pseudo-science? Hmmm, consider your source...

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm <http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm>

but my personal favorite is this Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials, Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/ <http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/>

also

http://www.quackpotwatch.org/quackpots/quackpots/barrett.htm

all that to say is I would not put much worth in that site :-)

I'd rather relying on scientists, researchers, chemists, toxicologists, etc... all professionals who have published studies in peer reviewed journals. But if you think that represents pseudo-science, then it is a sad day for critical thinking.

>> ^teebeenz:

This video isnt science, its pseudo-science, and as such should be ignored.
http://www.quackwatch.org/03HealthPromotion/fluoride.html
>> ^notarobot:
I concede that this sift is essentially a summery of another video that is part of what appears to be a current, heated debate about the safety of fluoride for human consumption, and its effects as a drug. As a summery, this video does not detail the methods or results of studies done on the topic by PhD experts mentioned.
However, given that videos on the subjects of Drugs on Spiders, Water Balloon Motion , and how Science leads to Murder, remain in the _science channel, I fail to see how this video, nor related videos on this topic, does not meet the standards required to be considered a part of the _science sift, or valuable for inciting discussion and getting sifters to THINK about _science, which appears to be part of the mandate of this channel.

IAOMT is showing a wealth of scientific studies that have appeared in peer reviewed journals that back their claims. So once again I'm showing that there is solid science behind these claims and that the issue is not black and white as you seem to think.

I thought you should know that yes, this is the same Stephen Barret that you've linked to.
Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases (2006)
http://www.whale.to/a/quck.html
1. Barrett has claimed to be a medical expert, yet failed his medical board certification.
2. Barrett has claimed to be a legal expert, yet has not studied law.
3. Barrett has claimed to have no ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA), yet under oath he had conceded these ties.
4. Barrett has recently sued many times for libel and yet has never won a single case.

In addition, on April 22, 2003, A California Appeals Court, ruled against the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF). The Court declared that Stephen Barrett (quackwatch.com), and Wallace Sampson MD (Scientific Review of Alternative and Aberrant Medicine) were found to be biased… and should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

one can read a copy of the Court document signed by Judge Fromholz, here
http://www.quackpotwatch.org/opinionpieces/california_appeals_court_bludgeo.htm

but my personal favorite is this
Stephen Barrett's Extensive Lack of Credentials,
Lack of Experience, and Lack of Board Certification
http://www.stephenbarrettmd.blogspot.com/

and if you want to talk about biased, you should seriously look up information on NCAHF as they are the posterchild for misinformation on health related issues.