Fluoride Survey

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

joh05058

New Member
10+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2008
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Points
0
  1. Pre-Dental
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Alright everyone, I need your help. I'm writing a research paper on Fluoride and I want to take a survey from as many people as I can from all over the US and Canada and anyone else. So here is the question.

Do you think the use of Fluoride in city drinking water is beneficial or detrimental to those that drink the city water and why do you think this way?


Thanks for your help everyone. Also if you have any books , articles, etc. available online please let me know.
 
Alright everyone, I need your help. I'm writing a research paper on Fluoride and I want to take a survey from as many people as I can from all over the US and Canada and anyone else. So here is the question.

Do you think the use of Fluoride in city drinking water is beneficial or detrimental to those that drink the city water and why do you think this way?


Thanks for your help everyone. Also if you have any books , articles, etc. available online please let me know.
1) Beneficial.

2) Because there are mountains and mountains of public health research over the past few decades that all unanimously agrees that public water fluoridation is one of the most beneficial and cost-effective public health measures ever implemented. It's all over the internet if you Google "water fluoridation public health".
 
1) Beneficial.

2) Because there are mountains and mountains of public health research over the past few decades that all unanimously agrees that public water fluoridation is one of the most beneficial and cost-effective public health measures ever implemented. It's all over the internet if you Google "water fluoridation public health".

There is also a lot of BS which tries to masquerade as solid science on the internet.
 
I'm not a dental student but I did ask the Dentist I shadow about this and he said it is definitely beneficial. He said that he did some work in San Antonio which does not have flouride in their water and the kids teeth there were horrible. He told me there was a huge difference between San Antonio, where there was no flouride, and Dallas where there is flouride in the water, and where he currently practices.
 
this is a poor survey. not very random and very biased
 
I am definately againist fluoride in the water, it causes the teeth to be stronger and get less cavities and that means less money for me. 😀
 
Have you seen low/no fluoride water counties' residents' teeth?
 
On an unrelated note, I had a pt tell me that they know someone who was trying to get pregnant for 15 years and she was only able to do so 3 weeks after having her amalgams taken out. It does sound funny, but at the same time stuff like that are scary. Go to U tube and and can find some wickedly twisted lies about the dangers of water flouridation.
 
Ask an older dentist who has been practicing since before fluoride was added to drinking water...they will tell, beneficial and then some

Just stay out of lubbuck texas though
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
water fluoridation is ridiculously unnecessary in countries where the vast majority of the population already brush their teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride.
 
water fluoridation is ridiculously unnecessary in countries where the vast majority of the population already brush their teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride.

Ridiculously huh...from all accounts I have heard and the majority of current research, you are way off.
 
Ridiculously huh...from all accounts I have heard and the majority of current research, you are way off.

I don't know what your talking about check, out all the research he has cited.
 
do you ppl always listen to what government agencies tell you?

WOW, top ten greatest public health accomplishments. kudos for the CDC for working you over with that line.

no one is paying you (?) to endorse water fluoridation with your life. i'd imagine us dentist hopefuls would be biased in favour of it because we want what's best for the health of our future patients and we've been led to faithfully, blindly believe in flouridation. im quite certain that you believed in fluoridation before you actually read some clown's work on it, cuz someone else said so and it made sense. i know i did. go pull out a wikipedia article on the issue at the very least and read something that isn't totally left or totally right and it begins to read like a conspiracy theory cuz it all seems inconclusive or contradictory. [note: im not a conspiracy theorist and if you don' tlike my wiki referencing you can go to hell]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy#cite_note-12
-----
An Exercise in Rhetoric

i found this website, check out http://www.fluorideworks.org/research/faq
here's an excellent example of how rhetoric, marketing, and all else deceitful can come under your scepticism radar and make you believe in just about anything. look at the color scheme, the visuals, the words on the website "parental", "community", "benefits"...i feel all warm and tingly inside and want to puke, and then believe in fluoridation as this wonder-drug that's safe, cheap, effective, etc etc etc. check out the doctor on the bottom to make this look legit. wow, im sold! a doctor! i bet he read a pamphlet listing how great fluoridation is.
------------------------

big pharma uses pretty ads like this all the time to make me think i have diseases that may or may not exist, need drugs i can't spell, or inform my friends and family about the latest issue in this or that so one of them can be stupid enough to ask their doctors about it. i hope fluoridation is not on the same level. no one apparent is profiting from dumping F(-), the second strongest Lewis base next to the hydride anion, into the water. ingesting strong nucleophiles in low quantities is safe they say. just like mercury.

