Feel free to use it, but don't tell anons what to do, faggot.
Go cry elsewhere, faggot. You're steaming up my screen.
>>>22729054 Real Epstein files are over 12,000 pages: includes a ledger detailing $83 million in payments to silence victims, signed off by a sitting U.S. senator in 2016. Who is it?
What the actual fuck are you doing notabling this shit, shillfaggot?
Have you looked at sauce?
sunnysjournal.com is a legit sauce?
You sure?
Even RRN is more believable!
Ignore this faggot's notes
Just look at these notes, they are abysmal; just a bunch of sauceless and laughable sauce posts lumped together.
Concur
You accept notes without sauce and ridiculous blog posts as sauce?
And don't fucking tell me to take notes.
>you have a criticism?
A criticism?
If you are boing to take on the rôle, do your due diligence.
What were the official stats on deaths from legal pharmaceutical drugs?
Anon is of the same school, unfortunately current admin doesn't want that.
Anon actually had the bake taken away by OSS as baker anon was only accepting accepting anon nommed notables.
Kek.
Have you actually looked at that piece of crap site sunnysjournal?
It makes RRN look credible.
This what Grok has to say about the fluoride added to the drinking water in the US:
In the United States, the sodium fluoride added to drinking water for fluoridation is not the primary compound used. Instead, the principal sources of fluoride for water fluoridation are derived from other fluoride compounds, primarily sourced as byproducts of the phosphate fertilizer industry. Here’s a breakdown of the main compounds and their origins:
Hydrofluosilicic Acid (H₂SiF₆) - The Dominant Source:
Origin: Hydrofluosilicic acid (also called fluorosilicic acid) is the most commonly used compound for water fluoridation in the U.S., accounting for about 90% of the fluoride added to municipal water supplies. It is a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer production. When phosphate rock (which contains fluorine as an impurity) is treated with sulfuric acid to produce phosphoric acid for fertilizers, gaseous silicon tetrafluoride (SiF₄) and hydrogen fluoride (HF) are released. These are captured in wet scrubbers and converted into hydrofluosilicic acid.
Process:
Ca₅(PO₄)₃F (fluorapatite in phosphate rock) + H₂SO₄ → H₃PO₄ + HF + SiF₄
HF and SiF₄ react with water to form H₂SiF₆.
Why Used: It’s cost-effective, widely available, and easily dissolves in water to release fluoride ions (F⁻).
Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na₂SiF₆):
Origin: This is another compound occasionally used for water fluoridation, also derived from the phosphate fertilizer industry. It’s produced by neutralizing hydrofluosilicic acid with sodium hydroxide or sodium carbonate:
H₂SiF₆ + 2 NaOH → Na₂SiF₆ + 2 H₂O
Use: Less common than hydrofluosilicic acid, it’s a dry, crystalline form that’s easier to handle in some water treatment systems.
Sodium Fluoride (NaF):
Origin: While sodium fluoride is used in some smaller water systems, it’s a minor player in U.S. water fluoridation (less than 10% of cases). It’s typically produced industrially by reacting hydrogen fluoride (from fluorite mining or phosphate processing) with sodium hydroxide:
HF + NaOH → NaF + H₂O
Why Less Common: It’s more expensive and less soluble than hydrofluosilicic acid, making it less practical for large-scale use. However, it was more widely used in the early days of fluoridation (1940s–1950s).
Key Points for the U.S.:
Phosphate Fertilizer Byproducts: The vast majority of fluoride additives (hydrofluosilicic acid and sodium fluorosilicate) come from the processing of phosphate rock, primarily mined in states like Florida, which supplies much of the U.S. and global phosphate needs.
Regulation and Standards: These compounds must meet strict purity standards set by the American Water Works Association (AWWA) and the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) to ensure safety for drinking water.
Geographic Variation: Larger municipalities tend to use hydrofluosilicic acid due to its liquid form and lower cost, while smaller systems might opt for sodium fluoride or sodium fluorosilicate depending on infrastructure and budget.
So, while sodium fluoride can be used, the principal sources for fluoride in U.S. drinking water are hydrofluosilicic acid and, to a lesser extent, sodium fluorosilicate, both stemming from the phosphate fertilizer industry rather than direct sodium fluoride production. If you want more details on specific regions or the chemistry involved, just ask!
What the fuck has Israel got to do with the price of eggs in the US?
notes @300iish
#27768 >>22729043
>Budget watchdogs conclude economic growth won't pay for majority of proposed GOP tax cuts
>notes @300ish
>#27768 >>22729043
>>22729210 Budget watchdogs conclude economic growth won't pay for majority of proposed GOP tax cuts
Fuck it, anon is tired;
notes @300ish
#27768 >>22729043
>>22729210 Budget watchdogs conclude economic growth won't pay for majority of proposed GOP tax cuts
3rd time lucky
Unfortunately, Grok primarily uses official sources for its responses.
Look at this for example.
