Aprophis wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 5:30 pm

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 2:27 am It's not an assumption.

Yes, it is. Improvement isn't proof for calcification. Because
a) it doesn't work that fast and
b) It might affect you but that doesn't mean you were calcified. It just means that Iodine has some impact on you. (And can help with thyroid problems too unless you overdose)
and c) Ever heard of the placebo effect? Belief is a powerful force.

Again, if you don't open up your skull and look at it, you won't know if it's calcified or not. It's basically schroedinger's pineal gland. And what you call proof would neither hold up in court nor in science.
The only thing you know is that iodine has some effect on you.

a) Bodies vary. Some bodies work stuff faster than others and I have a very unique body chemistry. There are some people on this planet that drugs and other mind and body altering substances have little to no effect on. Like Ozzy Osbourne. Poor guy can't even get knocked out by aesthetic. And FYI ten days at 0.5 ML day isn't even fast and it's now twelve days. Things seem to just get better and better. Most people have told me that it usually takes a month for it to work fully and I am not even halfway there yet.
b) The fact that it introduced sensations within me that I never felt before, say otherwise. The fact that you graciously ignore even though practically spelled it out for you, that the beats effected me at the center of my brain. I have tried these same binaurals before and as I said before aside from sheer accident, they never directly worked on me before. Nor did I ever feel anything physical from them until my session with the iodine. You don't need to crack your skull open to know the difference between the centre of your brain making a pulse or not. Does the iodine have other effects on me. Yes it does. I looked up the health benefits and compared them to my own health, but I'm not talking about Thyroid therapy or the relief of bloating. Heck I'm not even talking about the article I recently read where this stuff can kill the Covid-19 bacteria within 15 seconds. I am however talking about how it's effecting my brain. So stick to the subject and stop derailing.
c) Three things wrong with this one. One, I never expected it to work this fast. I assumed it'd would at least take a month for me to feel any results. Two, you're dismissing it as placebo effect on a forum that sells spirits and spells. Three, I do agree that belief is a powerful thing, but if you really think so, then why are you trying to destroy what you feel is my belief? It's not only very discouraging, but also extremely offensive.

No one is asking anyone to go to court over this all I been doing was sharing my experiences.

Alys-RaccoonReadings wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 9:50 pm I agree with Aprophis. And I have seen an awful lot of terrifying tooth decay and oral infection in little kids whose parents eschew fluoride on their behalf. And oral infection is a particularly dangerous risk to take on for a concept that doesn’t have rigorous study and evidence backing it up.

Two things. 1. I am only adding iodine in my diet, I have never changed anything else on it. I never stopped using fluoride toothpaste. Nor am reducing the amount of tap water I drink on a daily basis. I am doing it this way because I believe that with the right retooling that you can simply be able to expose yourself to fluoride and enjoy the benefits it gives you, without it latching on to your brain like other chemicals and metals we have in our system and simply adding this to the mix is one of those ways. That being said, Fluoride is a lot more dangerous than you realize. Much like animals, we had stronger teeth before fluoride dental care was even invented. And while Flouride did keep our teeth strong and white, much like over tempering a blade, it made them more brittle and vulnerable to breaks. Cleaner teeth have been knocked out faster than dirtier ones in a fight.
2. I am doing this because I am willing to risk my body and life to prove that it works and if it does which it seems to do so far, I will reap the benefits of it.

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:23 pm b) The fact that it introduced sensations within me that I never felt before, say otherwise. The fact that you graciously ignore even though practically spelled it out for you, that the beats effected me at the center of my brain.

Still doesn't prove calcification or non-calcification. It just proves that it has a beneficial effect.
You can't even really talk about any physical impact on your body, just about your perception of it's effects.
Also we're still talking about pineal gland and fluoride so I'm not really derailing anything. I could tell you to stop strawmanning.
(Also the pineal gland isn't really in the center of the brain and it's like, really tiny. I mean seriously really tiny)

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:23 pm c) Three things wrong with this one. One, I never expected it to work this fast. I assumed it'd would at least take a month for me to feel any results. Two, you're dismissing it as placebo effect on a forum that sells spirits and spells. Three, I do agree that belief is a powerful thing, but if you really think so, then why are you trying to destroy what you feel is my belief? It's not only very discouraging, but also extremely offensive.

But you might have hoped it would work as fast as possible.

Also what does the placebo effect have to do anything with the forum? The effect is still a real thing with real impact.

I'm not trying to destroy your belief. I'm just clarifying that you have no idea what's really physically going on with your pineal gland unless you actually take a physical look into your physical brain.

I'm not telling you what to do or not to do, I frankly don't care. What I do care about is claims of what's going on physically in your brain without an MRI, X-Ray or anything.
You can only observe it's effects, nothing more and nothing less

Another thing about this whole calcification hoax/fad, is that theres no logic in it. If a part of your brain (which believe it or not actually has an important job to play and not just a "new age" obsession) has any kind of damage to it, you'd very clearly notice those effects, even if they were subtle like a tumor.

That's aside from the point that your brain will not just start to crystallize randomly because you ingested a very minor amount of a specific mineral. The two don't honestly add up.

This is one of the reasons why people need to really think about the information they are receiving instead of just blindly believing it.

Kitsune wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:37 am Another thing about this whole calcification hoax/fad, is that theres no logic in it. If a part of your brain (which believe it or not actually has an important job to play and not just a "new age" obsession) has any kind of damage to it, you'd very clearly notice those effects, even if they were subtle like a tumor.

That's aside from the point that your brain will not just start to crystallize randomly because you ingested a very minor amount of a specific mineral. The two don't honestly add up.

This is one of the reasons why people need to really think about the information they are receiving instead of just blindly believing it.

Yup.

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:23 pm Much like animals, we had stronger teeth before fluoride dental care was even invented. And while Flouride did keep our teeth strong and white, much like over tempering a blade, it made them more brittle and vulnerable to breaks. Cleaner teeth have been knocked out faster than dirtier ones in a fight.
2. I am doing this because I am willing to risk my body and life to prove that it works and if it does which it seems to do so far, I will reap the benefits of it.

It is absolutely up to you to take your own risks and experiment on yourself. I am glad you are using fluoride. However, your fascinating and bizarre reduction of the history of dental health shows the limits of such experiments outside of solid scientific principles and expertise and why we should be super careful about making or following fringe medical claims. And what I'm about to type is not aimed at you per se, Ace, so much as it's aimed at anyone weighing the claims in this thread.

It'd be more accurate to say that our teeth were less prone to decay before agriculture was developed--although some argue about this. The fossil record is not inconsistent with the association, although it may be interpreted as uneven. Even Australopithecus specimens have shown up with dental caries, and dental texts date to before 5000 BCE (https://theconversation.com/human-ances ... eets-92546; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentistry). It may be more accurate to suggest that less arduous chewing conditions led to the prevalence of tooth decay and orthodontic disorders prevalent in modern man (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... our-teeth/). Either way, an uptick in tooth decay predates fluoridation by a good bit--just ask Elizabeth I (https://www.zmescience.com/other/featur ... r-england/).

Additionally, the cultivation of sugar cane in the 11th century CE led to an uptick in the number of reported cavities, early cultures with higher honey consumption had more tooth decay (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... our-teeth/), and the Industrial Revolution with its food processing and refined sucrose is more straightforwardly associated with a very broad decline in dental health in affected societies. Modern dentistry developed between 1650 CE and 1800 CE.

No matter which of the above well-supported/-documented probable causes argued among scientists, all of them predate fluoridation. Fluoride research began in the early 1900s. It'd be some Weston Price Foundation (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-we ... ng-legacy/) nonsense to suggest that on a general basis on the scientific and historical record dental health was better before modern dentistry or fluoridation. (Because we cannot conflate brittleness with overall health--it is but one aspect and as an independent metric/goal/characteristic does you little good in the face of rampant decay since otherwise relatively strong but thin, progressively-diminishing swiss cheese is still thin, progressively-diminishing swiss cheese.)

Furthermore, I cannot find any rigorous and plentiful data on brittleness that well supports the idea cleanliness contributes to it. As Aprophis noted, correlation does not equal causation, and really a Google search on cleanliness and brittleness turned up absolutely nothing and honestly should if such data is credible, rigorous, and plentiful. Brittleness has more to do with tufts in the structure of tooth enamel, and these are formed during fetal development (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 080952.htm).

Aprophis wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:15 am

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:23 pm b) The fact that it introduced sensations within me that I never felt before, say otherwise. The fact that you graciously ignore even though practically spelled it out for you, that the beats effected me at the center of my brain.

Still doesn't prove calcification or non-calcification. It just proves that it has a beneficial effect.
You can't even really talk about any physical impact on your body, just about your perception of it's effects.
Also we're still talking about pineal gland and fluoride so I'm not really derailing anything. I could tell you to stop strawmanning.
(Also the pineal gland isn't really in the center of the brain and it's like, really tiny. I mean seriously really tiny)

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:23 pm c) Three things wrong with this one. One, I never expected it to work this fast. I assumed it'd would at least take a month for me to feel any results. Two, you're dismissing it as placebo effect on a forum that sells spirits and spells. Three, I do agree that belief is a powerful thing, but if you really think so, then why are you trying to destroy what you feel is my belief? It's not only very discouraging, but also extremely offensive.

But you might have hoped it would work as fast as possible.

Also what does the placebo effect have to do anything with the forum? The effect is still a real thing with real impact.

I'm not trying to destroy your belief. I'm just clarifying that you have no idea what's really physically going on with your pineal gland unless you actually take a physical look into your physical brain.

I'm not telling you what to do or not to do, I frankly don't care. What I do care about is claims of what's going on physically in your brain without an MRI, X-Ray or anything.
You can only observe it's effects, nothing more and nothing less

I'm not dismissing placebo effect as false. And what it has to do with forum is simple. There are people who believe that these spirits exist within the vessels being sold here. The fact that you dismiss one thing extraordinary being mentioned on this forum as such an effect gives the impression that you also dismiss everything else mentioned on this forum and the shop that sells it as superstitious nonsense and it really makes me question why you're here. Not to mention said notion that drew my ire in the first place. You say belief is a powerful thing and let's say for arguments sake you're right and my belief that Iodine works is what's causing it to work. You're purposefully casting doubt on me, which in turn runs risk of me doubting myself which in turn nullifies the effect. If that were the case. By telling me this doesn't work, but then insisting Placebo effect is a thing. If anyone else were reading this and took in every word of it, they'd be thrown in a mental paradoxical spiral that constantly shifts between belief and disbelief. Which gives them the mental equivalent to a blue screen of death.

I'm strawmanning? You're the one who insists I don't know what's going on in my own body. If anyone's strawmanning it's you. Sorry but it seems clear you only care more about telling people how much they are wrong about themselves. I take it you never heard of the sense of touch. As in one of the key components of the nervous system. It doesn't just apply to limbs and appendages or anything external for that matter. With practice you can physically feel what's going on inside any part of your body. Inlcuding the brain. It's the brain itself that regulates that sense all over the body. I can feel everything in there from the pumping of the major arteries to nearly every nerve firing and up until I started doing this I never felt a single thing in the center of my brain, splitting headaches aside. The only thing you accomplished on me was making me feel miserable about something I believed I was improving on. So I refuse to speak to you anymore on this.

Alys-RaccoonReadings wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:41 am

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:23 pm Much like animals, we had stronger teeth before fluoride dental care was even invented. And while Flouride did keep our teeth strong and white, much like over tempering a blade, it made them more brittle and vulnerable to breaks. Cleaner teeth have been knocked out faster than dirtier ones in a fight.
2. I am doing this because I am willing to risk my body and life to prove that it works and if it does which it seems to do so far, I will reap the benefits of it.

It is absolutely up to you to take your own risks and experiment on yourself. I am glad you are using fluoride. However, your fascinating and bizarre reduction of the history of dental health shows the limits of such experiments outside of solid scientific principles and expertise and why we should be super careful about making or following fringe medical claims. And what I'm about to type is not aimed at you per se, Ace, so much as it's aimed at anyone weighing the claims in this thread.

It'd be more accurate to say that our teeth were less prone to decay before agriculture was developed--although some argue about this. The fossil record is not inconsistent with the association, although it may be interpreted as uneven. Even Australopithecus specimens have shown up with dental caries, and dental texts date to before 5000 BCE (https://theconversation.com/human-ances ... eets-92546; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dentistry). It may be more accurate to suggest that less arduous chewing conditions led to the prevalence of tooth decay and orthodontic disorders prevalent in modern man (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... our-teeth/). Either way, an uptick in tooth decay predates fluoridation by a good bit--just ask Elizabeth I (https://www.zmescience.com/other/featur ... r-england/).

Additionally, the cultivation of sugar cane in the 11th century CE led to an uptick in the number of reported cavities, early cultures with higher honey consumption had more tooth decay (https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... our-teeth/), and the Industrial Revolution with its food processing and refined sucrose is more straightforwardly associated with a very broad decline in dental health in affected societies. Modern dentistry developed between 1650 CE and 1800 CE.

No matter which of the above well-supported/-documented probable causes argued among scientists, all of them predate fluoridation. Fluoride research began in the early 1900s. It'd be some Weston Price Foundation (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/sbm-we ... ng-legacy/) nonsense to suggest that on a general basis on the scientific and historical record dental health was better before modern dentistry or fluoridation. (Because we cannot conflate brittleness with overall health--it is but one aspect and as an independent metric/goal/characteristic does you little good in the face of rampant decay since otherwise relatively strong but thin, progressively-diminishing swiss cheese is still thin, progressively-diminishing swiss cheese.)

Furthermore, I cannot find any rigorous and plentiful data on brittleness that well supports the idea cleanliness contributes to it. As Aprophis noted, correlation does not equal causation, and really a Google search on cleanliness and brittleness turned up absolutely nothing and honestly should if such data is credible, rigorous, and plentiful. Brittleness has more to do with tufts in the structure of tooth enamel, and these are formed during fetal development (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 080952.htm).

Here's the thing though. While changes in food conditions may have played a part in it, you neglect a few things. For starters ever since fluoride was first discovered, we as a species have had been mutated by it amongst other foreign substances on a cellular level due to over a century and a half of introducing it the others to our system. In essence ruining our species' natural evolution by introducing and synthetic evolution in it's place. The first people that tried it and encouraged others to do the same, grew another generation, which created another and so on. Up to this year that's 134 years of defects both minor and major as a result of the stuff we were doing to our bodies by incorporating fluoride in us from our teeth care to our waters.

https://www.healthline.com/health/what- ... de-effects
Look at the side effects.
Dental and Skeletal Flurosis: The result of consuming too much fluoride. Causing white spots and in the case of your skeleton, joint stiffness and pain. As well as altering bone structures and calcification of ligaments. Pretty much removing the human's natural flexability over the years. Common in Africa and Asia, Rare in North America, but you can get the same result from swallowing toothpaste over the years.
And then look at the more debated ones.
Low IQ
Bone Cancer
Arthritis
Kidney Disease
The claims may be mixed, but that doesn't always mean wrong.
With the exception of Kidney Disease and Low IQ, most of these effects are often centred around the bones and things connected to them. Such as Cartridge and ligaments. The same thing that's supposed to be protecting our teeth has been for the past 134 years eating away at generation upon generation of our bodies. Like every other thing science has screwed people over with, the people that discovered this were so focused on what they could, they never stopped and think if they should. If this stuff kills you, you're lucky.

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:24 am I'm not dismissing placebo effect as false. And what it has to do with forum is simple. There are people who believe that these spirits exist within the vessels being sold here. The fact that you dismiss one thing extraordinary being mentioned on this forum as such an effect gives the impression that you also dismiss everything else mentioned on this forum and the shop that sells it as superstitious nonsense and it really makes me question why you're here.

That's simple, I'm here because I want to be.
I don't dismiss the shop and what they're doing. I might dismiss some outrageous things people might write though.
Also I didn't dismiss your improvements, I dismissed your claim about the calcified/uncalcified state of your pineal gland.

I've had my shares of extraordinary experiences and I'm still questioning my own sanity. That doesn't mean I don't believe in the metaphysical, it just means I'm cautious and for good reason. I've already posted about my experiences with delusional episodes.

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:24 am You say belief is a powerful thing and let's say for arguments sake you're right and my belief that Iodine works is what's causing it to work.

Again I wasn't casting doubt on your experiences with iodine and that it works for you.
For all I know you could have had a thyroid problem that iodine now fixes that caused all manner of problems to you.
What I'm casting reasonable doubt upon is you knowing in what physical state your pineal gland is.

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:24 am You're the one who insists I don't know what's going on in my own body. If anyone's strawmanning it's you.

People feel all manner of things in their bodies. That doesn't make them know what's actually going on.
How many heart attacks are discarded as simple heart burn and vice versa?
How many headaches can actually be strokes.
There's a lot of things going on in our body we're not conscious of and without medial knowledge and medical tools we can only assume what's really happening.

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:24 am The only thing you accomplished on me was making me feel miserable about something I believed I was improving on. So I refuse to speak to you anymore on this.

And again I wasn't questioning your improvement. You obviously improved some things.
I was questioning your statements about the state of your pineal gland.

But yeah, let's end this. We're basically talking about two different things now, apparently, and you feel personally attacked which won't make anything better.

This part is problematic:

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Thu Nov 12, 2020 11:23 pm Two, you're dismissing it as placebo effect on a forum that sells spirits and spells.

1. The forum doesn't sell. The forum doesn't facilitate any transaction. Forum members who are sellers can advertise in the forum, but saying that it means the forum sells is like saying a tv channel sells burgers because you saw McDonalds ads there. This includes CH as they have webstore separated from this forum.

2. The thing being sold is the bindings, not the spirits/spells. Don't make it sound like a pet shop, or worse, a slavery.

3. If you follow the forum, you'd see many instances in which members recommend those with physical and/or mental health problem to also consult with medical and/or mental health practitioners. It is irresponsible (and illegal in certain jurisdiction) to claim that the paranormal can replace health treatment to cure diseases, without proper evidence that has been approved by health department etc.

AceOfSpades wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:24 am For starters ever since fluoride was first discovered, we as a species have had been mutated by it amongst other foreign substances on a cellular level due to over a century and a half of introducing it the others to our system. In essence ruining our species' natural evolution by introducing and synthetic evolution in it's place. The first people that tried it and encouraged others to do the same, grew another generation, which created another and so on. Up to this year that's 134 years of defects both minor and major as a result of the stuff we were doing to our bodies by incorporating fluoride in us from our teeth care to our waters[....]

The claims may be mixed, but that doesn't always mean wrong.

(1) That's pretty much the name of the game for human evolution since we became tool-users. If qualified, expert biologists make a distinction between artificial and natural evolution in humans, I imagine involves some rather complicated criteria that we are unlikely to be able to wield with similar comprehension and skill.
(2) It doesn't mean wrong. It means there needs to be more evidence. From your own link:

There’s no evidence that fluoride added to local water supplies in the United States causes any health problems, aside from the occasional mild case of dental fluorosis[....]

Studies looking at the link between fluoride and low IQ scores in children also have mixed results. A 2012 review of existing research concluded that there may be a link between the two, but noted that more large, high-quality studies are needed.

(3) The way you pulled sections from the article you linked to is a bit disingenuous. It explains WHY fluorosis is more common in Africa (where there's naturally-occurring fluoride that contaminates the water supply) than in North America (where the amount of fluoride is calibrated and cannot exceed a legal/regulatory maximum.) You also listed some examples in ways that suggest that "low IQ scores in children, bone cancer, arthritis, kidney disease" are among credibly debated outcomes of municipal water fluoridation. However, the article says "some people claim that fluoridated water causes a variety of health problems, including low IQ scores in children, bone cancer, arthritis, kidney disease." It's important to note that the article did NOT say "some biologists," "some highly regarded experts in the relevant field," or anything like that. It said, "some people." Literally, if you and I said that a thing was true? That's "some people" claiming it's true. And the single link that the article listed on the "pro" column on this said that it might be "linked" to higher incidences of bone cancer in males--meaning correlated. So, once again, we come back to correlation not being equivalent to causation.


All of this is to point out that laypeople are in no position to safely rely on other laypeople's advice on medical matters. Which is exactly the point many of us make on this forum repeatedly. It's a risky business, and it involves more than your metaphysical journey. We should be very, very circumspect about offering what ultimately amounts to medical advice to others or drawing conclusions about health measures when those conclusions deviate from credible expert consensus using solid principles of science and critical thought.