that site is actually making me angry.
one of the FAQs asks if Fluoridation is banned in Europe and they say no. but that's a bit of technicality manipulation. if may not be BANNED but it is not practised in quite a few countries, such as sweden, germany, and netherlands. why is that? well that was my initial point to begin with: it is not necessary in developed lands as some countries have the sense to understand and the population hasn't been misinformed to love it.
another asks if fluoride is a toxic waste. Answer: of course not, its a 'byproduct'. guess what? my **** is a byproduct too, go eat it. this rhetoric makes me sick.

the government may be misinformed. if something like iraq intelligence got fudged up, at least keep the possibility of the net-benefit of water fluoridation being less stellar than claimed in question.

please do me a favour and don't reply to my post. just make whatever you want from it and maybe be a better person from it.

Happy Drinking.
 
do you ppl always listen to what government agencies tell you?

WOW, top ten greatest public health accomplishments. kudos for the CDC for working you over with that line.

no one is paying you (?) to endorse water fluoridation with your life. i'd imagine us dentist hopefuls would be biased in favour of it because we want what's best for the health of our future patients and we've been led to faithfully, blindly believe in flouridation. im quite certain that you believed in fluoridation before you actually read some clown's work on it, cuz someone else said so and it made sense. i know i did. go pull out a wikipedia article on the issue at the very least and read something that isn't totally left or totally right and it begins to read like a conspiracy theory cuz it all seems inconclusive or contradictory. [note: im not a conspiracy theorist and if you don' tlike my wiki referencing you can go to hell]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_fluoridation_controversy#cite_note-12
-----
An Exercise in Rhetoric

i found this website, check out http://www.fluorideworks.org/research/faq
here's an excellent example of how rhetoric, marketing, and all else deceitful can come under your scepticism radar and make you believe in just about anything. look at the color scheme, the visuals, the words on the website "parental", "community", "benefits"...i feel all warm and tingly inside and want to puke, and then believe in fluoridation as this wonder-drug that's safe, cheap, effective, etc etc etc. check out the doctor on the bottom to make this look legit. wow, im sold! a doctor! i bet he read a pamphlet listing how great fluoridation is.
------------------------

big pharma uses pretty ads like this all the time to make me think i have diseases that may or may not exist, need drugs i can't spell, or inform my friends and family about the latest issue in this or that so one of them can be stupid enough to ask their doctors about it. i hope fluoridation is not on the same level. no one apparent is profiting from dumping F(-), the second strongest Lewis base next to the hydride anion, into the water. ingesting strong nucleophiles in low quantities is safe they say. just like mercury.

that site is actually making me angry.
one of the FAQs asks if Fluoridation is banned in Europe and they say no. but that's a bit of technicality manipulation. if may not be BANNED but it is not practised in quite a few countries, such as sweden, germany, and netherlands. why is that? well that was my initial point to begin with: it is not necessary in developed lands as some countries have the sense to understand and the population hasn't been misinformed to love it.
another asks if fluoride is a toxic waste. Answer: of course not, its a 'byproduct'. guess what? my **** is a byproduct too, go eat it. this rhetoric makes me sick.

the government may be misinformed. if something like iraq intelligence got fudged up, at least keep the possibility of the net-benefit of water fluoridation being less stellar than claimed in question.

please do me a favour and don't reply to my post. just make whatever you want from it and maybe be a better person from it.

Happy Drinking.
Again, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion, but I'll stick with what the research says and continue recommending it to my patients.
 
do you ppl always listen to what government agencies tell you?


the government may be misinformed. if something like iraq intelligence got fudged up, at least keep the possibility of the net-benefit of water fluoridation being less stellar than claimed in question.

please do me a favour and don't reply to my post. just make whatever you want from it and maybe be a better person from it.

