Post: #26

Well... He mostly does parrot Vox Day.

Anyways Caleb Thomas did a long interview/show on Scientism. https://youtu.be/izY6sgQvWfE

One of the big things to look out for is circular citations: when you have a cluster of researchers just repeatedly citing each other with any link to the original evidence being tenuous to nonexistent.

Post: #27

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/sci...se-n920851

Quote:U.S. NEWS
Science says fluoride in water is good for kids. So why are these towns banning it?

In the past five years, 74 cities have voted to remove fluoride from their drinking water, despite thousands of studies showing it prevents cavities.

by Elizabeth Chuck / Oct. 17, 2018 / 4:29 AM EDT / Updated 8:37 AM EDT

"Anti-fluoridationists" claim, without scientific evidence, that fluoride lowers IQ and causes everything from Alzheimer's to cancer.

It has been hailed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as one of the top public health achievements of the 20th century. Numerous studies have proven its safety and efficacy. But fluoride — the naturally occurring compound that prevents cavities and tooth decay — is still sparking heated debates, seven decades after it was first added to America’s water supply.

“Anti-fluoridationists” — a small but vocal minority — are disputing long-established science to say that fluoride added to tap water lowers IQ and causes everything from acne to anemia to Alzheimer’s.


These anti-fluoride believers are active online but also at the polls: In the past five years, 74 cities have voted to remove fluoride from their drinking water, according to the American Dental Association. This year, there have been 13 votes around the country on fluoridation, and at least three more cities have fluoride referendums on the ballot in November: proposed bans in Brooksville, Florida, and Houston, Missouri, and a vote on bringing fluoridated water back in Springfield, Ohio.

The frets over fluoride are reminiscent of the unfounded fear that vaccines cause autism: disproved by science, yet steadfast nonetheless. The persistence of fluoride conspiracy theories — which emerged in the 1950s with claims that fluoridation was a communist plot to dumb down Americans — is alarming public health officials, including the American Dental Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, who say fluoride is a safe, inexpensive way to boost children’s oral health.

Dr. Johnny Johnson, a retired pediatric dentist who is president of the nonprofit American Fluoridation Society, calls the anti-fluoride efforts “cult-like.”

“You cannot tailor public health to the whims of a small group of people,” he said. “If you are doing that, you are harming a large group of people.”

The anti-fluoridationists, though, say that it’s the fluoride supporters who are harming the public’s health. Some argue that the government uses fluoride as a form of mind control; others believe it's designed to boost the sugar lobby by enabling people to eat more sweets without getting cavities; and still others believe that health officials are afraid to reverse course on fluoride after promoting it for decades.

Paul Beeber, president of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, speaks at a 2012 press conference in New York City.Bryan Smith / Zuma Press file
They spread the word on Facebook groups, like that of the New York State Coalition Opposed to Fluoridation, which blames fluoride for problems including thyroid damage and was slammed in 2012 for falsely claiming that the federal government “recommends avoiding fluoridated water when making infant formula.” (The CDC says it’s fine to use fluoridated tap water for formula, though the agency notes it may cause mild spotting on babies’ teeth, so parents can use low-fluoride bottled water some of the time instead.) Reddit users claim fluoride kills gut bacteria. And on Twitter, fluoride is regularly called a cancer-causing neurotoxin.

The anti-fluoride movement has also made headway offline. In June, the Texas Republican Party opposed water fluoridation in its 2018 platform. In New Jersey, where more than 80 percent of residents do not have fluoridated water, the town of East Brunswick stopped fluoridating three years ago after Mayor David Stahl called it "mass medication of the public," a familiar refrain on anti-fluoridation forums. In Brooksville, Florida, a city of 8,000 about an hour north of Tampa, Mayor Betty Erhard has said for years that fluoride is a toxin and a waste of taxpayer money. Next month, at her urging, Brooksville will vote on removing it.

“I believe that people should consent to what’s in their water,” Erhard said. Some townspeople agree.

“Fluoride is a dangerous cancer-causing agent. I don't even like taking a shower in it,” one wrote on Erhard’s Facebook page.

