Discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances

[4channel]

Some issues when discussed can cause a range of reactions. Sometimes they can lead to an awakening, the beginning of a journey to discovering something new, or they can can cause a certain type of reaction in a person who may not like what they hear. I think that it's all about how we choose to deal with the info we're hearing and how we process it.

Take the issues of let's say ....  fluoride and mobile phone tower radiation. The government has allowed the fluoridation of our water and they have allowed the construction of mobile phone towers in residential areas. Does that mean the water is safe to drink and it causes no ill affect? Does that mean that the mobile phone towers are safe?  What about the handsets. Are they safe for children to use and hold against their heads?

Well, we discuss these things and some people do react angrily to the people discussing these issues. Does this mean that we have to stop discussion that challenges the supposed official stance or challenges what we are told is the mainstream belief? Do we have to self-censor or have this in a [private group? I have noticed that in discussion forums or the media that racist beliefs are a;allowed a platform and yet issues that many folk feel that need to be addressed because of health concerns are not given the same platform. To me racism is abhorrent and yet in the media, it gets the pass ticket while issues that some call important to health freedom do not! Why is that?  Could it be political? What are your thoughts?

NOTE:

Spoiler

This is a discussion that some people here would be interested in while others may not be. Folks with opposing views are welcome as  always. Please, if someone has an issue with these topics being discussed or another member, could they refrain from any attacks on others or deliberately flooding this thread with off topic filler.

[simone4010]

Domino

Are you aware that not all toothpastes contain fluoride? There are lots of fluoride free options on the market. 

[davewil1964]

---

@4channel wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

I think that they are subject to confirmation bias, and are unwilling to objectively look at the proven science.

And the thread title is the thread title, regardless of post-posting remorse.

---

There is science that backs up claims that fluoride is harmful. There is science that backs up claims that mobile phone radiation is harmful. This is supported by medical professionals.With the other science that holds an opposing view,we need to think about who owns that. The media which is the conduit to our minds and shapes the perception of many, who owns that?

Do dollars$$$$$$ sometimes speak louder than the inner voice of morality?

---

But the science is not peer reviewed, and thus, science-wise, is suspect.

You seem to be suggesting that the majority of scientists are dollar driven (note the lack of attention-seeking graphics), not real scientists.

As I said, confirmation bias seems to be prevalent with your posts about these issues.

You have in the past linked to decades old posts that have, at best, several thousand views. That would tend to indicate that not many of the world's 8 billion people even think they are worth reading. Hardly confirmation of your views.

And it doesn't really matter. You have your views, I have mine. You think yours are relevant and mine aren't. I think the opposite.

I should have been a physicist. Life got in the way. But I believe in the scientific method. You don't seem to.

[chameleon54]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

Or non-mainstream opinions that don't accord with the OP's own non-mainstream opinions.

Or mainstream opinions backed by real science.

---

I,m not big on conspiracy theories, but one experience several years ago has got me wondering how often the public are not told the whole truth.

You may remember a few years ago 4 Corners got into all sorts of strife after it ran a story claiming statins where often causing more serious harm than good and their use was driven by collusion of big pharma and the medical community. The story featured scientists and health professionals who where willing to speak out. ( yes real scientists )

There was a huge backlash from big pharma and the medical community claiming the 4 Corners story was reckless and damaging and that statins where saving lives by reducing heart disease, stroke etc. They where effective in having the story discredited and withdrawn from the ABC website.

At the time I was in all sorts of trouble with my health. I was pre diabetic with my blood sugar levels escalating at a trajectory that would have seen me fully diabetic within months. I went on a major diet and exercise kick, losing over ten kg. in a few months and still my sugar readings where escalating. I came home from work at night and was that exhausted and fatigued I couldn't get off the couch to eat dinner. I suffered excruciating cramps and my cholesterol was bad regardless of what I ate. I felt I was barely living. Despite numerous tests the doctors had no answers.

All of these where side effects identified in the 4 Corners programme and fitted my condition to a "T". Like many, I gave up the statins the night the programme aired and within a week felt much better. Over the next few months, my sugar levels dropped, my energy levels improved, my cholesterol improved and I felt like a new man. The doctors wanted to know what my secret was. When I told them I was one of the thousands who stopped taking statins as a result of the Four Corners programme they where actually very supportive and confessed that it was widely known within the medical profession that up to 10% of statin users had severe reactions to the medication.

So big pharma, in collusion with the medical community had the whole story discredited and shut down, knowing all along that everything the programme said was in fact true.

Makes you wonder how often that sort of thing really goes on.

[icyfroth]

---

@lalbo-81 wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@tasfleur wrote:

4channel, perhaps there is a purpose to your "discussion that challenges supposed mainstream beliefs and officially accepted stances"  thread, but such a discussion is doomed to failure by its very nature.

