The Week in Conspiracy: Father’s Day edition

This one goes out to all of you men who have spawned. Now stop. It’s getting crowded and people aren’t getting smarter.

Now, on with the conspiracy theories!

Conspiracy Theory of the Week

This week’s Gilded Trouser Nugget goes to Mike “Health Danger” Adams’ report on how Fairbanks, Alaska voted to remove fluoride, frikin’ fluoride, from their water. Now men’s precious bodily fluids will be safe from Grizzly Moms. They are always trying to steal our essence.

RJB

About these ads

37 Responses to The Week in Conspiracy: Father’s Day edition

  1. So Bob,
    Explain to me why fluoridating water is a good thing?
    Also instead of relying on framing issues with negative blurbs, why don’t you elaborate on your supposed beliefs and explain why Oath Keepers would deserve the derision you are pandering here.

    Which of the statements of the Oath Keepers honorable mission statement do you disagree with and why?

    Declaration of Orders We Will NOT Obey

    http://oath-keepers.blogspot.com/2009/03/oath-keepers-declaration-of-orders-we.html

    Recognizing that we each swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and affirming that we are guardians of the Republic, of the principles in our Declaration of Independence, and of the rights of our people, we affirm and declare the following:

    1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

    2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects – such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

    3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

    4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state’s legislature and governor.

    5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

    6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

    7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

    8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control” during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

    9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

    10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

    Please explain in detail why any of the above statements offends you so.

    Also please let us know what it is that you do stand for exactly?

    -Camron Wiltshire
    wearechangeatlanta.com

    • slick says:

      what is wrong with Flouride….dont you want everybody else to have good teeth like you? or do you want to have teeth like over in England???
      9-11truthersarehomos.com

  2. Bob says:

    Well, I’ve had the same format…always, and my audience is not especially suspicious, but I’ll be happy to elaborate quickly on some of the important points.

    Fluoridating water is a generally a good thing because fluoride mimics the crystalline structure of enamel, the protective outer coating of your teeth. Because it fits so well, it patches gaps that appear in normal wear and tear of teeth. It’s a major boon to public health and keeps medical and dental costs down, limiting the size of government. The fears that fluoride is toxic are unfounded at the doses we’re talking about. Everything is toxic, but that’s because toxicity is a function of DOSE SIZE. In fact, you would need to drink the equivalent of several bathtubs of tap water to get a potentially dangerous dose of fluorine, and by then you would be dead of hyper-hydration. That is THE WATER IS MORE TOXIC THAN THE FLUORINE. Chemistry is awesome.

    The Oath Keepers are delusional and armed. Just in those principles you listed, there are a number of absurd assumptions. I mean, city-wide concentration camps? What fucking planet do these armed paranoid nitwits think they live on? State secession? Really? I mean, there are a few states we’d be better off without, but really?

    I pledge to defend the earth against Chinese death worms and armed uprisings of starfish. Sure, it’s nice to pledge something, but is it likely to happen?

    RJB

    • Coyote339 says:

      Penicillin is good for overall public health. Heck so is vitamin C and D. Why don’t we let them force feed those nutrients? Whose interest is it to defend a government program to medicate–by force, the population without their consent? The government does not have the consent to “medicate” us. To defend that policy is a very scary proposition.

      Fluoride is toxic. If it were so benign they wouldn’t put an advisory on toothpaste tubes to not inject it. Also, think comprehensively, the additional fluoride in the water is not the DOSE you would consider. It’s how much was added to the already naturally occurring exposure. Some areas have higher rates of ingestion of fluoride naturally.

      “Dental and Public health administrators should be aware of the total fluoride exposure in the population before introducing any additional fluoride program for caries prevention.” – World Health Organization. (1994). Fluorides and Oral Health. WHO Technical Report Series 846.

      “Our analysis shows that babies who are exclusively formula fed face the highest risk; in Boston, for example, more than 60 percent of the exclusively formula fed babies exceed the safe dose of fluoride on any given day.” – Environmental Working Group, “EWG Analysis of Government Data Finds Babies Over-Exposed to Fluoride in Most Major U.S. Cities”, March 22, 2006.

