|
|
|
|
|
|
by iaw
3090 days ago
|
|
|
In the article they talk about how this water appeals to those who are worried about prescription drug residues and fluoride in their drinking water. It seems like the anti-vacc movement makes poor health decisions based on a flawed or limited understanding of science and a strong faith in pseudo-science. Science says vaccines are good, pseudo-science says that scientists are wrong and vaccines cause autism. Science says fluoridated water is okay, the jury is on on prescription residue, and we have a pretty clear idea of what happens with contaminated water consumption, pseudo-science "look what sort of nasty things science put in your water! Lets go with natural water from dirty sources!" Edit: It's not about keeping unknown things out of their body, it's about a small group of non-scientists making unfounded allegations that can undermine the efforts society has made to improve the health of humanity (small pox, cholera, etc.) |
|
|
Hmm, Wikipedia tells me the studies have been low quality as to whether it's harmful in any way. EC don't recommend using fluoridation of drinking water as they see no benefit when topical application is available ...
With such an important aspect of public health it strikes me as curious in the extreme that there aren't many high-quality studies?? That alone gets me concerned that something is being hidden ... is it any surprise that this would be a widespread concern?
>a small group of non-scientists making unfounded allegations //
The Autism-Vaccination issue was initially scientists raising a concern; in what appeared to be reasonable research. Until the USAmerican removal of mercury containing compounds from the vaccine and the subsequent lack of effect on autism levels I'd say it was still an open question [happy to be corrected on that, I've only looked back on the issue]. It turned out to be an [apparent] correlation without a causative link, but we had to wait a couple of years for that to come back - then there was large scale data.