Why do people believe conspiracy theories?
- Thread starter Lark
- Start date
We know that the flouride is toxic
We also know that all that floridated water whether drunk, flushed down the toilet, put through washing machines or used in baths and showers all has to go somewhere....
Drinking it is only part of the problem...which you'd know if you'd watched that clip i posted
You mentioned the network so i'm showing you who they are...thats why i cut and pasted part of the membership list...look at it and absorb some reality
I'm..."grumbling?"...because your illogical. I'm not defending anyone. All I'm saying is that you have no actual reliable proof that fluoridated water is toxic or vaccines cause autism. You just assume that it does, and then take that as further proof of your conspiracy theory. I don't know if the government is trying to poison its citizens. I find it extremely unlikely, but it is not falsifiable. Therefore I cannot prove it is not true.
This is why you need to expand your view
I mentioned various toxins in a previous post....i am taking a broad view and realising that they are poisoning us in many ways
if you do the same and look at a broader picture it will all be very clear to you
But you cannot see a puzzle by looking at one piece so stand back a little and look again
Its also career suicide to falsify documents. This is proven because his results could not be replicated.
[video=youtube;_Ys9q1cvKGk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk[/video]
http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/03/fluoride-in-tap-water-how-toxic-is-it-2477656.html
Many scientists oppose fluoridation. Proponents of fluoridation have maintained for many years— despite the fact that the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists—that the only people opposed to fluoridation are not bona fide scientists.
Today, as more and more scientists, doctors, dentists and other professionals, read the primary literature for themselves, rather than relying on self-serving statements from the ADA and the CDC, they are realizing that they and the general public have not been diligently informed by their professional bodies on this subject.
As of January 2012, over 4,000 professionals have signed a statement calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide.
This statement and a list of signatories can be found on the website of the Fluoride Action Network. A glimpse of the caliber of those opposing fluoridation can be gleaned by watching the 28-minute video “Professional Perspectives on Water fluoridation” which can be viewed online at the same FAN site.
Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation. Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain (Mullenix 1995); and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Many dentists and even doctors tell opponents in private that they are opposed to this practice but dare not speak out in public because of peer pressure and the fear of recriminations. Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific and ethical grounds.
When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a sixty-year delay.
[h=3]Unfortunately, because government officials and dental leaders have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science, not political expediency. [/h] They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle.
Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.
Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?
While fluoridation may not be the greatest environmental health threat, it is one of the easiest to end. It is as easy as turning off a spigot in the public water works. But to turn off that spigot takes political will and to get that we need masses more people informed and organized.
http://beforeitsnews.com/health/2013/03/fluoride-in-tap-water-how-toxic-is-it-2477656.html
Many scientists oppose fluoridation. Proponents of fluoridation have maintained for many years— despite the fact that the earliest opponents of fluoridation were biochemists—that the only people opposed to fluoridation are not bona fide scientists.
Today, as more and more scientists, doctors, dentists and other professionals, read the primary literature for themselves, rather than relying on self-serving statements from the ADA and the CDC, they are realizing that they and the general public have not been diligently informed by their professional bodies on this subject.
As of January 2012, over 4,000 professionals have signed a statement calling for an end to water fluoridation worldwide.
This statement and a list of signatories can be found on the website of the Fluoride Action Network. A glimpse of the caliber of those opposing fluoridation can be gleaned by watching the 28-minute video “Professional Perspectives on Water fluoridation” which can be viewed online at the same FAN site.
Proponents use very dubious tactics to promote fluoridation. Many scientists, doctors and dentists who have spoken out publicly on this issue have been subjected to censorship and intimidation (Martin 1991). Dr. Phyllis Mullenix was fired from her position as Chair of Toxicology at Forsythe Dental Center for publishing her findings on fluoride and the brain (Mullenix 1995); and Dr. William Marcus was fired from the EPA for questioning the government’s handling of the NTP’s fluoride-cancer study (Bryson 2004). Many dentists and even doctors tell opponents in private that they are opposed to this practice but dare not speak out in public because of peer pressure and the fear of recriminations. Tactics like this would not be necessary if those promoting fluoridation were on secure scientific and ethical grounds.
When it comes to controversies surrounding toxic chemicals, vested interests traditionally do their very best to discount animal studies and quibble with epidemiological findings. In the past, political pressures have led government agencies to drag their feet on regulating asbestos, benzene, DDT, PCBs, tetraethyl lead, tobacco and dioxins. With fluoridation we have had a sixty-year delay.
[h=3]Unfortunately, because government officials and dental leaders have put so much of their credibility on the line defending fluoridation, and because of the huge liabilities waiting in the wings if they admit that fluoridation has caused an increase in hip fracture, arthritis, bone cancer, brain disorders or thyroid problems, it will be very difficult for them to speak honestly and openly about the issue. But they must, not only to protect millions of people from unnecessary harm, but to protect the notion that, at its core, public health policy must be based on sound science, not political expediency. [/h] They have a tool with which to do this: it’s called the Precautionary Principle.
Simply put, this says: if in doubt leave it out. This is what most European countries have done and their children’s teeth have not suffered, while their public’s trust has been strengthened.
Just how much doubt is needed on just one of the health concerns identified above, to override a benefit, which when quantified in the largest survey ever conducted in the US, amounts to less than one tooth surface (out of 128) in a child’s mouth?
While fluoridation may not be the greatest environmental health threat, it is one of the easiest to end. It is as easy as turning off a spigot in the public water works. But to turn off that spigot takes political will and to get that we need masses more people informed and organized.
Not if you are protected by powerful people
These guys are killers
If you cross them you end up dead.....career suicide is the least of some peoples problems
That's it. I give up on you. You think that your conspiracy theory counts as proof for each of these small "pieces" as you call them, but that is logically incorrect. You take that and assume that you are right, and you're to arrogant and self certain to listen to any logical reason, no matter how basic, if it disagrees with your perspective. You dismiss something because it disagrees with you, not because of evidence. What's worse is you are so certain you are right, you are so certain you know the way things are, that you can't see how illogical you are being. Perhaps when you first started looking for this truth you were reasonable, but your arrogance and your thinking you are discovering truth that no one else can see has led you into believing just about anything that puts the government into a bad light and basically never seeing the government as ever doing anything good. You tell others to open their eyes when your own eyes are closed. Your so obsessed with finding truth that you have led yourself to false conclusions about logic. Its like you skip the logic, and go immediately to the theory and take it to be true so long as it fits your vision of the puzzle whose pieces you are searching out. This has an inherent confirmation bias, and no logical way to search for truth. You see things that aren't there like how you thought I was defending the government when I'm not, and you refuse to accept things that disagree with your perspective. You still think I'm trying to defend the government. I have no love of the government, but I wouldn't be surprised if you claimed me to be some kind of agent of the government sent here to sow false information against you or something like that. You may have been great once, but now your logic is so very flawed. I tried to help you to see that, but you won't. Your just so sure your right that no one can convince you otherwise. Be careful how you apply this method of thinking in real life or you will drive people away from you. Your obsession is as apparent as your arrogance.
Your the first person I've ever given up on. I've always thought someone can be logical if given enough evidence. Perhaps its still possible for you, but I am not smart enough. I just wish I could have helped, people like you make themselves both miserable and happy. You will live thinking yourself superior or smarter than everyone else, always thinking you can see what other cannot because they are stupid or brainwashed or something else of the like. What's worse is you will spread your false science around in the name of truth seeking to expose your conspiracy theory. Your smart enough to be very persuasive. If only you could turn back to a path of logic, and you would do very well. I wish you the best in life, even though I doubt it will mean much to you.
'Belief' is for people who don't know
There's a lot of information out there for those that are willing to look for it
I am no longer talking to muir as he is inherently illogical, however I do have a responsibility to post some information I gleaned from that video. I looked deeper into that professor, and found this paper on her stance on fluoride.
http://australianfluorideaction.com...FA_-_Dr_AK_Susheela_Stand_on_Fluoridation.pdf
Anyone who is honestly interested in this issue should read it, it raises many good points, and I find it to be very insightful on the perspective of fluoride not being safe. Her research in so far as this paper seems of definite interest, and something to be very thoroughly investigated. Her points have been enough to draw me into a neutral stance on the fluoride debate simply through uncertainty. I want to know a LOT more about how she determined her numbers. However, in relation to our water, I have dug deeper into the average level of fluoride in our water. Now, the numbers I was using before is the absolute maximum containment level (4 ppm) of fluoridated drinking water. However, the recommended level is just 0.7 ppm in the united states, and they don't recommend anything over 1.2 ppm. Now, her studies ranged from sources between 0.5 ppm to 38.5 ppm concentrations. Now the very first thing I need to point out is that what concentrations lead to those conditions of fluorosis she describes is not listed. However I have very little doubt that if I dug into her scientific articles that I would find what I am looking for. Also, her paper only said that her studies where done on areas with concentrations between 0.5 ppm to 38.5 ppm, and not really specifying if she founds effects in those populations on the lower end of the spectrum. She seems to be reaching for the upper bound meaning that if there where effects, at concentrations around, say 1 ppm, then I would question what extent those effects where. As for the benefits, an initial look seemed to me that the effects on the teeth that she described only occur at higher concentrations of fluoride, and beneficial dental effects do occur at the proper levels of fluoride, but I would need to see her studies to better understand where the lines are drawn on what is beneficial and what is harmful. So far as I am aware, it is very possible that at the lower concentrations the dental side is beneficial, and the side effects negligible or non existent (therefore it is beneficial), or the levels are to low so no benefit dentally and non to marginal side effects (therefore ineffective concept), or the levels are low and side effects are of concern (therefore it is harmful). However there is no way to determine which is the most likely at this point in my understanding. It would also be irresponsible to say, "eh, best not take a chance, just don't do it". We have the ability to know if something is beneficial/safe or otherwise. We should not dismiss something that could be potentially very beneficial out of fear. Lots of questions, lots of reading, and lots of checking.
Now, before muir or another person jumps on and says, "see, it is toxic" or something like that, I want to again reiterate that our water is on the very lowest end of that spectrum she tested. Lets assume that this spectrum does have symptoms at every level, but that has not been clarified for me yet. In that case, it is extremely likely that the symptoms at the lower levels like ours would be the symptoms that are most susceptible to occurring, and likely the least dangerous. One that caught my eye is an effect in the lining of the stomach. I would need to do more reading to better understand that point.
All things considered, I do not know enough at this point to make a conclusion for myself. This person is obviously very qualified, and she has evidence to back up her claims. Therefore, it should most definitely be considered and explored. I plan to do this for myself. If enough people on here are interested in my exploring this women's research, I will make a thread/blog about it. You all have seen the way I explore and break down information. Either you find it effective or not. I'm not sure how often I'll post because I don't want my life consumed by this project, but I will make progress. This will be a long haul to wade through all her research. If not to many people are interested in this idea, I will just work through her research and in a few months (depending when I am comfortable with my conclusion) I can mail it to those that are interested. However, I would very much welcome impute from others to check my analysis of her results. Her studies are on a level beyond anything I've gone over yet, so I would very much enjoy have more set of eyes on it.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]. Finally you have put up a point that is with evidence. Reliable evidence. I've spent the last hour and a half or so digging through checking her validity, initial research, and a few other things. She seems to have many very interesting points to consider. This is the kind of stuff you need to post to prove stuff, even though I don't think it's been proven yet. Lots of reading to do. Evidence is always better than conjecture muir, perhaps now you see that?
http://australianfluorideaction.com...FA_-_Dr_AK_Susheela_Stand_on_Fluoridation.pdf
Anyone who is honestly interested in this issue should read it, it raises many good points, and I find it to be very insightful on the perspective of fluoride not being safe. Her research in so far as this paper seems of definite interest, and something to be very thoroughly investigated. Her points have been enough to draw me into a neutral stance on the fluoride debate simply through uncertainty. I want to know a LOT more about how she determined her numbers. However, in relation to our water, I have dug deeper into the average level of fluoride in our water. Now, the numbers I was using before is the absolute maximum containment level (4 ppm) of fluoridated drinking water. However, the recommended level is just 0.7 ppm in the united states, and they don't recommend anything over 1.2 ppm. Now, her studies ranged from sources between 0.5 ppm to 38.5 ppm concentrations. Now the very first thing I need to point out is that what concentrations lead to those conditions of fluorosis she describes is not listed. However I have very little doubt that if I dug into her scientific articles that I would find what I am looking for. Also, her paper only said that her studies where done on areas with concentrations between 0.5 ppm to 38.5 ppm, and not really specifying if she founds effects in those populations on the lower end of the spectrum. She seems to be reaching for the upper bound meaning that if there where effects, at concentrations around, say 1 ppm, then I would question what extent those effects where. As for the benefits, an initial look seemed to me that the effects on the teeth that she described only occur at higher concentrations of fluoride, and beneficial dental effects do occur at the proper levels of fluoride, but I would need to see her studies to better understand where the lines are drawn on what is beneficial and what is harmful. So far as I am aware, it is very possible that at the lower concentrations the dental side is beneficial, and the side effects negligible or non existent (therefore it is beneficial), or the levels are to low so no benefit dentally and non to marginal side effects (therefore ineffective concept), or the levels are low and side effects are of concern (therefore it is harmful). However there is no way to determine which is the most likely at this point in my understanding. It would also be irresponsible to say, "eh, best not take a chance, just don't do it". We have the ability to know if something is beneficial/safe or otherwise. We should not dismiss something that could be potentially very beneficial out of fear. Lots of questions, lots of reading, and lots of checking.
Now, before muir or another person jumps on and says, "see, it is toxic" or something like that, I want to again reiterate that our water is on the very lowest end of that spectrum she tested. Lets assume that this spectrum does have symptoms at every level, but that has not been clarified for me yet. In that case, it is extremely likely that the symptoms at the lower levels like ours would be the symptoms that are most susceptible to occurring, and likely the least dangerous. One that caught my eye is an effect in the lining of the stomach. I would need to do more reading to better understand that point.
All things considered, I do not know enough at this point to make a conclusion for myself. This person is obviously very qualified, and she has evidence to back up her claims. Therefore, it should most definitely be considered and explored. I plan to do this for myself. If enough people on here are interested in my exploring this women's research, I will make a thread/blog about it. You all have seen the way I explore and break down information. Either you find it effective or not. I'm not sure how often I'll post because I don't want my life consumed by this project, but I will make progress. This will be a long haul to wade through all her research. If not to many people are interested in this idea, I will just work through her research and in a few months (depending when I am comfortable with my conclusion) I can mail it to those that are interested. However, I would very much welcome impute from others to check my analysis of her results. Her studies are on a level beyond anything I've gone over yet, so I would very much enjoy have more set of eyes on it.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]. Finally you have put up a point that is with evidence. Reliable evidence. I've spent the last hour and a half or so digging through checking her validity, initial research, and a few other things. She seems to have many very interesting points to consider. This is the kind of stuff you need to post to prove stuff, even though I don't think it's been proven yet. Lots of reading to do. Evidence is always better than conjecture muir, perhaps now you see that?
and monitoring him monitoring you. ive got entire filing cabinets of data on you both
I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything...
Knowledge and belief are personal- conspiracy theorist put forth information, just as science or other bodies of knowledge, and as with anything- it is up to you to do your work, consider the facts, and choose - based on your own beliefs, ideas, and experiences - what you feel is truth. You should never just ingest knowledge because someone said it was right (conspiracy or not), you should become informed and come to your own conclusions.
Part of learning and understanding the world around you is challenging prominent paradigms and ask questions about what we know- for me, this is what conspiracy theorists do. In fact, there's been many cases throughout history where people were condemned for going against popular thought, only to have their ideas validated generations later. I don't believe it all, and sometimes the theories make me giggle, but I appreciate the fact that there are people out there willing to think differently and investigate avenues of knowledge that I might never think about. Learning an alternative perspective gives breath to my understanding of the world- whether I believe it or not.
Part of learning and understanding the world around you is challenging prominent paradigms and ask questions about what we know- for me, this is what conspiracy theorists do. In fact, there's been many cases throughout history where people were condemned for going against popular thought, only to have their ideas validated generations later. I don't believe it all, and sometimes the theories make me giggle, but I appreciate the fact that there are people out there willing to think differently and investigate avenues of knowledge that I might never think about. Learning an alternative perspective gives breath to my understanding of the world- whether I believe it or not.
I remember when I first heard about geo-engineering, it took awhile for the reality of it to sink in. I rejected it at first.
I ignored the notion of 'conspiracy' and avoided looking into it. How things change!
My recommendation is to stay grounded, consider things with neutrality, avoid the traps of fear/emotional manipulation/political bias/nationalism. Be encouraged with the knowledge that we are truly powerful individuals. Be informed and empowered, be a force for unity, for peace, be love in the world.
Fighting and petty arguments are divisive and most likely are the results of social programming. It is ok to accept that we have been programmed to a certain degree. Admitting this much allows us to begin to rehabilitate, to get healthy, to take back our own power, to assume our rightful place in the universe. Realize that we can have a better world than what is being displayed for us now. Lets all do our part to project peace into the world.
Everyone handles information differently. Some folks take longer to process these things, for whatever reason.
We should move forward with patience and compassion for each other, regardless of what our opinions are.
Personally, I have avoided talking about these things publicly. Lately, I am feeling it might be time to come out of the closet, but I want to come out in a way that motivates and inspires people, rather than puts them off. It's a tricky position to be in.
If anyone honestly inspects the GMO issue, they'll clearly see conspiracy. Consider Monsanto alone and GMO seed patents, just look into it a little bit.
Regardless of what we believe or what we think we know, lets spare each other the insults and personal jabs, think twice about what we are really communicating, and really consider who the other person is on the other end of the screen.
In love...
I ignored the notion of 'conspiracy' and avoided looking into it. How things change!
My recommendation is to stay grounded, consider things with neutrality, avoid the traps of fear/emotional manipulation/political bias/nationalism. Be encouraged with the knowledge that we are truly powerful individuals. Be informed and empowered, be a force for unity, for peace, be love in the world.
Fighting and petty arguments are divisive and most likely are the results of social programming. It is ok to accept that we have been programmed to a certain degree. Admitting this much allows us to begin to rehabilitate, to get healthy, to take back our own power, to assume our rightful place in the universe. Realize that we can have a better world than what is being displayed for us now. Lets all do our part to project peace into the world.
Everyone handles information differently. Some folks take longer to process these things, for whatever reason.
We should move forward with patience and compassion for each other, regardless of what our opinions are.
Personally, I have avoided talking about these things publicly. Lately, I am feeling it might be time to come out of the closet, but I want to come out in a way that motivates and inspires people, rather than puts them off. It's a tricky position to be in.
If anyone honestly inspects the GMO issue, they'll clearly see conspiracy. Consider Monsanto alone and GMO seed patents, just look into it a little bit.
Regardless of what we believe or what we think we know, lets spare each other the insults and personal jabs, think twice about what we are really communicating, and really consider who the other person is on the other end of the screen.
In love...