Happy Drinking.

WOW. Where do you start with this stellar argument. 😕

I think in order to have a proper conspiracy theory there has to be some kind of incentive typically financial. NEWS flash no one really makes any money fluoridating water, well not enough to justify poisoning millions of people. Fluoridation literally costs pennies per citizen in urban areas and maybe .25-.50 in moral remote communities. No one is getting rich strengthening enamel. GOOD LUCK
 
water fluoridation is ridiculously unnecessary in countries where the vast majority of the population already brush their teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride.

<sigh>. Water fluoridation is SYSTEMIC, using Fl toothpaste is TOPICAL (unless it is swallowed). Those have distinctly different benefits, especially depending on the age of the person.

Exposing the developing dentition to SYSTEMIC fluoride is extremely beneficial, and much more so than brushing with toothpaste.

You also cannot make a blanket statement such regarding people brushing their teeth with Fl toothpaste. How long are they brushing? How many times a day? That probably affects the uptake of the Fl ion, wouldn't you think? So perhaps brushing with Fl toothpaste is enough for those with fully developed dentition, but that brushing may be brushing 4x a day for 2 minutes each time. Very few are doing that.

I'm practicing in the middle of Long Island, NY, where the water is NOT fluoridated. I'm in the middle of the biggest caries $hitfest I've ever seen in my life. I don't go a single day without seeing multiple patients with ECC. I don't go 2-3 days without booking a patient for the OR.
 
To everyone that replied and has helped me find and put together more information for my research paper, THANK YOU. 👍
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
research would involve investigating both positions, not just accepting the one that's presented to you on a platter. has no one bothered to investigate an opposing view to water fluoridation? no research is immune to criticism, yet here no one seems interested.

i ask you future healthcare providers to please view the entertaining links presented below. i would like your opinions on them. make sure to see related links as well. i actually got more interested in this topic since finding this thread and it has only reaffirmed my opposition towards flouridation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8NLbRL860U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI5EY5kqiBU
 
research would involve investigating both positions, not just accepting the one that's presented to you on a platter. has no one bothered to investigate an opposing view to water fluoridation? no research is immune to criticism, yet here no one seems interested.

i ask you future healthcare providers to please view the entertaining links presented below. i would like your opinions on them. make sure to see related links as well. i actually got more interested in this topic since finding this thread and it has only reaffirmed my opposition towards flouridation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ys9q1cvKGk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8NLbRL860U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI5EY5kqiBU
Or, "who needs science when we we've got YouTube?"
 
Who cares about minor things like fluroide when dentists all over the country are placing deadly, deadly mercury into peoples bodies?
 
actually got more interested in this topic since finding this thread and it has only reaffirmed my opposition towards flouridation.

It is interesting that you are opposed to FLOURIDATION, but not to Flouride. As I stated before, topical Fl in toothpaste does not help the developing dentition. Systemic Fl is needed for this.

Are you opposed to Fl supplements?
 
Who cares about minor things like fluroide when dentists all over the country are placing deadly, deadly mercury into peoples bodies?

Because there is only one kind of mercury, and its bad.
 
i am opposed to fluoride supplements. my position is that Fl should not be ingested in any form as it is a toxin.


regarding systemic vs topical. this link provides a list of studies suggesting that systemic fluoride plays a limited role in preventing tooth decay.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/teeth/caries/topical-systemic.html#refs
can you fellas look into them please?

apparently fluorides also accumulate in the human pineal gland and anywhere else they can form the insoluable CaF2. goody.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/pineal/

its not as good as my beloved youtube links unfortunately. sorry for making you guys read.
 
an interesting history to fluoridation too.

source: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/10/prweb444513.htm
Fluoride as an additive has a dark past: it was first added to water in the Soviet Gulag (prison system) since it is a neurological poison and made political and other difficult prisoners complacent and therefore easier to manage. It was added to the water supplies of the Nazi death and slave labor camps for the same reason.

a neurotoxin...that explains everyones complacency.
 
i am opposed to fluoride supplements. my position is that Fl should not be ingested in any form as it is a toxin.

