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

 

Advertisements

78 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

  38. Fluoridation is reckless because doing any sort of safety studies to insure safety for all citizens from babies on up to 80 year olds, diabetics, people with renal dysfunction, low thyroid to name a few, are well-nigh impossible to conduct. That is precisely why the public water is such a stupid place to deliver medicine, which is undeniably what these added fluoride chemicals (complete with all the impurities from industrial stacks of mainly the fertilizer industry looking to get rid of this incredibly toxic substance). Once it is in the water any half rate statistician knows how hard it is to glean its effects via observation. You would have to observe a huge cohort for literally their entire lives. Good luck, it would cost a fortune and might not even be possible to do to cover the myriad harm fluoride could be causing. Just because there is bad research on fluoride doesn’t mean it’s safe. Guys like Slott are completely dishonest. These patsies are the last people willing to do a proper study and the first to claim, impossibly, that fluoride is safe for all citizens. I remind you, the cochrane report concluded very weak evidence fluoride helps adults or bridges any dental divide between rich and poor (one its main stated purposes) so why ingest it through your body, mostly unknowingly for your entire life. It’s beyond reckless, against all medical principle and lacking in any cogent justification. I have read most all the studies claiming benefit for the teeth. The statistics and epidemiology in these studies is universally deplorable, something cochrane did not catch, unfortunately, but it suffices to say, these fluoride studies use outdated babyish statistics and have huge flaws in them. I challenge anyone to a live debate any time on this matter in front of as many people as possible.

    Like

  39. Jonathan Levy – I accept your challenge of a debate.

    As we live in separate countries the logical way to proceed is by an on-line discussion, similar to the one I had with Paul Connett.

    I am happy to provide space for you on this blog – an unedited discussion with articles by you and me alternating.

    This is, of course, much more effective than a short stand-up debate. It provides a permanent record, capable of being checked. Arguments can be supported by citations.

    You can contact me through this blog – we can sort out details via email.

    I hope you accept my offer and look forward to an interesting and informative discussion.

    Like

  40. We can start with thyroid safety studies to which Ken will link me. So far, he provided a link via his blog, which doesn’t go to the article itself but rather must be accessed via request.

    I will also pose this general question, which points to the idiocy if applying medicine or treatment via the public water: let’s assume fluoridation proponents have their way and everyone’s water, restricting to the population of those with less than .7ppm, is intervened upon to raise it to .7ppm. Then, how would we ever evaluate the intervention in terms of safety and efficacy? Of course we would have nothing to compare it to so it would then become impossible to account for anything unforeseen or foreseen or even whether it actually helps in any way. Medical practices are constantly being refined and this flies in the face of that as well as the idea of personalized medicine. And this for a chemical that has no necessity. We have the teeth directly available to us as well and where all sorts of unforeseen things can occur via ingestion and interaction with everything we consume.

    Like

  41. Jonathan, I have already linked you to a number of my posts on this subject in our email exchange. You choose whichever one you wish to comment on. If you are having trouble locating the study then just ask – but be specific. I generally check out full texts wherever possible.

    I should note here that you have drawn back from your challenge of a “debate.” I offered you the same freedoms I gave Paul Connett, but you are not willing to accept.

    I think this is a pity as you claim to have statistical skills which Connett certainly hasn’t and it would have been interesting to discuss those aspects.

    You ask how is it possible to evaluate the safety and efficacy of community water fluoridation. Well, researchers have been doing that – for a recent review see this recent authoritative review from New Zealand:

    Eason, C., & Elwood, JM. Seymour, Thomson, WM. Wilson, N. Prendergast, K. (2014). Health effects of water fluoridation : A review of the scientific evidence.

    You raise the issue of “unforeseen” issues – which of course applies to anything. How do we know that the calcium in our water supply is safe and effective, for example?

    You claim that F is not necessary – yet it is a normal and natural component of bioapatites. The pure hydroxylapatite end member would not be suitable for our bones and teeth.

    Finally, in a previous comment, you refer to:

    “fluoride chemicals (complete with all the impurities from industrial stacks of mainly the fertilizer industry looking to get rid of this incredibly toxic substance). “

    This is a common, unsupported, claim proposed by anti-fluoride propagandists. But it is completely untrue. All water treatment chemicals are toxic in their concentrated form – but not in their diluted forms. F is no exception.

