>ITT: things science got wrong
>fluoride isn't bad for you
>secondhand smoke is bad for you
>hard drugs even used in moderation are mentally deteriorating
problem with science is all the left wing nut jobs
>>7706708
Science doesn't get things wrong, people do. People are what say things and create higher meaning.
Science is a set of tools and a general framework. If it is returning incorrect results, either people are using it wrong, or people have "manufactured" some aspect of it wrong and it must be tweaked. These tweaks have been very few in number for quite a long time, so science getting things "wrong" in modern times is usually just arrogant and delusional people who have terrible risk assessment and error handling. In a lot of these cases, many people knew something was wrong before we even started (asbestos, tobacco, irradiated water). In others, we just rode the waves of "it's new and we know!" and "woops, we don't really know." Because people are shortsighted and stupid.
The sooner this difference is learned, the better. Fucking something up and cleaning up the damage later is absolutely not an acceptable attitude that should be condoned. It needs to be stomped out.
>>7706722
>Science is a set of tools and a general framework. If it is returning incorrect results, either people are using it wrong, or people have "manufactured" some aspect of it wrong and it must be tweaked.
And that is why I study the only true science, Mathematics! No one can manufacture a result and no one can get it wrong, publish and be believed.
All you fags keep believing lies while I speak of only absolute truths.
PURE MATHEMATICS MASTER RACE
And you may say that there have been false proofs done before but so what? Some faggot publishes a false proof, the first serious guy to read it says "That is bullshit" and it immediately is regarded as a false proof. You can't do that in other sciences, you inferior monkeys lack the mental power to see absolute truths.
>>7706708
nice bait retard
>>7706708
teeth brushing pill popping smoker detected
Tell me more about the fluoride...
>>7706863
There's no hard evidence either way, all that is known is that fluoride ingestion prematurely calcifies the pineal gland, which may or may not have adverse health effects, though I would claim that it is reasonable to assume that it could be dangerous.
If you live in a third world shithole where fluoride is added to the drinking water (i.e. fluoride concentrations will be several orders of magnitude higher than the natural levels of fluoride), I would suggest buying bottled water if you can afford it.
Toothpastes and mouth wash containing fluoride are good for your teeth (especially considering the modern diet), and should be used as long as you don't swallow the contents. If you live in a third world shithole where they add fluoride to the water, it would be worthwhile to check out the concentrations, because it may not be useful or maybe even harmful to use fluoride-containing products if there's already an excess in the water you use for oral hygiene.
>>7706727
>I speak of only absolute truths
Which is larger, the number of decimal points in pi or the series of integers 1 to infinity?
>>7706889
>prematurely calcifies the pineal gland
It potentiates systemic arterial calcification and aids the development of cardiovascular issues. Also, it augments bone maintaining cell's function in yet poorly understood ways.
There is more or less no reason to use it internally and the surface contact on teeth when drinking it in water, is trivial. If you want fluoride, brush your teeth with it. Also, early evidence is showing theobromine possesses superior remineralization promoting activity, and it's obviously more or less non-toxic.
Also, for what it's worth I've went through a large amount of primary literature, population studies, and meta analysis, and found no real pattern relative to caries rates. It looks like random noise and has no real consistency pre and post water fluoridation.
>>7706892
Stupid question, we know that 1 to infinity is infinite.
We don't know if pi repeats or not, yet.
Absolutes require absolute definitions.
>>7706913
>We don't know if pi repeats or not, yet.
we do know that retard
it doesn't, because it's an irrational number
a property it shares with all irrational numbers (eg sqrt2) almost by definition
>>7706863
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>7706892
They are both equally large and the proof for that is trivial.
>>7706889
>There's no hard evidence either way
It lowers IQ
but big science pushes the idea that nothing's wrong with it, and big pharma pushes the idea that tobacco smoke and illegal drugs are the devil when Zoloft Is actually proven to be awful.
>>7706961
Based optimizer
>>7706708
>this entire post
>>>/x/
>>7706913
>We don't know if pi repeats or not, yet.
why do people who don't know any math insist on pretending they know math
>>7707173
>One reviews from 2005 that flies against a good deal of other research and basic logic
I advise you read the full text of what you just linked and ask yourself what they ever even said. It talks circles on itself, and I even recognise a good deal of their citations. I read them and found either ambiguous results or those that indicated fluoridation had a trivial impact.