      It may have been discovered by a scientific team in the 30′s that a few communities showed lower cavity rates when they had a naturally higher fluoride level but can you tell me if they did a comprehensive analysis of all the potential effects from it, not just cavity prevention? From what I know injection long term of too much fluoride is not something you want. So why are all the scientists irresponsibly vouching for a potentially toxic policy?

  3. Pacal says:

    The number of references to protecting their firearms in the list Camron gives is amusing. What I do find also amusing is the paranoia indicated in no. 8 which is a refelection on NWO paranoia about “Black Helicopters” and the UN plotting to seize control of the USA. The states rights stuff is risible; given what happens if a state refuses to obey the law or tries to secede which is bluntly illegal? I suppose Cameron thinks that federal intervention in Little Rock in the late 50′s was inexcusable despite the fact that the state was using troops to violoate the law.

    • I’m sure the friends of the family at Ruby Ridge thought they were nuts too, until the mother, the 14 year old son and the family dog were all murdered by federal agents who raided their private land after (attempting to) frame the father for dealing in “illegal” gun sales. FYI, the federal government was found to be COMPLETELY at fault, and the family received a settlement, but I’m sure they would much rather have their wife/mom and son/brother back instead.

      Perhaps if they had remained slaves to the State and not believed in “conspiracy theories” about government police state control, they would be alive today.

  4. I will just deal with water Fluoridation in this post with a follow up post on the Oath Keepers discussion.

    “in fact a 2005 CDC study found too much fluoride has caused irreversibly discolored teeth in 1 out of 3 children and a major report by the national academy of sciences says that toxic levels can lead to severe, permanent pitting of the enamel in children. Fluoride can also build up in the bones to cause, pain, stiff joints, and skeletal abnormalities when they get older.”

    “It’s an accumulative POISON (emphasis mine) it just gradually builds up and it gradually causes harm” . -Bob Cardin EPA Scientist

    This is because fluoride is bioacumulative, therefore your argument that it is not toxic due to the low dosage is false. Death by a thousand paper cuts. How many times per day are we exposed to fluoride Bob? We are forced to bathe in it, shower in it, (skin is the largest organ of the body and readily absorbs water once immersed) use it to water our plants, it’s in our pesticides etc.

    All to supposedly protect children’s teeth, and yet studies show that children’s teeth are worse off from this exposure? So what purpose does this forced medication really serve? Please explain.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation

    Another example confirming your completely illogical and blind trust in whatever edicts the government hands down is here for you, you need only read the study.

    Other large-scale surveys from United States, from Missouri and Arizona, have since revealed the same picture: no real benefit to teeth from fluoride in drinking water [9, 10]. For example, Professor Steelink in Tucson, AZ, obtained information on the dental status of all schoolchildren – 26,000 of them – as well as information on the fluoride content of Tucson water [10]. He found: “When we plotted the incidence of tooth decay versus fluoride content in a child’s neighborhood drinking water, a positive correlation was revealed. In other words, the more fluoride a child drank, the more cavities appeared in the teeth” [11].

    http://www.fluoride-journal.com/98-31-2/312103.htm

    Just one more of countless studies refuting your entire premise.

    Oh and 14 Nobel prize winners who disagree with forced medication of sovereign citizens with fluoride.

    http://www.nofluoride.com/presentations/Nobel%20Prize%20Winners.pdf

    Oh and one more while I’m at it. Perhaps the literal volumes of expert testimony against this barbaric practice may unseat your inability to be skeptical of the government. Here is our former Mayor and Civil Rights leader Andrew Young persuading an end to this disgusting and unconstitutional practice.

    “Andrew Young, former U.N. Ambassador and former Atlanta Mayor, along with Reverend Dr. Gerald Durley, Pastor of Providence Baptist Church in Atlanta, both inductees in the International Civil Rights Walk of Fame, expressed concerns about the fairness, safety, and full disclosure regarding fluoridation in letters to the state’s minority and majority legislative leaders. (1,2)

    Fluoride chemicals, added to 96% of Georgia’s public drinking water supplies are meant to prevent tooth decay, especially in the poor. Yet, 61% of low-income Georgia third-graders have tooth decay compared to 51% from higher income families – and 33% and 20%, respectively, have untreated cavities showing a dire need for dental care. (3)

    “We also have a cavity epidemic today in our inner cities that have been fluoridated for decades,” wrote Ambassador Young.

