Citat:
zrachko: @p3j4
Niti si pročitao moj link, niti si pročitao svoj do kraja. Btw, foxnews bi trebao da se zove foxpropaganda.
Pročitao sam ja tvoj link i ako mi neki tekst liči na propagandu onda je to baš taj.
Pa da krenemo sa analizom teksta, sa akcentom na činjenice:
http://www.quackwatch.com/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
Najzanimljiviji i najkontroverzniji tvog teksta se nalazi na kraju:
Citat:
Cancer Scares
...
In 1990, the cancer charge was raised again following an unauthorized release of data from an experiment in which rats and mice were exposed to high dosages of fluoride.
The experiment was conducted by the National Toxicology Program, a branch of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The agency's final report stated that there was no evidence of cancer-causing activity in female rats or in male and female mice and only "equivocal evidence" in male rats. Subsequent review by a
U.S. Public Health Service expert panel concluded that the data were insignificant and that fluoridation posed no risk of cancer or any other disease.
Pretpostavljam da ti nije poznato ko je Dr. William Marcus kao ni njegov rad?
To je čovek koji je dok je bio zaposlen u EPA radio istraživanje na temu fluora i 1990. god. u
memorandumu (pažljivo pročitaj do kraja) osporio dotadašnje zvanično stanovište EPA po pitanju uticaja fluora na zdravlje. Nakon što je taj memo procureo u javnost, Markusu je zabranjen dalji rad sa "kontroverznim hemikalijama":
Citat:
Clarke[sudija] wrote that after Marcus' fluoride memo became public he had to submit weekly activity reports, lost his right to routinely engage in outside work and was restricted to "studying the least controversial chemicals." He also was prohibited from taking part in questions involving fluoride, said Clarke.
2 godine kasnije otpušten je sa posla, a njegova borba kroz pravni sistem trajala je naredne 2 godine kada je po odluci sudije vraćen na posao nakon nezakonitog otpuštanja, i tada je sudija zaključio:
Citat:
Reich, in an order made public Thursday, upheld an earlier decision by Administrative Law Judge David Clarke Jr., which concluded that the EPA's charges against Marcus were only "a pretext" and that Marcus actually was fired "because he publicly questioned and opposed EPA's fluoride policy.
više o tome na:
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/cancer/ntp/marcus2.html
http://www.fluoridealert.org/h...ncer/ntp/marcus-interview.html
a evo i konferencije za štampu nakon odluke suda da ga EPA vrati na posao:
http://video.google.com/videop...3350417355272297388&hl=en#
I sad ti meni kaži da u svetu nauke ne postoje tabu teme i unapred utvrđeni stavovi koje naučnici ne smeju da ruše ukoliko ne žele da rizikuju svoje karijere i trpe razne pritiske?
Vidiš, ti naučnici nisu nikakvi nadljudi, već sasvim obični ljudi koji su takođe u dugovima, pod kreditima za stan/kuću, imaju svoje porodice, karijere. Zašto bi bilo ko rizikovao svoj ugled, karijeru, posao, finansijsku sigurnost i zdravlje da izađe u javnost i objavi ovakve stvari ako mu je jasno stavljeno do znanja da to ne radi? Možda savest i etika? E zato ja više verujem ljudima koji su sve pobrojano spremni da stave na kocku zbog svoje savesti nego hiljadama klimoglavaca koji će u najboljem slučaju pognuti glavu i ćutati na ovakve stvari, ili još gore, za novac praviti naučne studije koje npr. kažu kako
živa u vakcinama pomaže neurološkom razvoju, a ne suprotno.
Ovo što je ovaj naučnik izneo je u svakom slučaju za mene u najmanju ruku dovoljno stvari za osnovanu sumnju u zvanična istraživanja i podatke. Ali čini mi se da se to nekako ne uklapa u vašu predstavu o nauci kao nekoj religiji, u kome je ono što kaže neki autoritet, bilo da je institucija ili persona potpuna dogma. Dogma koja se ne dovodi u pitanje.
Cenim čak da ni ti, a ni drugi koji se tako žestoko zalažu za fluorisanje vode, nikada u životu i niste videli neku naučnu studiju koja opravdava korišćenje fluora u vodovodima, ali, hej, ako su autoriteti tako rekli, onda više nema dileme, a ni potrebe za razmišljanjem! A u isto vreme ako neko ospori vaše tvrdnje, onda mu odmah tražite naučnu studiju koja to potvrđuje :)
I sad da vidimo ostatak tvog teksta:
Citat:
How Poisonmongers Work
The antifluoridationists' ("antis") basic technique is the big lie. Made infamous by Hitler, it is simple to use, yet surprisingly effective. It consists of claiming that fluoridation causes cancer, heart and kidney disease, and other serious ailments that people fear. The fact that there is no supporting evidence for such claims does not matter. The trick is to keep repeating them—because if something is said often enough, people tend to think there must be some truth to it.
[Kakvu laž je prezentovao Dr. William Marcus i, najvažnije, koji je bio njegov motiv za to? Poređenje sa Hitlerom je ovde stvarno neumesno i ovo već spada u propagandu par excellence!]
...
"Experts" are commonly quoted. It is possible to find someone with scientific credentials who is against just about anything. Most "experts" who speak out against fluoridation, however, are not experts on the subject. There are, of course, a few dentists and physicians who oppose fluoridation. Some of them object to fluoridation as a form of government intrusion, even though they know it is safe and effective. [Dr. William Marcus nije stručnjak pod znacima navoda već naučnik EPA, koji ne bi bio tu da ne zna svoj posao.]
Innuendo is a technique that has broad appeal because it can be used in a seemingly unemotional pitch. Some antis admit that fluoridation has been found safe "so far," but claim that its long-range effects have "not yet" been fully explored. The waiting game is a related gambit in which antis suggest that waiting a bit longer will help to resolve "doubt" about fluoridation's safety. No doubt, some antis will continue to use this argument for a few hundred more years. [Još jedan FAIL "kontra-argument". Ja ne znam da li je vama poznato ali naučni stav po nekom pitanju je samo trenutni stav i to VEĆINE NAUČNIKA. Koliko puta je nauka menjala stav po nekoj stvari u svetlu novih dokaza? Skepticizam je čak u tom smislu poželjan, kao i oprez u donošenju definitifnih i konačnih zaključaka. Retko koja stvar je trajno naučno zacementirana, kao što vi to pokušavate da predstavite, ali vam zato ne smeta da svakog ko se ne složi da vama satanizujete i etiketirate!]
...
Since the scientific community is so solidly in favor of fluoridation, antis try to discredit it entirely by use of the conspiracy gambit. The beauty of the conspiracy charge is that it can be leveled at anyone and there is absolutely no way to disprove it. After all, how does one prove that something is not taking place secretly? Favorite "conspirators" are the U.S. Public Health Service, the American Dental Association, the American Medical Association, and the aluminum industry. Apparently, in the minds of the antis, these groups could all be working together to "poison" the American people! [Ako bih ti rekao kako je realno očekivati da će vladajuća elita napretkom nauke najverovatnije (zlo)upotrebiti nauku i koristiti prednosti hemijskih i farmaceutskih sredstava za efikasniju kontrolu masa, šta bi mi ti rekao?]
Ne znam za tebe, ali meni ovo izgleda kao klasična propaganda.
Internet forumi su kao javni toalet... udje ko želi, ispiša se gde poželi, i ode...
Re: Food: The Ultimate Secret Exposed (ima prevod)