It reads the same as any strictly pro-fluoride review. Read some actual research on arterial calcification, for starters. Then think a bit about if the contact with tooth surface is sufficient to have any impact.
Fluoridated water is useless at best, harmful at worst. This is a board for science and attempting to discern an objective reality, and to understand how nature actually works. Get your bullshit out of here or engage the material with a critical and honest mindset.
>>>/fuckoff/
>>7707194
I could not help but notice your png was not optimized anon.
I have optimized your png.
Your png is now optimized.
>>7706708
real answer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Gelsinger
Tragic for all involved. Wiki gives the basics, but there are better story writeups which show how even doing all you can for safety is sometimes not enough.
All the FDA findings after the fact were nitpicky things that had no real bearing on the expected reaction to the treatment, in case you were wondering.
>>7707231
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/28/magazine/the-biotech-death-of-jesse-gelsinger.html?pagewanted=all
Absolutely fantastic writeup of the events. I worked at a major hospital research lab for a while, knew several people who had ties. The translational side of research is quite an emotional one.
>>7706727
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/35468/widely-accepted-mathematical-results-that-were-later-shown-wrong
Busemann-Petty problem. Incorrect proof was publish in the fucking Annals. Plus there's all kinds of debate in philosophy of mathematics for what counts as true. You're making a big assumption that classical logic is somehow objectively true when, as stated above, there can be some fault in the manufacturing of the system. Your "absolute truths" have no more objective validity than those reached by sound scientific method.
Source: I do pure math research.
>>7706708
>fluoride isn't bad for you
dose dependent
>secondhand smoke is bad for you
dose and age and other factor(asthma etc) dependent
>hard drugs even used in moderation are mentally deteriorating
Politics more than science.
>>7707238
>The jagged peak of Mount Wrightson towers 9,450 feet above Tucson, overlooking a deep gorge where the prickly pear cactus that dots the desert floor gives way to a lush forest of ponderosa pine
This is not a fucking "fantastic" writeup. Fucking poppy shit writing.
>>7707335
>>hard drugs even used in moderation are mentally deteriorating
>Politics more than science
But it's true
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/science/the-rational-choices-of-crack-addicts.html?_r=1&referer=
>>7706708
>fluoride
you mean that stuff that is naturally occurring in drinking water all over the world? god damn /sci/ just gets dumber every year
:O maybe it's the fluoride? :O
the entire OP is a troll post or just a retard and should be saged
>>7707453
Guess I should make sure my water has sufficient uranium, lead, nickel, arsenic...
>>7707455
man you really are fucking dumb. you couldn't possibly be trolling such stupidity at this point. If you really think that drinking water with fluoride in it is going to make you a fucking retard, just get a friend to hit you in the head with a baseball bat. You'll realize what results you're thinking you find by drinking fluoridated water is not even close to what it actually is. I suppose all of our ancestors that drank water are just totally fucked now since some dumb fucker on a japanese porn site says fluoride makes us all idiots. If that's true, then I think your ancestors had a bit too much of it before you came along.
>people actually waste their time buying water without fluoride
so much wasted energy, i'm pretty sure there aren't any brain cells left to kill in people with nothing to do that do stupid shit like this if fluoride ever had such properties. actual tinfoil hats ITT
>>7707464
You just said a whole lot of nothin' much.
Humans historically succumbed to poisoning from food, malnutrition, etc. All merely from existing in a certain environment. What's next, having ergot infected rye is ideal just because it's capable of happening?
Shut up.
>>7707200
All my keks. This thread is absolute cancer
>we don't know if pi repeats or not, yet
>implying we determine irrationality by checking a billion digits
>>7707469
fluoride is in all drinking water. it doesn't make you stupid.
>>7706708
Prove those things wrong without using science.
Protip: you are not capable of doing so
>>7707472
>Dose response curves don't exist.
>Biological systems are binary, either they respond or they don't.
Sorry anon, but that simply isn't so.
>>7707209
>my iq is too low to read, so I'll just label it as circular, trivial and ambiguous
>read some actual research on [buzzword i don't understand]
>empty insults without substance
Wow, you sure convinced us with that handwaving. Scientific consensus destroyed! Give this man a Nobel prize!
>>7707479
>Perceived consensus
>Implied handwaving
>View of reality based around authority's regurgitations rather than direct evidence
Again. This is a science board.
