To put this into perspective: according to the study the range of IQs they measures was range 52-143. The testgroup wasnt very big and a few points of IQ more or less already make a huge difference. They are all based on what people say and what area they live in and also how much they consume is nothing more than an estimation. So the amounts of flouride the people took is not controlled in the study that is linked here. There is so much stuff we consume that is "toxic", but we swallow it in such small amounts, that it doesnt matter. But as with everything else, its about what amount we talk about. Thats bullshit, the toxicology of flouride is no secret and can be shown everywhere. The point is, I will rarely accept evidence from a source that is already inherently biased and doesnt even attempt to hide it. So I wont deal with all of that because I dont have the time of going through every single source institution or scientist to check their background. Where no outsider would think that those are untrustworthy sources (not least because they intentionally chose those names to lure people in) and their "scientists" will be all sorts of PhDs and what not, and it always turns out that those are honorary doctorates provided by like-minded institutes or just straight up bought titles.
"International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design" "National Institute for Discovery Science" I never know what sources they post and how trustworthy they are, because just as an example, if you go to creationist websites, their sources will usually be institutions like I just VASTLY distrust websites that are already called what side they are on IN THE NAME OF THE WEBSITE. I never claimed that the two sites are anywhere near on equal footing qualitatively.
0 kommentar(er)
