridation of water. Have a look and let us know what you think.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/re/thiessen.canada.2009.pdf
http://fluoridealert.org/re/connett.canada.11-11.09.pdf
http://fluoridealert.org/re/canada.report.response.clinch.pdf
When you’re done, look up Dr. Hardy Limeback of The University of Toronto to see what he thinks as well. Also, try to figure out why he was not consulted even though he is a worldwide authority on this subject.
nostromo from thedailyrazor.com
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 11:38 am
Skeptics seem like the kind of people who are especially difficult to identify the beliefs of as a group. I mean, their unifying beliefs are that they should be critical thinkers and use the scientific method, but other than that I don’t see why they would all believe the same general things.
While there are skeptic groups, I read one piece where they said that trying to get skeptics to be completely unified was like “trying to herd cats”
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 12:37 pm
Magic Donuts said:
Several fish are a school, several crows are a murder, several skeptics are an argument?
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Magic Donuts said:
Matthew said:
There are skeptic organizations and organizations for promoting good science over myths and bad science. Some of the big empirical skepticism organizations include the following: The James Randi Educational Foundation, The Skeptic Society, The Committee For Skeptical Inquiry, the Australian Skeptics, the New York Skeptics, Skeptics North, The Canadian Freethinkers Society, Young Austrian Skeptics, The New England Skeptic Society, Sense About Science. Of course there are less broad ones as well, like the International Society for the prevention of Medical Fraud, The Freedom From Religion Foundation etc.
The largest meeting of general purpose skeptics is the Amazing Meeting. It’s held annually and it is hosted by the James Randi Educational Foundation, but nearly all the groups are represented and have people there. The head of the Australian Skeptics is always there. The head of the Skeptic Society is always there. There are other smaller meetings that are held regionally and such but “The Amazing Meeting” is the big one.
In general, we don’t get in violent disagreements or anything, we all usually get along for a few days. Do we agree on everything? I’d say there are some things that just about every skeptic agrees on. Things like, for example, homeopathy. Homeopathy is so stacked that no critical thinker could really believe it. Also things like astrology: it’s such a ridiculous and one sided issue, pretty much all skeptics will agree on that.
There is much we do not agree on though. Many skeptics are atheists and hold that if you’re not an atheist you’re not really a skeptic. Others disagree with this a real lot. Some skeptics are agnostic or deists or unsure of things or whatever. That’s an issue that gets disagreement a lot.
There’s a lot of political disagreement, of course. There are a lot of libertarian skeptics. There are also a lot of very left wing skeptics. There are some who are non-religions right wingers. There are a few socialists.
Global warming and the enviornment has, of course, been a huge issue.
At some meetings you get groups which have a few different ideas that can be really quite divisive. At the first meeting of the New York Skeptics, I bit my tongue when someone who worked as a press affairs person for the Union of Concerned Scientists started talking. At the Amazing meeting the Atlas Society is often in attendance (they support the philosophies of Rand) Then there are also skeptics who think that following Rand is a psuedo-religion. Reason magazine is another divisive one – it’s a skeptic type magazine that also has a strong libertarian pro-capitalism side to it.
So no, we don’t agree on everything. Far from it. As far as “hearding cats” I think what I have found is that skeptics, by their very nature, tend to be very unfavorable to following any kind of leadership or single planned group stand on things. Some have accused skeptics of being like a cult, with James Randi or Michael Shermer being the cult leader. However, the fact of the matter is that as soon as you try to get the group to rally behind a single leader or position, most of them will immediately become very hostile to the very concept.
Quote Comment
February 4th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
Magic Donuts said:
drbuzz0 said:
Well that’s just it, isn’t it? We are ultimately unified by the ideas that we reject. It is about the only factor we have in common. Any group defined by what it is not, isn’t going to be very homogeneous.
Any individual that identifies him/herself by what they don’t believe, isn’t the sort that is willing to let anyone else do the thinking for them.
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2010 at 4:01 am
Q:What is a skeptic?
A: A skeptic is someone who will believe anything you say, be it about homeopathy, spirits, God, unicorns, Santa Claus, the horrors of vaccine, 9/11 insider jobs, the Apollo moon landing hoax, how HAARP caused the earthquake in Haiti, and a bunch of other stuff too. Oh yes, a skeptic will believe all of that…
…provided you let your claims be verified and they stand up to scrutiny.
/Michael
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2010 at 11:13 am
THis Natural News site seems to be a particularlly odd collection of beleifs – homopaths, jesus nut bags (as opposed to Christans), for profit “medical” hucksters and anti government speechifiers. Fairly troubling mix of stuipidity and hatred. What I found most interesting is the need to paint “skeptics” with one brush – I don’t see how that is possiable. I have NEVER seen any “skeptic” publication discuss abortion – but Mr. nutbag seems to paint us with that brush. Clearly the goal is to “make” an enemy to enhance his own power.
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
I find it very amusing that we still don’t know if anti-oxidants are harmful or helpful(at this point all we can say is that the effect is small if any) yet the “alternative” medicine industry have been flogging them to the gullible(or should I say, the marks?) for what, a decade and a half now?
Quote Comment
February 5th, 2010 at 11:51 pm
Soylent said:
Well, some of them are undoubtedly necessary and I suppose those could be considered “beneficial” to some degree. Vitamin C and E are both antioxidents and if you don’t get enough vitamin C, your body stops producing cologne and you end up with some very unpleasant effects, beginning with bleeding gums and then followed by uncaring and finally your body starts to literally fall apart. Without vitamin E, your cell membranes start to break down and you nerve and brain cells start to die.
Thus far, nobody seems to have been able to prove that having more than the nutritional requirement is actually beneficial.
I think the logic is at least partially that “If X amount is necessary for good health, then 2*X will give you great health and 10*X will give you super health and 100*X will cure anything!”
Of course it does not work that way, but I’ve seen this logic applied before on many occasions. Take oxygen for example: Nobody would disagree that you need oxygen to live. If you get *less* oxygen than is required, then you start to get lethargic and if it’s bad enough, you can start to have nerve cells begin to shut down. Based on this, oxygen bars claim that the opposite must also be true: Get more oxygen than is required and you’ll feel energetic and your nervous system will be supercharged and extra healthy.
Quote Comment
February 7th, 2010 at 1:16 am
nostromo said:
(Sorry your comment did not show up sooner as it was somehow flagged as spam. I’ve had to update the spam filters to much higher levels due to an idiot in Montreal who keeps telling me I’m going to burn in hell multiple times per day)
I don’t have a lot of time at the moment, but I’ll say this much: The level of fluoride in municipal water supplies is extremely low by most standards. It has to be low because water is not just used for drinking – it’s used for everything from cooling machinery to watering lawns to cleaning hospital linens.
Fluoride basically comes from ionic fluorine salts. Sodium fluoride, potassium fluoride and other compounds that lend the fluoride ion are pretty common in ground water and many areas that use ground water for drinking water have ample fluoride. A very few places have too much.
The process of flouridization basically brings low fluoride water to the levels which are found in many aquifers. It’s not unusual for surface reservoir water or water from relatively high water tables or from basaltic bed rock and so on to be low in fluoride.
I’m not going to invoke the fallacy that “natural is good for you” but I’d like to point out that this is hardly an issue of putting something in the water that plenty get anyway.
as for experts, the FDA, American Dental Association, British Dental Association (and many other national dental organizations) as well as the World Health Organization are all fairly in agreement on this.
Quote Comment
February 7th, 2010 at 1:30 am
nostromo said:
Nether are the people who’s papers you linked to. These are comments that were filed with Heath Canada during public hearings into the matter, they carry no weight at all. It’s a bit of dissemination to suggest they are ‘accepted by Health Canada,’ because if anyone filed a paper claiming fluoridation of water was a plot by Martian spiders to pollute our precious body fluids, it would be duly stamped by the Clerk, (thus accepted) and entered into public comments. In fact if you were to dig around, you might even find something like that there.
Quote Comment
February 7th, 2010 at 1:37 am
Regarding the worldwide support, please see this extremely important European court decision http://www.ukcaf.org/european_court_ruling_spells_an_end_to_fluoridatio.html. Essentially, it is an issue of forced medication and freedom of choice. Given that fluoride’s benefits (some in doubt) are topical and not systemic, it should concern everyone that we are being forced to consume it, not to mention the real reasons for why there would be so much “support” for it. Regarding the dental associations, you need look no further than their sponsors (think large multi-national toothpaste brands) to realize that there is a huge conflict of interest in their support. This doesn’t necessarily mean their support is not genuine, but it should be noted so that readers have the freedom to decide for themselves. Also, keep in mind that their expertise and entire interest lies in the oral cavity and they do not concern themselves with fluoride’s systemic effects.
Regards,
nostromo
Quote Comment
February 7th, 2010 at 1:46 am
DV82XL said:
K.M. Thiessen, Ph. D. “The author of these comments is a professional in the field of risk analysis, including exposure assessment, toxicity evaluation, and risk assessment. She has recently served on two
subcommittees of the National Research Council’s Committee on Toxicology, including the
NRC’s Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water.”
Paul Connett, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Chemistry,
St. Lawrence University
Carole Clinch, BA, BPHE, Research Coordinator for People for Safe Drinking Water
Dr. Hardy Limeback, BSc, PhD, DDS
Associate Professor and Head, Preventive Dentistry, University of Toronto
Could you please clarify which of these experts is not an expert?
Regards,
nostromo at thedailyrazor.com
Quote Comment
February 7th, 2010 at 2:15 am
nostromo said:
None of them are because they are self-proclaimed. Expertize is not something that comes from education, or position, it is a form recognition that has to come from the majority of one peers. These people hold professional opinions, and that is their right, but they are by no means recognized authorities on the subject.
Furthermore you are engaging in a type of ad hominem argument called Appeal to authority, which is a fallacy of defective induction, where you are arguing that certain statements are correct because they are being made by a someone that you regard as authoritative ipse dixit.
This type of argument almost never moves anyone on these pages. Argue verifiable facts, thats’ the only currency accepted here.
Quote Comment
February 7th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
nostromo said:
Okay, once again. It’s not a medication. It’s a naturally occurring ion that is found in many water supplies to begin with and is a micro-nutrient.
Water suppliers also add chlorine and occasionally add compounds to modify the ph of the water if it is considered too acidic and thus could be corrosive to plumbing or cause dental problems. Sometimes water is “softened” with an ion exchange process that leaves behind some sodium and/or potassium ions in the water.
They pull the water out of the ground or out of reservoirs and treat it with fluoride, chlorine, filtration and occasionally alkelines in order to provide safe, healthy, reliable water service, as they are required to do.
nostromo said:
You don’t have to consume it. You can drink bottled water or drill your own well or get some kind of unnecessary filtration system.
Look: municipal water supplies are not always perfect. Where I used to live they did a very poor job of removing calcium from the water and thus the water that came into houses was extremely hard and tasted horrible. Most people needed a water softener. Were people outraged that they were being forced to drink this? Not really. It’s the way it is.
With regards to fluoride, this is one of those situations where the benefit is greatest to the lower classes and fought most by the upper classes. Those who complain about fluoride are almost universally rich white yuppies who never drink tap water anyway. The lower classes are the ones who are generally not getting the best dental care and who are most effected by cavities, as they may not have good insurance coverage or go frequently to the dentist. What is great about fluoride is that it improves dental health and reduces cavities in all citizens.
nostromo said:
Alright. This comes up all the time with any organization. It’s a strawman. Of course, the ADA has an interest in the dental buisiness. This is something that some have argued over things like the Health Physics Society: They’re connected to the nuclear industry. Of course they are! Health Physicists are not employed by hardware stores or shoe manufacturers. They work with the nuclear, enviornmental and medical sectors.
By this logic the position of any professional organization can be written off.
The WHO, by the way, is fairly independent and does not have all that much interest in dentistry in particular.
nostromo said:
There is very solid empirical evidence and case-control that shows that populations who receive fluoride in the water supply have less cavities, stronger tooth enamel, better tooth development and less need for dental care.
One of the first major city water systems to fluoridate water was Brantford, Ontario. Fluoridation of a few major water supplies began in the United States in 1947. It became official US Government policy in 1951. New Zealand, Australia and the UK began fluoridation of a few water supplies in the early 1950’s.
The introduction of fluoride into water supplies across the board corresponds to a reduction in cavities of more than 33% within a few years. Of course, this kind of evidence is not perfect, because it does not have rigorous controls, but there have also been studies which instituted demographic controls and universally found similar benefits.
In some countries fluoride is not added to water but is added to salt or milk instead. Most parts of the world don’t deliver fluoride this way, although it is the preferred method of delivering iodine (in salt)
Quote Comment
February 7th, 2010 at 3:05 pm
Hasn’t the fluoride debate been going on like this since at least the 1940’s without any real evidence that it is actually harmful at all? I suppose now a days, it’s no longer the Soviet Union who they say is behind it.