    Studies show that despite fluoridation, tooth decay is higher in blacks (4) along with fluoride overexposure symptoms – dental fluorosis or discolored teeth.(5)

    Dr. Durley wrote, “The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences has designated kidney patients, diabetics, seniors, and babies as ‘susceptible subpopulations’ that are especially vulnerable to harm from ingested fluorides. Black citizens are disproportionately affected by kidney disease and diabetes, and are therefore more impacted by fluorides.”(4)

    Ambassador Young wrote, “I am most deeply concerned for poor families who have babies: if they cannot afford unfluoridated water for their babies’ milk formula, do their babies not count? Of course they do. This is an issue of fairness, civil rights, and compassion. We must find better ways to prevent cavities, such as helping those most at risk for cavities obtain access to the services of a dentist.”(5)

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/press.release.4-14-11.html

    So again Bob. Why should we force medicate the entire population without their consent even though it is proven that this practice does not protect our teeth?

    I haven’t even gotten into the studies showing the link between fluoridation and lowered IQ…

    Would you in good conscience having read and understood the above studies sign of on your children or elderly loved ones being exposed to this hazardous poison?

  5. Njoki says:

    Re Fluoride:

    The CDC Released in October of 2010 that people should not give Fluoride to their infants. Fluoride water, according to the american Dental Association , causes Dental and discoloration. Fluorosis ,however is the least of our worries. A study was done by a Dr. Yan Lu at the Department of Environmental Health, Tianjin Medical University , Taijin, China showed some interesting results. They tested 118 children of similar social economic BG but one with high levels of fluoride in the drinking water according to Urine Content and then a neighboring area with low fluoride. And there was a dramatic difference in IQ levels and occurrence of mental retardation and lowered IQ in the Fluoride rich environments. I think what Fluoride DOES do ( perhaps) for teeth is topically stop a cavity for continuing to develop. But much like rubbing alcohol or some other agent it should applied topically and now swallowed. When it was 1st introduced there were almost no other sources of fluoride anywhere in the american diet. but now tooth paste to restaurant foods are being cooked with the stuff that use to be used for killing silverfish and rats and was never approved by the FDA. As a matter a fact if you look at the warnings on the back of toothpaste. they’ve since changed it. A pea sized serving of toothpaste is = too one glass of water ‘s worth of fluoride. more than that contact poison control…

    Sources:
    CDC :http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
    ADA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884921?dopt=Abstract
    Effect of High FLuoride water of intelligence of Children: http://fluoridationqueensland.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/F.IQ-Children-China-.pdf

  6. Njoki says:

    please delete previous post, i was editing my typos when i accidently posted

  7. Njoki says:

    Re Fluoride:

    The CDC posted in an article October of 2010, that people should not give Fluoride to their infants. Fluoride Baby Formula, according to the american Dental Association , causes Dental Fluorosis and discoloration. Spots however, are the least of our worries.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………
    :CDC :http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/safety/infant_formula.htm
    ADA: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20884921?dopt=Abstract
    ……………………………………………………………………………………
    A study was done by a Dr. Yan Lu at the Department of Environmental Health, Tianjin Medical University , Taijin, China. The study showed some interesting results. They tested 118 children of similar social economic backgrounds , but one group with high levels of fluoride in the drinking water ( according to Urine Content) and then a neighboring area with low fluoride. There was a dramatic difference in IQ levels and occurrence of mental retardation in the group with the Fluoride rich environments.
    ……………………………………………………………………………………
    Effect of High FLuoride water of intelligence of Children: http://fluoridationqueensland.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/F.IQ-Children-China-.pdf
    ……………………………………………………………………………………
    Perhaps what Fluoride DOES do for teeth is stop a cavity from continuing to develop. But much like rubbing alcohol or some other agent it should applied topically, This should not be swallowed. ( Do you swallow the fluoride rince at the doctor???))

    When it was 1st introduced in the 40′s there were almost no other sources of fluoride anywhere in the american diet. Now you can’t control what is considered the safe dosage as foods and products are made with the stuff. Its a bi-product of aluminum production. A waste not easily disposed of. Yet it is in our tooth paste. It was used for pest control. This was never approved by the FDA. As a matter a fact if you look at the warnings on the back of toothpaste “A pea sized serving of toothpaste is = too one glass of water ‘s worth of fluoride. 9 1ppm) call poison control if accidently swallowed…

    Just for your consideration

  8. Njoki says:

    I think perhaps oathkeepers are referring to the executive order Obama signed in January of 2011
    …………………………………
    Whitehouse dot gov http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-signs-executive-order-establishing-council-governors
    …………………………………

    Where there will be 12 non elected Council of governors to take command in the event of an country wide emergency. It almost Neuters the governors and mayors elected to each state. I forget how its laid out, but it divides the US into different territories in such emergencies and sort of puts DHS at the wheel. Then strangely enough in those areas mapped out it was discovered there are FEMA camps in those areas. LARGE ones. playgrounds and all. Wires facing inward so the threat is people leaving , not coming in. I just think its strange. What exactly do we need that for?

    Men and women of service swear a oath to the constitution. weather or not they are apart of an umbrella or group name is not important. If they swear on the constitution then they should know it and uphold it. Protecting against enemies of the constitution , both Foreign and domestic :]. Not a big gun person myself. But we do have rights for a reason.

  9. Bob says:

    I should mention that I made two typos above. I said fluorine twice. Derp. It should have been fluoride.

  10. Bob says:

    Camron and Njoki,

    The reports/vids you cite are interesting, but they are not enough to persuade me that fluoride is a significant danger to public health. I’ll try to give it my best attention.

    Camron’s quote:
    “in fact a 2005 CDC study found too much fluoride has caused irreversibly discolored teeth in 1 out of 3 children and a major report by the national academy of sciences says that toxic levels can lead to severe, permanent pitting of the enamel in children”.
    1) Discoloration may happen, true. But that’s a cosmetic issue, not a public health one. It’s the equivalent of the little pit marks that people used to get on their arms when they were vaccinated against small pox.
    2) Also, babies lose those teeth, yes?
    3) It says “toxic” levels, not drinking water levels. Like I said, everything in a heavy enough dose is potentially toxic.

    From Camron’s video:
    “The ADA calls fluoridation [of public water] one of the best public health ideas ever.” These are dentists, not the government. If you are saying that they are wrong, that is fine, but you then accept the burden of showing me that all of the dentists who have signed on and have an opinion about this dental issue–and it’s likely most of the 156,000 do, based on the number of dentists who give fluoride treatments–are either 1) in on it, 2) uninformed to the point of incompetency.

    From Camron’s vid:
    “The EPA, CDC, FDA, ADA” and other groups all say fluoridation is safe. This is accurate. Let’s say you assume, badly in my opinion, that anything that comes from the government is misinfo. What about the 154 longitudinal studies from unconnected labs around the world that are gathered in the pubmed database? (You can go see if the govt. is lying about the content of their database by doing your due diligence and checking these journals out of a library. Go now. I’ll wait.)

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=longitudinal%20study%20fluoridation

    I looked up bioaccumulative in pubmed and I found few references in all of published medical literature (Verify this yourself: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=bioaccumulative%20fluoride). I checked that against what I have access to at Georgia Tech, one of the premier science research libraries in the world. I searched science and medicine databases from at least four different providers for bioaccumulative and fluoride

    BIOSIS Previews ( 6 )
    MEDLINE ( 4 )
    PubMed ( 5 )
    Web of Science ( 9 )
    Alt-HealthWatch ( 0 )
    CINAHL ( 0 )
    Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition ( 0 )
    Encyclopedia of Life Sciences ( 0 )
    Pharmaceutical News Index ( 0 ). My hits:

    Most of these are the same article and the other ones are clearly looking at other chemicals that have “fluoro” in their name. It occurs to me that this might not be a medical term, but rather a term from environmental engineering. There are 19 pairings in those similarly diverse journals, a lot of them are clearly not relevant. The two that might be interesting, well, the first does not seem to have an abstract associated with them, so I can’t tell what doses I am looking at, but it seems that one, which is about fluoridation at brick yards, likely has to do with natural fluoride, not man made, but I can’t verify that. The other article I found through google scholar. Clearly not a warning against fluoridation.

