An open letter to Declan Waugh – new mechanism for fluoride toxicity?

Dear Declan,

You describe yourself as a scientist and fluoride researcher so I feel the responsibility to bring to your attention what I think are major flaws in a recent presentation of yours. I am sure you understand that research and the scientific ethos requires and encourages constructive criticism, and in fact the debate over ideas and hypotheses is an essential part of the scientific process. I offer my criticisms with this in mind and therefore assume you will receive them in the same open spirit  and give them your honest consideration.

Declan-title

In this presentation to the  Nutritional Therapists of Ireland, Health Impacts of Water Fluoridation May 2014 you make several arguments which I think violate basic chemical principles. You then go on to claim a mechanism for many health complaints you claim results from community water fluoridation.This is a novel mechanism because it attributes health problems not to fluoride but to silica resulting from the hydrolysis of fluorosilicates used as fluoridation chemicals.

Below I list the steps in your argument together with my comments on these:

Slide 16:

Declan-15

You claim “ultra fine silica particles”  form on hydrolysis of fluorosilicates. You cite Finney et al (2006) for this. However, nowhere in  Finney et al (2006) is there a reference  to”ultra fine silica particles.”

What they describe is the well-known hydrolysis reaction:

SiF62-(aq) + 4H2O(l) ↔ 4H+ + 6F- + Si(OH)4(aq)

The silica species produce is the monomeric molecule Si(OH)4. This soluble (“reactive”) silica exists in solution but has a very complex chemistry. Polymerisation occurs and a number of molecular species are possible in solution. The end product of such polymerisation can be solid silica but, on the other hand, solid silica can support a concentration of monomeric silica in solution.

Yes, molecules in solution are extremely small but it is plain  wrong to describe them as if they were just very small, or “ultra fine,” particles of the solid.

Slide 17:

Declan-17

You now go further describing these molecules as “nanoparticles” and cite Napierska et al (2010) to tell viewers that nanoparticles can have negative health effects. They can be toxic. This is a huge leap, on top of the huge leap in the previous slide.

You have gone from a monomolecular species (Si(OH)4), to a finely divided solid,  to “nanoparticles.”

No way is it legitimate to describe a small molecule like Si(OH)4 as a “nanoparticle.” One definition of a nanoparticle describes is as a “microscopic particle with at least one dimension less than 100 nm.” Simple molecules like Si(OH)4 are thousands of times smaller.

Slide 18:

Declan1w

You now put these ideas together to imply that fluoridation can cause a large range of health problems via formation of nanoparticles during hydrolysis of the fluoridation chemical and their toxic reaction in the bloodstream. I believe your arguments here are false, you have not given any evidence to support them, and in fact you have misrepresented the citations you used.

Silica in drinking water

Your wild “theory” introduces a big can of worms which you should have considered but actually ignore. Silica, reactive or monomolecuar silica, exists in all drinking water, fluoridated and unfluoridated. Here are some examples from New Zealand community water supplies. Please note, fluoridation  is irrelevant. In fact the highest levels of reactive silica occur in an unfluoridated supply.

Fluoride (mg/L) Reactive silica (mg/L)
Hamilton Templeview Site 23.08.13 0.16 37
Hamilton Site 12.02.14 0.19 34
Christchurch Christchurch <0.1 16
Wellington Waterloo 0.78 15.5
Wainuiomata 0.83 12.55
Auckland Auckland 0.81 13.23

None of this is surprising as silica will be derived from all sorts of natural, geological, sources the water contacts.

Did you bother comparing natural levels of reactive silica with what could be expected from the hydrolysis of fluorosilicates? My estimates suggest that fluoridation with fluorosilicate at the optimum level (0.7 mg F/L) would produce a reactive silica concentration of 0.37 mg SiO2/L. Surely you can agree this is miniscule compared with he natural levels of reactive silica in all drinking waters?

Your hypothesis of a toxic role of monomolecular silica in drinking water implies  all drinking water is unhealthy and that, in fact, fluoridation could contribute only an insignificant amount to this toxicity.

A serious charge which most scientists would consider better justification and evidence than you have given so far. Personally I think it would be irresponsible of you not to publicly withdraw these unwarranted claims.

I think there are similar faults in the way you have used statistical health information to imply a link of fluoridation to a whole host of health problems but that is a separate issue. At this stage I look forward to a response to my specific chemical criticisms listed above.

If you wish to defend your hypothesis, or to debate this specific issue and the wider claims you are making, I would be happy to offer you space on the Open Parachute blog for an exchange of articles. This proved a very effective method of scientific discussion in my exchange with Paul Connett (see Fluoride Debate). Many anti-fluoridation activists seem to hold you in the same regard as Paul and rely on your for much of their information. You have also contributed submissions to local body councils in New Zealand considering the fluoridation issue. I am sure you would therefore welcome the opportunity to present your scientific claims to a scientifically literate audience that this exchange can offer.

I look forward to your response.

Kind regards

Ken Perrott.

 

Similar articles

 

About these ads

38 responses to “An open letter to Declan Waugh – new mechanism for fluoride toxicity?