>>7706727
Programming isn't truth?
>>7707464
So you are admitting that there is a possibility that flouride is toxic even in small doses like in drinking water?
>>7707484
>>Perceived consensus
No, more like ACTUAL consensus of numerous health bodies.
>>Implied handwaving
Nice denial.
>>View of reality based around authority's regurgitations rather than direct evidence
Published consensus statements cite evidence. How about you refute them instead of mindlessly reciting your baseless opinion over and over again?
>>7707491
>No, more like ACTUAL consensus of numerous health bodies.
That's what I just said. Your perceived consensus, because you're only sampling certain places instead of primary literature. You're listening to regurgitated data and calling it truth instead of forming your opinion empirically by going through the literature, assessing study quality for yourself, and generating your own opinion.
/sci/ complains about popsci, and this is about as bad as it gets.
>Nice denial.
Denial of what? Your response is full of implied handwaving. You can't say any of what you did without doing a good deal of handwaving.
>Published consensus statements cite evidence.
Have you ever looked through how these large meta-analysis weight the data they're citing, and their parameters for inclusion? I've read the published pseudo-consensus from multiple bodies, any legitimate scientist should find it wanting.
>How about you refute them instead of mindlessly reciting your baseless opinion over and over again?
That would require numerous sources and reasoning you probably wouldn't properly engage. I've done this before, and I don't expect to have a real conversation come out of it. I feel tired before I even begin.
Maybe I'll throw something together later if I convince myself to waste the time and energy. I'm out of food and waiting for blood sugar to stabilize. Feels okay.
>>7706708
Second-hand smoke isn't bad for you? Bullshit, every time I smell cigarette smoke I get a bad headache.
>>7706892
The series. Pi only has one decimal point, after the first three.
>>7707500
>That would require numerous sources and reasoning you probably wouldn't properly engage. I've done this before, and I don't expect to have a real conversation come out of it. I feel tired before I even begin.
Just fucking do it, goddamn. Don't condemn him for not having contributed to the discussion when you yourself have not supplied anything at all.
>>7707513
I already kind of did above.
>>7706900
Of course no one responds, that's not what the fluoride fight is about. I'm having a weird day today. Think I'm having some flashback-esque shit, and dealing with old bitterness from times when I would invest energy into a conversation for reasons that weren't strictly selfish.
And that's just the beginning. Bone formation cells are poorly understood, and it's beginning to be known exactly how fluoride affects their functionality. In vitro, eg culturing osteoblasts in a dilute solution of nutrients and sodium fluoride, their activity increases. But while it might be faster, it's likely not better and a function of greater efficiency. Relying on population studies is awful, and it's difficult to set up, or extrapolate for, long term sodium fluoride exposure in vivo. This is the difficulty. Ignoring logic from what we observe as far as mechanism of action and average dose response curve, and relying only on population studies, is poor handling of potential error. You ought to be holding a fairly low confidence in your conclusions, especially given what's seen in areas that have very high levels naturally. But that's not what you see. You see claims of near certainty, talking in circles, and all based on what?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22610969
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25665416
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24012047
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25831603
There's also the question of if fluoridated water has enough contact with teeth, or retention in saliva to have any real benefit. That research exists (because I've read it), but I don't feel like tracking it down. And the matter of heavy metal contamination. This is largely a byproduct of phosphate etc production. Also, it isn't typically added as sodium fluoride, it's delivered as more complex compounds. One of which is "it's going to break down, but I don't know what it'll become.." Which is again, easily accessible.
Evolution, GMOs, vaccines, climate change, 1*1 = 1, the age of the universe, the idea that homeopathy doesn't work.
>>7707565
I hit the character limit, but that's about it. I don't plan much for further involvement.
Personally, my only real concern is the matter of ambiguity and performing proper risk assessment, particularly for children who don't have the means to make an informed choice. There is absolutely no justification for cities wasting their money to add this shit to water, nor for forcing a "public health service" on an entire population. The chlorine and processing is also more than enough to kill off microorganisms in municipal water.
Most people brush their teeth. You have to seek out explicitly, toothpaste that does not contain fluoride. You want fluoride? Brush your goddamn teeth with it. It has no internal use such that you need supplementation.
Theobromine also seems to hold great promise and might even be outright superior for increasing remineralization potential. If I had the equipment time, money, and resources, I'd perform extensive research on this myself. But unfortunately, I must wait.