Fluoride consumption can indeed affect bone regeneration, with the impact depending on the dosage, duration of exposure, and individual factors. Here’s a breakdown based on available scientific understanding:
Low to Moderate Fluoride Levels (e.g., Drinking Water Fluoridation):
Context: In the U.S., water fluoridation typically maintains fluoride levels at about 0.7 mg/L (parts per million), a concentration deemed optimal for dental health by agencies like the CDC.
Effect on Bone: At these low levels, fluoride is incorporated into the hydroxyapatite structure of bones and teeth, forming fluorapatite (Ca₅(PO₄)₃F), which is slightly more resistant to acid dissolution than hydroxyapatite (Ca₅(PO₄)₃OH). Studies suggest this can mildly enhance bone density and mineralization.
Regeneration: Research indicates that low fluoride exposure may stimulate osteoblast activity (bone-forming cells) to a limited extent, potentially aiding bone regeneration in small amounts. For example, a 2001 study in Journal of Bone and Mineral Research found that low fluoride doses (around 1-2 mg/day) increased bone formation markers in some animal models. However, this effect is subtle and not significant enough to be a primary therapeutic tool for bone repair in humans.
Conclusion: At typical drinking water levels, fluoride has a negligible or slightly positive effect on bone regeneration, with no strong evidence of harm or major enhancement.
High Fluoride Levels (e.g., Excessive Intake):
Context: Excessive fluoride intake—far above fluoridation levels—can occur in areas with naturally high fluoride in groundwater (e.g., parts of India or China, where levels can exceed 10 mg/L) or from overconsumption of fluoride-containing products.
Effect on Bone: Chronic high exposure leads to skeletal fluorosis, a condition where fluoride accumulates in bones, increasing bone density but reducing quality. The bone becomes brittle and prone to fractures because fluoride disrupts the normal remodeling process:
Osteoblast Overstimulation: High fluoride can overstimulate osteoblasts, leading to excessive bone formation, but the resulting bone is often poorly organized and mechanically weak.
Osteoclast Inhibition: Fluoride may also inhibit osteoclasts (bone-resorbing cells), impairing the natural turnover and repair process critical for regeneration.
Regeneration: Studies, such as those reviewed in the Journal of Dental Research (2008), show that high fluoride levels impair fracture healing and bone regeneration. Animal studies (e.g., rats exposed to 50-100 mg/L fluoride in water) demonstrate delayed callus formation and weaker healed bones compared to controls.
Human Evidence: In regions with endemic skeletal fluorosis, patients exhibit slower bone healing and higher fracture rates, suggesting a negative impact on regeneration at excessive doses.
Therapeutic Use (Historical Context):
Past Experiments: In the mid-20th century, sodium fluoride was tested as a treatment for osteoporosis at high doses (20-60 mg/day). While it increased bone mass, clinical trials (e.g., New England Journal of Medicine, 1990) found the new bone was structurally inferior, leading to more fractures, not fewer. This led to its abandonment for this purpose.
Regeneration Insight: These trials highlight that while fluoride can boost bone formation, it doesn’t necessarily improve regeneration or functional repair at high doses.
Key Factors:
Dose-Dependent Effect: The threshold seems to be around 4-10 mg/day (well above typical U.S. intake of 1-3 mg/day from water and diet). Below this, effects on regeneration are minimal; above it, they become detrimental.
Age and Health: Young, growing bones and individuals with existing bone conditions may respond differently. Children might see more incorporation into developing bones, while adults with high turnover (e.g., post-fracture) might experience disrupted healing at excessive levels.
Calcium Interaction: Adequate calcium intake can mitigate some negative effects by balancing fluoride’s incorporation into bone.
Summary:
Low Levels (e.g., 0.7 mg/L in water): Slightly positive or neutral effect on bone regeneration; no significant clinical impact.
High Levels (e.g., >10 mg/L or chronic excess): Negative effect, impairing bone regeneration by producing brittle, poorly remodeled bone.
If you’re interested in specific studies or how this applies to a particular scenario (e.g., a fracture case), let me know, and I can dive deeper!
Disclaimer: Grok is not a doctor; please consult one. Don't share information that can identify you.
specific studies on fluorosis
fluoride in dental health
So, we've moved on from RRN to sunysjournal now, eh?
Go and look at that site and tell me its credible, I dare you.
>Unfortunately for whom?
Critical thinkers who do not accept the science of the official agencies, but would rather use critical, unbiased clinical studies.
Those, however, are more difficult to find.
>>>22729224 Reminder - The Fluoride Deception: How a Nuclear Waste Byproduct Made Its Way Into the Nation’s Drinking Water
I'd be careful about using this as well. youtube videos are not the best sauce.
See >>22729325
And should therefore be notabled with extreme caution.