  1. Declan Waugh…..how does any intelligent person ever accord him one nanoparticle of credibility??

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  2. The really pathetic thing, Ken, is that inevitably there will be a turnout on this page of those who will defend Waugh to the bitter end, in spite of your precise refutation of this latest junk of his. The same ones who disparage peer-reviewed studies while trumpeting the “validity” of the absurdly flawed Chinese 27. The same ones who disparage the US CDC, the US EPA, the public health authorities of the U.S., New Zealand and anywhere else that fluoridation is recommended, and any other respected science and/or healthcare entity which recommends fluoridation…..while proclaiming the “value” of non peer-reviewed books, and biased websites maintained by people who have no qualifications, whatsoever, to even understand fluoridation, much less provide any accurate information. The same ones who quote the same 5 antifluoridationist scientists as does every other antifluoridationist, for lack of any other such scientists with any semblance of credibility…..while discounting the overwhelming consensus opinion of the worldwide body of respected science and healthcare.

    Sigh……let it begin…..

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  3. Kim Whiteman

    Great take down of this presentation full of deliberate obscurantism. We need more of this is main stream media.

    Like

  4. Waugh, we support Ken’s challenge. Time to see you in a debate.

    Like

  5. This was the same sort of challenge laid down to the professionals and academics who tried for decades to reveal the dangers to human health of lead in petrol, asbestos and various other elements that were defended as beneficial, safe and effective. Sound familiar?

    Like

  6. So, Trevor, do you support Declan’s claim that silica in our water is toxic? If so it has nothing to do with fluoride as unfluoridated water has high silica.

    Do you think it’s just a matter of time before we ban silica in drinking water like we did with Pb in petrol?

    Or do you accept that Declan actually hasn’t got a leg to stand on. He is misrepresenting and misquoting the literature.

    And, Trevor, do you think Declan should respond to my challenges and discuss the issues with me?

    Like

  7. James Reeves

    Mr Perrott:
    I would conclude that you win the point about silica. What are your thoughts about the remainder of Mr. Declan’s report?

    .Mr. Declan Waugh  studied  two sets of people, ethnically identical, who eat the same foods, with the same long term background in all respects. They  are separated now by a political border. The only difference impacting every citizen of both countries is fluoride added to the drinking water. Southern Ireland  (ROI)  is 100% fluoridated by government dictate and Northern Ireland  (NI)  is
    non-fluoridated.

    · This report which has 159 pages & 560 scientific references shows the great increases in disease and early death in the fluoridated Southern Ireland:
    for instance, 450% more early onset dementia,
                          300% sudden infant deaths,
                          100% more osteoporosis, 
    and  significant increases in cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and Downs syndrome and much more.

    Like

  8. Thanks, James. You concede that Declan was wrong about silica. Do you see why he was wrong? Do you concede that in this case he has purposely misrepresented the literature to draw his conclusions. I think if your look more deeply at his work you will find he commonly does that. He is one if the worst offenders, but many of the anti-fluoride people are guilty of this behavior.

    I think you are a little confused. This article is not about a report but a slide presentation of Declan’s. Follow the link.

    I am currently working on his fluorosilicate report. However, if you want me to deal with his claims about health effects perhaps you could support my request for him to participate in an exchange here so that specific claims can be considered in detail. This worked very well with Paul Connet and I would like to get the same setup with Declan. This enables detailed consideration of specific claims which is really e only way to deal with this problem of misrepresentation and distortion of the literature that Declan indulges in.

    Like

  9. Ken . .I believe you have previously explained why the dissociation of HFSA is irreversible.. Do I have this correct? Would you mind repeating that?

    Like

  10. Ronan McManus

    @James Reeves.

    I have been a public representative here in Ireland who was contacted by many of Declan Waugh’s adherents over the course of the past few years. This prompted me to investigate the specific claims by Waugh and also the larger issue of fluoridation.

    His report is a very long and sprawling affair which lays pretty much every disease and afflication known to man at the door of water fluoridation.

    I started to take each of the illnesses and investigate whether his references supported the claims he made.

    I only got through one of them completely (SIDS, which you mention and I felt to be the most panic-inducing for parents), but it illustrates perfectly why his report does not deserve to be taken in any way seriously.

    Here it is, if you are interested.

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7IibyOvUf1Fc0VuSmYyQTJFNTg/edit?usp=sharing

    Like

  11. Christopher Atkinson

    Hey Trev!

    So what do you think? Are you going to answer or is this just a flyby cameo appearance?

    Don’t go away, surely you can stick around and stand up for what you believe…

    Like

  12. Luke Duane Oldfield

    I have emailed Declan and encouraged him to defend his report.

    In the meantime i’d like Mr Reeves to consider the differing jurisdictions that Northern Ireland and the reminder of the Island fall within, and why, with some understanding of the history of Ireland that these political boundaries exist.

    For example,
    What are the cultural differences? (HINT: The answer is not ‘none’)
    What are the differences in the provision of health services ^^?
    Are there differences in Wealth?
    etc

    These confounding factors coupled with Declan’s history of distorting statistics for his own narrow political agenda should help you reconcile the differences between the reported statistics for health and well being between the Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) and the Republic of Ireland.

    Thanks

    Like

  13. Ronan McManus . . the question which after years of fluoridation politics I still cannot answer is how someone with no qualifications whatsoever write something totally mistaken yet make, sadly, a significantly large political impact.

    Like

  14. Ronan McManus

    I don’t think they have had much of a political impact here in Ireland. Only one of the major parties (Sinn Fein) opposes water fluoridation, and I that is just part of their populist stance on pretty much everything at the moment.

