I find it difficult to assign any credence or value to research studies which are observing the effects of administering poisons to different groups of mice.
I have read three "studies" re this somewhat contentious topic. A statistical analysis of ALL three would have results remarkably similar to Dr. Briggs' example.
Fluoride was first used in the Germany prison system as it tended to make people docile and reduced aggression.(good luck finding that on Google or any other search). Then it was used on POWs and it also showed a decrease on cognition.
The prime mover was a need to reduce costs (make a profit) from Aluminium waste.
So an excuse was made to medicate the population.
If Fluoride actually reduced tooth decay etc, do you really think dentists would promote it? You have to buy non-fluoride toothpaste from under the counter.
Have you seen how the governments trumpet the huge reduction in tooth decay?
Me neither.
Cigarettes increase cognition, so an excuse was .....
Have you seen how the governments trumpet the huge reduction in Lung Cancer? No, me neither.
Have you noticed how today's population is far more stupid and docile than our parents and grandparents?
So, adding or multiplying (as is your wont) all these sources of errors, how many times larger than the data ranges are the error bars?
I'm skeptical about a lot of these studies because in some respects people are more resilient than mice (e.g. we're bigger) and in some ways we're more fragile (not by design or inclination as omnivorous, for example).
Accept money to carry out "research" with a preferred outcome.
Then do a whole lot of "tests" on a dozen subjects and get some numbers.
Throw away any test that does not support the preferred outcome.
Cobble together a few graphs with no real reference points.
Blather, blather, waffle, waffle.
QED the money was well spent.
I find it difficult to assign any credence or value to research studies which are observing the effects of administering poisons to different groups of mice.
The best-laid schemes of mice and men
Go often astray,
And leave us nothing but grief and pain,
For promised joy!
Robert Burns
Excellent. Have you ever looked at the claims for and against fluoridation? Is there any benefit to it? How harmful is it?
Not much, yet.
I have read three "studies" re this somewhat contentious topic. A statistical analysis of ALL three would have results remarkably similar to Dr. Briggs' example.
So, too poorly formulated to conclude definite harm?
Sorry but that is nonsense.
Fluoride was first used in the Germany prison system as it tended to make people docile and reduced aggression.(good luck finding that on Google or any other search). Then it was used on POWs and it also showed a decrease on cognition.
The prime mover was a need to reduce costs (make a profit) from Aluminium waste.
So an excuse was made to medicate the population.
If Fluoride actually reduced tooth decay etc, do you really think dentists would promote it? You have to buy non-fluoride toothpaste from under the counter.
Have you seen how the governments trumpet the huge reduction in tooth decay?
Me neither.
Cigarettes increase cognition, so an excuse was .....
Have you seen how the governments trumpet the huge reduction in Lung Cancer? No, me neither.
Have you noticed how today's population is far more stupid and docile than our parents and grandparents?
Also, was the feed laced with Citric acid?
They didn't say.
Can make a difference
So, adding or multiplying (as is your wont) all these sources of errors, how many times larger than the data ranges are the error bars?
I'm skeptical about a lot of these studies because in some respects people are more resilient than mice (e.g. we're bigger) and in some ways we're more fragile (not by design or inclination as omnivorous, for example).
We're not mice.
Basic toxicity I can probably accept.
That's what we learned how to do on Class Monday!
We don't know for sure here, but there are ways to think about it. See that Class.