    My conclusion: bioaccumulation is not a medical term. It’s a science word being misapplied by antiflouridation people. It just does not appear in the relevant literature.

    I would like to point out that this is me NOT simply accepting what the government says, Camron, and I resent the notion that I’m not careful.

    Nobel Prize winners:
    A glance shows that about half of them received their prizes before fluoridation was widely implemented. Most are before the 1960s. The few you have in the last fifty years is not representative of scientific consensus, or even a statistically significant number of scientists. Furthermore, I don’t know on what grounds they objected. There are real ethical issues about fluoridating people–is it medication, for instance. Perhaps that’s what they are objecting to.

    The Ambassador/mayor/pastor:
    He doesn’t mention that the cavity rates would be higher w/out fluoridation. Nobody said that fluoridation would eliminate cavities, as he seems to want to suggest. He offers no evidence that fluoridation makes low-income people more susceptible to cavities. I have no confidence in his statements and see little reason to doubt in the literature that his concerns about fluoridation are justified.

    I have have considered your principle assertions and have found them to be excruciatingly, embarrassingly lacking.

    You should look at Skeptoid’s episode on this: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4058

    Listen to it. (And before you hop on the “he’s calling us terrorists” argument, consider that he is using it in the sense: “using unjustified fear or violence to incite political action or change.” I agree with him; it’s scaremongering.)

  11. Sorry but you needn’t have searched so many databases when the THIRD listing of bioaccumulative with a Google search points directly to the definition as housed by the EPA’s web-site.

    http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/aboutpbt.htm

    “PBT (Persisitent Bioaccumulative and Toxic) pollutants are chemicals that are toxic, persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in food chains and, thus, pose risks to human health and ecosystems. The biggest concerns about PBTs are that they transfer rather easily among air, water, and land, and span boundaries of programs, geography, and generations.”

    So was this your attempt at a straw man argument that just majestically failed or what?? I guess this would also discredit pretty much everything you said thereafter.

    Bob’s Quote:
    “My conclusion: bioaccumulation is not a medical term. It’s a science word being misapplied by antiflouridation people. It just does not appear in the relevant literature.” (your concept of relevant is a bit lacking here)

    Here is another definition for you.

    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bioaccumulative

    bioaccumulation
    process producing an increase in the concentration of chemicals (usually toxins) in the tissues of organisms with each increase in the trophic level in the food chain. Examples include chlorinated hydrocarbons which reach their greatest concentrations in predatory birds and pelicans, and ciguatera in which the toxins are concentrated in large predatory fish such as gropers, barracudas and mackerel.

    Just in case you haven’t put it together. Humans eat animals thus, if the animals have been poisoned by Persistent Bioaccumulative Toxins, it is expected that we have also ingested those toxins and can expect it to impact our health negatively.

    This is true whether or not the term shows up in a medical database. Just because two different disciplines do not share the same exact jargon does not mean they are somehow hermetically sealed and have no interaction whatsoever.

    We live in the Environment after all, if it is poisoned, we are poisoned.

    This is again is another logical fallacy on your part. Were you trained in sophistry or does it just come to you naturally?

    As for your next evasive maneuver. You misrepresented the timing of the implementation of fluoride as public policy. I know it’s just a glance you took but it’s really no excuse.

    You are assuming a timing difference of a decade.

    “Fluoridation became an official policy of the U.S. Public Health Service by 1951″ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation

    Bob’s quote:

    Nobel Prize winners:
    A glance shows that about half of them received their prizes before fluoridation was widely implemented. Most are before the 1960s. The few you have in the last fifty years is not representative of scientific consensus, or even a statistically significant number of scientists. Furthermore, I don’t know on what grounds they objected. There are real ethical issues about fluoridating people–is it medication, for instance. Perhaps that’s what they are objecting to.

    Finally something we agree on. Yes there are SERIOUS ethical issues with forcing people to be medicated without consent. On that basis alone this practice is completely morally reprehensible and it astounds me that you defend it without proper investigation. This has become a pattern for you.