YEAH! Wouldn't want to use any toxins no matter what, like warfarin, digitalis or botulinum toxin! Or any other of the numerous vile biologic agents that can do physical harm at high doses, like antibiotics or tylenol! Did you hear about that lady in Sacramento that died from water poisoning?! BAN THIS DANGEROUS SUBSTANCE!!!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
water fluoridation is ridiculously unnecessary in countries where the vast majority of the population already brush their teeth with toothpaste containing fluoride.

What countries would that be? It sure as heck isn't the US. People are disgusting! 😀
 
I just found out about another deadly toxin--one we use in dentistry every day. Get the facts. Take a stand. Write your legislators. Get this poisonous chemical out of our daily lives.

http://www.dhmo.org/


this stuff looks pretty horrible.

just look at this:
  • DHMO contributes to global warming and the "Greenhouse Effect", and is one of the so-called "greenhouse gasses."
  • DHMO is an "enabling component" of acid rain -- in the absence of sufficient quantities of DHMO, acid rain is not a problem.
  • DHMO is a causative agent in most instances of soil erosion -- sufficiently high levels of DHMO exacerbate the negative effects of soil erosion.
  • DHMO is present in high levels nearly every creek, stream, pond, river, lake and reservoir in the U.S. and around the world.
  • Measurable levels of DHMO have been verified in ice samples taken from both the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps.
aphistis, can you get a petition together so that we, the future of the dental community, can make a firm stand against such a foil compound?
 
quite a sense of dogmatism. you yanks are rather naive. you're told the benefits of fluoridation to teeth and refuse to accept any possibility of health risks that it may accompany.

adverse effects from vaccines were denied for decades, with one dubious study after another. beloved yank news service ("cnn") for once made a rather assertive decision to high-light the autism-vaccine connection recently. this does not make me anti-vaccine. but there is a problem with how the vaccines are administered to infants. too much, too soon.

in an analogous case, fluoridation will eventually receive the same attention. while i accept that fluoride makes teeth more resistent to caries, it may be at the expense of your health elsewhere. the site i mentioned previously summarizes these concerns.

approach everything with an open mind and don't be so quick to dismiss things that run against everything you believed in.
 
I'll be quick to dismiss things that run against everything I believe in when there's a pile of statistically strong scientific evidence on my side of the line and a bunch of whacked out conspiracy freaks on your side.

All potential link between systemic fluoride and systemic illness have been, and are continually studied, reviewed, re-reviewed and scrutinized by hundreds of trained scientists. In decades of study, no significant link between systemic fluoride intake and any real, severe condition have been discovered. The only thing even coming close was an epidemiological link between fluoride intake and osteosarcoma, but the research is telling us that there's nothing there. Dental fluorosis is also an issue, but mainly an esthetic one.

You're quick to call us naive, but it's the responsibility of a conscientious practitioner to tailor their treatment and treatment recommendations to the most current understanding of science. Our professional organization, the CDC and all other known, legitimate medical organizations support that fluoridation is good science and good healthcare. If you disagree, either put on your academic hat,do some real research and start using valuable academic citations, or go the way of Dr. Larry Hanus and get your license stripped from you.

Good luck telling the clinical professors you refuse to use glass ionomer!
 
you didn't approach this with an open mind so you lose.

your strong evidence is in regards to what? benefit to teeth or absolute certainty to being harmless? i don't deny the former.
 
OMG!

I would like to note, that BOTH sides of the Fluoride debate were given EQUAL time in our classroom. We were given the information and told "YOU DECIDE"

That being said, as I delved deeper into Wolfram's highly credible, peer reviewed sources, I found MANY more interesting facts that the government has been putting on platters and misguiding us with. Please be sure to check out these other life changing articles and videos from YouTube and Wiki!!!!

Alien Photo Shoot Proof Of U.S. Government Coverup


Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster


Hey, I heard that crack cocaine cures cancer too!!!!

-C
 
you didn't approach this with an open mind so you lose.

your strong evidence is in regards to what? benefit to teeth or absolute certainty to being harmless? i don't deny the former.