    As for impurities – the fact is that the level of introduction of contaminants from fluorosilicic acid is actually much lower than that already present. Have a read of this article of mine – Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing.

    Here is a graphic illustrating the data – in terms of the %age contribution of contaminants from fluorosilicic acid compared with that naturally present in the source water.

    contaminants

    Liked by 1 person

  42. If you would prefer to have this debate elsewhere we can. Anywhere is fine. I asked you to link me to any thyroid safety study and you didn’t. I gave you the choice of which you think is best. But yes, I’ve started. My thesis is pretty clear and you have ignored my first challenge. Paul and you went through much of the literature but I didn’t want to rehash all of that, so I refer to Paul’s crushing victory over you for any other redirect you offer to my very specific problems with putting treatment in the water. I say, again, assuming you could fluoridate all of the less than .7ppm communities, how would you evaluate the intervention? If you haven’t a cogent answer then I declare this case closed.

    Like

  43. Furthermore, an intervention is different than things that are in the water for which we have little control. Fluoridation is an intervention and in the absence of evaluating its safety and efficacy, assuming you get your wish to fluoridate everyone at .7ppm who is under this amount, then I declare the practice reckless and having no end goal that is worthwhile.

    Like

  44. And there is another debate point I will cling to and not deviate from in your redirects: How can you guarantee the intervention of fluoridation is not seriously hurting some people? If one were to generously grant that fluoridation prevents caries, then are we to do this at the cost of hurting people who would not even know how they are being hurt? What is your equation for harming others in the name of preventing caries for children? This is why an intervention for treating the body is not done via the public water. There is no way that even if we go through all of what we think are risks today that other risks unforeseen will not come up later or will perhaps never be known. If the fluoridation intervention occurred for all who were under .7ppm, then we could never know this (we would lack any group for comparison, much the difficulty today, in fact) and would have no option as to change the course of our ways. Furthermore, not remotely have the problems brought up about harm been settled conclusively nor could they ever be. Are you to redirect me off of this line of thinking? Fine, I’ll play. Give me a thyroid safety study. It won’t show, I can tell you right now, that no one is adversely affected. It might conclude weakly that on average they found no statistical significance as to deleterious effects, but at best, they computed an average. This brings me back to the aforementioned equation.

    Like

  45. My word, Jonathan, you are full of declarations.

    But that is not the way things work in science. We rely on evidence and reason.

    Fluoride and calcium are natural constituents of drinking water (together with a host of other ions). Researchers have evaluated these – they have come to decisions about them. For example with fluoride the WHO recommends that drinking water concentrations should be in the range 0.5 – 1.5 mg/L. This helps take advantage of its protective role against tooth decay and avoids the problems of dental and skeletal fluorosis. Some countries like the USA and NZ supplement the naturally occurring low levels of F, other countries, like Denmark, rely on the natural levels which are near optimum, and yet other countries must take steps to reduce the natural concentrations because they are too high.

    Regarding a debate – you had definitely rejected it despite my offer in several emails. My offer of space on this blog in the same way that my discussion with Paul Connett went. I offered that there be a short first post outlining our bios followed by a post from you making your charges against fluoridation. I would reply and there would be a number of alternating posts from us responding to each other.

    You yourself claimed statistical expertise – and I would welcome a discussion of these aspects. Connett did not raise such issues and was obviously unfamiliar with statistics.

    So, once again, I offer you that space. You can start with your “very specific problems with putting treatment in the water.” You can raise the problems of faulty statistics, providing examples.

    If you wish to start with thyroid issues go ahead. You seem not to be familiar with the literature on this so I suggest you could start with:

    Peckham, S., Lowery, D., & Spencer, S. (2015). Are fluoride levels in drinking water associated with hypothyroidism prevalence in England? A large observational study of GP practice data and fluoride levels in drinking water. J Epidemiol Community Health, 1–6.

    That should be right up your street but has some huge statistical problems and has been widely rubbished.

    Or perhaps a more recent study with a very large number of samples:

    Barberio, A. M. (2016). A Canadian Population-based Study of the Relationship between Fluoride Exposure and Indicators of Cognitive and Thyroid Functioning; Implications for Community Water Fluoridation. MSc Thesis, University of Calgary

    This contains the draft of two papers:

    Fluoride exposure and indicators of cognitive functioning: implications for community water fluoridation
    Amanda Barberio, Carlos Quiñonez, F Shaun Hosein, & Lindsay McLaren

    And

    Fluoride exposure and indicators of thyroid functioning: implications for community water fluoridation
    Amanda Barberio,, F Shaun Hosein, Carlos Quiñonez, & Lindsay McLaren

    This work has a large statistical component.