Focusing solely on independent clinical studies—excluding data from government agencies (e.g., CDC, NIH) and non-elected global organizations (e.g., WHO)—the evidence on fluoride consumption’s effect on bone regeneration is more limited but still reveals a dose-dependent impact. Here’s what emerges from such research:
Low to Moderate Fluoride Exposure:
Independent Studies: Some smaller-scale, independent clinical and experimental studies suggest that low fluoride intake (comparable to levels found in non-fluoridated water or typical diets, ~0.5-2 mg/day) has a minimal or slightly positive effect on bone regeneration. For instance:
A 2004 study in Bone (an independent journal) explored fluoride’s effect on osteoblast-like cells in vitro. At low concentrations (e.g., 1-10 µM, roughly equivalent to dietary exposure), fluoride increased cell proliferation and alkaline phosphatase activity, hinting at a potential boost to early bone formation. However, this was not a robust clinical trial but a lab-based observation.
A 1997 study in Calcified Tissue International (independent of government funding) examined rats with fluoride at 1 mg/L in water. It found a slight increase in bone mineral content, but no significant change in fracture healing strength or regeneration speed compared to controls.
Interpretation: At these levels, independent studies show no strong evidence of harm to bone regeneration, and any positive effect is subtle and inconsistent—often too small to be clinically meaningful.
High Fluoride Exposure:
Independent Clinical Evidence: Studies focusing on higher fluoride intake (e.g., >10 mg/day or concentrations seen in naturally fluoridated regions) consistently point to negative effects on bone regeneration:
A 2010 study in Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism (independent researchers in India) examined patients from high-fluoride areas (8-12 mg/L in water). Bone biopsies showed increased osteoid (unmineralized bone) and slower mineralization rates, suggesting impaired regeneration. Fracture healing was delayed in these subjects compared to low-fluoride controls, with weaker callus formation noted.
A 2008 animal study in Acta Orthopaedica (Scandinavian researchers, no government affiliation) gave rabbits 50 mg/L fluoride in water post-fracture. The healed bones had higher fluoride content but lower mechanical strength, indicating disrupted regeneration. Histology revealed disorganized collagen and reduced osteoclast activity, critical for proper remodeling.
A 1995 clinical study in Osteoporosis International (independent of U.S. agencies) revisited high-dose fluoride therapy (20-30 mg/day) for osteoporosis patients. While bone mass increased, independent researchers noted a higher fracture incidence post-treatment, suggesting that regeneration produced structurally inferior bone.
Mechanistic Insight: Independent lab studies (e.g., 2013 in Toxicology Letters) show high fluoride disrupts osteoblast-osteoclast coupling—overstimulating bone formation while inhibiting resorption—leading to brittle, poorly regenerated bone.
Challenges with Independent Data:
Scope: Independent studies are often smaller, less funded, and regionally focused (e.g., India, China) compared to government-backed research. They tend to emphasize high-exposure scenarios (natural fluoride in groundwater) rather than low-level fluoridation effects.
Bias: Some independent studies come from researchers skeptical of fluoridation, potentially skewing focus toward negative outcomes. However, their findings on high-dose effects align across multiple sources.
Lack of Low-Dose Focus: Few independent clinical trials specifically target bone regeneration at fluoridation levels (0.7-1 mg/L), as this is often a government-funded research domain. Most low-dose data comes from animal or cell studies, not human trials.
Synthesis:
Low Doses (~1-2 mg/day): Independent studies suggest a neutral to slightly positive effect on bone regeneration, but the impact is weak and not well-established in human clinical settings. No clear harm emerges at these levels.
High Doses (>10 mg/day): Consistent evidence from independent clinical and experimental research shows impaired bone regeneration—delayed healing, weaker bone structure, and disrupted remodeling—particularly in high-fluoride regions or experimental high-dose scenarios.
Conclusion:
Excluding government and global agency data, independent studies indicate fluoride’s effect on bone regeneration hinges on dose: negligible or mildly beneficial at low levels, detrimental at high levels. The strongest evidence of harm comes from high-exposure contexts, while low-dose effects remain understudied in independent human trials. If you’d like me to track down more specific studies or dig into a particular angle, let me know!
So, everything is Israel, eh?
May you take heed of anon's friendly critique of your notes next time you decide to step up.
> Saudi Arabia IPO launch of Aramco
Saudi Arabia launched the Aramco Initial Public Offering (IPO) on the Tadawul, the Saudi Stock Exchange, located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The IPO process formally began with an announcement from the kingdom's Capital Market Authority on November 3, 2019, and shares started trading on December 11, 2019. Initially, there were discussions about a dual listing that might have included an international exchange (e.g., New York or London), but the final decision was to limit the offering to the Tadawul, focusing on domestic and regional investors. This made it a landmark event for the Riyadh-based exchange, raising $25.6 billion in what became the world’s largest IPO at the time, with an additional $3.8 billion through a greenshoe option, bringing the total to $29.4 billion.
True anons are not nowfags
Bolsonaro cancelled it as one of his first orders of business here in brasil.
TBH, I haven't heard anyone say anything one way or another, but it was funny as fuck when it was first cancelled because everyone uses their cell phone as a clock and they were all set to account for DST. As such, 90% of Brasilians were late for work on the first day.
It's pathetic. When people write f**k, everyone reads it as fuck so what's the point?