I have a very open mind, open to science, research and significant statistics. Show me some of those and you might get a more favorable response than the ones you're getting. If they don't exist, then you're basically out of luck when you're talking to future and current health care professionals, doctors and scientists.

As to me losing, you still haven't addressed the responsibility of a health care provider to adhere to all the most current scientifically verified principles. What kind of person will you be to decide that decades of research are wrong
when you're counseling a patient?

your strong evidence is in regards to what? benefit to teeth or absolute certainty to being harmless? i don't deny the former.

There's no such thing as absolute certainty in science as you well know. All the best indications, research and investigation show that fluoride does no harm.
 
As to me losing, you still haven't addressed the responsibility of a health care provider to adhere to all the most current scientifically verified principles. What kind of person will you be to decide that decades of research are wrong
when you're counseling a patient?



There's no such thing as absolute certainty in science as you well know. All the best indications, research and investigation show that fluoride does no harm.

well armorshell, let me take ItsGavicC as an example. now this gentleman is currently practising so it's his professional obligation to be an expert on the topic. just like you, he has certainly reviewed the current scientifically verifed principles on the matter, or as it seems probably just listened to his elderly prof who last made up his mind on fluoride in the 60s.

<sigh>. Water fluoridation is SYSTEMIC, using Fl toothpaste is TOPICAL (unless it is swallowed). Those have distinctly different benefits, especially depending on the age of the person.

Exposing the developing dentition to SYSTEMIC fluoride is extremely beneficial, and much more so than brushing with toothpaste.

It is interesting that you are opposed to FLOURIDATION, but not to Flouride. As I stated before, topical Fl in toothpaste does not help the developing dentition. Systemic Fl is needed for this.

since we're listening to the CDC according to aphistis, please allow me to quote them.

source: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4841a1.htm (CDC, 1999, MMWR 48: 933-940)
Fluoride's caries-preventive properties initially were attributed to changes in enamel during tooth development because of the association between fluoride and cosmetic changes in enamel and a belief that fluoride incorporated into enamel during tooth development would result in a more acid-resistant mineral. However, laboratory and epidemiologic research suggests that fluoride prevents dental caries predominately after eruption of the tooth into the mouth, and its actions primarily are topical for both adults and children (1). These mechanisms include 1) inhibition of demineralization, 2) enhancement of remineralization, and 3) inhibition of bacterial activity in dental plaque (1).

since you have not corrected ItsGavinC, armorshell, i am to presume that i) you two are cronies or ii) that neither of you are versed in current studies on fluoridation. so what kind of person am i to decide decades of research are wrong? possibly an up-to-date person who actually gives a damn. how about joining me?
 
Or the more astute assumption that I didn't bother to read the whole thread and skipped straight to what was the last post at the time.

All benefits attributed to water fluoridation (or most at least) are due to the topical action of the fluoridated water. This is what's being taught in any evidence-based class on cariology, or at least should be. Feel free to climb down off your high horse, and if I were you I'd be wary about claiming such expert knowledge on fluoride in a forum full of dental professionals,especially when the majority of your sources are hobunk and snake oil.

Plus, who are you to cite the CDC? I thought they were in the pocket of all the black helicopter piloting moon landing fakers?

Also, you've still neglected to address how you'll rationalize this distaste for modern scientific methodology and the practice of medicine. Stop trying to change the subject and inform all the readers why you're unproven, uninvestigated theories are more valid than decades of research.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Okay.... You wanna play ball?

I don't care what you say, In the US Fluoride has been a huge success, however when considering how you approach your patients, you should "use fluoride therapy ONLY when you are aware of your pts. TOTAL fluoride intake". Why? Because as Wolfram has stated, there are other sources of F outside of drinking water these days. That being said, let's look at some real literature, outside of the CDC, YouTube, and Wikipedia....

"Fluoride has played a significant role in the improvement of the oral health of all Americans. Because of its effectiveness, cost and frequency of exposure, water fluoridation is the preferred method of delivery."
N Y State Dent J. 1998 Feb;64(2):40-7.