    So 5 of the 14 Nobel prize winning scientists received their awards after Fluoridation was public policy. Did you notice that they were all Nobel prize winners of either medicine or chemistry?

    But that is really not the point is it. You don’t know when in fact they voiced their objections to fluoridation. It has nothing to do with the date they received their Nobel prizes now does it. Again another logical fallacy on your part.

    So until you have delved in and done your ‘due diligencde’ to determine when exactly they came out against this practice it is likely that all 14 Nobel prize winners for chemistry or medicine do in fact disagree that this practice is safe or effective or morally just.

    As far as consensus, again science is not majority rule and this is another fallacious argument. This is simply appeal to popularity and not science. You don’t need 10,000 Galileo’s to counter the edicts of the church now do you? It just helps keep you from being burned at the stake for heresy.

    For your future reference.

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

    “The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

    Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
    Therefore X is true.

    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

    It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as “the world is flat”, “humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour”, “the sun revolves around the earth” but all these claims turned out to be false.”

    Once a scientist has achieved the mantel of Nobel prize recipient in a relevant field and managed not to croak, they have significant clout & can still weigh in on the forced medication of entire populations by a known bioaccumulative neurotoxin. After all these are the creme de la creme we are talking about here. Yet still I do not want to invoke appeal to authority. If Obama can win a war is peace prize while increasing aggression I dare say that we must review the science and not the politicized rewards of science as the best method for determining what is in fact true. I’m willing to go there, are you?

    Bob’s quote:
    “I would like to point out that this is me NOT simply accepting what the government says, Camron, and I resent the notion that I’m not careful.”

    You are welcome to resent what I have said, but I stand by my statement. You consistently cite only those sources that support your arguments while using a laundry list of logical fallacies to ignore, dismiss, and obfuscate information that refutes your position on crucial issues of public health. You seem to do so with glee and a contempt for actual scientific methodolgy, displaying a callous disregard for the effects of your apologistic pronouncements.

    If you were truly skeptical, you would be willing to engage in an open debate or discussion with the foremost experts who hold beliefs and perspectives that you simply deride and dismiss as “conspiracy theory”. You are entirely unskeptical of the government when it comes to the most crucial topics and events which are directly impacting the lives of millions of human beings.

    Again If you want to be taken seriously as a skeptic. Try practicing skepticism of the government. Right now you skeptical of everyone but them.

    -Camron

  12. Pacal says:

    Cameron says:

    “Again If you want to be taken seriously as a skeptic. Try practicing skepticism of the government. Right now you skeptical of everyone but them.”

    Why should Bob or anyone take you the slightest bit seriously when you agit-prop like the above.

    Then there is this statement

    “If you were truly skeptical, you would be willing to engage in an open debate or discussion with the foremost experts who hold beliefs and perspectives that you simply deride and dismiss as “conspiracy theory”. You are entirely unskeptical of the government when it comes to the most crucial topics and events which are directly impacting the lives of millions of human beings.”

    You do enjoy fantasizing don’t you. Open debate about what? Is the NWO going to destroy us? Fantasies of mass internment? How about you do some research about paranoia in American and other countries politics. AS for open minded since you deride anything that comes goes against your view has “government” derived and hence suspect the only mind I see closed here is yours.

    As for this statement:

    “You are welcome to resent what I have said, but I stand by my statement. You consistently cite only those sources that support your arguments while using a laundry list of logical fallacies to ignore, dismiss, and obfuscate information that refutes your position on crucial issues of public health. You seem to do so with glee and a contempt for actual scientific methodolgy, displaying a callous disregard for the effects of your apologistic pronouncements. ”

    Thank you for accurately describing what you do. As for logical fallacies you have them in massive abundance. Now go back to Black Helicopters and the Illuminati.

  13. Pacal says:

    Oh I forgot to ask as fluoridated water deprived you of your purity of essence or precious bodily fluids?

  14. Njoki says:

    Pacal – Its fine really. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it. Besides Fluoride there is Chlorine for water born viruses and there are talks of Lithium being added to the water as well. I’ve seen 1st hand what ” safe” doses of Lithium can do . When in a reverse osmosis process those things are filtered out. Why instead of killing dangerous bacteria with dangerous chemicals does it do a real service with our tax dollars and actually filter the water?

    I think we should make our own decisions about what medications or poisons we use in our water. If you’d like to go and buy a package of poison and drop a safe dose in your water… by all means. But people who are actually conscious of their health shouldn’t be subjected to the choices of those who care less. Nor should they be called conspiracy theorist for it. It was common practice in Europe for doctors to not wash their hands between patience. Taking on the butcher mentality. “Well my hands will just get bloody again anyway.” was the thinking.

    medical science has had to recant before. They are not infallible. If the model does not fit, then it needs to change.

  15. Pacal. It seems when you can’t deal with the evidence offered your left only with slander and instigation. Do you have anything of relevance to say about the topic at hand?

  16. Pacal. It seems when you can’t deal with the evidence offered. It seems then you’re only left with slander and instigation. Do you have anything of relevance to say about the topic at hand?

  17. Pacal says:

    Cameron:

    “Pacal. It seems when you can’t deal with the evidence offered. It seems then you’re only left with slander and instigation. Do you have anything of relevance to say about the topic at hand?”

    Your assuming I take anything cranks like you spout in even the slightest sense seriously. As for “evidence” please I’ve been dealing with people like you for well over 25 years and until proven otherwise everything people like you crank out is nonsense.

    As for “relevance’ nothing you say is even remoutely related to the real world. Ali I have for people like you is derision.

  18. Bob says:

    You know, it’s really the nanofluoride you need to be scared of.

    RJB (w/ a shout out to Eve for the joke)

  19. So it looks like both Bob and Pacal when confronted with evidence that defeats entirely the premise of their supposed argumentation, resort to ad hominem attacks and sophomoric attempts at humor, rather than say, intellegently defend their perspectives once challenged. This is what passes for skepticism from a PHD of a state funded school? Is this because you are incapable of formulating an argument based on evidence or you both are just unwilling to do the reasearch?

    Pacal. I don’t know you and all I have offered is evidence and information. If you are too lazy or incompetent to discuss scientific evidence or information than please just resign from the conversation. You’ve obviously no evidence or reason to add to this discussion. Also If I am going to be presumably insulted by a digital representative of real human being, than it would be nice to know who is leveling such charges at me. Please do tell me your name. I know Bob, I have met him on several occasions outside of the confines of the internet. Perhaps you would like to take the challenge to defend yourself intellectually in a debate in front of an audience?

    You’ve insisted that because I disagree with you and again whatever edicts of state you defend religiously that I am a “crank”. This is a classic example of Ad hominem attack. Here let me spell it out for you, so the next time you exploit this overused tactic, again exposing your incapacity to logically think through divergent perspectives in a scientific conversation, you will know that I and everyone else knows exactly what logical fallacy you are employing.

    Description of Ad Hominem

    Translated from Latin to English, “Ad Hominem” means “against the man” or “against the person.”

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

    Person A makes claim X.
    Person B makes an attack on person A.
    Therefore A’s claim is false.
    The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

    Example of Ad Hominem

    Bill: “I believe that abortion is morally wrong.”
    Dave: “Of course you would say that, you’re a priest.”
    Bill: “What about the arguments I gave to support my position?”
    Dave: “Those don’t count. Like I said, you’re a priest, so you have to say that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I can’t believe what you say.”

    At least attempt a poor attempt at humor like your compadre Bob.

    Well gents, it’s been real. I will chalk up your regressing to a slew of ad hominem and avoiding any of my questions as another victory for those willing to look at evidence that does not support their preferential biases.

    You both are anything but scientific and it’s becoming increasingly easier to discredit you.

    Now I’m curious if Bob’s students actually visit this blog and if so what they think of such sophomoric reasoning from their professor? Especially considering the grave nature of the topics being discussed.

  20. Bob says:

    You win nothing by provoking me, Camron. I suspect that you know that you are a troll, but I can’t be sure. I don’t presume to know the workings of others’ minds or motivations.