CONTROVERSY FROM THE VERY START

The first place in America to receive fluoridated water was Grand Rapids, Michigan, in 1945, when residents there became guinea pigs for the theory that boosting existing natural fluoride levels in water would decrease tooth decay, particularly in children. The experiment, by the United States Public Health Service, was done without residents’ consent — still a point of contention among anti-fluoridationists.

The experiment was so successful that 11 years into what was supposed to be a 15-year study, researchers announced the rate of cavities among Grand Rapids’ 30,000 schoolchildren had dropped by 60 percent. But not everyone was pleased.

"I was called a murderer and a communist," Dr. Winston Prothro, director of public health in Grand Rapids during the early days of fluoridation, told The Washington Post in 1988. "I must have had letters from every city in America, and plenty from other countries, too. It fell on me to defend the physical and moral health of our entire city."

Since then, the conspiracy theories have evolved from fears of a communist plot to other worries about purported dangers of fluoride — an abundant element that occurs naturally in water, even when it’s not added by the government.

“Now, you have this weird backlash where people think that anything that is a chemical is bad, even though everything is a chemical,” said University of Miami associate professor Joseph Uscinski, co-author of the book “American Conspiracy Theories.” “There are groups of people who think that if something isn’t natural, it is somehow impure or bad, and it grosses them out.”

To experts, objecting to fluoride is nonsensical. The compound, consumed in water or applied topically through toothpaste or mouthwash, prevents cavities by replacing weakened structures in the teeth, said Dr. Kerry Maguire, associate clinical investigator of Forsyth, an independent research institute specializing in oral health.

It’s true that too much fluoride can be dangerous — one complication is skeletal fluorosis, which causes stiffening and pain of the joints and bones or abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting — but those effects only occur with prolonged exposure to a far higher level of fluoride than is found in public water systems in the U.S., experts say. In this country, the only common side effect of fluoridation is fluorosis of the teeth — minor staining that is often only visible to a dentist.

THE ANTI-FLUORIDE MOVEMENT

Today, nearly 75 percent of the U.S. receives fluoridated water from community water systems.

That’s a number that Paul Connett, a chemistry professor emeritus at St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, hopes to get down to zero.

“There’s umpteen ways that fluoride can cause damage,” said Connett, executive director of the nonprofit Fluoride Action Network, which aims to end fluoridation worldwide.

Connett was initially skeptical of concerns about fluoride when his wife asked him two decades ago about its health effects.

“The prevailing attitude is that people who are opposed to fluoride are crazy, so I didn’t want to be stigmatized in that way,” Connett said.

But the more he looked into it, the more convinced Connett became that fluoride was indeed toxic.

He now cites what he bills as a “dynamite” 2017 study that concluded that higher prenatal fluoride exposure was associated with lower cognitive outcomes in children in Mexico.

The findings, he says, are consistent with more than 50 other studies that concluded that fluoride lowers IQ.

But many dental experts dismiss such studies as bogus, particularly because many of them were done in other countries, where natural fluoride levels are far higher than in the U.S. and there may be other factors, like polluted water.

“It’s as though you have something you want to prove, so you look at other countries that have naturally high levels of fluoride at multiples of what we have in the United States, and they see changes and then they backwards extrapolate it to water fluoridation,” said Johnson of the American Fluoridation Society. “You can’t do that in science.”

Some anti-fluoridationists oppose all fluoride, including in toothpaste. (Sales of fluoride-free toothpastes are relatively small but projected to grow; an article in the dental journal Gerodontology in August found that such toothpastes have “no impact” on preventing cavities.) Fluoride opponents seize on the warning label on toothpaste cautioning that a poison control center should be called if a child accidentally ingests too much, saying that proves fluoride is a toxin.

The American Dental Association, which has supported water fluoridation since 1950, disputes that, pointing out that the amount of fluoride in an entire tube of toothpaste wouldn’t be fatal, but other additives would likely cause a child to vomit.

As for fluoride in water, “there have been literally thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed journals that demonstrate the safety of community water fluoridation,” said Dr. Brittany Seymour, the American Dental Association’s consumer spokeswoman, calling it “the single most important public health measure to prevent cavities.”