"The use of fluoride in water, professional topical applications, and dentifrices has resulted in a pronounced decline in dental caries."
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2000 Oct;21(10A):862-7; quiz 868.

"With the availability of fluoridation and other forms of fluorides, dental caries have declined dramatically in the United States"
Dent Clin North Am. 2008 Apr;52(2):387-401.

"Community water fluoridation was associated with reduced total and restorative costs among members with one or more visits"
J Public Health Dent. 2007 Fall;67(4):224-33.

AND MY PERSONAL FAVORITES!!!!!!!


"Water fluoridation opponents employ multiple techniques to try and undermine the scientifically established effectiveness of water fluoridation. The materials they use are often based on Internet resources or published books that present a highly misleading picture of water fluoridation.


These materials are used to sway public and political opinion to the detriment of public health.

Despite an extensive body of literature, both studies and results within studies are often selectively reported, giving a biased portrayal of water fluoridation effectiveness.

Positive findings are downplayed or trivialised and the population implications of these findings misinterpreted. Ecological comparisons are sometimes used to support spurious conclusions.

Opponents of water fluoridation frequently repeat that water fluoridation is associated with adverse health effects and studies are selectively picked from the extensive literature to convey only claimed adverse findings related to water fluoridation.

Techniques such as "the big lie" and innuendo are used to associate water fluoridation with health and environmental disasters, without factual support. Half-truths are presented, fallacious statements reiterated, and attempts are made to bamboozle the public with a large list of claims and quotes often with little scientific basis.

Ultimately, attempts are made to discredit and slander scientists and various health organisations that support water fluoridation."

All of the Above from Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2007 Dec 9;4:25

Put that in your pipe and smoke it,
-C
 
its 3:30am local time. i'd rather admit incompetance than systematically try to justify my arguments, which would only be digging deeper in shiesse around here.
i think we are getting side-tracked and i got carried away with a lot of this. i'll keep personal opinions on potential toxicity of fluoride to myself.

armorshell, i think we agree that the primary effectiveness of fluoride is from topical action. this seems to imply that water flouridation is unnecessary and fluoride supplements ineffective.
 
armorshell, i think we agree that the primary effectiveness of fluoride is from topical action. this seems to imply that water flouridation is unnecessary and fluoride supplements ineffective.

Are you cheesing me? Saying that would be ignoring further decades of epidemiological data that tells us water fluoridation has decreased the amount of active caries by a ridiculous amount.

Even though the action is topical, people tend to ingest quite a bit of water over the course of a day. Usually that water is passing over or around the teeth, unless said person is way into colonic therapy.
 
...and saying that would be ignoring the equal reductions in caries in european countries that did not fluoridate or stopped decades ago.

who-dmft.gif


the whole point to fluoridating water was based on the now debunked idea that fluoridation was most effective thru systemic means.
 
<sigh>

I'm practicing in the middle of Long Island, NY, where the water is NOT fluoridated. I'm in the middle of the biggest caries $hitfest I've ever seen in my life. I don't go a single day without seeing multiple patients with ECC. I don't go 2-3 days without booking a patient for the OR.

Actually, the same scenario is played out in fluoridated areas, as well. See: http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com

And your information is anecdotal. According to New York State Department of Health statistics, fluoridation has not leveled out tooth decay between highly fluoridated and lesser fluoridation NYS Counties. Fluoridation also has not leveled out tooth decay between haves and have nots in New York State.

See: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm
chart.htm
chart.htm
 
Actually, the same scenario is played out in fluoridated areas, as well. See: http://www.FluorideNews.blogspot.com

And your information is anecdotal. According to New York State Department of Health statistics, fluoridation has not leveled out tooth decay between highly fluoridated and lesser fluoridation NYS Counties. Fluoridation also has not leveled out tooth decay between haves and have nots in New York State.

See: http://www.freewebs.com/fluoridation/chart.htm
chart.htm
chart.htm
For what must be the hundredth time: unless you can come up with a convincing argument as to why this single datum is more authoritative than decades of research by the CDC, the FDA, and the WHO, your argument is dead on arrival. See also: "cherry picking" and "fallacy of anecdotal evidence."
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom