The new research is the first to measure community water fluoridation exposure during childhood and any potential impact on cognition up to age 80.

The paper is here

    • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      45
      ·
      6 days ago

      You should care about the fact that studies will tell you roundup is safe, atrazine is safe, and the like. My sweet summer child, the system is corrupted. If you don’t know that yet, there is little hope for you.

      • meco03211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        32
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        6 days ago

        You either need more drugs or less drugs. Whatever level you’re at now is not working.

        • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          35
          ·
          edit-2
          6 days ago

          First of all, the answer is always more and better drugs. That you don’t know that indicts your understanding!

          Second of all, you have no idea what you are defending, you trust the establishment and follow their lead. I would argue at this point to not question what you are told by the experts exposes you for a fool.

            • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              19
              ·
              6 days ago

              Oh rather, and accepting what you are told without question is such a display of intelligence by the way! We’ve all seen how trustworthy the experts are, to not trust them, ha, right? GTFO. I don’t care how many half wits vote with you because they think they are right on this issue, you are, how can I not be offensive, a sheep. A particularly dumb one trusting your shepard to lead you to safety when you are heading to the slaughterhouse.

              • forrgott@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                15
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                Nobody here is listening to you without question. That’s what bothers you.

              • otp@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 days ago

                Are you old enough to be using the internet?

                If not, are you too old to be on the internet?

      • Cyv_@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        My honest answer, is to do your own research. To be more specific though, read the article. Then the study the article is based on. Then do a few google searches and read a few related studies. Look for a general consensus. How many studies are there. What methods do they use? Sample sizes?

        Basically, validating this stuff requires work and critical thinking. It’s much easier to claim the institutions are corrupt, and that you don’t trust anything they say. Doing that also leaves you with nothing but popular opinion, rumors, and whatever you think sounds about right based on a knee jerk reaction.

        How can anyone hold a conversation or argument about it when you look at data and go “no actually I don’t agree because spooky unrelated study on a different thing by a different journal like 10 years ago”

        Edit: *26 years ago, mb friends

        • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          6 days ago

          I did not reference any 10-year-old journal. I referenced a lack of faith in these United states.

          You can talk your establishment bullshit all you want, all I said was I am not willing to concede the point that it is safe because of a study commissioned by someone.

          Were you born yesterday? Or do you just not understand the world we live in? The answer is obviously the latter. Go back To sleep

      • Natanael@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 days ago

        The trick here is to look at who is funding it and if the methods are correct. If it’s independent and competently done, it’s probably correct

        “the system” doesn’t mean scientists are corrupt, it means your politicians are.

        • teyrnon@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          23
          ·
          6 days ago

          Are you for real? Do you not realize mercenary scientific outfits take jobs with the understanding of working backwards from the position their funders want them to be that’s and engineer those studies to come to that conclusion, which is in turn taken up by lobbyists and politicians and all that bullshit. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. The fact that you don’t realize this at this point, frankly it’s just fucking depressing. We are fucked because you are fucking, ahem, not so enlightened.

          • otp@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 days ago

            Do you not realize mercenary scientific outfits take jobs with the understanding of working backwards from the position their funders want them to be that’s and engineer those studies to come to that conclusion, which is in turn taken up by lobbyists and politicians and all that bullshit

            Source?