Posted by larryhoover on September 6, 2011, at 13:14:21
In reply to Re: Lou's request- Dr Blayloc » Lou Pilder, posted by larryhoover on September 5, 2011, at 4:02:24
> I've included quotes from the article, and commented beneath each one.
>
> "New studies have shown that the fluoride from these medications linger in the brain for long periods and can affect not only memory, learning and thinking, but also trigger violent behavior in a small segment of the population."
>
> Leaving aside the fact that fluoride is not released from these molecules in the first place, I searched Pubmed using a variety of terms, and found no such "new studies", nor any old ones either.Lou, I watched the whole hour-long+ video, and there was no support provided for the allegations made. In fact, there was no mention whatsoever of fluorinated medications. In fact, over 80% of the interview (my estimate) dealt with the supposed adverse effects of vaccination, which I would argue is the single most important medical advance in history.
> "The difference with other fluorinated medications is that these anti-depressants are taken for years not weeks, as with an antibiotic. Indeed, recent studies have shown that the fluorinated antidepressant medications remain in the brain for prolonged periods after discontinuing the medication, more so with fluoxetine (Prozac) than Paxil."
>
> Once again, I used a variety of search terms, and found no evidence to support this claim either.
>
> Lou, people say whatever they want on the internet. This is no better than anecdote, no matter who wrote it. I could, but choose not to, discuss the various logical fallacies embedded in the type of reports you provide here. They are convincing only to those who already hold the underlying beliefs presented. I don't have time for the videos just now, as I am in Edinburgh and it's time to head out with my sons.Lou, this man is a very skilled orator, but he fails absolutely in the development of rational arguments. I don't have time to detail the numerous examples of his sophistic arguments, but whenever it came time to lay our his evidence, he reached for generalizations from "science" not explicitly described. However, when he wished to describe philosophical perspectives and conspiracy theories, he had ample references. I reiterate, he assumes that his audience believes the basic philosophical elements of his own hypotheses, yet fails to demonstrate any evidence to persuade a skeptic of his perceptions.
A search of Pubmed on one of his frequently used terms, immunoexcitotoxin, pulled up three papers only, all co-authored by this man. Clearly, he is not speaking from anywhere but the fringe of science.
He may be a doctor, but he is nonetheless a fool.
Lar
poster:larryhoover
thread:995799
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20110902/msgs/996018.html