Do you losers still drink tap water?
>>7707508
This smartass motherfucker..
>>7707574
>What do you predict we will discover about fluoride?
Dose (and physiology) dependent alteration of bone remodeling during the aging process. Existing studies tend to sample a population and look at rate of hip fractures in old age, or hospital admittance for fractures, childhood fractures, etc, and then compare this to population(s) that didn't have fluoridation. You can already see the issue with this.
Effects on arterial calcification relative to age, diet, and lifestyle.
The pineal gland isn't behind the blood barrier, which is why it's talked about the most with fluoride. Fluoride probably accumulates there because it's replacing iodine. Maybe this does something in the long term. Maybe the pineal gland has more functions than we're aware of. Maybe it only appears to continue doing its job properly. Either way, tissue calcification isn't a good thing.
Interplay with thyroid function.
>Do you merely choose to err on the side of caution
I'm a disjointed mix of cautious and reckless. As a rule, if I don't think something is necessary, am not sure about it, and have no reason to do anything, I will do nothing. Some might call this wilful slavery to a cognitive heuristic, but I genuinely think it's the correct approach in most cases. It's much better than mindlessly riding waves of yes no, yes no, maybe so maybe so(!), instead of admitting the real truth you knew all along. "I don't really know". As I said, my main concern is for children. As far as we can tell, you've probably only got one life, we know better by now, we can do better by now. Don't fuck it up for other people who aren't old enough to even conceptualize the matter, of course caution is the right approach. "Cavities" is the boogeyman, and a symptom of other problems. Like diet.
Negative effects have already been found. Their nature and real world applicability will be further elucidated in time.
>>7706722
Religion doesn't get things wrong, people do. People are what say things and create higher meaning.
Religion is a set of tools and a general framework. If it is returning incorrect results, either people are using it wrong, or people have "manufactured" some aspect of it wrong and it must be tweaked. These tweaks have been very few in number for quite a long time, so Religion getting things "wrong" in modern times is usually just arrogant and delusional people who have terrible risk assessment and error handling. In a lot of these cases, many people knew something was wrong before we even started (Hypatia, Crusades, the middle east). In others, we just rode the waves of "it's new and we know!" and "woops, we don't really know." Because people are shortsighted and stupid.
The sooner this difference is learned, the better. Fucking something up and cleaning up the damage later is absolutely not an acceptable attitude that should be condoned. It needs to be stomped out.
Is this the start of an epic new meme? :^)
![08102015gold-king-mine-epa-animas-river-spill[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/uTHUav0.jpg "08102015gold-king-mine-epa-animas-river-spill[1].jpg")
>>7707455
EPA's working on that for you.
>>7707502
Evidence is weak that it causes cancer. Evidence is strong that is causes other shit.
>>7708132
>Evidence is strong that is causes other shit
[citation needed]
And actual good science, not govt funded agenda social engineering stuff.
>>7707565
Why not look at the totality of evidence on fluoride? You sound like you want to dismiss any observational study that disagrees with your preconceived hypothesis and then cherry pick other observational and in vitro studies that use concentrations completely irrelevant for controlled water fluoridation. Really immature and unscientific reasoning.
>>7709081
>Why not look at the totality of evidence on fluoride?
I already have. Those studies I just skimmed through and pulled off pubmed. They're only meant to highlight the general avenues further study can proceed down.
I've read poorly designed studies. I've read solid studies. I've read large meta-analysis with a quite grand breadth, and smaller more localized ones. I've read through the citations of large bodies. I've done it. My first response in the thread summarizes what I found, a lot of caries reduction rates look like near random noise with contradictory clusterings. I see no conclusive evidence, and I see numerous ways extracting meaning from the data can lead to incorrect results.
Can you give me a single good reason why fluorine belongs in water supplies, and has any valid internal use? Those studies the ADA have tried to push about altering odontoblast functionality pre tooth eruption, are inconclusive and vague at best, a contradictory mess at worst.
>>7707227
You are my hero.
>>7707200
Pi actually does repeat. 3.141
The second digit and the fourth digit are the SAME!??
And to think that all this time we've been running through billions of digits without finding a repeat, but the first one is right under our noses
>>7707502
It's barely bad for the user when lungs from a smoker are perfectly safe to transplant. How could it possibly be bad for people around smokers? It's probably like being near even less potent campfire smoke.