    The anti-F campaigns have targeted town and county councillors, despite the fact that councilors have no say in whether water is fluoridated or not. However, the campaigners know that councillors are more likely to be swayed by 30-40 votes than a TD/MP/National Representative (especially when a councillor knows they can always fall back on “Well, we can’t really do anything about that anyway” when it comes to the crunch).
    This allows the campaigns to put out press releases along the lines of “County X Council votes to ban fluoridation” etc.

    Like

  15. Steve Slott

    Ronan,

    Here is Mullen’s refute of Waugh, on behalf of the Irish Expert Body on Fluorides and Health

    http://www.fluoridesandhealth.ie/download/documents/Appraisal_of_Waugh_report_May_2012.pdf

    I posted this on one site somewhere or other where Declan was posting nonsense. He challenged me to read his “refute” of Mullen’s refute of him, and to show one single instance where he (Waugh) was in error. It took me less than 10 minutes to find a host of errors. Declan disappeared when I pointed them out to him. It was so funny that I saved my response:

    Well, where would you like me to begin?

    Just for one example, on pages 7-8 of your rebuttal you state:

    “It is also incorrect to claim that the NRC report only applied to natural fluoride in drinking water. Both natural and artificial fluoride in water were thoroughly investigated (NRC, 2006, pp. 14-15).

    The committee intention was to mainly evaluate whether the EPA primary and secondary Maximum Contaminant Level interim assignments from 1984 were achieving their stated purpose in the U.S. NRC concluded UNANIMOUSLY, that the MCL and SMCL must be lowered because current allowed levels are not protective of human health.

    This is because of the widely and conclusively documented adverse pathology in those exposed to 2 and 4 ppm fluoride in water, compared to lower levels (NRC, 2006, p. 6). Vast data in the scientific literature, some reviewed in the NRC Report, prove that fluoride consumed long-term in humans at 1 ppm causes pathology.
    In full agreement with the NRC committee consensus, the U.S. Health and Human Services recommended in January, 2012 that water fluoride levels not exceed 0.7 ppm fluoride as a temporary measure until official regulations can be established. The limit for Ireland is 0.8ppm.”

    It’s hard to find ANY accuracies in this quote.

    First of all there is no such thing as “natural” and “artificial” fluoride. Fluoride ions are fluoride ions regardless the source.

    Second, the 2006 NRC Committee did NOT recommend that the SMCL of 2.0 ppm be lowered. It recommended only that the primary MCL of 4.0 ppm be lowered. No recommendation was made in regard to the secondary.

    Third, the recommendation to lower the primary MCL down from 4.0 ppm was NOT due to “widely and conclusively documented adverse pathology”, it was due specifically to the Committee’s concern with the increased risk of moderate/severe dental fluorosis and bone fractures which may occur with chronic, long term ingestion of water with a fluoride concentration of 4.0 or greater.

    “After reviewing the collective evidence, including studies conducted since the early 1990s, the committee concluded unanimously that the present MCLG of 4 mg/L for fluoride should be lowered. Exposure at the MCLG clearly puts children at risk of developing severe enamel fluorosis, a condition that is associated with enamel loss and pitting. In addition, the majority of the committee concluded that the MCLG is not likely to be protective against bone fractures.”

    ——-Fluoride in drinking water
    A Scientific Review of EPA‘S Standards
    Committee on Fluoride in Drinking Water Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology Division on Earth and Life Studies
    Pages 2-3

    Fourth, there is no “vast data in the scientific literature” proving that fluoride consumed long term at 1 ppm causes pathology. Produce this “vast data” if you feel otherwise. Please stick to peer-reviewed literature only, and understand that mild to very mild dental fluorosis is so benign as to not even be considered an adverse effect.

    Fifth, the U.S. DHHS did NOT recommend that fluoride levels in water not exceed 0.7 ppm “in full agreement with NRC Committee consensus”. DHHS, in January of 2011, recommended that the optimal level of fluoride, that level which allows for maximum decay prevention with no adverse effects, be adjusted from the current range of 1.2 ppm -0.7 ppm to just 0.7 ppm. This was not in any “agreement with NRC Committee consensus.

    “HHS’ proposed recommendation of 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water replaces the current recommended range of 0.7 to 1.2 milligrams. This updated recommendation is based on recent EPA and HHS scientific assessments to balance the benefits of preventing tooth decay while limiting any unwanted health effects. These scientific assessments will also guide EPA in making a determination of whether to lower the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water, which is set to prevent adverse health effects.”

    ——http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110107a.html

    EPA sets the mandated maximum level of contaminants in water additives, not DHHS. As the NRC Committee made no recommendation to lower the secondary MCL of 2.0 ppm, they thus deemed 2.0 ppm a safe level to adequately protect the public. Therefore, there would be no reason for EPA to lower its primary any lower than 2.0 ppm at the very least, and no reason for DHHS to recommend that 0.7 ppm be set as a “temporary measure until official regulations can be established”. The optimal level, and official, mandated EPA MCLs are two different things.

    In your discussion of hydrolysis intermediates, you state:

    “Finney reported that

    ‘while our results at low pH values (<3.5) are in good agreement with
    previous studies and confirm the presence of a hydrolysis intermediate
    consistent with the pentafluorosilicate ion, very different results were
    obtained from investigation of solutions at pH 4 or higher.' "

    "What the Irish Expert Body have not reported or acknowledged is that
    Finney’s limited and incomplete research found an intermediate
    silicofluoride ion present in water, a fact that contradicts the very
    Foundation of their argument."