Sophistry: "anti-fluoridationists", as if anyone who opposes or even questions the use of fluoride needs to be labeled. Of course they're compared to "anti-vaxxers" and "conspiracy theorists" (later on a "communist plot" is mentioned--see the film Doctor Strangelove) The article also strawmans the anti-fluoride position by saying it is claimed to cause everything from acne to anemia to Alzheimer's--implying that's just the A-category, when in reality the main anti-fluoride argument is that it affects brain function.

Junk science: "an abundant element that occurs naturally in water"--then why in the fuck does it need to be added to the water supply? Presumably because the amount that occurs in nature has no effect on our health, good or bad. Then how is it relevant that it occurs in nature? Absolute BS.

Junk science: "fluoride prevents cavities by replacing weakened structures in the teeth." The article doesn't explain exactly how this mechanism works, which is odd given it's kind of the whole crux of the pro- argument. Even if true, it does not explain how it benefits us to ingest fluoride whenever we drink anything as opposed to using it in toothpaste or a mouth rinse like the dentist used to give you (I wonder why they stopped?).

Also, nowhere in the article does it mention the fact that few European countries fluoridate their water, and the ones that do (eg. the UK) aren't exactly known for having nice teeth.

Post: #28

Does anyone have a good argument AGAINST recycling? Im always trying to come up with something good when arguing with people on this topic.

Post: #29

(10-17-2018 11:01 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Does anyone have a good argument AGAINST recycling? Im always trying to come up with something good when arguing with people on this topic.

It takes a lot of energy to recycle something, as opposed to burying it in a landfill.

I've been assuming that eventually we'll run out of certain necessary materials to make things, like rare earth metals, and then recycling will be mandatory for a lot of the rarer materials. Hell they might even have to start digging up the landfills and looking for shit.

Post: #30

That isn't a problem with recycling though, just that we're extremely bad at it.

Post: #31

(10-17-2018 11:08 AM)DJ-Matt Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 11:01 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Does anyone have a good argument AGAINST recycling? Im always trying to come up with something good when arguing with people on this topic.

It takes a lot of energy to recycle something, as opposed to burying it in a landfill.

I've been assuming that eventually we'll run out of certain necessary materials to make things, like rare earth metals, and then recycling will be mandatory for a lot of the rarer materials. Hell they might even have to start digging up the landfills and looking for shit.

Already happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill_mining

Post: #32

(10-17-2018 11:01 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  Does anyone have a good argument AGAINST recycling? Im always trying to come up with something good when arguing with people on this topic.

1.
Cleaning/washing glass jars and bottles wastes a lot of clean water. However, if you avoid doing this all your empty glass items are gonna stink and attract flies.

2.
Recycled paper is always terrible quality and looks like shit...I never use it for writing or printing on, and even as toilet paper it feels awful. Better to use paper and cardboard as a fuel source for fires.

3.
Plastic bags/bottles/items (even hard plastic) degrade way faster in the sunshine & rain than scientists claim. However, plastic in general should be banned. It's a unnatural toxic substance which is deterimental to human health...especially reproductive health.

4.
On a general level, the energy and time required to melt/destroy and recreate the items to be recycled actually pollutes the environment more than if they were simply burnt in a massive furnace.

5.
Creating items of higher quality that last longer and can be re-used hundreds of times would be a much smarter alternative, but isn't very profitable to companies...hence why "science priests" push the recycling narrative.


There's more to this topic but thats all I can come up with right now.

Post: #33

You bring up some good points, thank you. But why should plastic be banned? Seriously, I don't understand how plastic became so evil all of a sudden.

Post: #34

(10-17-2018 10:57 AM)Easy_C Wrote:  Well... He mostly does parrot Vox Day.

Anyways Caleb Thomas did a long interview/show on Scientism. https://youtu.be/izY6sgQvWfE

One of the big things to look out for is circular citations: when you have a cluster of researchers just repeatedly citing each other with any link to the original evidence being tenuous to nonexistent.