    Camron, the areas you are so sure about–engineering, chemistry, medicine–are technical fields. There has been research done into what constitutes expertise. Experts know the limitations about what they know–that’s the common factor across fields of expertise. I see no evidence that you realize how inexpert you are at so many things you think you care passionately about. You can’t sweep in and make pronouncements about science without earning your stripes and expect to be taken seriously, even if you are right!

    And you’re not. That’s not an opinion.

    RJB

  21. Pacal says:

    Camron you say:

    “You’ve insisted that because I disagree with you and again whatever edicts of state you defend religiously that I am a “crank”.”

    Its comments like this that make me conclude that cranks like you are indeed cranks. Of course continue to fantasize about what I “religiously” defend. By the way I’m an Anarchist.

    As for giving you my name. Why on earth would I do that? I have no interest in debating people like you anymore than I have with debating Flat earthers, or Holocaust deniers. I know of course what an ad hominem is but you see I have no interest in having a debate with you or an exchange of information; all of which would be a waste of time. I see nothing to indicate why I should take you seriously. However dumping on cranks like you is always fun.

  22. “You win nothing by provoking me, Camron. I suspect that you know that you are a troll, but I can’t be sure. I don’t presume to know the workings of others’ minds or motivations.”

    Bob please define troll. Then find the nearest mirror and gaze into it for a few moments. If you continuously and cowardly provoke those who are concerned about the health of this planet and it’s political workings, and care enough to do something about it, expect they will rebuke your slander and apologia. I have only pointed out what you don’t want others to see. You could keep this an evidence based conversation, but we all know that you will lose in the end.

    Bob says:
    Camron, the areas you are so sure about–engineering, chemistry, medicine–are technical fields. There has been research done into what constitutes expertise. Experts know the limitations about what they know–that’s the common factor across fields of expertise. I see no evidence that you realize how inexpert you are at so many things you think you care passionately about. You can’t sweep in and make pronouncements about science without earning your stripes and expect to be taken seriously, even if you are right!

    Bob, here is a little fun way you can understand how you come off to me.

    Bob says:
    Bob, the areas you are so sure about–engineering, chemistry, medicine–are technical fields. There has been research done into what constitutes expertise. Experts know the limitations about what they know–that’s the common factor across fields of expertise. I see no evidence that you realize how inexpert you are at so many things you think you care passionately about. You can’t sweep in and make pronouncements about science without earning your stripes and expect to be taken seriously, even if you are right!

    Bob instead of hurling hoity toity veiled insults. Why don’t you prove that I am inexpert? Why not refute anything I have said with evidence? As for earning stripes in science, what exactly are your scientific credentials if any? You often invoke appeal to authority attempting to discredit those who disagree with the legitimacy of your claims. I challenge you to stick to the facts, the evidence and logically present why I am incorrect. Anyone who refuses this cannot hope to escape ridicule simply because they invoke a protective umbrella of credentialism, a standard you yourself do not bear. Working next door to scientists does not make you a scientist nor expert in any of their disciplines.

    Bob says:
    And you’re not. That’s not an opinion.

    Actually it is, it is your opinion. You have the option to prove me wrong with evidence and yet you resort to credentialism, a standard you yourself do not meet. Your hypocrisy and doublethink is well noted by now. You continue to engage in ad hominem personal attacks rather than deal with the evidence. This is trolling behavior if I have ever seen it.

    So when ever you are ready to deal in evidence instead of logical fallacy, you just let me know.

    -CW

  23. slick says:

    YEAH BOB i support you fully F the 9/11 truthers especially Cameron………….

  24. slick says:

    it looks like the real head of daniel finally reared it ugly head…… haha hello there little man cameron

  25. slick says:

    this guys are bored with their lives so much Bob that they have to find a reason to live. They should do us all a favor and go find their savior hehe………..F the Atlanta 9-11 truthers bunch of say nothing hoes………..

  26. slick says:

    so you know Bob I was a fireman at 9-11 and have been there since. i live and work in NYC…………I got more but let them answer first……..9-11 bulls((**ters more like it ………..lolz

  27. slick says:

    i did not know the ATL boys were engineers………..I guess i missed it on his profile page. …………..Wait i got it they read about on youtube………..lolz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,652 other followers

%d bloggers like this: