Ironic that a website dedicated to fighting ignorance would be so rank with it. Regarding the Fluoride review - Perhaps Cecil Adams should read Christopher Bryson’s book - The Fluoride Deception (free on google books) which exposes newly declassified government documents outlining in no uncertain terms the very dirty truth about the history behind public water fluoridation & it’s implication in the production of the atomic bomb. Mr. Adams might also want to update his review on fluoride to include the recent warning issued by the FDA against giving fluoridated water to infants & children. He might also find it relevant to include World Health Organization data which demonstrates a decline in dental carries all over the world in countries irregardless of fluoridated water, salts or toothpastes. He might also find it educational to browse the archives of www.fluoridealert.org
Is this the referenced review? And in what way is it inaccurate?
If I see the name Joseph Mercola, DO in a positive light on a website, it instantly marks that site in my mind as a site full of misinformation, quack science, and bad advice. Here’s some of the problems with Mercola and his website and advice:
[H]e opposes immunization and fluoridation, claims that amalgam fillings are toxic, and makes many unsubstantiated recommendations for dietary supplements. Much of his support comes from chiropractors who promote his newsletter from their Web sites.
In other words, don’t take anything said on the Web by Mercola as gospel truth.
I have to agree with the OP, Cecil really is a slacker as to the research. He seems to think that it’s acceptable, hell, even admirable, to only consider reliable, peer-reviewed sources of empirical data. That is just plain sloppy. How can you claim to have investigated something thoroughly until you have considered EVERY source regardless of how biased, incoherent or simply fraudulent? He acts like the scientific method should be the standard for such things when everyone knows that the TRUE criterion is whether or not the data supports your pre-existing beliefs.
If you can’t make up your own truth as you go along, then you’re nothing more than science’s bitch.
I rather be science’s bitch than religion’s whore.
Oh come on. You really couldn’t tell that was a joke? The whole bit about considering every source “regardless of how biased, incoherent or simply fraudulent” it might be didn’t give it away? And it’s not like that was the only “clue”.
But OK. I’m fessing up now. :smack:
Dude, I was going along with the joke.
I could see that, outliern, but since the conspiracy theory is by itself religion-neutral, I can also see why the chosen going-along term may have sounded out-of-place and jarring to the point of confusion to dzero.
…MUST resist obvious Dr. Strangelove reference…
I have been battling Joseph Mercola for years in my own blog. He’s an all-purpose quack, someone with a false statement on anything and everything that believers can quote without bothering to do any of the heavy work of checking the science.
I did a search for fluoride on Quackwatch for some balance.
What do you have against the atomic bomb? Are you some type of Communist?
It was the flagrant use of “regardless” that threw us all off.
This little bit was a puzzler to me.
What in heck is the OP talking about?
What connection is there between fluoridation and the development of the atomic bomb?
It’s all part of a plot to adulterate our bodily fluids.
(well, somebody had to say it)
I am almost tempted to read the FREE GOOGLE BOOOK she referenced in the OP, but not really. I have too tall a to-be-read pile as it is without adding another volume of (initial impression open to reassessment if given further data) paranoid woo-woo.
Hi, maryi. Welcome to the SDMB. Kick off your shoes. Sit a spell.
You’re right, the Straight Dope is indeed a website dedicated to fighting ignorance. As such, when you begin a discussion such as this one, folks around here like it when you stick around to actually participate in the discussion. This gives you a chance to back up your assertions with reliable cites, respond to follow-up questions, and generally help give everybody a better understanding of the issue as a whole.
Dopers may have a propensity for rather spirited debate, but we’re generally a pretty friendly bunch. We won’t necessarily hold an unpopular viewpoint against you, if you can back up your claims and hold your own in the argument. (Hint: a single link to a website of questionable veracity doesn’t cut it.)
I bring this up because your first (and so far only) post here looks suspiciously like a hit-and-run. I picture you seeking out various places on the web to pop in and spread your particular agenda, never to be seen there again. Prove me wrong. Come back and argue your position. I guarantee you’ll be regarded more highly here if you do.
♪ You’ll wonder where the yellowcake went when you brush your teeth with Pepsident. ♪
heh heh heh
Surely you can’t be serious.
I misread that and was wondering what was wrong with Florida.