I lost an arguement one time to a guy that was an anti-fluoride nut. My uncle was the same and so I took the pro-fluoride position as the science that he was spewing was dodgey tabloid level material.
The arguement ended with me having to admit that I hadn't looked into it closely but had assumed that it was safe because that's what everyone reasonable seemed to be saying.
Here's the paragraph from the study that made me change my viewpoint:
> Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11571.
That's pretty strong language and when it comes to something like mass medicating a 2-3 IQ point drop population wide, with a history of claiming substances like DDT or asbestos being safe right up until the point that it isn't, I think we should err on the side of caution.
What a nice comment in this thread where others denigrate the anti-fluoride. It's like we have forgotten about Thalidomide and various disasters, and we have forgotten how to do science. Instead we are implored to "trust the science!". You show us that it is possible to question the dogma and research a topic such as this to the point of being able to reach a conclusion such as "more studies needed please thanks".
About 13 years ago I suffered an awful reaction to Cipro. I documented my symptoms and posted to reddit. I was called insane, delusional and a liar. This was in medical and science communities.
Since then, Cipro and other flouroquinolone drugs have received a 'black' label and warnings of causing tendonitis and neuropathy.
Recently, I learned about Ignaz Semmelweis who many years ago discovered that hand washing significantly reduces the risk of death from childbirth fever. When he presented this idea he was rejected by the medical community. His ideas were dismissed and he was harassed. Today, it is obviously standard procedure to wash hands.
In reality this is often still the case today. Science doesn't lie but the data and results can be manipulated especially when there is a personal and financial gain.
As the saying goes, science advances one funeral at a time.
> Science doesn't lie but
Science is a process -- a process run by fallible humans. Fallible doesn't mean just that "they[we] can make mistakes" but also that "they[we] are corruptible".
Science doesn't lie, but scientists are another story. Science is something we must all be prepared to do, not merely trust.
Also, science requires healthy skepticism. We don't agree with Einstein because his theory is cool and all -- we mostly agree with Einstein because the data mostly agrees with Einstein. And even today we're a bit skeptical of General Relativity because of problems like the galaxy rotation problem. Even today we call GR a theory, and we will never call any scientific theory a fact, always only either a theory or a discredited theory.
Medicine and science have a long ways to go to really grasp the diversity of individuals... most arguments about medicine I see online seem to include at least one side implicitly assuming that all humans must respond to the same things in the same way. Reddit is probably especially bad for that, sorry to hear it happened to you when you were looking for help.
People are diverse enough that literally everyone is going to have some what in which they are different, and respond in an extremely rare way to some medication or treatment. Hopefully they simply never end up needing and receiving the ones where that would happen.
In general, there are infinite possible rare events: rare events are extremely common, it is only specific rare events that are uncommon. People confuse this and assume that rare events are impossible.
For example, I have an awful adverse reaction to even very low doses of the supplement creatine- widely considered probably one of the safest and lowest risk supplements in existence. People will say straight to my face that the adverse reaction I had isn't possible, because research shows it is safe. Pointing out that the research was not specifically done on me does not seem to carry any weight.
I wonder if those people would literally choose to die from a medication they were obviously reacting badly to, because of a disbelief in the possibility of it occurring, even when it is occurring? I'd bet they take it seriously if it happens to them, but not to other people.
> When he presented this idea he was rejected by the medical community. His ideas were dismissed and he was harassed.
We live in an interesting world don't we.
A parallel I always think about is that basketball players who are paid literally millions could improve their freethrow% by using a granny shot [1]. They all know it. They don't care.
One thing to remember is that he didn't propose germ theory. He didn't have solid proof of what was wrong and only the observation that hand washing worked. This is shakey ground to get onto because it's how you end up with cargo cult behavior.
This “trust the science” attitude is a massive failure of science education. Science should empower people to understand things themselves so they don’t need an appeal to authority - while also setting high standards for what it really takes to have an informed opinion. Instead you get people that claim to be “pro science” that understand nothing deeply, and will attack anyone who dares to develop a deeply informed opinion on their own. If they really understood scientific thinking instead of attacking, they could ask questions to see if the person with the controversial opinion took the time to deeply understand by e.g. studying the scientific literature, or if they just believed a conspiracy meme on Facebook.
When I’ve shared controversial opinions, especially on here- I’ve been attacked and ridiculed by these people, despite citing my reasoning and evidence. If I mention I am an academic PI that is widely published and known in the field they will switch their tone- but if it is my official titles rather than a sound argument that convinces them, they don’t get science at all.
There's more to it than that, but I'm not sure what to call it- it also seems to include an absolute religion-like faith in, e.g. the absolute correctness of positions from official organizations and current scientific understanding. Even if a scientific researcher or medical doctor has an informed opinion based on new data that differs from mainstream recommendations - even when it can clearly be demonstrated that those recommendations simply haven't been updated yet for new evidence, they will attack that person also.
I used to call it 'scientism' but someone else on here in a recent argument pointed out to me that scientism really just means that you believe that science can in principle be used to understand anything if you do it correctly- which I agree with.
Credentialism is about the appeal to authority. It's true that they then dismiss authorities they don't like or agree with. There's no good name for this whole phenomenon, not yet.
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
The arguement ended with me having to admit that I hadn't looked into it closely but had assumed that it was safe because that's what everyone reasonable seemed to be saying.
Here's the paragraph from the study that made me change my viewpoint: > Although the studies lacked sufficient detail for the committee to fully assess their quality and relevance to U.S. populations, the consistency of the results appears significant enough to warrant additional research on the effects of fluoride on intelligence. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2006. Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11571.
That's pretty strong language and when it comes to something like mass medicating a 2-3 IQ point drop population wide, with a history of claiming substances like DDT or asbestos being safe right up until the point that it isn't, I think we should err on the side of caution.