    Finney, et al did NOT find an intermediate at the pH of drinking water (~7). They found it at low pH values <3.5. At the pH of drinking water, there are no intermediaries. The only significance of the finding at the lower pH would be in relation to the theory that HF may reform at the low pH of the gut. However, there is no evidence that this occurs at the miniscule concentration range at which fluoride is ingested, nor of any adverse reaction even if it does.

    Need I go on?

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  16. Roman, thanks for you attachment debunking one of Declan Waugh’s claims.

    I think it is possible to go through his reports and do the same thing with practically all his claims – tedious work. That’s why he gets away with such dishonesty – most people just don’t have the time and resources to check him.

    However, a few analyses like this do show what he is up to so they are are valuable.

    If Waugh really have confidence in his claims he would welcome my offer to have an exchange here where specific claims could be scrutinised properly.

    Like

  17. Billy Budd, re my comments on irreversibility of fluorosilicic acid hydrolysis.

    I have been trying to get people to see that this reaction is more a decomposition than a simple dissociation at these pH values. Partly because the productsof the dissociation themselves react further, thus removing themselves from the equilibrium.

    Si(OH)4 will polymerise and, in the end, become a solid. However, that is not simple as solid silica can maintain a concentration of soluble or reactive silica in solution. The table in my latest article shows this.

    However, both F and Si(OH)4 react further with other ions in solution. They both react with Al, for example, further removing them from the simple equilibrium.

    If there is some sort of reaction of F and silica at lower pH values in the stomach this of course will happen in unfluoridated water which contains both silica and fluoride. It would not be unique to fluoridated water. But the stomach contents are far more complex than a simple laboratory situation where equilibrium constants can be measured. Both silica and F will be complexed to other species. I am not aware of any work showing formation of silicofluorides in the stomach. Or of any credible work or mechanism for this being at all dangerous. After all the stomach is tough enough to handle the already acidic conditions and one does not need to postulate such theoretical species to explain transfer of F to the bloodstream.

    Like

  18. Ken

    Excellent explanation!

    Richard Sauerheber is a PhD chemist in California who is the “scientific consultant” for antifluoridationist attorney James Deal. Sauerheber is one of the big promoters of Calcium buffering of “naturally occurring” CaF versus the “highly reactive” fluoride ions released by HFA, and of reformation of HF in the gut. He cites his own obviously biased paper as his peer-reviewed evidence. He got this paper somehow published in some journal or other, I forget which, and ala Connett, constantly nags people to read it. I have, unfortunately, wasted my time doing so. At any rate, he fails to address the points you have made here in regard to reformation, as well as the point made by CDC contacts that any consideration of reformation at the minuscule concentration of 0.7 ppm is moot.

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  19. Ken and Christopher – I am not a scientist or chemist but I have had a lifetime of experience at pulling stuff apart, seeing what makes it work and putting it back together.
    The disconcerting thing about the fluoride debate is that there is still, after nearly a century of research and reviews, such a lack of agreement between those chemists and scientists who support the hypothesis that adding something to drinking water addresses the disease of tooth decay and those who do not.
    What disturbs me is that all over the world there are agencies consisting of ‘experts’ that seem to use the same citations to support their stand. Example of that are the 1999 York Review and the 2001 Fort Collins report.
    There is also reviews conducted by SCHER and WHO, the EPA and CDC etc which all indicate the research into fluoridation is insufficient to make definitive conclusions and that more research is needed. Contrast that with Dr Gluckmann’s statement that “The science around fluoridation is effectively settled”. Is it?
    My personal experience with fluoride goes back to 1996 when my pregnant wife was prescribed fluoride tablets. Obviously the science has advanced because fluoride tablets bottles now carry a warning “Do not use during pregnancy”. When my 1st born son started school he only had 4 teeth left in his mouth. The rest had been surgically extracted because the erupting teeth developed discoloration and the enamel became brittle and flaked off.
    At that time we were given all sorts of reasons for that situation but no one suggested it might be fluorosis. I wonder why?
    I also wonder why, since I ceased ingesting fluoridated water 20 months ago all the arthritic pains and discomfort I had come to accept as part of becoming old have disappeared. The hip pain that led me to have an MRI 18 months ago and stop working because I need an urgent hip replacement and which drastically affected my mobility and interrupted my sleep every night has gone. Why?
    You guys are doing science a disservice with your confrontational approach to this issue and failing to address with an open mind the new evidence being presented.

    Like

  20. Trevor, I can appreciate your perspective is inevitably tainted by your commitment to the fluoride free organisations but I am really surprised that you claim the evidence-based commenters here a “confrontational.” Have a look at how your mate Danny O’Reilly has been behaving in the discussion here. He is so rude, abuse and offensive, and frankly outright irrational, that I may well have to exclude him, or at least place him under moderation. Meanwhile you should consider the damage he is doing to your cause.

    Now, you might think there is a huge disagreement on the science. I disagree.. I think if you consider the scientific literature properly, intelligently and critically, you can usually sort out the wheat from the chaff. I think you should consider the real reasons for the differences apparent in the political sphere – ideology. This leads to some people misinterpreting and distorting the science according to their political, financial and ideological interests.

