I mean, it depends what you’re willing to call “research”.
The testing, conducted by Lead Safe Mama, also found concerning levels of highly toxic arsenic, mercury and cadmium in many brands.
I’m not sure I would put this on the same level as a controlled, reproducible double-blind peer-reviewed study by Harvard and MIT published in a prestigious journal, but I’m sure it’s really close. /s
Edit: Ok, so people argue she’s at least a little legitimate, but why the fuck can’t we use actual scientific institutions anymore? We have a scientific method for a reason. Where’s the peer review? Where’s the people reproducing her results?
How do you think we get to the point where a researcher can get funding to do actual peer reviewed research? In the state the USA is in they won’t until something like this gets the publics attention.
Part of the reason the USA has gotten to this state is because we allow unverified sensationalist slop like this to get the public’s attention and be used against them. We’ve already seen 1 bullshit study linking vaccines and autism that is STILL being widely circulated and used to this day to convince people not only that vaccines are bad but that the whole GOVERNMENT is bad. Look at the results.
Now we’re going to convince people toothpaste is bad using the same quality of “independent research”?
I did not interpret this to mean toothpaste is bad. All I see is greedy corporations not doing their due diligence in making sure their product safe.
I agree that the reason we’ve gotten to this state is due in part to sensationalist media using bad research to promote claims that get clicks/views that earn them money.
But I don’t think that’s the same thing at all as someone paying independent labs to test consumer products for toxins.
There are plenty of sensationalist articles about pseudo-science to get upset over. But someone who’s paying for independent testing of consumer products for heavy metals is not it.
Wait…US is still doing research?!
I mean, it depends what you’re willing to call “research”.
I’m not sure I would put this on the same level as a controlled, reproducible double-blind peer-reviewed study by Harvard and MIT published in a prestigious journal, but I’m sure it’s really close. /s
Edit: Ok, so people argue she’s at least a little legitimate, but why the fuck can’t we use actual scientific institutions anymore? We have a scientific method for a reason. Where’s the peer review? Where’s the people reproducing her results?
How do you think we get to the point where a researcher can get funding to do actual peer reviewed research? In the state the USA is in they won’t until something like this gets the publics attention.
Part of the reason the USA has gotten to this state is because we allow unverified sensationalist slop like this to get the public’s attention and be used against them. We’ve already seen 1 bullshit study linking vaccines and autism that is STILL being widely circulated and used to this day to convince people not only that vaccines are bad but that the whole GOVERNMENT is bad. Look at the results.
Now we’re going to convince people toothpaste is bad using the same quality of “independent research”?
I did not interpret this to mean toothpaste is bad. All I see is greedy corporations not doing their due diligence in making sure their product safe.
I agree that the reason we’ve gotten to this state is due in part to sensationalist media using bad research to promote claims that get clicks/views that earn them money.
But I don’t think that’s the same thing at all as someone paying independent labs to test consumer products for toxins.
There are plenty of sensationalist articles about pseudo-science to get upset over. But someone who’s paying for independent testing of consumer products for heavy metals is not it.
They keep losing their stuff and brain due to lead poisoning, so they have to keep re-searching.
How else can the US learn how to inflict the maximum amount of pain on people it doesn’t like?