|
 HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
 Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research  [Re: theRealrollforever]
#26863841 - 08/05/20 06:09 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
theRealrollforever said:
Well guys idk about you, but I’m gonna need an expert to tell me wtf this article was about. What is being smart? Am I an expert? I need an expert to tell me. Then I can either confidently think like an expert or if I’m not an expert it’s probably better to just stop thinking.
You're going to have to wait until it's been peer reviewed.
--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF
This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited, but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders
https://www.icandecide.org/
|
 badchad
Mad Scientist
Registered: 03/02/05
Posts: 13,379
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: Srirachi]
#26863842 - 08/05/20 06:10 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Srirachi said:
According to the Forbes article, you're not smart enough to ask that.
ha, I'd probably agree. The types of studies cited appear to be observational, epidemiological studies. I'm not well-versed in these, nor am I familiar with IQ effects of flouride generally. But I have conducted meta-analyses, selected outcome measures for clinical trials, and done the basics of study designs.
--------------------
...the whole experience is (and is as) a profound piece of knowledge. It is an indellible experience; it is forever known. I have known myself in a way I doubt I would have ever occurred except as it did.
Smith, P. Bull. Menninger Clinic (1959) 23:20-27; p. 27.
...most subjects find the experience valuable, some find it frightening, and many say that is it uniquely lovely.
Osmond, H. Annals, NY Acad Science (1957) 66:418-434; p.436
|
the strander
Explorer
Registered: 06/16/20
Posts: 138
Last seen: 2 years, 8 months
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: badchad] 1
#26863857 - 08/05/20 06:25 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
badchad said:
Quote:
HamHead said:
But what you're telling me is I shouldn't listen to these articles and listen to those who say a neurotoxin is safe to drink on a daily basis, multiple times per day.
No. What the Forbes article is saying is that these types of research articles are nuanced. Just looking at the first article:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
What were the inclusion/exclusion criteria for the meta analysis? More importantly, what was the dose of flouride across the studies? What were the primary outcome measures? What are the actual consequences of a 7 point IQ drop? How does these results differ from metaanalyses of industrialized countries?
These are very basic questions that need to be considered before thinking "OMG THIS PERSON IS AN EXPERT IT MUST BE TRUE."
It's an emerging problem with access to information. Uneducated individuals don't know what they don't know.
Exactly. It's dangerous to read the summary of a study, even if the summary is compiled by a trustworthy educational institution or media outlet, because it might have oversimplified.
The summary in the Harvard link says fluoride "may" be linked to lower IQ.
But based on just the summary, they simply measured IQs of 8k school kids and used whether they lived in an area with high fluoride in natural groundwater to try to infer a relationship between fluoride and IQ.
This is inherently flawed, if the summary is complete and accurate in terms of what the study did. Correlation does not mean causation. This is a very common trap to fall into, and I think why we are constantly being told one thing is "bad" only to be told it's "good" 3 months later.
It could be that in addition to more fluoride in groundwater in those areas, there is also another environmental factor. Another actual bad mineral, like lead, pollution from factories, air pollution. It could also be that those areas happen to have people in different social classes with less common access to proper nutrition and education, which I think are more likely than fluoride to have an impact in brain development. The summary of the article does not say what factors they controlled for, which is key to knowing if causation truly exists.
I grew up in an area with well water and high natural fluoride levels. They told my mom to boil water for things like pasta, but mostly it was fine. The result is my IQ is great, and my dental enamel is also great, from all that fluoride.
|
feevers
Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,663
Loc: 
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: HamHead] 4
#26863870 - 08/05/20 06:45 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said:
So, are you saying you support far left ideology before far right?
I'm not so sure about the destruction of some democratic cities during some of the so called peaceful protest, which evolve into riots that I have seen buildings burned, businesses looted, humans beaten on both sides and government courthouses and government buildings being targeted with marches.
But, you can't open your restaurant to full capacity, because there's a pandemic with a death rate that's comparable with influenza.