    This specific article is demonstrating one person who regularly does this, Declan Waugh. Next week I will put up another article about the distortions in one of his reports. I really wonder why you have not commented on the contents of this article – do you accept my analysis of what Declan is up to?

    The health of yourself and your children is your business and the business of your expert health professional and surely should not be aired here. No one here can advise you on these matters and I personally think these stories come across as hypocritical and dishonest when used to justify political positions like this.

    You talk about “new evidence being presented” yet refuse to be specific. I wonder why that is. Surely you can see that most of my articles on this issue deal strongly with evidence. If you think there is something I am missing, or something so new I have not heard of, then I welcome your contribution about it. But a vague reference claiming I am refusing to address this new evidence with an open mind is just disingenuous.

    By the way, I heard a rumour that your current High Court case against the Hamilton City Council is being funded by the NZ Health Trust – the political lobby group for the NZ “natural” health industry. I know they have plenty of money and funded the South Taranaki case.

    Care to comment on that?

    >

    Like

  21. I am directly involved in only one fluoridation organisation – Safe Water Alternative New Zealand (SWANZ) – as co-ordinator.
    I do not know Danny O’Reilly, nor as far as I am aware have I met him.
    The High Court ‘case’ is not current as a date for it has not yet been set. The ‘case’ is a Judicial Review and is being applied for because of many concerns about the way the decision to reintroduce fluoridation was arrived at.
    A J. R. is the legal right of anyone who feels aggrieved and I see nothing at all wrong with that course being pursued. Or do legal rights only accrue to tax-payer funded pro-fluoridationists?
    I am amazed that you would post a comment on the back of a rumour Ken – hardly a sound basis for making a statement about anything! The funding of the precursor (Interim Orders hearing) to the J. R. consists entirely of fundraising in the Hamilton community and voluntary donations from some of the 11700 opponents of adding a potentially health adverse chemical into community drinking water. The NZ Health Trust is not funding the proposed Hamilton legal action or anything else as far as I am aware.
    I have personally invested money in the fluoride issue since the Tribunal outcome was derailed by people like yourself with undeclared political, financial and ideological interests. .
    As for evidence I suggest the following may be worthy of some rational comment;
    Coplan, M. J., Masters, R. D., and Hone, B. (1999a) “Silicofluoride Usage, Tooth Decay and Children’s Blood Lead,” Poster presentation to Conference on “Environmental Influences on Children: Brain, Development and Behavior, New York Academy of Medicine, Mt. Sinai Hospital, New York, May 24-25, 1999.
    Preliminary report on data from analysis of national sample of over 4,000 children in NHANES III, showing that while water fluoridation is associated with a significant increase in children’s blood lead (with especially strong effects among minority children), data on tooth decay from the same survey show limited benefits that are no longer evident among those aged 15-17.
    Coplan, M.J., Masters, R.D., and Hone, B. (1999b) “Association of Silicofluoride Treated Water with Elevated Blood Lead,” Poster presentation to 17th International Nerotoxicology Conference, Little Rock, AR, October 17
    Preliminary report on data from analysis of sample of blood lead testing of over 150,000 children in New York State communities of 15,000 to 75,000 population. Once again, average blood lead levels were significantly higher (p < .0001) in communities using silicofluorides in water treatment than in those with unfluoridated water. The effect was found independently in every age group for three ethnic subsamples
    Roger D. Masters (2002) “Science, Bureaucracy, and Public Policy: Can Scientific Inquiry Prevail Over Entrenched Institutional Self-Interest?” presentation at the annual meeting of the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences, Montreal, Que. (August 19-23, 2002).
    Analysis of bureaucratic opposition to reconsideration of public policy decisions challenged by new data on silicofluoride chemistry and its effects on human biology and behavior.
    Or have you long since concluded that anyone, regardless of their scientific, chemistry or medical expertise, who dares to rock your boat is a nutter?

    Like

  22. I have personally invested money in the fluoride issue since the Tribunal outcome was derailed by people like yourself with undeclared political, financial and ideological interests. .

    Oh dear. Perhaps the song is unfamiliar to you. P’raps you should take a line from its chorus.

    Like

  23. You know, Trevor, it’s been quite some time since the referendum. Plenty of opportunity to do some digging. Perhaps you might care to share with everybody what these “undeclared political, financial and ideological interests” are?

    And who the people who hold these interests are, of course.

    Like

  24. Trevor

    “What disturbs me is that all over the world there are agencies consisting of ‘experts’ that seem to use the same citations to support their stand. Example of that are the 1999 York Review and the 2001 Fort Collins report.”

    Interesting that you state this source of “disturbance” to you, and then proceed to trot out the same Masters and Coplan studies which are trotted out constantly by antifluoridationists who rely solely on antifluoridationist websites for their “information”.

    Masters’ and Coplan’s attempts to attach lead uptake to fluoridation have long since been refuted first by Urbansky/Schock, then later by Macek, et al.

    Ironically, antifluoridationists constantly make claims about ” new, emerging science” then simply trot out the same, stale “arguments” that have been attempted since the beginning of this public health initiative, with any citations they may happen to provide in support, either being out of date, or erroneous interpretations.