Regarding choice: people have to deal with the water supply where they live. It may have too much fluoride, not enough, too much chlorine, bacteria, minerals and so on and on. It’s not like they get to chose exactly the kind of water piped to their homes individually. What about when fluoride is artificially removed? What if it simply is not added? Does this deny them the right to have it in their water?
It is therefore a logical argument that the water authority should do its best to make the water as safe and healthy as they can and try to provide what the majority will benefit most from, because they have to make the decision for the whole society. That’s just the way it is. You can’t formulate the water differently for every home, so you have to try to do the best for all.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 11:10 am
Pretty much, yeah, Q. Excessive fluoride consumption is associated with health risks — indeed, the tooth decay benefits were first observed in populations where fluoride levels were naturally quite high, resulting in fluorosis — but unusually low levels of tooth decay. Subsequent research worked out that there’s a fairly wide in which you can get benefits to tooth calcification without risking fluorosis.
nostromo mentions systemic health risks. Has he considered that there are systemic health *benefits* to fluoridaton? Yes! Dental health is about more than just the inconvenience of getting cavities filled or the unsightly appearance of a gap-toothed smile. Poor dental health can kill you. Yes, seriously.
The mouth is the gateway to the body, which makes it extremely prone to infection. Cavities aren’t bad just because they’re ugly and can lead to damage to the tooth itself. They’re bad because they are great places for bacteria to grow and adapt to your body’s natural defenses. They can foster gingivitis, and that’s not just a fancy word used to sell Listerine. If your gums become infected, that infection can very quickly lead to septicemia, because of the very good blood supply in your mouth. A septic infection is life-threatening. Alternately, the bacteria may simply drift in the blood without becoming established there, and lodge somewhere else. From the mouth, the easiest targets would be the heart and the brain. Not good.
I once encountered an individual who essentially went bankrupt due to avoiding dentists. He had advanced periodontal disease, had lost many teeth, and ultimately developed a heart infection which nearly killed him. In the hospital, most of his remaining teeth were extracted to halt further infection, he was fitted with dentures, and he received intravenous antibiotics for days. When he was finally well enough to leave, he was bankrupt — ICU care is not cheap, even if you have insurance and just need to pay a percentage plus deductible (and he did not have insurance).
So tooth decay is no laughing matter. Reducing cavities is about more than avoiding the dentist’s drill. (Think for a moment why it’s even recommended to get a cavity drilled out. It’s gotta be serious if they recommend what amounts to a minor surgical procedure on a routine basis just to keep it from getting worse.)
And before going crazy with the conspiracy theories, think about who really benefits from fluoridation. Dentists recommend it — but where is the money in it? It *costs* them business, because it reduces the number of cavities. Toothpaste manufacturers and the manufacturers of fluoridated mouthwash get direct competition from fluoridation of the water supply. It is *not* in their interests, financially. The ADA doesn’t recommend fluoridation because of kickbacks. They recommend it because their whole purpose in existing is to improve oral health.
Quote Comment
February 9th, 2010 at 5:58 pm
Calli Arcale said:
One of the things I’ve heard as a conspiracy theory is that toothpaste companies finance and promote fluoride because it makes dental health *worse* and thus sells more of their product.
When you think about it, this really doesn’t make sense. Toothpaste does not compete with fluoridation of water. If you have fluoride in your water, it may increase your resistance to tooth decay, but it does not mean you are absolutely 100% immune to tooth decay. With or without fluoride, brushing teeth and good oral hygiene is absolutely essential to good health. It does not matter if you have fluoride in the water, if you don’t brush well, you’re likely to have cavities.
If anything, one could argue that toothpaste manufacturers benefit from good oral health, because a person with a festering cavity or sore could be less likely to brush because it would irritate it. And of course, if things go far enough then they end up with dentures and the toothpaste manufacturer loses their buisiness – although the denture cleaner manufacturer gains it
Quote Comment
June 1st, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Isn’t it true that some foods/drinks naturally have a lot in them?
Ah – found a chart. Does anyone have more details?
http://www.fortcollinscwa.org/pages/fluoride.htm
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/Fluoride/fluoride.pdf (The referenced report)
Quote Comment
June 23rd, 2010 at 3:16 pm
So crazy I felt it in my office in toronto
Quote Comment