    So, there you are Jonathan. I have made you this offer – it is up to you to respond or not.

    But, please, stop this silly habit of making declarations. That is not conducive to a rational discussion.

    Like

  46. Stop being silly, Jonathan. I have given you 2 studies. The first is by a prominent UK anti-fluoride activist. It claims to show an adverse effect of fluoridation. It claims the effect is statistically significant.

    Stop trying to avoid an honest good faith discussion of the evidence. Have a go at discussing the studies.

    Like

  47. I repeat for all those on this blog and elsewhere. If fluoridationists got their wish to put .7ppm for all those in the world with presently less than .7ppm, then we would have no comparison group with which to evaluate its efficacy and safety. Bad things could happen and we would never know because we would have no way of comparison. We couldn’t, in this case, even tell how good it is because what would we compare it to? Such is perhaps an exaggerated version of what goes on today, where observational studies are so difficult and time-consuming as well as very expensive to conduct, making fluoridation quite a bit more draining and expensive for the public than fluoridation proponents have you believe. Think of the human energy spent justifying and fighting this practice when we could be using it to actually help poor people’s teeth without possibly violating other people’s bodies!

    An RCT for fluoride couldn’t even settle it enough to put it in the water and such hasn’t been even remotely attempted. Why? Because an RCT couldn’t even foresee all the possible things a blanket treatment in the water could do as far as harming individuals over the course of their entire lives.

    Do fluoridation proponents factor in the mountains of human effort to try and evaluate this intervention’s many many possible effects into the cost of the intervention? Certainly not. There is a much better way: Educate the public. If fluoride is so good for ingestion and we have so much of it, let these proponents cash in by selling it over the counter, assuming the FDA would accept it. Sell it in candies that everyone could afford but do not put it in the water!

    But, as an aside to my point, if you link to Ken’s article Chemophobic scaremongering: Much ado about absolutely nothing, he admits that fluoridation chemicals add 9.78% more uranium in the water than is already present. Do we really have to add uranium to the public water or 2% more arsenic? But again, I digress. Back on my thesis: Fluoridation, a practice whose endgame is oblivion for its universal implementation would make it impossible to evaluate its performance.

    Like

  48. I don’t see them anywhere on this blog. I see no link where the article is available for viewing. As I said, I did request for UC calgary, an article you cited, but it was not there for viewing.

    Again, this is a distraction to the impenetrable argument that fluoridation is a reckless road to oblivion, even if you had a huge RCT on thyroid, which you don’t remotely have.

    Like

  49. Ken, I’m a good enough statistician to realize the basics. ie, that a statistical discussion of various studies, though I will engage, is not the crux of my argument.

    1) give me your equation for people you would seriously harm vs arguably helping children’s teeth. Can you give me this equation or can you assure me with a straight face that fluoridation does not harm anyone? If you have such an equation then we can just agree to disagree and end this debate right now. If not, then I’m afraid anything else you claim is just distraction.

    2) If fluoride were universally implemented, how would you ever tell what it is doing? Are you sure enough to think that in the present day of 2017, we know all there is to know about this topic and that such science should never be re-evaluated?

    Like

  50. You are a bit of an opportunist there, Jonathan, talking about my figures showing the extremely low contribution of contaminants from fluosilicic acid – compared with the levels already present, as me “admitting” something!

    The key thing you ignore was my point that these calculated values as so ridiculously low that they are in many cases meaningless. This is the case with uranium which is rarely measured because it is so low – usually below detection levels in the laboratories doing the certifications.

    Arsenic is a case where source waters usually contain much higher levels than that contributed during treatment. This was documented recently in a Canadian paper and I have written about the situation in my city where the As in the source water is already above the recommended maximum level.

    As for the articles – can you not do a simple search. Peckham’s article is really available although it should really be read with a number of other articles that critique it. The Canadain article is also readily available – if you requested it you will shortly get it from that link. The same way I did.

    Hell, I don’t know why you think you are up to “debating” this issue if you cannot access readily available articles.

    Similarly, you seem to be completely devoid of any understanding of science to pose the question:

    “Are you sure enough to think that in the present day of 2017, we know all there is to know about this topic and that such science should never be re-evaluated?”

    No researcher would ever say that. But, of course, in the practical world, public administrators will only ask for the best available knowledge. If they have any sense they will also recognise that that question be posed regularly because scientific knowledge evolves.

    Like

  51. Jonathan – this is also scientifically silly:

    “can you assure me with a straight face that fluoridation does not harm anyone?” of course not – and I can not do the same thing for magnesium, chloride, or anything, including water.

    But I am, so far, unaware of any credible research showing harm from community water fluoridation. However, I have an open mind so perhaps you could present me with a citation or other evidence indicating such harm. I will honestly consider it.

    You comment about fluoridation being “universally implemented” is just silly. That is completely impossible as a little consideration would show.

    Like

  52. Yes, those other things in the water are very hard for us to control and come naturally. They are not interventions as fluoridation is. The intervention, if implemented universally as fluoridation proponents desire, would be impossible to evaluate much as it is today but, in this case, truly impossible. So what is the point of fluoridation? To fluoridate only 70%, 40%, 90%? Just enough to cloud the issue and make it hard to prove anything good or bad? No, unless you can answer this question, there is no point in me dismantling studies or offering you any proof. What is the endgame of fluoridation? Proponents seem to want to put it in place everywhere they can.

    The onus is not on me to prove harm, here. Even having a argument about such points to the bankruptcy of your position for fluoridation itself is leading to us never being able to prove anything about it. That’s why people have personal choice over their health interventions. If science is to evolve on the matter, it would need to evaluate the intervention and such is clearly extremely hard and impossible in the event fluoridation proponents get their way. Arguably we are at that point right now, which is why a mountain of human energy is going into this fight where it would be better spent actually helping poor children’s teeth. For this you haven’t an answer.

    Ladies and gentlemen, for a debate on the literature, you can refer to Connett. I am awaiting Ken’s proposed thyroid safety study, which I will review, but such will not address my points already made.

    And what of your equation for harming others in the name of helping poor children’s teeth? How do you do this public health analysis? What weight do you place on harming people who did not ask for extra fluoridation chemicals in their water. Still, no answer because you haven’t such.

    Finally, I see you are indeed proving the opposite of your point with this graph that shows, actually, that fluoridation is not doing anything to help people’s teeth as the rate of decrease in caries in this photo is essentially the same as from the starting point. This would disprove the great value of fluoridation, actually. https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ireland-who.jpg?w=749&h=528

    Scroll down to the graph of just the red and blue curves. They are both decreasing pretty equally according to these eyes. If they start out unequal, well, that’s not due to a lack of fluoridation. Cause happens before effect, Ken.

    Like

  53. Jonathan, I must conclude you are not a credible discussion partner. I do not see any prospect of any meaningful discussion with you – certainly not the sort of good faith discussion I had with Connett (until he ran away 🙂 ).

    Health experts do not wish to fluoridate everywhere – in fact, that is completely impossible.

    Have a look at the current NZ proposed legislation to see what is involved.

    The point of community water fluoridation is to improve dental health – nothing else (although it probably helps bones).

    Tthe onus is on you to show some sort of evidence of harm – not on me. I rely on scientific reviews that have looked at all the supposed evidence and found it unconvincing. If you have something new then produce it. If you haven’t then go away because you are not making sense.

    I have not got a “proposed” thyroid study for you to look at. But as you seemed completely ignorant of the issue, I pointed you in the direction of 2 studies you could start with. It is not my problem if you are incapable of locating these and it is idiotic for you to wait on me for them.

    Your analysis of my graphic is stupid – there is no “starting point” shown. The levels at the real starting point would be exactly the same.

    As for oral health historically improving in both fluoridated and unfluoridated areas – no one questions that. Oral health is influenced by a range of factors, only one of which is fluoride.

    Really, I am now pleased you refused my acceptance of your debate challenge – it would be waste of time to divert attention on to such stupid arguments.

    Like

  54. I did not refuse, I requested the thyroid studies form UC Calgary as I said many times already. I clearly offered to debate right on this thread and accepted, which is why I am destroying you right now.

