Fuken science pricks and shit

**mashman** · 15th February 2014, 17:57

Ze fucker is... given that this fuckin fluoride issue has been in tin foil feckin hat territory for many fookin years (decades) and refuted by the farkin (govt) scientific community as nothing more than fuggin bullshitty fuck, then it hardly comes as a fornicating surprise that there's some form of effin truth to it. Why would they do such a thing? It's like the prohibition argument... the side that's "trusted" must stick to their story irrespective of any truths that are later revealed... whereas the tin foil hatters will always just be the sky is falling muthafuckin cunts.

According to wikiworld, there's a study back in 2001 that showed that the pineal gland stores more and more fluoride as one gets older. I guess that explains a lot.

Originally Posted by ellipsis

...living causes death, it seems...

Oh shit, I thought death was caused by traveling at 105kph.

**bogan** · 15th February 2014, 18:12

Originally Posted by Akzle

wait. Heres one.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/stor...s-in-children/

Originally Posted by mashman

Ze fucker is... given that this fuckin fluoride issue has been in tin foil feckin hat territory for many fookin years (decades) and refuted by the farkin (govt) scientific community as nothing more than fuggin bullshitty fuck, then it hardly comes as a fornicating surprise that there's some form of effin truth to it. Why would they do such a thing? It's like the prohibition argument... the side that's "trusted" must stick to their story irrespective of any truths that are later revealed... whereas the tin foil hatters will always just be the sky is falling muthafuckin cunts.

According to wikiworld, there's a study back in 2001 that showed that the pineal gland stores more and more fluoride as one gets older. I guess that explains a lot.

Have you fuckers been taking 'research' lessons from Ed? Nowhere does it say they have concluded fluoride is harmful, much less establishing levels of toxicity.

**Akzle** · 15th February 2014, 18:43

Originally Posted by bogan

Have you fuckers been taking 'research' lessons from Ed? Nowhere does it say they have concluded fluoride is harmful, much less establishing levels of toxicity.

righto. Correlation isnt causation. Its just a coincidence that city kids are fucking retards and that they add even more flouride to water in prisons... Because theyre worried about their dental health you see.

**mashman** · 15th February 2014, 18:49

Originally Posted by bogan

Have you fuckers been taking 'research' lessons from Ed? Nowhere does it say they have concluded fluoride is harmful, much less establishing levels of toxicity.

So it's not toxic then.

**bogan** · 15th February 2014, 18:57

Originally Posted by Akzle

righto. Correlation isnt causation. Its just a coincidence that city kids are fucking retards and that they add even more flouride to water in prisons... Because theyre worried about their dental health you see.

All the data in that stuff was gathered from china, where fluoride is present in groundwater. Got fuck all to do with cities and prisons.

Originally Posted by mashman

So it's not toxic then.

Needs more research.

If you are concerned about what they add to water here, your first step should be to compare concentrations of what they add here, with what was present in the chinese studies. Instead of flying off the handle down the conspiracy theory path with no evidence whatsoever; cos that just makes you look silly.

**mashman** · 15th February 2014, 19:27

Originally Posted by bogan

Needs more research.

If you are concerned about what they add to water here, your first step should be to compare concentrations of what they add here, with what was present in the chinese studies. Instead of flying off the handle down the conspiracy theory path with no evidence whatsoever; cos that just makes you look silly.

My first step is to be skeptical because fluoride has been in the water supply since before I was born... and if more research is still needed, then I will fly off the handle in the negative direction should I choose... and as there is no evidence i.e. one side says yes it does and the other says no it doesn't, I shall put my trust in the tin foil hat "experts" as they have nothing to gain by claiming that fluoridation could cause health problems. I want a definitive answer before I change my mind.

Til then, I shall run the risk of looking silly, meh.

**Akzle** · 15th February 2014, 19:27

Originally Posted by bogan

All the data in that stuff was gathered from china, where fluoride is present in groundwater. Got fuck all to do with cities and prisons.

So. Flouride as a toxic chemical in ground water differs from Flouride as a toxic chemical in tap water... How?

**bogan** · 15th February 2014, 20:03

Originally Posted by mashman

My first step is to be skeptical because fluoride has been in the water supply since before I was born... and if more research is still needed, then I will fly off the handle in the negative direction should I choose... and as there is no evidence i.e. one side says yes it does and the other says no it doesn't, I shall put my trust in the tin foil hat "experts" as they have nothing to gain by claiming that fluoridation could cause health problems. I want a definitive answer before I change my mind.

Til then, I shall run the risk of looking silly, meh.

Third side (and it is the one with the experts on) says more research is needed.

Originally Posted by Akzle

So. Flouride as a toxic chemical in ground water differs from Flouride as a toxic chemical in tap water... How?

What else is in that ground water? or in fact anywhere near that location, how much is in that ground water compared to how much is in our tap water. I mean you should take a hint when the guy who writes the report doesn't draw such conclusions, that maybe they are not there to be drawn

Although, I guess you sheeple don't like to actually do the whole thinking/logic thing.

**mashman** · 15th February 2014, 20:14

Originally Posted by bogan

Third side (and it is the one with the experts on) says more research is needed.

Is that "experts" from both sides working side by side, funded equally and open minded? Or is that govt approved "experts" only?

**Akzle** · 15th February 2014, 20:16

so teh dose makes teh poison?
Why has science added it to the list of shit that fucks you up?

**bogan** · 15th February 2014, 20:22

Originally Posted by mashman

Is that "experts" from both sides working side by side, funded equally and open minded? Or is that govt approved "experts" only?

Peer reviewed experts, it makes sure they have actually read the fucking article

you have one of the most biased fucking views out there, but I can assure you, many many people in the scientific community do focus on evidence rather than towing the govt line.

Originally Posted by Akzle

so teh dose makes teh poison?
Why has science added it to the list of shit that fucks you up?

Yeh, like pretty much anything.
Not quite sure how widely recognized or peer reviewed that list is, but as there are indications it could be a neuro-inhibitor, better safe than sorry I guess.

**mashman** · 15th February 2014, 20:32

Originally Posted by bogan

Peer reviewed experts, it makes sure they have actually read the fucking article

you have one of the most biased fucking views out there, but I can assure you, many many people in the scientific community do focus on evidence rather than towing the govt line.

So not the anti brigade and their research? Where's my bias? especially as I require both pro and anti to come to conclusions by reviewing each others findings and not the bias of only "accepted experts". Where did I mention toeing the govt line? Stop making things up bro, it makes you look silly.

**Akzle** · 15th February 2014, 20:32

so shit's only right if you can get peer rejews to agree with you?
Howd that go for lead and radium based makeup? Or the sun revolving around the earth? Or jesus?

**bogan** · 15th February 2014, 20:38

Originally Posted by mashman

So not the anti brigade and their research? Where's my bias? especially as I require both pro and anti to come to conclusions by reviewing each others findings and not the bias of only "accepted experts". Where did I mention toeing the govt line? Stop making things up bro, it makes you look silly.

Who the fuck is this anti-brigade? are they science types or just ignorant government hating sheep like you?

Originally Posted by Akzle

so shit's only right if you can get peer rejews to agree with you?
Howd that go for lead and radium based makeup? Or the sun revolving around the earth? Or jesus?

Sort of, the peer review process is to ensure you have taken due diligence with your research so it is not misleading or otherwise flawed. This allows people who read it to build upon the sciency stuff in their own work, or see how the conclusions were reached and become more educated themselves.