Thank you for continuing to educate us. Since reading your articles I've saved a lot of money by not buying from grifters.
I had, for years, believed so much of the hype and regularly purchased products with so many promised results. Glad I've been enlightened with the science.
And now it seems some people are against vaccinating their pets, citing the risk of autism (not a thing in dogs/cats) and claiming vaccines cause cancer (also not a thing.)
Thanks for your informative post. Chemophobia is a major ingredient in disinformation in many topics, also by opponents of Tobacco Harm Reduction, making exaggerated claims on the presence of toxic compounds and metals in the aerosols of vaping and heated tobacco products. In this disinformation the mere presence of the compounds (without reference on concentrations or doses) serves as pretext to raise alarm taking advantage of public ignorance. Although these aerosols are not produced by combustion, their heating processes at lower temperatures still produces toxic byproducts, but in concentrations and doses that are, not only orders of magnitude below those of tobacco smoke, but even comparable to those of common household aerosols (cooking, candle lighting, odorizers) and normal indoor pollution.
There are published "independent" studies (NIH funded) that have reported excessive levels above safety markers of metals and organic toxins (specially formaldehyde) in vape aerosols, but all these studies tested the devices in the lab under unrealistic conditions. I can say this with full confidence out of my own published research of reviews of these studies (see references at the end). Recently, a study from UC Davies found high levels of metals (Ni, Sb, Pb) in aerosols of 7 popular unregulated disposable devices, but these aerosols were generated by e-liquids that were already contaminated, most likely by corrosion from long time storage. What all this reveals is that the notion that vape aerosols are too toxic is largely based on low quality studies or misinterpretation of the data (as the UC Davies study).
If chemophobia is as dangerous as you claim, then science should welcome open debate, not delete it.
You removed my comment—not because it was abusive, but because it cited peer-reviewed evidence and challenged a claim. I’m not a scientist, but I can read, research, and fact-check with tools every citizen has access to. That’s what scientific literacy looks like.
A neutral scientist follows evidence wherever it leads.
A neutral scientist addresses criticism with data, not censorship.
Deleting dissent is what PR departments do—not people confident in their science.
So here’s a simple, public request:
You state that fluoridation of drinking water is safe and scientifically supported.
Please explain why, and provide citations that demonstrate that safety in light of recent toxicity research.
Thank you for continuing to educate us. Since reading your articles I've saved a lot of money by not buying from grifters.
I had, for years, believed so much of the hype and regularly purchased products with so many promised results. Glad I've been enlightened with the science.
And now it seems some people are against vaccinating their pets, citing the risk of autism (not a thing in dogs/cats) and claiming vaccines cause cancer (also not a thing.)
"Make Rabies and Parvo Great Again" 😒
Thanks for your informative post. Chemophobia is a major ingredient in disinformation in many topics, also by opponents of Tobacco Harm Reduction, making exaggerated claims on the presence of toxic compounds and metals in the aerosols of vaping and heated tobacco products. In this disinformation the mere presence of the compounds (without reference on concentrations or doses) serves as pretext to raise alarm taking advantage of public ignorance. Although these aerosols are not produced by combustion, their heating processes at lower temperatures still produces toxic byproducts, but in concentrations and doses that are, not only orders of magnitude below those of tobacco smoke, but even comparable to those of common household aerosols (cooking, candle lighting, odorizers) and normal indoor pollution.
There are published "independent" studies (NIH funded) that have reported excessive levels above safety markers of metals and organic toxins (specially formaldehyde) in vape aerosols, but all these studies tested the devices in the lab under unrealistic conditions. I can say this with full confidence out of my own published research of reviews of these studies (see references at the end). Recently, a study from UC Davies found high levels of metals (Ni, Sb, Pb) in aerosols of 7 popular unregulated disposable devices, but these aerosols were generated by e-liquids that were already contaminated, most likely by corrosion from long time storage. What all this reveals is that the notion that vape aerosols are too toxic is largely based on low quality studies or misinterpretation of the data (as the UC Davies study).
Unfortunately, this disinformation is very widespread among the public, it has caused harm by preventing millions of smokers to switch to much safer ways to consume nicotine. This misinformation does not come from MAHA or other tricksters, it comes from established USA Apple Pie sources, look at websites of the ALA, AMA, ACS, even in the CDC and FDA. It is propagated by the NYT, WP, CNN and a lot of media. These are the links to some of my research: https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10090510, https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics10120714, https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics11120947, https://doi.org/10.3389/fchem.2024.1433626
𝗜 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝟲 𝗱𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗮𝗴𝗼, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗗𝗿. 𝗟𝗼𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝘁:
𝘋𝘳. 𝘓𝘰𝘷𝘦, 𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢 𝘧𝘭𝘢𝘨 𝘰𝘯. 𝘛𝘰 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘬𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵𝘴.
𝘊𝘢𝘭𝘤𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘍𝘭𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨.
𝘍𝘭𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘤𝘪𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 50% 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘈𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘢'𝘴 𝘥𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 (𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘪𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘌𝘶𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴' 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴) 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘺𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘶𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘚𝘰 𝘵𝘰𝘹𝘪𝘤, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘢 𝘩𝘢𝘻𝘮𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘳, 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺.
𝘞𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵 𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘥, 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘴𝘮𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘺 "𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘣" 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘮𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘣𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘮𝘰𝘬𝘦. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘵𝘰𝘮. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘴 "𝘧𝘭𝘶𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯" 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴.
𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘣? 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺'𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮.
𝘐𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘬 𝘰𝘧?
𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 "𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩" 𝘪𝘵 𝘯𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺.
𝘔𝘢𝘯𝘺 "𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦" 𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵.
𝘭𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢.𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬.𝘤𝘰…
𝘭𝘶𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢.𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘤𝘬.𝘤𝘰…
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘳'𝘴 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦, 𝘐 𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘔𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭.
𝗔𝗱𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆:
If chemophobia is as dangerous as you claim, then science should welcome open debate, not delete it.
You removed my comment—not because it was abusive, but because it cited peer-reviewed evidence and challenged a claim. I’m not a scientist, but I can read, research, and fact-check with tools every citizen has access to. That’s what scientific literacy looks like.
A neutral scientist follows evidence wherever it leads.
A neutral scientist addresses criticism with data, not censorship.
Deleting dissent is what PR departments do—not people confident in their science.
So here’s a simple, public request:
You state that fluoridation of drinking water is safe and scientifically supported.
Please explain why, and provide citations that demonstrate that safety in light of recent toxicity research.
Here is my argument, with sources:
https://lucaskandia.substack.com/p/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-water
If your position is evidence-based, show the evidence.
If it’s not, explain why dissenting scientific literature needs to be hidden rather than addressed.
Deletion is not debate.
It’s an admission that the argument can’t withstand scrutiny.
Can you do a future article or maybe direct me to an existing, as I couldn’t find one, about why “immunity debt” is not a thing?