    Unfortunately, you have no answers to inescapable questions and therefore gave up right away. I even used your own data against you. I repeat for followers. This graph, which Ken used to disprove Paul Connett’s claim that fluorided and non-fluoridated countries have similar reductions in tooth decay over the years. This graph shows that yes, they both have decreased equally! The non-fluoridated area started out worse but had virtually the same decreases over the years as the fluoridated! If they started out unequal, such is not due to not being fluoridated! And if the effect is the same, then he has disproved himself. See if for yourselves, people. Proponents of fluoridation cannot even show fluoridation helps the teeth, let alone assure us no one is hurt by or evaluate the intervention once it is implemented as they desire.

    https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ireland-who.jpg?w=749&h=528

    Good bye, Ken. It was nice knocking you out in the first round, as it were.

    Like

  55. And for a final punch, no, Ken, they wouldn’t start out the same because areas chosen for fluoridation vs not might have had very different starting points for dental caries. Your graph simply shows they have been decreasing equally regardless of fluoridation.

    https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ireland-who.jpg?w=749&h=528

    Thanks again for the brief tango.

    Like

  56. Ok, one more…Fluoridation certainly has an end goal to fluoridate everywhere they can. If there are remote areas or well water places where it is impossible, then no they won’t but then again, that would point to the fact it would then be impossible to evaluate the intervention because the only areas that would not be fluoridated would be well water areas. Any scientific evaluation of fluoridation from that point onward would then have no comparable group with which to make an evaluation. It would then be a road to oblivion of anything it is doing and the science would be impossible to reevaluate via empirical evidence.

    Like

  57. Every now and then Jonathon’s mask seems to slip and reveal the one eyed monster he is.

    Like

  58. Ooh, a fluoridation proponent snake pit I stepped into. I come in here to your den, totally dismantle and make irrelevant all of your needless distraction and misdirection with two simple questions and now I get called names. Wow, I really did kick Ken’s ass. Didn’t expect him to go down so easy but he did and he should have because community water fluoridation is a bankrupt policy with no endgame and no possibility, in its desired implementation by fluoridation proponents, to even verify its own value empirically.

    Like

  59. So Jonathan, and according to your logic, you oppose vaccinations because once there is an effective majority of vaccinated people we would no long be able to evaluate how effective vaccinations are.

    Mad! 🙂

    Like

  60. Vaccinations are not forced on everyone and vaccinations protect each other, the main point of the argument because diseases are communicable. Fluoridation is an intervention that treats individuals and is clearly a totally different ball game. My bad teeth don’t harm others.

    Like

  61. Well, Jonathan, when you get the Canadian study perhaps you can return with your critique.

    Meanwhile, the Peckham study is readily available. Simple to download. Why do you avoid critiquing that one?

    As for my graph – I used the WHO data to demonstrate to Paul Connett haw facile the argument was he was using the data for. He was dumbfounded, avoided the issue and still uses the WHO data. Dishonestly.

    Of course, the WHO data is actually irrelevant from a scientific viewpoint – it is so sparse and does not take all the factors into account. Each country has their own records and studies – the WHO dita is a minuscule extract.

    Yyou are perfectly correct that in Ireland the dmfts for the different areas may well be different – we don’t know because the WHO data is not a study. You would actually have to refer to the Irish studies, and to their detailed data (as I often do ofr New Zealand). But on the basis of the published research in New Zealand, etc., I would pick the dmfts at the start of fluoridation were much closer.

    You claim there is no evidence to support that CWF is effective. Well, why don’t you back this up? there are numerous studies – most of them concluding CWF is effective. How about this from the recent Cochrane review:

    “Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. These results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in both children’s baby and permanent teeth.”

    What about you citing a single study showing it ineffective and we can then discuss it?

    Like

  62. They do, actually.

    But the logic is exactly the same. Because vaccinations work we are no longer able to show they are effective – unless we stop vaccinating a group.

    It is a childish argument.

    The fact is that with CWF we are continually checking out the dental health of =fluodiuated and unelucidated areas so we have ongoing monitoring of its effectiveness. There is actually a lot of data.

    What about you producing a study to support your claim that CWF is ineffective and we can discuss it. Until then there is no point humouring you.

    Like

  63. I am critical of that study, too, but such is irrelevant. I am also critcal of Bassin’s study on osteosarcoma. I believe the more integrity we have with the science rather than manufacturing a smoking gun, is the key to shining a light on how absurd and foolish and lacking in science fluoridation is–that is, mainly due to the points I have made and will re-iterate below. You will not distract me off these points and I will no longer repeat them.

    I hope you consider my points and change your stance. I can show studies of inefficacy but Paul has covered that ground and you also covered it with that chart you erroneously used to refute paul and which I brought to light in this very thread, three times or so.

    In the absence of being able to answer the points I made, I again, declare this discussion over. You are either willing to harm others in unspecified amounts for unspecified help to poor children’s teeth or you have an equation for such, which is brutal at best. And, given your desire to fluoridate everywhere possible, clearly the endgame is that the science is totally settled on foreseen and unforeseen illness as well as help to the teeth, which it clearly is not, according to your own admission. In the absence of empirical evidence in the event of ideal (according to fluoridation proponents) implementation, the intervention becomes reckless. Now, I have work to do and would like to get back to it. I will read the thyroid study. Thanks for turning me on to it.

    Like

  64. And no, I ruined your vaccination argument. Clearly fluoridation is an entirely different intervention with an entirely different purpose. You quit already, Ken. Sorry, I won’t be misdirected but if you haven’t answers to the points I made there is no basis to anything you say. It only serves to strengthen my point for the very existence of the debate on literature. No one will give me my parameters for debate and I won’t waste my time further, lest you want me to return every two or three days and just copy and paste my previous points for which you haven’t a repsonse. Paul has covered the literature and argued quite well. You screwed up right at the start with that graph, which Paul could have seized upon but didn’t. There’s my evidence, right from WHO. Actually, right from who? You. Cochrane also said the evidence for help to adults was weak and that the intervention did not close the gap between rich and poor people’s teeth. This should have effectively ended the practice.

    Arghhh, no I won’t get into this. It is pointless.

    Like

  65. Jonathan, you are demonstrating an inability to hold a good faith discussion.

    And, I repeat, it is childish to make declarations in the way you are.

    chess

    One thing for sure is that I have expressed my thankfulness that you retreated from your challenge. I would consider it a waste of space and time to now go along with what I was suggesting.

    You clearly do not have the scientific background or expertise (or basic honesty) required to participate in the sort of good faith discussion I proposed.

    So, good riddance.

    Like

  66. See, this is dishonest. You say:

    “Cochrane also said the evidence for help to adults was weak and that the intervention did not close the gap between rich and poor people’s teeth. ”

    Cochrane said nothing of the sort. They said that on the basis of the studies they selected (they did not include most modern studies because they did not fit their criteria) they could not draw conclusions about a number of things, including social effects and benefits to adults. If you actually read their report you will see in their discussion that they do in fact refer to, and quote, studies showing these effects.

    As I said, you ar incapable of a good faith discussion. You are incapable of actually reading a scientific report.

    Like

  67. Well, I am efficient. I only bother to expose literature fallacy if need be to prove my point. You failed in interpreting a basic graph of WHO data, which disproved your point and added great fuel to my fire, enough so, that I would not have waste my time further with a clear amateur.

    This graph, you provided as evidence of fluoridation’s success, proves the opposite for the decrease is the same in the two groups from the starting point. This shows you haven’t a concept of causal inference and therefore you are clearly unqualified to really discuss confounding and epidemiology as well as statistical methods in these realms.

    Nitpicking over Cochrane does not help as the result is the same: Science has not studied enough the effects on adults and bridging the dental divide between rich and poor to know its effects or it is false that fluoridation accomplishes such things. In either case, forging ahead with fluoridation which, would only make it harder to tell these things empirically, is irresponsible at best.

    https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/ireland-who.jpg?w=749&h=528

    Now, given this rookie error, am I to continue wasting time when such is only extra on top of the bankruptcy of your position even without such scientific proof? I say not.

    Like

  68. Jonathan, you are becoming very tiresome. This is not the pissing competition you seem to think. Your continual treatment as one just discredits you.

    My use of the Irish WHO data was never meant to “prove” the beneficial effect – just to demonstrate that Connett was dishonestly cherry-picking the WHO data so that any data consistent with a beneficial effect was excluded. (You agree that is the case, don’t you?)

    In my posts, I have often referred to (especially more recent) proper publications (the shonky WHO data set used by people like Connett is not one) where this beneficial effect has been shown.

