Luc Turpin

Please see diagram Or video https://nutritionfacts.org/video/antibacterial-toothpaste-harmful-helpful-or-harmless/ As for health benefits, here is a study of many on the topic with significant results. The study also showed that people who consume moderate to high amounts of nitrate-rich vegetables showed these specific benefits: A 15% lower risk of heart failure A 12% lower risk of heart disease A 17% lower risk of stroke https://www.verywellhealth.com/nitrates-5218792#:~:text=Benefits of Nitrates&text=5 The study also showed,17% lower risk of stroke A good read on all matters related to health is "How not to Age" by Michael Gregger - 13,000 references You were correct On the first part, but not on the second part

Regular use of a mouthwash is not recommended as it will also kill off the good bacteria on your tongue that are needed to metabolize nitrates from nitrate-rich vegetables (e.g. green vegetable). Nitrates are beneficial to the cardiovascular system as they dilate arteries and improve blood circulation. Athletes use beet juice nitrate boosters to enhance aerobic capacity. If they gargle with mouthwash, they lose the edge. Video: (just click anywhere on the page if you do not wish to subscribe, but want to see the video) https://nutritionfacts.org/video/antibacterial-toothpaste-harmful-helpful-or-harmless/ References: 1- Bondonno CP, Liu AH, Croft KD, et al. “Antibacterial mouthwash blunts oral nitrate reduction and increase blood pressure in treated hypertensive men and women”, AM J Hypertens. 2015;28(5)-5. 2- Rosier BT, Buetas E, Moya-Gonzalvez EM, Artacho A. Mira A. “Nitrate as a potential prebiotic for the oral microbiome. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):12895.

Still vague, even for me!

Agree to the first part and will work on my definition of spirituality.

Spirituality as in a need to be good-moral, not necessarily religious with God. My spirituality light, as stated earlier, "simply implies sacredly offering back our atoms and molecules to the universe upon passing away". Its to resist our evil nature as best as possible. Also, I find it personally supernatural that all of this (our universe) has been made possible through a single random quantum fluctuation. Maybe there is a force out there that puts it all together. I contend that it may be consciousness, but there is only circumstantial evidence at this time pointing in that direction.

Thank you for the precision!

God did not write the bible, humans did! Spirituality "light" avoids all of these religious pitfalls. Its a mannequin without a dress up!

Maybe something, maybe nothing! Agree!

Not meant as a personal attack. Wanted to point out that maybe you are just intolerant of intolerant religions, and could be convinced of being tolerant of tolerant religions

A goodless society can be as evil as a god loving society! Not all religions or adepts of religion are intolerant. You seem to be against parts of religion, but throwing the baby with the bath water.

Light spirituality causing only small traffic jams. From a random quantum fluctuation to "a bit of a human brain the size of half a grain of rice: 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses"- what a ride! Maybe the studies showing that it's all my fault are not entirely correct.

I will not shy away from taking a stance. A worldview of holism, idealism and spirituality “even if it only implies sacredly offering back our atoms and molecules to the universe upon passing away” – as indicated in a recent post. Mechanistic-materialism is part of reality, but not its fundamental essence. Both God and Godless extremists exist, with each often having devastating effects on humanity.

Relishing in awe every moment of it 😊 Not really sure that matter/energy really put a spanner in the works. Right ho! on living for the moment.

All from Nothing and All for Nothing! In a bit of a human brain the size of half a grain of rice; 57,000 cells, 150 million synapses and 23 centimeters of blood vessels. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/biological-puzzles-human-brain-visual “Webb’s image covers a patch of sky approximately the size of a grain of sand held at arm’s length by someone on the ground – and reveals thousands of galaxies in a tiny sliver of vast universe” NASA’s Webb Delivers Deepest Infrared Image of Universe Yet - NASA All of this from atoms and molecules randomly colliding with one another and for the ephemeral purpose of survival of the genetically fittest. Wasted matter, energy, order and complexity at the grandest of scale. But why am I even aware of all of this? _____________________________________________________________________________________ An Eclectic Look at Serotonin, God and Machines Note: originally destined for the “Serotonin” topic in the psychiatry and psychology section, but diverging too much from the thread’s main subject matter. How many have unnecessarily suffered from psychiatry pursuing a dogmatic serotonin approach to depression. The notion of a genetic defect being compensated by a molecule did not come about solely on account of evidence, but also, I contend, as a way of promulgating a mechanistic worldview. Other explanatory models of depression existed at the time, but a genetic-serotonin model fitted best with a mechanistic worldview. It was also very profitable. But this is only the tip of the iceberg. How many times during our recent history have we unleashed the powers of a godless machine worldview to devastating effect on unsuspecting populations. One only has to think of communism (Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Stalin) as examples of this view wreaking havoc onto the world. Or how about Hitler’s anti-communist, but scientifically “proven” supremacy of the Aryan race. All the while, materialistic capitalism without a soul was faring no much better with its exploited masses (think Guatemalans picking fruits and vegetables under a brutal sun and a cloud of pesticides). Or still yet Neo-Darwinism with its diminutive role of humanity predicated upon “unassailable” original “truths” for which some are now being brought back into question. There is also more to the story than originally thought. Again, has anyone ever asked how negatively the theory, in its original form, had impacted the world? Rather than pause and think, things just moved along without a mere mention of consequences. Adding to this, everything is still being deducted away and reduced down to fundamentals without reference to context. With all of this said, those clamouring for religion as being the scourge of the earth suffer from a severe state of advanced selective amnesia. Let spirituality rule our inner world even if it only implies sacredly offering back our atoms and molecules to the universe upon passing away. The world leaving us behind will be better off then.