    “Overall, we conclude that no credible evidence exists to show that water fluoridation has any quantitatable effects on the solubility, bioavailability, bio- accumulation, or reactivity of lead(0) or lead(II) compounds. The governing factors are the concentrations of a number of other species, such as (bi)carbonate, hydroxide, or chloride, whose effects far exceed those of fluoride or fiuorosilicates under drinking water conditions. ”

    Can Fluoridation Affect Lead (II) In Potable Water? Hexafluorosilicate and Fluoride Equilibria In Aqueous Solution
    Urbansky, E.T., Schocks, M.R.
    Intern. J . Environ. Studies, 2O00, Voi. 57. pp. 597-637

    “Given these findings, our analyses, though not definitive, do not support concerns that silicofluorides in community water systems cause higher PbB concentrations in children. Current evidence does not provide a basis for changing water fluoridation practices, which have a clear public health benefit.”

    Environ Health Perspect. 2006 January; 114(1): 130–134. Published online 2005 August 17. doi: 10.1289/ehp.8319 PMCID: PMC1332668
    Research
    Children’s Health
    Blood Lead Concentrations in Children and Method of Water Fluoridation in the United States, 1988–1994
    Mark D. Macek, Thomas D. Matte, Thomas Sinks, and Dolores M. Malvitz

    Steven D. Slott, DDS

    Like

  25. Christopher Atkinson

    Trevor, I appreciate your candour – it does make a welcome change from the usual comments from anti fluoridationists.
    Aside from the ‘science’ I am interested that you say you are the coordinator of of SWANZ when it clearly states on the incorporation documents Pat is coordinator –

    More confusing is why you have bothered to set swanz up when it is mainly made up of FANNZ members?

    Although you have every right to take a judicial review of councils decision I can’t see you succeeding except on maybe a technicality as the referendum was overwhelming in favour of reinstating fluoride…surely it looks bad for you/swanz to oppose the will of the people?

    Like

  26. Christopher, Note that I am not anti fluoride, I have an annual flu injection, I am not interested in chem trails and I support science that has demonstrable beneficial outcomes.
    Unfortunately fluoridation of community water is not in that category. If it were then logic would suggest every scientist and health professional in the world would be right behind the concept and the nearly one century of research and study applied would be irrefutable. That is obviously not the case and as long as people like yourself choose to nit-pick over why SWANZ was set up (should be obvious to a remotely intelligent person) who the co-ordinator is (the minutes of the inaugural meeting clearly states I fill that role) and like irrelevant minutia, rather than focus on the issues raised, no progress toward a consensus will be made. I suggest you stop treating everyone who disagrees with you as morons and mentally deprived idiots.
    Even JADA has changed its stance over the years, as has the CDC, SCHER and a growing number of dentists, scientists and health professionals. The proof of that is seen in the number of communities who are continuing to cease fluoridation. Not as a result of being unduly influenced by those you denigrate as nutters but through in-depth consideration of evidence presented by both sides of the argument. The reality is the evidence presented by the fluoridationists is increasingly seen as, to quote the York review; “unreliable and of poor quality”. Additionally the reviewers were unable to discover any reliable good-quality evidence in the fluoridation literature world-wide.
    In 2008 the World Health Organisation wrote;
    Children, ideally, are around longer in the world than adults.
    Not only do they live longer, allowing more time in which to develop diseases with long latency, but they also have longer to live with disabilities. In addition, they inherit the world we are creating, with all its problems and promises. So these three main characteristics of children:
    1) unique and different types of exposures;
    2) dynamic developmental physiology; and
    3) longer life expectancy
    represent the scientific reasons that children are not little adults with respect to environmental hazards. An important difference is that the unique issues of the timing of exposure with respect to critical windows enlarges on the old concept of toxicology captured in the phrase “the dose makes the poison”
    to become “the dose and the timing make the poison”.
    My focus on the fluoridation issue are those future generations who will be adversely impacted if, as seems likely, your conclusions based primarily on research and studies from half a century ago are wrong.
    Given there are so many avenues now available to deliver fluoride topically to address the issue of tooth decay why pursue adding it to the water.

    Like

  27. So, you’re not going to back up your hyperbole about these secret financial, political and ideological interests which have supposedly led people to oppose your cause?

    Shall we assume that these interests exist only for the purposes of your rhetoric?

    Like

  28. Trev, thanks for responding. This allows a discussion to be pursued and is of course far more polite than the common tactic of the drive-by troll. I encourage you to keep responding and debating here. Some responses:

    1: you say “A J. R. is the legal right of anyone who feels aggrieved and I see nothing at all wrong with that course being pursued. Or do legal rights only accrue to tax-payer funded pro-fluoridationists?”

    Where did you get the idea that anyone opposes your right to take legal action? And in fact I am on record as welcoming it. Because it enables case law to reach some decisions which will remove many of the legal arguments anti-fluoridationists use. So go for it. And I welcome the fact that you and your mates (including corporate mates) are paying for it. After all, if the “natural” health industry wants to get into this political fight they should at least pay to participate. And they certainly have the money, having put several hundred thousand into the South Taranaki case.

    2: readers will understand me being cynical about your claim of getting finance from “11700 opponents” of Hamilton’s referendum result. They are also rightfully cynical of astroturf organisation like SWANZ who often seem to be set up to avoid the financial responsibility that comes with legal action. NIWA has found that the $90,000 costs awarded to them cannot be recovered because the astroturf organisation which took their case is, like yours, “broke.” Incidentally, at some stage soon courts will start awarding costs against people like you who advance frivolous cases in the ideological cause of “natural” health.

    Rest assured that cynics will keep an eye on your astroturf group’s finances which you have to release details on being an incorporated society. We will also keep monitoring the financial movements revealed on the returns from the NZ Health Trust.

    3: the evidence you quote is surely irrelevant to this article. Did you not read the article? Do you support Waugh’s idea – and if you do shouldn’t you be protesting about silica in our water, not fluoride? While we are on your evidence. Why do you not mention other papers relevant to the issue of Pb like Urbasnky and Schock (2000)? Or are you unashamed of cherry-picking to support a bias?

    I won’t comment further on the Pb question (although the chemistry is interesting) because Dr Stott already has. As I have recently been reading some of these papers I would be interested in a response to Dr Stott’s comments from you.

    4: you ask if we here have concluded you are a nutter. Strange, as non-one has mentioned that word from the evidence-based side. Further strange, because you often refer to yourself as “Mr Nutter.” Bit of an obsession there, perhaps? Perhaps this obsession is even wider, considering your belief that we call you “morons and mentally deprived idiots.” Have a read of the recent comments on this blog and you can draw a more honest conclusion about which direction this sort of abuse comes from. (Yes, I have had to put your mate Danny O’Reilly into moderation because of his slander and personal abuse).

    Like

  29. Luke Duane Oldfield

    Trevor said…

    ‘I have personally invested money in the fluoride issue since the Tribunal outcome was derailed by people like yourself with undeclared political, financial and ideological interests’

    Hi Trevor,

    As a strong advocate of evidence based public health interventions, such as water fluoridation please allow me to declare my ‘political, financial and ideological interests’ for you. I’ll even go one step further and tell you ever intricate detail of my political leanings and financial well being.

    Age 30

    Political:
    I Have never belonged to a political party, and never intend on joining one.
    Here’s hiw i voted for since 2002
    2002: United (slightly embarrassed by this but i was only 18 afterall)
    2005: Labour
    2008: Did not vote
    2011: National
    2014: Yet to decide but will almost certainly be Labour or National

    Financial (asset wealth):
    I have a 1997 Mitzibushi Diamante (2.4 l V6) value $1,000 max
    I rent a 1 one bedroom one bathroom cinder block apartment, it’s so cold my pillows are wet from dampness when i go to bed.
    Cash in the bank (around $4,500)
    1 credit card ($4,000 limit – not maxed)
    1 student overdraft (maxed)
    Basically i own almost nothing and whatever cash i have saved is merely to get me through the reminder of my post graduate studies.
    I have never worked for a DHB or received any ‘funding’ from anywhere whether it be directly or indirectly linked to private interests – although i will keep applying as i have at present a 70k student debt.

    Education:
    I have an undergraduate degree, and am working toward an Masters in Public Policy.

    Work:
    I work on contract as a University Tutor. The University does not have a stance on fluoridation despite some of its employees like myself and lecturers such as Alison Campbell advocating for rational policy making.

    Ideological: It’s a mish mash of moderate libertarian thinking and neo-rationalism

    So there you go. Everything declared.

    Care to insult us/me any further with vague hand waving to corruption or is it time to shift the goalposts and assume that just a select few that are receiving a back door check?

    Trevor, at what point are you willing to drop the empty rhetoric and suggest that you’ve perhaps misspoke?

    Regards

    Luke Oldfield

    Like

  30. Luke Duane Oldfield

    Well that seems to be the end of Trevor, drifting off into the sunset when his ideas about corruption are challenged.

    At least he bothered to show up though, unlike that self-proclaimed ‘scientist’ Declan Waugh who seems incapable of defending the nonsense he spouts. It’s quite remarkable that FAN and their various sub groups expect an audience with qualified professionals when their pseudo experts can’t even explain their positions to a retired and intrigued scientist like Dr Perrott.

    Like

  31. Ken

    Thanks for repeating the explanation as to why the HFSA components are not in a simple equilibrium relationship following hydrolysis.

    Even if that were the case, the obvious fact that most of the silica finding its way to a human stomach is not from the fluoridation water additive trivializes the opponent’s concerns that HFSA dissociation intermediates might reform there. Quite clearly to the extent that actually happens humankind has experienced eons of coexisting with silica and fluoride ions in their stomachs.

    Like

  32. Patience is a virtue Billy Budd – I have other interests apart from responding to blinkered defenders of a failed 1940s experiment. As someone once famously declared “I will be back”.

    Like

  33. Christopher Atkinson

    Hi Trevor/SWANZ

    Sorry for the delay
    Glad to hear you are not interested in Chem Trails and are not anti-vaccination – I am fascinated at how you view other anti F activists as most appear to embrace some kind of “anti” science issue.

    If it were then logic would suggest every scientist and health professional in the world would…
    A couple of things here.
    Can you name one scientific community on the planet that rejects CWF?
    You been involved with this for a while so don’t need a list copied yet again – so why do you insist on taking the minority position of a number of fringe scientists/professionals and pretend that you are promoting a scientific view?

    …and the nearly one century of research and study applied would be irrefutable
    You seem to misunderstand how science works – nothing in science is irrefutable. However regarding the science of fluoridation it is “effectively settled” – can you show any extraordinary evidence challenging this?

    That is obviously not the case and as long as people like yourself choose to nit-pick over why SWANZ was set up (should be obvious to a remotely intelligent person) who the co-ordinator is (the minutes of the inaugural meeting clearly states I fill that role) and like irrelevant minutia, rather than focus on the issues raised, no progress toward a consensus will be made.
    Trevor, I am not nit picking, I was pointing out an anomaly that you still haven’t explained. Are you avoiding the question/issue?
    Now that you have incorporated a society, will its governance embrace ideas of public responsibility/accountability?
    Or is does is simply exist to achieve political ends irrespective of the public? If it is the former then I would expect SWANZ to be able to answer simple, straightforward questions in an open, honest and transparent way.
    If it is the latter, then SWANZ can do what it wants, however you have to expect the credibility of your organization to be hugely diminished.
    You need to decide what image you want to cultivate.
    If you want SWANZ to be labelled just another fringe, conspiracy group by all means just carry on and ignore answer simple, straightforward questions.
    My question related directly to the involvement of FANNZ with SWANZ. Pat McNair (a member of FANNZ) coordinated the formation of the society – something you appear to distance yourself from and not admit. Over half of the founding members, including Mary Byrne are also members of FANNZ. It seems SWANZ is simply FANNZ in drag..

    While we are on the issue of credibility. I have noticed a distinct difference between the FANNZ/ Fluoride Free / other anti-fluoride groups and the pro Fluoride Groups, Making Sense of Fluoride group and Open Parachute.
    While the pro fluoridation groups encourage discussion and answer questions (despite the huge numbers of trolls and abusive commentators), the anti-fluoridation groups don’t – discussions/questions are often deleted and commentators banned for no reason (I was banned by Mary for no reason – she thought I was Ken!). Are we to expect this behaviour from SWANZ?

    I suggest you stop treating everyone who disagrees with you as morons and mentally deprived idiots.
    Trevor – what on earth gives you this idea? I enjoy having intelligent rational discussions – whether I agree with them or not is irrelevant!
    I do however think that those people who abuse, repeat silly uninformed questions or simply cannot defend their claims may fall into these categories. Danny is a perfect example. But here is the salient point; I always ask the idiot in question to clarify his/her position to prevent any chance of misunderstandings occurring.

    Even JADA has changed its stance over the years, as has the CDC, SCHER and a growing number of dentists, scientists and health professionals. The proof of that is seen in the number of communities who are continuing to cease fluoridation. Not as a result of being unduly influenced by those you denigrate as nutters but through in-depth consideration of evidence presented by both sides of the argument. The reality is the evidence presented by the fluoridationists is increasingly seen as, to quote the York review; “unreliable and of poor quality”.
    Trevor – no. You seem under the mistaken and unshakeable belief that the world is turning to embrace the anti-fluoridation stance. Again I will mention the “list” of organizations that endorse CWF. You use make a basic logical fallacy by saying that communities ceasing fluoridation is somehow “proof” of the science against CWF when it is simply a result of aggressive lobbying from anti-fluoridationists – FAN, FANNZ etc.

    My focus on the fluoridation issue are those future generations who will be adversely impacted if, as seems likely, your conclusions based primarily on research and studies from half a century ago are wrong.
    And my concern lies not only with the future but also the present. CWF reduces the incidence of dental caries whether you accept this or not. Stopping CWF will increase the incidence of dental caries and consequently the quality of life for many New Zealanders.

    Given there are so many avenues now available to deliver fluoride topically to address the issue of tooth decay why pursue adding it to the water.
    Yes, I agree there are many tools to reduce the incidence of dental caries – but your argument is yet another logical fallacy – often made by anti fluoridationists; that people who promote CWF do this as a as a single platform issue.
    However, as a safe, cheap and effective tool, why not use it? :-)

    Like

  34. Luke Duane Oldfield

    Interesting how Trevor has ignored the elephant in the room – his unsubstantiated accusation(s) of corruption by advocates of rational based public health interventions.

    Enough shuffling Trevor, so among those of us who suffer through debating with your nonsense i’d kindly ask that you please identify who has ‘undeclared financial interests’ and what evidence you have of it.

    Thanks.

    and yes, i will follow you around the internet until i get a straight answer.

    Like

  35. …please identify who has ‘undeclared financial interests’ and what evidence you have of it.

    People usually try to expose corruption.
    A really good way to do that is to give details.
    A really bad way to do that is to ring the bell and run away on the internet.
    Money talks and bullshit walks.

    Like

  36. Christopher Atkinson

    Hi Trevor,

    We seemed to be getting at least some kind of constructive communication going but you seem to have gone to ground -

    As you speak for SWANZ, are there any others there that could perhaps engage in some kind of meaningful discussion? :-)

    Like

  37. Re the undisclosed financial interests.

    Some anonymous and total nutcase posted links in another Open Parachute thread (I forget which) a few hours before Trevor’s innuendo appeared. The links had little relevance to the topic of the discussion in which they appeared.

    The links were to one or two of Ken’s research papers on soil and fertilisers.

    It appears the local anti-fluoridation lobby have grown to dislike Ken Perrott. They’ve been looking into his backgound. And they know from which industry fluorosilicic acid is frequently sourced.

    It helps to understand how the conspiracy theorist’s mind works.

    Like

Leave a Reply: please be polite to other commenters & no ad hominems.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s