    You are the one claiming there has never been a single demonstration of a beneficial effect (you say, for example, “Proponents of fluoridation cannot even show fluoridation helps the teeth”) – and that is why you attempt to divert away from the quote I used from the Cochrane report. I repeat that here:

    “Data suggest that the introduction of water fluoridation resulted in a 35% reduction in decayed, missing or filled baby teeth and a 26% reduction in decayed, missing or filled permanent teeth. It also increased the percentage of children with no decay by 15%. These results indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing levels of tooth decay in both children’s baby and permanent teeth.”

    True, the Cochrane report was unable to draw conclusions about socio-economic effects or beneficial effects for adults from the studies they selected (or the effect of stopping CWF). But in their discussion, they did refer to the conclusions of others based on later studies Cochrane had not considered.

    Do you accept that the quote I give from the Cochrane report concluding CWF is effective is accurate or not?

    Now, I could give you more recent single study citations – such as that by Blinkhorn et al., (2015). (A 4-year assessment of a new water-fluoridation scheme in New South Wales, Australia) but there is an advantage of using reviews (even if the reviews themselves have flaws, as the Cochrane review did).

    I agree “Science has not studied enough the effects on adults and bridging the dental divide between rich and poor” (after all, as a scientist I surely support continuing scientific research and its funding relevant ). Such research is ongoing, but current findings do support arguments fo socioeconomic effects and benefits to all existing teeth – including those of adults.

    I suggest that as you oppose community water fluoridation you become active in your own community. I personally am not active in proposing for or against community water fluoridation (I abhor political activity in general) but I am active in supporting science. I have devoted a fair bit of my time to the correcting of misinformation, distortions and outright lies promoted by anti-fluoride propagandists, climate change deniers, and anti-evolutionary science activists.

    Your arguments that community decisions to adopt a well proven beneficial and safe health policy like CWF – just because their adoption means it could be harder to evaluate these policies in future (you think) are just silly. As silly as opposing the well proven beneficial and safe social health policy of vaccinations because disease is being eradicated and we may longer be able to check its effectiveness, “empirically,” in future.

    I suggest – yes – you are wasting your time with these farcical arguments. You undertook to make an analysis of several fluoride-thyroid papers and have not done so. Are you unfamiliar with reading and critiquing scientific papers? That’s what it looks like. You have avoided these papers and misrepresented the Cochrane review.

    Like

  69. Vaccines are not remotely in the same category as the fluoridation intervention, a point I backed up very cogently to destroy this sophomoric analogy so please do not retrace old ground. That, is tiresome.

    I’ll read this one: Blinkhorn et al., (2015). (A 4-year assessment of a new water-fluoridation scheme in New South Wales, Australia). Don’t cite cochrane, for your own good, because it really weakens your point since it says fluoride may not help adults and may not bridge the dental divide, a major justification for this reckless policy.

    I’ll get back to you when I am finished and will review it. I reviewed a study form UNC by Slade, conducted in Australia, claiming benefit to adults and it is embarassingly bad because they considered disparate comparison groups and, therefore, a major positivity violation arose in terms of non-fluoridated elders, which would bias the results away from the null hypothesis. Plus his statistical methodology in using multiple linear regressions to tease out confounded causal effects is very poor and outdated. Cochrane got it right on that one–weak evidence.

    Ingesting fluoridation chemical by-products does have an effect on many known and unknown bio processes–for sure. How much on humans, we cannot say, due to the difficulties of studying the effects of something put in the public water, but we will never know if we keep fluoridating. This is undeniable but you don’t want us to know. You’d prefer we fluoridate everyone possible and designate all empirical science on the matter to oblivion.

    Like

  70. For sure!

    Put your money where your mouth is.

    As I said this is not a pissing competition. That is for juveniles.

    And again – you attempt to divert. Do you question the accuracy of my quote from the Cochrane review? or do you question the review itself?

    Your arguments about the effect of 100% coverage can be applied to any social health policy, including vaccinations – if one is to avoid dealing with the evidence as it exists.

    Like

  71. I quote: “our arguments about the effect of 100% coverage can be applied to any social health policy, including vaccinations – if one is to avoid dealing with the evidence”. Very dishonest, as fluoridation is the only intervention on the body put in the public water and therefore forced on everyone, many unknowingly so. I already destroyed your pitiful vaccine analogy and yet you repeat the same deception. I suppose you will say chlorine is the same as fluoride when chlorine is put in not to treat the body but to prevent things like dysentery. Otherwise we would have no public water at all. This is why after I review that pitiful inconclusive study you cited, I will leave you on your road to oblivion.

    Like

  72. Attempted diversion again. the same logic applies whatever the method of delivery.

    You have destroyed nothing – it is not a pissing competition.

    This is very childish.

    Like

  73. It’s the only forced health intervention of its kind, actually, nothing else remotely like it.

    I don’t have to waste much time reading that study as I already can find huge holes in it. It is an embarassment to the writers and the field of statistics and causal inference at large. And, they actually prove the opposite of their claim because they are so incompetent.

    1) Repeated prevalence studies show nothing as they do not follow individuals and thus the causal intervention on an individual basis is not well-defined. Now even if they did follow individual cohorts within the cities they would still have huge problems. Ultimately what we have here are not even the same populations but three different cities and hence three independent non random draws. Now, one can account for differences in cities and claim equality between cities after such but really, it is very arguable we need a city variable included to make a prediction both with and without fluoridation for all three cities, in order to get at the effect of a causal intervention. The intervention, therefore, even in the case of three cohorts, one for each city, which did not happen, is not well-defined for no one in the non-fluoridated city would have the possibility to get fluoride and vice-versa for the pre-fluoridated people. So by design alone this study is a disaster for the blatantly one-sided view they want to put across.

    Still, I will grant leeway, albeit very large, to pull their shenanigans. Look at how much the fluoridated caries index score dropped from 2010 to 2012 compared it being stagnant between 2008 and 2010 (actually rising a little!). This actually proves the unfluoridated prevalence estimates are very highly varying. the only alternative is that for no reason, the unfluoridated area just was stagnant for 2 years and then drastically reduced the cavity score the next two years. Suddenly not being fluoridated rocked for two years, within a hair of the best percentage decrease of any of the other 2 cities for a two year span! This disproves their not-so-subtly biased claim, and they did not remotely address it. What would cause a place to suddenly drop in cavities like that and if there was such a thing to cause such a drop, then all of the results might have a lot of variance and these prevalence confidence intervals are rendered meaningless.

    Longitudinal data is not analyzed this way for determining causal effects and this is perhaps why. These lazy researchers could not even be bothered to properly follow a cohort.

    I really ought not teach my opposition how to analyze studies, for unless that person is honest, he will only trash his opposition and unfairly paint his own side in a wonderful light.

    Like

  74. And I mind, you these irresponsible hacks want to fluoridate on this basis. Actually, such a terrible study is evidence of gross negligence and the fact your side doesn’t give a shit about really evaluating fluoridation but rather just wants to fluoridate and make it impossible to evaluate empirically. Then they will claim benefit with no evidence and will not even bother to have these slut whore hacks do their dishonest stats.

    I knew your incompetence, Ken, would lead me to the worst possible study for your case. I trusted your incompetence and it shone like the blazing sun after a hangover. Thanks for undermining your cause so effectively.

    Like

  75. Jonathan, the fact is that opponents of social policies like community water fluoridation, vaccinations, chlorination, secular education and public hospitals all claim it is forced on them. Such claims are meaningless. I could say that our council forced the stopping of fluoridation on my community. They made that decision against the clear expression fo public opinion. In the end, they were forced, by yet another overwhelming referendum support for CWF, to reverse their undemocratic decision.

    The fact remains, however, your argument (which notably no one else uses) is just childish. Should we abandon publicly funded schools and hospitals just because a nutter thinks they make it impossible to get empirical evidence these policies are effective?

    I do not know what you subsequent comments refer to. Are you critiquing one of the papers you said you would look at? Peckham et al?

    You seem to vacillate between the arrogance of youth (the pissing competitions) and the senility of the chronologically impaired (making a critique without referencing it).

    Like

  76. You are a chump. I’m just practicing by destroying you in several ways. Keep preaching here to your out of tune choir while I stop fluoridation. First you gave up then I gave you another chance and you lost even worse. I will not return to this pitiful blog. If you like drinking fluoride so much, accurately drink a daily quantity, probably too much because you are totally incompetent, but keep your sophomoric science away from my health.

    Like

  77. Jonathan – your body, your life. Do what you want with it.

    Meanwhile, back to the science.

    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