It gives no real allowance for what people really would like to safely and confidently post as their personal opinion without some, who have long term self imposed tunnel vision, attacking them.

---

Ok I'm answering this even though your post was to 4channel, Tas.

Putting forward personal opinions for discussion are one thing.

Getting personal with insults and derision if there's disagreement, is another.

---

Maybe you can answer my question, dear. Why is it that disagreeing with the subject matter and calling it out for the fake  and sometimes harmful garbage that it is considered a personal attack? Especially when said personal attack doesn't happen, nothing even posted directly to the poster of said garbage? And said poster reports an attack that never happened?  Are those posters that thin skinned, or are they attempting to get rid of anyone who disagrees with their garbage? What's your point of view on this? You seem to know most people here, I think your opinion would be interesting to read. 

---

Nana, I've seen your first few posts here where you attacked a poster here both directly and indirectly. Insulting his intelligence and mocking his opinions. Unfortunately I see you're still not done.

Give it up, can't you? Try entering a discussion without the derision and insult, not to mention condescension. Then you may truly be a valued and welcome commentator to all  on this forum, not just a few.

[feloniexyz]

Old habits die hard 

[icyfroth]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Do you have any idea - what a ' thread ' is all about - most can go anywhich way - not always the way YOU would want.

Replies are given to a previous post - THEY ARE ALLOWED and very much appreciated - the thread grows.

Just an up - do you clean your teeth - if so - what do you use - BICARB - three times a day.

If not - bin your argument.

---

Of course threads can head off into different directions still relating to the original topic, that's a given.

Deliberately introducing a totally unrelated topic in order to derail it is not conducive to a civilised discussion. And the mods frown on it as well.

[icyfroth]

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

I think that they are subject to confirmation bias, and are unwilling to objectively look at the proven science.

And the thread title is the thread title, regardless of post-posting remorse.

---

There is mainstream "proven science" and there is proven science which is buried, silenced,  taken out of context, deliberately discredited and/or held up for derision to render it ineffective.

[icyfroth]

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Do you have any idea - what a ' thread ' is all about - most can go anywhich way - not always the way YOU would want.

Replies are given to a previous post - THEY ARE ALLOWED and very much appreciated - the thread grows.

Just an up - do you clean your teeth - if so - what do you use - BICARB - three times a day.

If not - bin your argument.

---

I think you'll find that most toothpastes also contain bi-carb of soda

"Besides fluoride, the other most important ingredient of a toothpaste is sodium bicarbonate, also commonly known as baking soda. This is also a polishing agent and does not negate the effect of fluoride. In addition, sodium bicarbonate helps to neutralize the oral acids and thereby preventing tooth decay."

[the_great_she_elephant]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@davewil1964 wrote:

I think that they are subject to confirmation bias, and are unwilling to objectively look at the proven science.

And the thread title is the thread title, regardless of post-posting remorse.

---

There is mainstream "proven science" and there is proven science which is buried, silenced,  taken out of context, deliberately discredited and/or held up for derision to render it ineffective.

---

If Moses supposes his toeses are roses,

Then Moses supposes erroneously;

For nobody's toeses are posies or roses,

As Moses supposes his toeses to be.

(Anon. English nonsense rhyme c 1890)

[icyfroth]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@domino-710 wrote:

Do you have any idea - what a ' thread ' is all about - most can go anywhich way - not always the way YOU would want.

Replies are given to a previous post - THEY ARE ALLOWED and very much appreciated - the thread grows.

Just an up - do you clean your teeth - if so - what do you use - BICARB - three times a day.

If not - bin your argument.

---

I think you'll find that most toothpastes also contain bi-carb of soda

"Besides fluoride, the other most important ingredient of a toothpaste is sodium bicarbonate, also commonly known as baking soda. This is also a polishing agent and does not negate the effect of fluoride. In addition, sodium bicarbonate helps to neutralize the oral acids and thereby preventing tooth decay."

---

Fluoride-containing toothpaste can be acutely toxic if swallowed in large amounts,[23][24] but instances are exceedingly rare and result from prolonged and excessive use of toothpaste (i.e. several tubes per week).[25] Approximately 15 mg/kg body weight is the acute lethal dose, even though as small amount as 5 mg/kg may be fatal to some children.[26]

The risk of using fluoride is low enough that the use of full-strength toothpaste (1350–1500 ppm fluoride) is advised for all ages. However, smaller volumes are used for young children, for example, a smear of toothpaste until three years old.[24] A major concern of dental fluorosis is for children under 12 months ingesting excessive fluoride through toothpaste. Nausea and vomiting are also problems which might arise with topical fluoride ingestion.[26]

Toothpaste - Wikipedia

If flouride is a known  toxin, why is it being added to our drinking water, even in small amounts?