Then this disqualifies me from participation in this forum.

Good point! Did not get what Dawkins din't get I think that I got close to the line with my statement about "you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong". I think that CharronY and Phi for All did not like that one. But, my weak excuse is that I was getting exasperated at the null effect that I was having on the conversation. The fault is mine. I listen to these fine people, because they know more than I, but the point is: how can I present a different perspective without toppling the apple cart? I thought that this was also part of science. I'd hate to be banned and hope that they will tolerate my excentric ways. Thanks for the guidance my friend.

1- Then this is not my defintion of pop-science. 2- Because the new one fit better with the evidence; it extends our knowledge. brain producing mind or brain as a transducer is very similar with only subtle data making the difference. Brain as a transducer is not being taken seriously because of bias and different worldview. Note: not saying that brain is a transducer, but the pathway to it being recognized is not the same as any other theory fiting the worldview

That is exactly what I was implying. It felt as if I was going nowhere with the discussion. No stawman argument nor temper tantum needed. Pop-science in not Michio Kaku, nor Star treck, but science studies that are made available for public viewing. That sounds reasonable. Hope that all new results are treated in the same way. This is not the interpretation of others. If I am reading the second sentence correctly, I am not implying anything; surely not that current subatomic models are getting it wrong. General - I do not even come close to Swansont, Phi for all or CharonY when it comes to the minutia of science. I am a generalist overlooking up high the entire field of science and just maybe-maybe seeing things from my vantage point that others might miss. No grand theory of everything, but tidbits that may make a difference. One can take some of it and consider it or just ignore it. But, I insist in repeating that bias is more of a problem than what is implied. Bias is pernicious; it works at the sub-conscious level.

I reiterate, you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias nor worldview involved in science. Continue on.

Then you are entirely right and I am entirely wrong. There is no bias in science.

Pop-science journalism is an extension of science and promulgating basically the conclusions of science. I persist in saying that there is a prevailing negative undertone in science. As if we are still hung up on what religion entailed for society as a whole in the past. As if the counter revolution never stopped. The mere mention of religion or god gets everyone riled up. Science as in evidence versus the scientific community as in scientists interpreting the meaning of the evidence Classical physics was replaced by quantum physics not because it was wrong, but because it was insufficient at describing the subatomic world. I am not the one saying that evolutionary biology needs to change, Denis Noble is. As for the mind-brain model, I am not saying that the current model is wrong, but incomplete. One should stop saying that I want to overthrow all of science. This is not the case. But I am also saying that a mental predisposition to a certain worldview is skewing up the way we interpret evidence. I would be very surprised that biologists were not influenced by Dawkins, but you have a better understanding of this than I. Also, non-biologists are taking these cues from biologists to reinforce their assumptions. Then non-biologists form their own assumptions, which influences biologists; unless you are trying to tell me that biologists are un influençable! We are all biased and these biasses permeate all of our being. It’s what we call an echo chamber. We are not impervious to this So if the conversation that we are having would not have occurred, would you be acknowledging that the larger context is missing or that you would be aware of the undertone that prevails? We are not as objective as we would like to think we are and the world surrounding us might not even be as objective as we think it is. The only thing that I am trying to say here is that we all forget out of habit that we carry a lot of baggage with us when we do and interpret science. Affirming that science is pure, is fooling ourselves.

In the scientific literature that I read, there is a strong nature undertone. So, not only in popular science. The Dawkins impact on mainstream biology could have been rather muted, but his impact on the science community as whole was significant.

I am not talking about inheritance for now. I am talking about the prevalent mindset that we have no control over our lives because of our genes. "Doom and gloom" scenarios are prevalent in science and being percolated down to the public all the time. It is easy to acknowledge the fatality of it all, but when it comes to having at least a bit of regognition of our control over our lifetime destiny, then the talk is less forthcoming. I stongly disagree that Dawkins did not have a significant impact on the scientific community as a whole. It reinforced already prevalent assumptions. Science is shifting rapidly; the scientific community appears to not always be following the current. Models need not be proven wrong to be replaced; better models need only to be found.

+1 for this!

That our worldview is not adapting to evidence. We acknowledge that there is change in knowledge, but remain mostly silent on what the implications are for how we live out our lives. Science has real world implications. Dawkins had a sizable impact on western society. And we now find out that science has possibly passed him by, but we still do not make the course correction in our headspaces. You should know me better by now; I have no such pretention. And if I was, you would be right in trivially denying me! No surprise here! I am a mediocre chess player.