Me? Parroting Vox day? I read some 5 articles of Vox and saw roughly 7-9 videos of his. I don't even know what he is about.

If we align on some subjects, then it's pure coincidence or thinking alike on some subjects. But Vox Day has some odd tangents that I never could go into - odd ideas as well.

And as far as my content above - obviously someone created rather a burner account to go apeshit not wanting to be as straightforward with his own one.

The funny thing is that those are not "my ideas". Foster Gamble - an heir to P&G - put millions into a huge documentary visiting countless doctors and rogue scientists, inventors - found a lot of what I said to be true.

"Doing research" is literally meaningless. Quakery at this point attacks essentially the views of Nobel price laureates and highly esteemed doctors. Doing research is not:

"I checked out Wikipedia, listened to the one semester in college that MDs are indoctrinated on vaccines (50% of it now dealing how to counter "anti-vaxxers" or I read on Snopes what it was all about." That is not "research" - you have to deal with the concise arguments of the other side, the studies, the questions, the veritable sources.

But whatever - it's easier to get the NPC programming triggered - I have even spoken with so many young doctors that I know what they say, because they get their programming along the same lines - "proven and effective", "1 in a million", "vaccines saved us all", "expensive urine" etc. These are meaningless slogans hammered into them - never addressing the issues at all.

So long as the Big Lie is big and shiny, then no reason to look behind it eh?

And if you don't like it, then don't read it. My input may make the lives of 5 children much better - it already did and I could tell stories of my nieces and nephews and their outstanding health - already beating any statistical odds as they are in groups of much higher socio-economic metrics of kids raised on all-organic food and yet always sick. In contrast my little family members are puzzling beacons of health as all the studies point out which compare vaccinated to the unvaccinated - never mind that 15-20% of all the Swiss up until the 1990s were completly unvaccinated while in the West now everyone is getting insanely aggressive when the metric slips from 99,5% to 99.4%.

Pure wonderful NPC programming.

Post: #35

@NotZelcorpion

Sorry you are getting dead named.

People are not honoring your transition.

Or your true self.

Post: #36

(10-17-2018 11:40 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  You bring up some good points, thank you. But why should plastic be banned? Seriously, I don't understand how plastic became so evil all of a sudden.

Plastic for some products may be useful, but plastic usage in food containment is evil and useless. Not only does it leech into the food, impacts the health, causes cancer, also disrupts the endocrine system as the bodies recognize certain plastics like bisphenols as hormones - it's polluting Earth - even if it's mostly China and a few SEA and developing places which are doing the polluting.

There are many replacement products of plastic like banana-peels or hemp.

Like behold here a car made out of durable hemp:





Obviously plastic is wonderful business to the car industry while steel and hemp would be shit - as hemp is too flexible and steel can be bent back.

And yes - the best way to deal with recycling is to produce product that lasts decades. I recently found for example that they produce only headsets that are deliberately made to break and rupture from within. They don't last even 6 months in most cases - even if you spend 150$ on them (had one go in that price range). I compared it to some older ones from my dad from the 1970s - they were of highly different design. And they still work to this day after decades! We could do the same with articles like washing machines which hardly have much different technology from 20 years ago despite some gimmicks.

Post: #37

(10-17-2018 11:40 AM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  You bring up some good points, thank you. But why should plastic be banned? Seriously, I don't understand how plastic became so evil all of a sudden.

The various chemicals in different types of plastic taint/poison all the food and liquids that are packaged in it. From most of your bottled waters, to your ready meals, to your supermarket raw meat to your salads and freshly chopped fruit. All of them are affceted. The longer it is in the plastic the worse it is for your health and testosterone.

Babies sucking for months/years on plastic pacifiers and/or drinking from plastic baby bottles are especially at risk.

I try as much as I can to avoid eating or drinking anything packaged in plastic.
Not an easy thing to do nowadays.

Try putting the same water in both a glass bottle and a plastic bottle in your fridge for at least 5 days and then try drinking from both. You'll quickly notice the difference in taste.

Post: #38

A lot of this sounds like paranoia and unsubstantiated claims.

Post: #39

Yeah if the government and and food companies say it's ok, it's ok!

Don't be paranoid about your health, just assume everything will be fine!

Also I don't see any links to CNN or other trusted sources to back up what you're saying so I'm going to say it's unsubstantiated.

Spoken like a true NPC.

Post: #40

(10-17-2018 12:11 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  Spoken like a true NPC.

The funny thing about this NPC meme is that it's being immediately implemented by certain members...exactly like an NPC . Your response is programmed already. Before that, it was "SJW". You're just following the hivemind without even realizing it.

But back to the topic, no I don't see any hard evidence that plastic is harmful. You're gonna have to do better than "it causes cancer" because pretty much anything these days is supposed to cause cancer. I'm just being skeptical.

Post: #41

The reality is that when it becomes clear that you've been lied to for decades with "bedrock-solid science" that mere decades later and a few million dollars in lobbying dollars is suddenly contradicted by new "bedrock-solid science" then the only thing you have left is personal observation and healthy skepticism.

This was an example of "bedrock-solid science" when I was a kid.



People who questioned this were labelled kooks and weirdos.

Need a more recent example?

Quote:Here’s an alphabetical list of common cooking oils that contain more of the “better-for-you” fats and less saturated fat.
Canola
Corn
Olive
Peanut
Safflower
Soybean
Sunflower

Blends or combinations of these oils, often sold under the name “vegetable oil,” and cooking sprays made from these oils are also good choices.

This is from your friends at the American Heart Association.

https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/...oking-oils

There is a kind of sad stockholm syndrome where people can believe that the defense industry starts wars that kill millions for nothing but profit, and the banks can ruin million of lives for nothing but profit, but the second some faggot puts on a lab coat and talks about health or environmental issues then they should trusted implicitly.

The globalist corporations that run modern medicine are every bit as nefarious and cut-throat as their brothers in the defence or finance or energy sectors. To believe otherwise is to be willfully ignorant.

Post: #42

(10-17-2018 12:27 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote:Here’s an alphabetical list of common cooking oils that contain more of the “better-for-you” fats and less saturated fat.
Canola
Corn
Olive
Peanut
Safflower
Soybean
Sunflower

Blends or combinations of these oils, often sold under the name “vegetable oil,” and cooking sprays made from these oils are also good choices.

This is from your friends at the American Heart Association.

Coconut oil isn't healthy. It's never been healthy.

Post: #43

(10-17-2018 03:46 PM)Thot Leader Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 12:27 PM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Quote:Here’s an alphabetical list of common cooking oils that contain more of the “better-for-you” fats and less saturated fat.
Canola
Corn
Olive
Peanut
Safflower
Soybean
Sunflower

Blends or combinations of these oils, often sold under the name “vegetable oil,” and cooking sprays made from these oils are also good choices.

This is from your friends at the American Heart Association.

Coconut oil isn't healthy. It's never been healthy.

First rule of the intellectual fight club - always check the source and whether there could be a massive conflict of interest:

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/...562253002/

NPC media says coconut oil is unhealthy.

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic...ealth.aspx

You find studies at the bottom by Dr. Mercola - got even invited by Dr. Oz without ripping into him since he really gets some respect due to his well-researched articles.





I recently did French Fries in coconut oil and let me tell you - it's strange. It's not as tasty as other oils, but it's good enough. The consistency was as if it was dry - as if someone dried out the oil. Really strange.

Post: #44

I cook eggs in coconut oil. I also use it to bake/broil sweet potatoes. Really tasty. Then there's MCT oil in coffee. Good for your skin, too, if you get the fractionated kind.

Post: #45

Am I the only one here who deep fries with coconut oil? Got a veggie slicer that I run a whole potato through then drop the fries into my fry daddy.

Post: #46

(10-17-2018 12:20 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(10-17-2018 12:11 PM)RedPillUK Wrote:  Spoken like a true NPC.

The funny thing about this NPC meme is that it's being immediately implemented by certain members...exactly like an NPC . Your response is programmed already. Before that, it was "SJW". You're just following the hivemind without even realizing it.

But back to the topic, no I don't see any hard evidence that plastic is harmful. You're gonna have to do better than "it causes cancer" because pretty much anything these days is supposed to cause cancer. I'm just being skeptical.

Many plastics like BPAs were initially developed as birth control substances.

https://www.corbettreport.com/episode-12...oxins-bpa/

Post: #47

Peanut oil is the way to go for deep frying, has a higher smoke point so it won't degrade into harmful compounds.

Post: #48

Over 1,600 scientists have signed a letter condemning a proposal by the Trump administration to define gender as biological and established at birth.

Quote: Signatories to the letter, including nine Nobel laureates, accuse the Trump government of citing "pseudoscience".

"This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity," it states.

The government proposal was leaked to the New York Times last week.

What is the proposal?

The change - as outlined in a draft memo by the Department of Health and Human Services - would rescind previous policy created under Barack Obama which adopted a broader definition of gender.

Instead, the Trump administration would reportedly define gender based solely on people's genitalia at birth.

Activists say such a move would "erase" the identities of 1.4 million Americans who identify as transgender.

The reported proposal has not been announced by the US government, and Mr Trump has not commented on the report.

What do the scientists say?

The letter, signed by over 700 biologists, over 100 geneticists, and nine Nobel Prize winners dispute the US government's proposal, saying it "is in no way 'grounded in science' as the administration claims".

"The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood," they write.

"Though scientists are just beginning to understand the biological basis of gender identity, it is clear that many factors, known and unknown, mediate the complex links between identity, genes, and anatomy," the authors write in the letter, which links to 10 different scientific studies.

The letter goes on to explain that no scientific test can "unambiguously determine gender, or even sex".

"Even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people's own gender identities."

On Thursday, more than 50 companies representing $2.4tn (£1.5tn) in annual revenue also released a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's effort to strip trans Americans of legal protections.

The statement from the companies - including Apple, Google, Nike, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook - says: "Transgender people are our beloved family members and friends, and our valued team members. What harms transgender people harms our companies."

"Diversity and inclusion are good for business," write the companies, who together employ nearly 4.8 million people, according to CNBC.

"We call for respect and transparency in policy-making, and for equality under the law for transgender people."

No commentary needed.

Post: #49

came across this gem:

The worst decision you can ever make is to have a child, according to science

Quote: This may spell bad news for new parents, but research has shown that having a kid is not paticularly beneficial to you.

If you've noticed that your friends are starting to raise little families of their own, and you fancy a slice of parental bliss, you may want to hear what the experts have to say about parenthood first.

Scientific studies have shown that having a child can severely effect numerous things in your life ranging from money to sleep and even sex.

Greg and Mitch, who host a YouTube science show, have detailed the damaging effects that a child can have on individuals as well as couples.

Here are a few of their key stats.

For starters, marriages have been shown to struggle significantly after the birth of a child.

Bustle report that 70 per cent couples experience slumps in their relationship within the first three years of a child's birth.

This can be attributed to a variety of things; including less intimacy, less money, differences in opinion on how to raise the child, and an overall lack of time spent together.

Ellen Walker P.h.D. told Psychology Today:

"Marital satisfaction rates actually plummet after the birth of the first child.

So, if a couple has the idea that a baby will bring them closer, think again."

Sleep is also something that parents can kiss goodbye to. In the first two years of a baby's life a parent will lose six months of sleep, amounting to only 2.5 hours of sleep a night on average.

There is also a huge financial deficiency that is associated with children.

NBC News have reported that in America, having a kid can cost as much as $13,000 a year, which by the time they reach 17, will mean parents have forked out a total of $233,000.

Furthermore, mother's make roughly 3 percent less money than those that don't have children.

Finally there is the threat of overpopulation. Scientists predict that the world's population will exceed 10.5 billion by 2050.

If this happens, it will be harder for the population to produce enough food, water and shelter for everyone to survive adequately.

Therefore, by not having a kid you could be saving the planet.

Of course, this isn't to say don't have kids at all - but it is an example of just how challenging this responsibility can be.

And it's not even well-written. Fuckin' hell.