And Fauci has said this himself. Fauci has compared Covid19 to influenza.
Did we all forget that?
Did we all forget that we were told, the general american public shouldn't be walking around wearing mask.
No one is making this political except for you.
Propaganda sources are propaganda sources, I'd say the same thing if you were quoting the young turks or david pakman or whoever. The places you frequent for your 'news' say a lot about how based in reality you are, which for you appears to be not very. You're the only person that I have ever witnessed become less infromed the more you research something. It's actually kind of fascinating.
I have no idea why myself or anyone else still wastes their time responding to you, nearly every argument you make has already been debunked and thoroughly explained to you by multiple posters on here dozens of times. You ignore long thoughtful responses from people on here who actually have backgrounds and/or currently work in healthcare, research, chemistry/biology etc., and just quote your same misinfo and conspiracy talking points over and over, while completely misunderstanding the research you use as your 'proof'.
|
Jokeshopbeard
Humble Student
Registered: 11/30/11
Posts: 26,088
Loc: Deep in the system
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: feevers]
#26863894 - 08/05/20 07:09 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
I have no idea why myself or anyone else still wastes their time responding to you, nearly every argument you make has already been debunked and thoroughly explained to you by multiple posters on here dozens of times. You ignore long thoughtful responses from people on here who actually have backgrounds and/or currently work in healthcare, research, chemistry/biology etc., and just quote your same misinfo and conspiracy talking points over and over, while completely misunderstanding the research you use as your 'proof'.
Winning post.
--------------------
Let it be seen that you are nothing. And in knowing that you are nothing... there is nothing to lose, there is nothing to gain. What can happen to you? Something can happen to the body, but it will either heal or it won't. What's the big deal? Let life knock you to bits. Let life take you apart. Let life destroy you. It will only destroy what you are not.
--Jac O'keeffe
|
larry.fisherman
shoulda died already
Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,311
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: Jokeshopbeard] 5
#26863908 - 08/05/20 07:19 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
It is my belief that OP has spent some time in the absence of placing his penis directly in to a vagina
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: larry.fisherman] 1
#26864299 - 08/05/20 10:56 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
No one is making this political except for you..
Sorry. What?
"The national sentinel is a trump fan club"
--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF
This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited, but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders
https://www.icandecide.org/
|
Asante
Omnicyclion prophet
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 87,330
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: HamHead]
#26864302 - 08/05/20 10:58 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Forbes doesn't know me. 
--------------------
Omnicyclion.org
higher knowledge starts here
|
Nonagon Infinity
Mycologist
Registered: 06/02/20
Posts: 756
Loc: Polygondwanaland
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: HamHead] 2
#26864330 - 08/05/20 11:14 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said:
But what you're telling me is I shouldn't listen to these articles and listen to those who say a neurotoxin is safe to drink on a daily basis, multiple times per day.
That is absolutely not what I'm saying. What you're asking here is a loaded question, and it's a dirty, childish argumentation tactic. I'm surprised that an alleged critical thinker like you would resort to such strategies. I do not agree with the proposition that fluoride is a neurotoxin, but your question makes the assumption that it is. In answering your question, you are asking me to buy into that assumption. That's a cheap, dirty tactic, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for pulling that bullshit.
I'm just asking why you are so quick to believe an article that concludes fluoride is a neurotoxin while simultaneously being quick to dismiss an article that concludes it's not a risk to your health? What sort of criteria do you use to discern factual information from misinterpretation of data? How do you distinguish between experts and charlatans?
It seems to me like your main discerning factor is anti-intellectualism. The more peer-reviewed and institutionalized a source is, the less likely you are to believe it. I think you've developed a reflex that rejects all sources that don't fit your narrative, and this reflex is representing itself to you as skepticism or "thinking for yourself".
--------------------
Nonagon Infinity Opens the Door
Edited by Nonagon Infinity (08/05/20 11:15 AM)
|
feevers
Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,663
Loc:
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: HamHead]
#26864333 - 08/05/20 11:15 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said:
Quote:
feevers said:
No one is making this political except for you..
Sorry. What?
"The national sentinel is a trump fan club"
Exactly, you quoted from political propaganda mouthpieces. All I did was point out that the sources were garbage, and not worth a click.
|
Nonagon Infinity
Mycologist
Registered: 06/02/20
Posts: 756
Loc: Polygondwanaland
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: theRealrollforever]
#26864338 - 08/05/20 11:16 AM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
theRealrollforever said:
Well guys idk about you, but I’m gonna need an expert to tell me wtf this article was about. What is being smart? Am I an expert? I need an expert to tell me. Then I can either confidently think like an expert or if I’m not an expert it’s probably better to just stop thinking.
Omg, if you thought the conclusion of the article was that "it's probably better to just stop thinking," then you either didn't read the article or you completely missed the point.
--------------------
Nonagon Infinity Opens the Door
|
Northerner
splelling chceker
Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 14,640
Loc: FNQ
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: Nonagon Infinity]
#26864505 - 08/05/20 12:25 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Nonagon Infinity said:
Quote:
HamHead said:
But what you're telling me is I shouldn't listen to these articles and listen to those who say a neurotoxin is safe to drink on a daily basis, multiple times per day.
That is absolutely not what I'm saying. What you're asking here is a loaded question, and it's a dirty, childish argumentation tactic. I'm surprised that an alleged critical thinker like you would resort to such strategies. I do not agree with the proposition that fluoride is a neurotoxin, but your question makes the assumption that it is. In answering your question, you are asking me to buy into that assumption. That's a cheap, dirty tactic, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for pulling that bullshit.
I'm just asking why you are so quick to believe an article that concludes fluoride is a neurotoxin while simultaneously being quick to dismiss an article that concludes it's not a risk to your health? What sort of criteria do you use to discern factual information from misinterpretation of data? How do you distinguish between experts and charlatans?
It seems to me like your main discerning factor is anti-intellectualism. The more peer-reviewed and institutionalized a source is, the less likely you are to believe it. I think you've developed a reflex that rejects all sources that don't fit your narrative, and this reflex is representing itself to you as skepticism or "thinking for yourself".
No one except you is disputing that it is toxic. It's a scientifically proven fact.
What is disputed by "experts" is that at low levels that can assist with cavity reduction it is tolerated without harm by humans.
Personally I'm not convinced of the safety of efficacy of it enough to drink it. I could be wrong but I'd rather not risk it as I drink a shitload of water.
Earlier in this thread I saw some wild correlation between changing vaccine additives and an increase in autism rates. It'd be more amusing if they started looking for data points to correlate autism with flouridated water. If we look hard enough they can be found, Facebook would love it. It would be fun to watch the new muppet controversy. 
--------------------
The nearest we ever come to knowing truth is when we are witness to paradox.
|
feevers
Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,663
Loc:
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: Northerner]
#26864535 - 08/05/20 12:43 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Northerner said:
Earlier in this thread I saw some wild correlation between changing vaccine additives and an increase in autism rates. It'd be more amusing if they started looking for data points to correlate autism with flouridated water. If we look hard enough they can be found, Facebook would love it. It would be fun to watch the new muppet controversy.
That's already actually a thing unfortunately, despite the prevalence of autism in many countries and areas that don't even have fluoridated water.
The autism/vaccine myth will never go away, despite the fact that through postmortem brain studies they've found measurable differences in people with ASD in brain areas formed before someone is even born. The first signs of autism tend to appear in the very early stages of social development, coinciding with when children are vaccinated, which contributes to people thinking it's due to the vaccinations ("they were so normal before they got their shots!"), even though the pattern is the same in un-vaccinated children with autism, who studies have shown develop autism at the same rate as vaccinated ones.
Fuck fluoride in the drinking water though, it's never made much sense to me when fluoride is so cheap/easy to get for people who want to use it. Supposedly it gets absorbed through the skin too, especially in a nice steamy shower with your pores wide open.
|
Nonagon Infinity
Mycologist
Registered: 06/02/20
Posts: 756
Loc: Polygondwanaland
Last seen: 3 years, 2 months
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: Northerner]
#26864537 - 08/05/20 12:45 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Northerner said:
No one except you is disputing that it is toxic. It's a scientifically proven fact.
I mean, anything is toxic at a high enough dosage, but I'm sure we both understand that clearly. When I say it's nontoxic, just take that as shorthand for "nontoxic at the concentration at which it is found in our water supply due to government regulation," which is really what is being disputed in the fluoride debate, and I think you and I are on the same page about that.
Quote:
Northerner said:
What is disputed by "experts" is that at low levels that can assist with cavity reduction it is tolerated without harm by humans.
Sure, this is what's really being debated when it comes to fluoride. Tell me, though, how do you distinguish between an expert and an "expert"? I'm curious about your methods.
Quote:
Northerner said:
Earlier in this thread I saw some wild correlation between changing vaccine additives and an increase in autism rates. It'd be more amusing if they started looking for data points to correlate autism with flouridated water. If we look hard enough they can be found, Facebook would love it. It would be fun to watch the new muppet controversy.
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but if you're trying to argue that increased regulation on fluoride levels in tap water have correlated with autism, it's quite clear that such a correlation would prove nothing. Correlation =/= causation.
It's also worth noting in the scheme of the great fluoride debate that, sometimes, fluoride regulation is about reducing fluoride concentration in tap water rather than increasing it. Colorado Springs, CO, is an example of one region where the fluoride concentration was reduced to meet regulation standards.
--------------------
Nonagon Infinity Opens the Door
|
Northerner
splelling chceker
Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 14,640
Loc: FNQ
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: Nonagon Infinity] 3
#26864632 - 08/05/20 01:31 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
Northerner said:
Earlier in this thread I saw some wild correlation between changing vaccine additives and an increase in autism rates. It'd be more amusing if they started looking for data points to correlate autism with flouridated water. If we look hard enough they can be found, Facebook would love it. It would be fun to watch the new muppet controversy.
That's already actually a thing unfortunately, despite the prevalence of autism in many countries and areas that don't even have fluoridated water.
The autism/vaccine myth will never go away, despite the fact that through postmortem brain studies they've found measurable differences in people with ASD in brain areas formed before someone is even born. The first signs of autism tend to appear in the very early stages of social development, coinciding with when children are vaccinated, which contributes to people thinking it's due to the vaccinations ("they were so normal before they got their shots!"), even though the pattern is the same in un-vaccinated children with autism, who studies have shown develop autism at the same rate as vaccinated ones.
Fuck fluoride in the drinking water though, it's never made much sense to me when fluoride is so cheap/easy to get for people who want to use it. Supposedly it gets absorbed through the skin too, especially in a nice steamy shower with your pores wide open.
I could have guessed it, it's funny. Some people have really grabbed onto the vax conspiracy with both hands and no deductive reasoning. I'm glad flouride is getting a shot in the autism conspiracy arena as well.
Flouride is only good for teeth when topically applied as well, it's illogical to actually drink it or bathe in it. About a decade back my community staged organised protests about the flouride in the water, which persisted for about a year, and the local guvmint listened and stopped adding it. Sometimes democracy does work. The cost savings are huge, like 6 million a year just for my small region. Knowing that water flouridation is a multi billion dollar industry hasn't given me any deeper trust in it.
Quote:
Nonagon Infinity said:
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here, but if you're trying to argue that increased regulation on fluoride levels in tap water have correlated with autism, it's quite clear that such a correlation would prove nothing. Correlation =/= causation.
It's also worth noting in the scheme of the great fluoride debate that, sometimes, fluoride regulation is about reducing fluoride concentration in tap water rather than increasing it. Colorado Springs, CO, is an example of one region where the fluoride concentration was reduced to meet regulation standards.
I'm just joking around, pitting the crazy against the corrupt. I'm glad you spotted the irony and contradiction.
When water flouridation was established more than 70 years ago the living conditions and health education of people was very different, like when they added iodine to salt. Sure at the time both these things served a tangible purpose but times have changed significantly since then and the harm vs benefit ratio may have changed significantly in many areas.
Kids in my area, that has no flouride in it's drinking water, brush daily with flouride toothpaste. They have few cavities. It's no longer 1945.
--------------------
The nearest we ever come to knowing truth is when we are witness to paradox.
Edited by Northerner (08/05/20 01:40 PM)
|
HamHead
Hard Ass Motherfucker
Registered: 03/17/15
Posts: 6,107
Loc: Galactic sector ZZ9 Plura...
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: feevers]
#26864942 - 08/05/20 04:21 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
feevers said:
Quote:
HamHead said:
Quote:
feevers said:
No one is making this political except for you..
Sorry. What?
"The national sentinel is a trump fan club"
Exactly, you quoted from political propaganda mouthpieces. All I did was point out that the sources were garbage, and not worth a click.
You're calling it a political propaganda mouthpiece, not me. I pulled an article from it before ever knowing what 'side' it supports, until you told me it's for trump fans.
--------------------
The Italian researchers’ findings, published by the INT’s scientific magazine Tumori Journal, show 11.6% of 959 healthy volunteers enrolled in a lung cancer screening trial between September 2019 and March 2020 had developed coronavirus antibodies well before February.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-italy-timing-idUSKBN27V0KF
This online first version has been peer-reviewed, accepted and edited, but not formatted and finalized with corrections from authors and proofreaders
https://www.icandecide.org/
|
InfiniteDreams
Registered: 10/25/19
Posts: 1,224
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: HamHead]
#26865093 - 08/05/20 05:20 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Critical thinking is not supported here, don't pretend otherwise.
Rational debate is not allowed. Ad hominem is all!
It is only emotional arguments and appeals to authority.
Get in your echo chamber and blast off!
|
feevers
Registered: 12/28/10
Posts: 8,663
Loc:
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: InfiniteDreams] 1
#26865120 - 08/05/20 05:29 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Only in 2020 could calling a website what it is and directly quoting wikipedia be considered "being political"
If you had quoted from a my little pony forum I would have called it out as equally ridiculous. That'd be political though, don't want to offend the pony party
|
Northerner
splelling chceker
Registered: 07/29/12
Posts: 14,640
Loc: FNQ
Last seen: 2 days, 22 hours
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: feevers]
#26865291 - 08/05/20 06:52 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Prerequisite for modern conversation is that you have to push away any thoughts of accepting any new information, you have to build a mental wall and let your reptilian brain take over. That fear you feel is a good thing. It keeps you from taking on any dangerous ideas that might take you away from the status quo and make you look different among your peers
--------------------
The nearest we ever come to knowing truth is when we are witness to paradox.
|
rantmakes
peregrinus
Registered: 08/05/20
Posts: 8
Loc: Southeast USA
Last seen: 3 years, 7 months
|
Re: Forbes says you're not smart enough to do your own research [Re: HamHead]
#26865546 - 08/05/20 09:35 PM (3 years, 8 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
HamHead said:
But what you're telling me is I shouldn't listen to these articles and listen to those who say a neurotoxin is safe to drink on a daily basis, multiple times per day.
Well, that's exactly how guidelines are determined. The toxicity limits for various environmental exposures are based on daily consumption by "average" individuals over a period of a "lifetime" (approximately 70 years). So to drink 5 ppm benzene contaminated water is fine, unless you do everyday for a lifetime.
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order 
Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder 
Kratom Capsules for Sale, Red Vein Kratom
Edit 
Reply 
Madtowntripper
1 2 3 all )
JunkFood
KingOftheThing
CherryBom
MOTH
Captain Loafy McPoopdick