I am all for genuine creativity in science, and elsewhere. But some people seem to think anything goes when the are promoting their ideology or political views.
Again and again I come across campaigners , especially in areas like “natural” health, climate change denial and promotion of creationism, who seem to think “creative embellishment – or outright distortion – is OK when claim that science is “on their side.”
Here’s a typical example from Fluoride Free NZ (FFNZ) who are attempting to deny the science indicating that fluorosilicates used for fluoridation of water supplies decompose to form the fluoride anion. They are desperate to assert that fluorosilicate species remain and these “might” be toxic.
FFNZ cites the National Toxicology Program (NTP), part of the US Department of Health and Human Services. But puts words into their mouths to create exactly the opposite conclusion to tat which should be taken from that web site.
According to FFNZ:
the NTP “says the assumption that fluoridation chemicals disassociate into free fluoride ions is not supported by experimental evidence. This is good to remember when the fluoridationists claim that fluoride, is fluoride is fluoride. They are operating on belief rather than scientific fact.”
But the NTP says nothing of the sort. The page simply lists a 1999 nomination, from a “private individual”, for research to consider possible toxicity. Yes, the “private individual” gives as grounds “lack of toxicity information; assumed complete dissociation to free fluoride under normal conditions of use not supported by experimental evidence.” But that is the view of the nominator – not of NTP.
In fact, the NTP has a statement making clear that selection of an agent for study does not imply support for the nominators views:
” Selection of an agent for a study does not imply that the agent is hazardous or a potential carcinogen in laboratory animals; likewise, an agent not selected for toxicologic study by the Program should not be taken to mean that the agent is not potentially hazardous or potentially carcinogenic in laboratory rodents.”
Interestingly the cited web page includes “The following information related to “fluorosilicates “including history from earlier or later nominations for this same agent.” Specifically Nomination Background a pdf document “Review of Toxicological Literature.” It is a comprehensive review, but on page 4 it says:
“In water, fluorosilicic acid readily hydrolyzes to hydrofluoric acid and various forms of amorphous and hydrated silica. At the concentration usually used for water fluoridation, 99% hydrolysis occurs and the pH drops to 4.2. As pH increases, hydrolysis increases. At the pH of drinking water, the degree of hydrolysis is “essentially 100%” (Crosby, 1969; Urbansky and Schock, 2000).
H2SiF6(aq) + 4 H2O → 6 HF(aq) + Si(OH)4(aq)”
Exactly the opposite of what FFNZ assert!
Now who is ” operating on belief rather than scientific fact.”
A clear example of extreme confirmation bias amounting to complete distortion.
For some reason, disseminating outright lies seems perfectly acceptable to antifluoridationists. They can and are corrected repeatedly with irrefutable facts, yet they continue to intentionally make the same false claims and statements.
I’ve never come across a group so void of basic integrity as are these people.
You people never cease to amaze me with your comments – they are masterpieces of evasion and obfuscation. It should be of no surprise at all that those of us without the ‘benefit’ of a science based education make comments that are based on anecdotal evidence, assumptions an interpretations of studies based on common sense and a natural suspicion of science that has in the past 100 years been found wanting. Examples are numerous and well documented, Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few, all of which were defended for decades by their promoters. Mainly through the use of skewed science and professional public relations experts.
Little wonder that there is controversy over fluoridation when the science supporting it is lauded by people whose response is not the use of plain English to rebut the decriers but swathes of science and invective.
I can understand that a chemical element which causes harm to vegetation and animals needs to be scrubbed from the exhaust chimneys of fertiliser plants to avoid adverse outcomes. But I cannot understand how that toxic element is transformed into a beneficial additive when injected into humans drinking water and instantly becomes a therapeutic agent to treat a disease. forgive the pun but it doesn’t quite wash with me.
I also don’t understand how a sodium fluoride tablet, a registered pharmacy medicine according to its NZ manufacturers, carries a warning ‘do not use during pregnancy’ and ‘do not use in children under 3 years of age’ while the poisonous by-product of phosphate manufacturing is put into drinking water with no recommendation of dose or notification of possible adverse outcomes.
Even fluoridated toothpaste warns that ingestion will cause health issues dependent on the amount ingested, yet again by some strange and unrevealed scientific process fluoride in drinking water is safe and beneficial. You people might be brainwashed and wearing your scientific blinkers but to me you are prime creators and promoters of the confusion and complexity that you spend most of your time (unsuccessfully) trying to unravel.
Given that most of the world is moving toward not adding fluoride to their drinking water and the often predicted wave of decay has not eventuated why not stop doing it for the next 10 years and conduct a global study of the outcomes under the auspices of the main protagonists from both sides of the issue?
So, Trevor, was that little rant an attempt to divert attention away from the message in this article? That your mates at Fluoride Free NZ are telling outright porkies about the science of fluoridation. No wonder you guys keep losing in court.
What was that about “masterpieces of evasion and obfuscation?”
Examples are numerous and well documented, Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few, all of which were defended for decades by their promoters.
Trev, you’ve tried this bullshit before.
Their promoters were not the scientific community.
Say it slowly.
Not the scientific community.
Huge commercial manufacturing corporations, tobacco companies, petrochemical and oil companies.
I realize you don’t wish to discuss the ethics of forced medication, but it is important.
The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies.
Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the ethical principle of informed consent. It means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.
Is not there clear consensus that Finney’s Nuclear Magnetic Resonance studies ended this matter.
see: Reference: Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7. Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement. Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16683594
Even Dr. Paul Connett has acknowledged the definitive nature of Finney’s work in one of this many You-Tube appearances. He groused a bit about perhaps HFSA is reconstituted in the acid environment of a human stomach but Ken, you have well explained why this is not realistic either.
All these references to Urbansky are to old science and also as you point out mistaken.
James, I am happy to discuss the ethical aspects of fluoridation. I don’t know why you assume I aren’t. My experience, though, is usually that anti-fluoride propagandists have an extremely limited understanding of the ethics. Paul Connett and I discussed ethics during our debate but he seemed to think it only went as far as arguing over the definition of what is a medicine. He had no understanding of the need to balance individual choice against social good – or the idea that individual choice can still be guaranteed while carrying out a social good policy.
Incidentally, our High Court recently ruled that fluoridation does not qualify as medicine.
But James, you are attempting a diversion here. This article is about a specific situation where local anti-fluoride activists have blatantly misreported a scientific aspect. Your unwillingness to discuss the article is telling.
You admit you are ignorant of science but in fact you are also ignorant more generally. All of the studies you suggest have been done and no, there is not a world wide movement against fluoridation. In your “world” maybe but not the world in general. Stop reading the denial community rubbish and do some Independant googling.
“It should be of no surprise at all that those of us without the ‘benefit’ of a science based education make comments that are based on anecdotal evidence…
It doesn’t surprise us at all. It happens all the time. People without education and totally clueless about science make comments based on anecdotes all the time. Tragic but true. It’s woefully bad thinking.
“Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few…
Not only are you hopeless at understanding science, you even suck at history. How do people like you even tie your own shoes? Wierdo.
Folks that think atoms and ions are perpetually damned by previous associations are hardly likely appreciate irony. Sounds a bit like original sin doesnt it when you think about it?
Some more examples from the F people of avoiding the questions and obfuscating the facts. For example;
Richard – “Not the scientific community.Huge commercial manufacturing corporations, tobacco companies, petrochemical and oil companies.
Not the same as the scientific community”.
There are many documented cases where the scientific community has manipulated and skewed science to support the product they are marketing.
Are you seriously saying the fluoride industry has never engaged in the same practices? Ever.
You people are simply a mutual admiration society and I suspect even when NZ eventually joins the 95 per cent of the global community who do not fluoridate, you will be in a bunker somewhere like a survivalist cult plotting and planning ways to attack the enemy who want to take away your weapons of destruction – your computers and 1940s era science books.
How about making a constructive contribution to the debate for a change?
Trevor, just a glance at F free sites and I don’t waste much time on them reveal idiots who believe in Agenda 21 and something called Communitarianism. What the hell is that? Did you guys not realise humans (and dolphins) are irriduciably social animals. I could accuse you of communitarianism for associating with othe FF nutters.
There are certainly many cases where business and ideological interests have manipulated and skewed science to support a product or ideology they are marketing. See it every night on TV advertising. And we see it all the time from the Fluoride Free groups. In fact, these groups have had several Advertising Standards Authority decisions goes against them for this very reason – presenting their opinions as scientific fact. And they are documented.
I see you are ignoring simple questions. Now is your chance to set the public record straight and clarify the relationship SWANZ has with FANNZ and any other organisations.
Trevor,
One of your biggest supporters is none other than Dr. Joseph Mercola, who is anti-fluoride, anti-vaccination, and believes that cancer is caused by a fungus.
He also sells a very, very expensive tanning bed in his on-line store, and, of course, his special rays that will tan you right up don’t cause cancer.
He’s nothing more than a modern day snake oil salesman who is making a fortune off of the gullible, non-science educated public who are afraid of their shadows.
Name one of the many documented cases where the scientific community has manipulated and skewed science to support the product they are marketing
And you answered, “fluoride”.
Maybe you think that response was clever.
It was your claim and you avoided supporting it. Your claim, right there with your name over it. On the internet, where everybody can see it and everybody can see you run and squirm when asked to support it.
Trevor Crosbie, you are taking your clothes off in public. On Ken’s blog you have repeatedly demonstrated that:
You can’t understand basic chemistry,
You are clueless as to scientific methodology.
You are ignorant as to the history of much scientific advancement.
You are gullible, with a capital G.
That when called out, you consistently avoid providing evidence for your absurd claims.
You are truly lost, bamboozled and frightened in a world that you fail intellectually to grasp.
Had a quick peek at the Facebook link.
Poor Pat McNair. She has her work cut out for her.
We have enough credible evidence as it is about other aspects of fluoride – we do not need to add “conspiracy theories” that cannot be substantiated. It does not help the cause at all!”
Yeah, good luck with that.
Let’s take a quick trip down memory lane, shall we?
“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.”
(…)
“Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few, all of which were defended for decades by their promoters. Mainly through the use of skewed science and professional public relations experts.”
(…)
“Follow the money trail, it’s all about profits and “they” could care less about our health…..all of them it’s money…”
(…)
“The polluters make huge mega profits coming and going….and all the council members, I believe have deep pockets….”
(…)
“I think you are all paid by the polluters….”
(…)
“That is a fact. It does not make a conspiracy; and I am sure we are all equally confident that the vast financial sums at stake have no influence or consideration at all in arriving at the political decision to put fluoride effluent into water supplies.”
(…)
“We all know, from experience, that people running large financial concerns only ever act with the purest of motives and would never, ever deceive, simply to improve the balance sheet.”
(…)
“re you mostly part of the pushers who come into towns to push this down the council members throats and into our city coffers? And throw a bit in their pockets….I’ve seen those crews come into our town when at council meetings, etc…”
And that was just on one blog (this one) covering only about a week!
Where do these people come from? Why do they have no real lives?
Keep digging gentlemen, you will eventually be in a hole you cannot get out of. My comments have nothing to do with my role as co-ordinator of SWANZ and cherry-picking comments and quoting material out of context is making you look less intelligent by the day. You are displaying similar traits to the religious zealots that you seem to hold in considerable contempt. Get some counselling before you become totally irrelevant and slide into oblivion!
I suppose they thought the leaded petrol was a conspiracy. As I understood it at the time leaded petrol was for technical reasons and at some considerable expense alternative technologies were implemented because it was increasingly recognised to be bad for cognitive development. Individuals may have “conspired” to keep it but it wasn’t a global conspiracy and it was science that established the case for getting rid of it along with lead contamination elsewhere. Trevor’s problem is his urge to be notable and significant probably among some peers in an areas he knows next to nothing about. Online pontificating provides a megafone and a degree of immunity to such people.
I have a personal problem with an outdoor club I am associated with. In the process of posting more general stuff on conservation and animal welfare I aroused some hostility and one individual arranged to “ban” my use of the club email system. It’s this ego game online that explains I think the appearance of these weirdos.
What SWANZ does or says is none of your business.
I mentioned recently about lead in petrol and the science being skewed to support its on-going use. I was challenged to back up my assertion. Happy to do so!
“Key assumptions that are critical to outcomes of harm or its absence were confidently asserted rather than demonstrated. For example, the initial assumption from the lead industry, in reply to the US Surgeon General’s query about possible health hazards from leaded petrol was to state that there were none, ‘although no actual experimental data has been taken’. This was an early example of assuming that ‘no evidence of harm’ is the same as ‘evidence of no harm’ when no relevant research is available to support that assumption. This is a still a common mistake in public health.
Another key assumption was that the intake of lead into the body was counteracted by excretion, which was sufficient to achieve a harmless physiological balance, whereby no, or only minimal accumulation of lead in the body would take place. This assumption was not supported by actual evidence of the absence of lead accumulation.
Early studies of workers and Mexican farmers did not serve as unexposed control groups as they too were contaminated with lead. When ‘unexposed’ control groups are also contaminated then true risks will be underestimated.
The first study of consumer risks from lead in petrol was too small and short term to detect effects other than acute and gross ones and it was not followed up by the publicly funded long-term monitoring that its authors strongly recommended.
Experimental studies in animals documented adverse effects of lead from environmentally relevant concentrations but this evidence was frequently ignored or regarded as irrelevant for humans.
Extensive scientific debates, sometimes focusing on diversionary details, or based on the potential for exploiting or even manufacturing scientific doubt helped to maintain the impression that the adverse health effects of environmental lead pollution were unproven. It is often more convenient for a hazardous industry to debate the science than to discuss options for reducing hazards.
It was assumed that there was a threshold between biological effects and ‘adverse’ effects. This is still a dominant assumption in conventional toxicology despite the accumulating evidence that biological effects can be critical steps on the way to adverse effects, as Patterson pointed out in the 1960s.
There is usually a biological continuum and not a discrete change. This means that action to avoid significant biological ‘effects’ will often be needed if we are to prevent, as opposed to merely observe, ‘adverse effects'”.
It is interesting to note the involvement of the Kettering Laboratory and the scientist, Robert Kehoe in the above process and how much of a parallel there is in the affirmative science around lead in petrol (safe and effective) and their prominence in finding the same affirmative science around fluoridisation. Safe, beneficial and effective, bullshit!
Oh, the irony, Trev. You are busy trying to ignore my article but are actually illustrating it very well.
You talk about “the science being skewed” to support something. This is exactly what the Fluoride Free groups do all the time and my article illustrated that with the fluorosilicate example.
Your example illustrates how “science is skewed” by another ideologically and financially motivated group – the oil industry. We have seen it with the tobacco industry and we see it again with the fossil fuel industry in their attacks on the science of climate change.
Yes, I am sure you will find a number of scientists who advocated for the oil industry – just as you will find those who advocated for the tobacco industry and do so for the fossil fuel industry. You can even find a few “nominal scientists” advocating for the natural health industry in their attacks on social health policies like fluoride. People like Connett, for example, Bill Hirzy, etc. even some people who call themselves scientists and researchers but have no professional experience or qualifications – people like Declan Waugh.
Scientists, more people with science qualifications like Connett, are just like other people. Some of them are corrupt, shills for an industry (like the “natural” health industry), getting financial or egotistical satisfaction out of their misrepresenting of the real science. But the vast majority of scientists are just doing their job. And scientific research, to be successful, means comparing ones ideas with reality, testing ideas in the real world, and submitting to the peer review and critique of ones colleagues. This does help to encourage honesty.
Connett and Hirzy of course don’t participate in the scientific endeavour so don’t submit their ideas to proper review. They end up being paid shills for the industry they ideologically support – the “natural” health industry. The same industry currently financing your little legal misadventure.
It shows that the anti-fluoride people are on the same team as those who attack climate change science, support tobacco and Ob in petrol. You are on the team you criticise.
You’re as funny as you are clever!
No need to get your panties all on a bunch – if SWANZ is one of those secret squirrel type of organizations where you all whisper in hushed voices about the dreaded F, shills and big business that’s fine by me.
I just thought as the ‘coordinator’ you were pretty important and therefore capable of answering stuff.
Anyways – you’re not entirely right, as an incorporated society you do have legal responsibilities, one of which is to supply a set of annual accounts – look forward to seeing them Trev!
But seriously, can I quote you when I say that SWANZ is unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with science based organisations?
You people studiously avoid responding to the points opponents raise in their comments and focus on denigration, obfuscation and red herrings.
My only interest, based on personal experience and reasoned judgement, is to join the 95 per cent of the global community who do not fluoridate their community water supplies. Your arrogance in insisting that only people who are in favour of adding fluoride to water, as a solution to the disease of tooth decay are right and everyone else is wrong, is mind-blowing.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like about anything at all, as you usually do, but whether you get it right or wrong is your dilemma and nothing to do with me. Given your track record to date I wouldn’t be too confident in a long-term positive outcome
Have a happy day!
Trev, my conclusions about funding of these little legal misadventures are not made at random. They are based upon the financial returns of the NZ Health Trust which clearly show large sums coming in as “grants” from the “natural” health industry and similar large sums going out as legal payments at the time of the High Court action it’s subsidiary group took against South Taranaki. That is why we are keen to see the similar financial returns for next few financial years. We know you are not going to be up front about who is paying you.
As for “avoiding responding,” “denigration,” “obfuscation,” and “red herring” – well – your few comments seem to be full of them.
You people studiously avoid responding to the points opponents raise in their comments and focus on denigration, obfuscation and red herrings.
Trevor, I’m betting you didn’t do very well at school, did you? Especially in any subject that involved involved analysis, research, essays or report writing. In fact, pretty much anything that involved any sort of basic academic vigour.
You posted a copy and pasted screed without attribution. Worse than that, the rant included multiple claims and isolated quotes made without any means of verification, for example, lets just take one sentence, at random from the first paragraph.
For example, the initial assumption from the lead industry, in reply to the US Surgeon General’s query about possible health hazards from leaded petrol was to state that there were none, ‘although no actual experimental data has been taken’.
Who spoke for the “lead industry”? When? Why have we been supplied with a quote of only half a sentence, and where do we go for the rest?
Anyway, what the hell has the “lead industry” got to do with the scientific community (you know, those bogeymen you are supposed to be making a case against).
No one is going to address unattributed and unreferenced copypasta.
Of course we ridicule you. You’ve been called out on these practises before and yet you refuse to learn anything or to cease doing it. You deserve to be ridiculed. That you swallow such horseshit opinion without question before you quote it just illustrates how gullible you are.
Does that include African people whose natural fluoride is up to 8 ppm. ( that means 8 parts per million Trev). Then there’s the 1.4 ppm in the oceans which finds its way into your fish and chips.
Have a good day Trev!
Open Parachute 
For some reason, disseminating outright lies seems perfectly acceptable to antifluoridationists. They can and are corrected repeatedly with irrefutable facts, yet they continue to intentionally make the same false claims and statements.
I’ve never come across a group so void of basic integrity as are these people.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
And they go to local goverment and say the same things, without even a blink. I’ve seen it with my own eyes and had the PowerPoints to back it up
LikeLike
This shows clearly they are deceivers not misinformed. They’ve left their fingerprints in the twink bottle.
LikeLike
On the twink bottle.
LikeLike
Fat finger!
LikeLike
You people never cease to amaze me with your comments – they are masterpieces of evasion and obfuscation. It should be of no surprise at all that those of us without the ‘benefit’ of a science based education make comments that are based on anecdotal evidence, assumptions an interpretations of studies based on common sense and a natural suspicion of science that has in the past 100 years been found wanting. Examples are numerous and well documented, Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few, all of which were defended for decades by their promoters. Mainly through the use of skewed science and professional public relations experts.
Little wonder that there is controversy over fluoridation when the science supporting it is lauded by people whose response is not the use of plain English to rebut the decriers but swathes of science and invective.
I can understand that a chemical element which causes harm to vegetation and animals needs to be scrubbed from the exhaust chimneys of fertiliser plants to avoid adverse outcomes. But I cannot understand how that toxic element is transformed into a beneficial additive when injected into humans drinking water and instantly becomes a therapeutic agent to treat a disease. forgive the pun but it doesn’t quite wash with me.
I also don’t understand how a sodium fluoride tablet, a registered pharmacy medicine according to its NZ manufacturers, carries a warning ‘do not use during pregnancy’ and ‘do not use in children under 3 years of age’ while the poisonous by-product of phosphate manufacturing is put into drinking water with no recommendation of dose or notification of possible adverse outcomes.
Even fluoridated toothpaste warns that ingestion will cause health issues dependent on the amount ingested, yet again by some strange and unrevealed scientific process fluoride in drinking water is safe and beneficial. You people might be brainwashed and wearing your scientific blinkers but to me you are prime creators and promoters of the confusion and complexity that you spend most of your time (unsuccessfully) trying to unravel.
Given that most of the world is moving toward not adding fluoride to their drinking water and the often predicted wave of decay has not eventuated why not stop doing it for the next 10 years and conduct a global study of the outcomes under the auspices of the main protagonists from both sides of the issue?
LikeLike
So, Trevor, was that little rant an attempt to divert attention away from the message in this article? That your mates at Fluoride Free NZ are telling outright porkies about the science of fluoridation. No wonder you guys keep losing in court.
What was that about “masterpieces of evasion and obfuscation?”
LikeLike
Examples are numerous and well documented, Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few, all of which were defended for decades by their promoters.
Trev, you’ve tried this bullshit before.
Their promoters were not the scientific community.
Say it slowly.
Not the scientific community.
Huge commercial manufacturing corporations, tobacco companies, petrochemical and oil companies.
Not the same as the scientific community.
Think, Trevor, think.
LikeLike
I realize you don’t wish to discuss the ethics of forced medication, but it is important.
The forced-fluoridation experiment is medical malpractice on an industrial scale. Fluoridation chemicals are the only medications which are delivered via public water supplies.
Medicating public water supplies with any chemical violates the ethical principle of informed consent. It means that politicians are subjecting everyone to treatment which no doctor can legally impose on anyone, and is surely the most ham-fisted method of drug delivery ever devised.
LikeLike
Is not there clear consensus that Finney’s Nuclear Magnetic Resonance studies ended this matter.
see: Reference: Environ Sci Technol. 2006 Apr 15;40(8):2572-7. Reexamination of hexafluorosilicate hydrolysis by 19F NMR and pH measurement. Finney WF, Wilson E, Callender A, Morris MD, Beck LW. Department of Chemistry, University of Michigan, USA. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16683594
Even Dr. Paul Connett has acknowledged the definitive nature of Finney’s work in one of this many You-Tube appearances. He groused a bit about perhaps HFSA is reconstituted in the acid environment of a human stomach but Ken, you have well explained why this is not realistic either.
All these references to Urbansky are to old science and also as you point out mistaken.
LikeLike
James, I am happy to discuss the ethical aspects of fluoridation. I don’t know why you assume I aren’t. My experience, though, is usually that anti-fluoride propagandists have an extremely limited understanding of the ethics. Paul Connett and I discussed ethics during our debate but he seemed to think it only went as far as arguing over the definition of what is a medicine. He had no understanding of the need to balance individual choice against social good – or the idea that individual choice can still be guaranteed while carrying out a social good policy.
Incidentally, our High Court recently ruled that fluoridation does not qualify as medicine.
But James, you are attempting a diversion here. This article is about a specific situation where local anti-fluoride activists have blatantly misreported a scientific aspect. Your unwillingness to discuss the article is telling.
LikeLike
You admit you are ignorant of science but in fact you are also ignorant more generally. All of the studies you suggest have been done and no, there is not a world wide movement against fluoridation. In your “world” maybe but not the world in general. Stop reading the denial community rubbish and do some Independant googling.
LikeLike
It’s a cry for help. How can one read it any other way?
LikeLike
“It should be of no surprise at all that those of us without the ‘benefit’ of a science based education make comments that are based on anecdotal evidence…
It doesn’t surprise us at all. It happens all the time. People without education and totally clueless about science make comments based on anecdotes all the time. Tragic but true. It’s woefully bad thinking.
The Problem with Anecdotes by QualiaSoup
LikeLike
…assumptions an interpretations of studies based on common sense…
When you assume, you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me”.
(Hint:Ass+u+me= assume)
Common sense doesn’t really help in science. Common sense tells you that the Earth is flat. Science says otherwise.
Common Sense Is Worthless in Science
LikeLike
“Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few…
Not only are you hopeless at understanding science, you even suck at history. How do people like you even tie your own shoes? Wierdo.
Your Health vs the Tobacco Industry: A History
LikeLike
Ah Trevor,
You people never cease to amaze me with your comments – they are masterpieces of evasion and obfuscation
The irony
Surely as the coordinator of SWANZ, answering a few simple questions wouldn’t be too hard for you…
LikeLike
“Surely as the coordinator of SWANZ…
Holy-Krazy-Monkey-On-A-Stick!
Seriously?
(…thoughtful pause…)
Come to think of it, that would explain a lot. Who knew the barrel could be scraped than deep?
LikeLike
Folks that think atoms and ions are perpetually damned by previous associations are hardly likely appreciate irony. Sounds a bit like original sin doesnt it when you think about it?
LikeLike
Some more examples from the F people of avoiding the questions and obfuscating the facts. For example;
Richard – “Not the scientific community.Huge commercial manufacturing corporations, tobacco companies, petrochemical and oil companies.
Not the same as the scientific community”.
There are many documented cases where the scientific community has manipulated and skewed science to support the product they are marketing.
Are you seriously saying the fluoride industry has never engaged in the same practices? Ever.
You people are simply a mutual admiration society and I suspect even when NZ eventually joins the 95 per cent of the global community who do not fluoridate, you will be in a bunker somewhere like a survivalist cult plotting and planning ways to attack the enemy who want to take away your weapons of destruction – your computers and 1940s era science books.
How about making a constructive contribution to the debate for a change?
LikeLike
Last time I checked 74% of US people are fluoridated. You’ve got to be a crank.
LikeLike
Trevor, just a glance at F free sites and I don’t waste much time on them reveal idiots who believe in Agenda 21 and something called Communitarianism. What the hell is that? Did you guys not realise humans (and dolphins) are irriduciably social animals. I could accuse you of communitarianism for associating with othe FF nutters.
LikeLike
There are many documented cases where the scientific community has manipulated and skewed science to support the product they are marketing.
Name one.
LikeLike
There are certainly many cases where business and ideological interests have manipulated and skewed science to support a product or ideology they are marketing. See it every night on TV advertising. And we see it all the time from the Fluoride Free groups. In fact, these groups have had several Advertising Standards Authority decisions goes against them for this very reason – presenting their opinions as scientific fact. And they are documented.
>
LikeLike
And no, Trevor, Ken hasn’t answered the question for you.
i>There are many documented cases where the scientific community has manipulated and skewed science to support the product they are marketing.
Name one.
LikeLike
Trevor,
I see you are ignoring simple questions. Now is your chance to set the public record straight and clarify the relationship SWANZ has with FANNZ and any other organisations.
Are you able to?
LikeLike
There are many documented cases where the scientific community has manipulated and skewed science to support the product they are marketing.
“Name one.”
Seconded.
Put up or shut up, you delusional crackpot.
LikeLike
I see Trev is attributing the Hitler use fluoride in his camps story as planted by supporters of fluoridation. Some mothers really do have them.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/340348899367313/permalink/690468297688703/
LikeLike
Trevor,
One of your biggest supporters is none other than Dr. Joseph Mercola, who is anti-fluoride, anti-vaccination, and believes that cancer is caused by a fungus.
He also sells a very, very expensive tanning bed in his on-line store, and, of course, his special rays that will tan you right up don’t cause cancer.
He’s nothing more than a modern day snake oil salesman who is making a fortune off of the gullible, non-science educated public who are afraid of their shadows.
LikeLike
Fluoride
LikeLike
You’re going to type out posts one word at a time now?
Okaaaaayyyyyyy.
LikeLike
Name one of the many documented cases where the scientific community has manipulated and skewed science to support the product they are marketing
And you answered, “fluoride”.
Maybe you think that response was clever.
It was your claim and you avoided supporting it. Your claim, right there with your name over it. On the internet, where everybody can see it and everybody can see you run and squirm when asked to support it.
Trevor Crosbie, you are taking your clothes off in public. On Ken’s blog you have repeatedly demonstrated that:
You can’t understand basic chemistry,
You are clueless as to scientific methodology.
You are ignorant as to the history of much scientific advancement.
You are gullible, with a capital G.
That when called out, you consistently avoid providing evidence for your absurd claims.
You are truly lost, bamboozled and frightened in a world that you fail intellectually to grasp.
LikeLike
We’re dealing with morons. Morons on the internet playing “Ring the Bell and Run Away.”
LikeLike
Morons, they fail to grasp the explanations science has provided as to how reality is organised. instead, they live in a magical world.
It’s all a mystery.
Not understanding how electricity works it is repeatedly amazing the light goes on when you flick a switch. How wonderful it must be.
But how frightening too.
People are by nature frightened of the unknown .
When everything is mysterious and unexplained it is also terrifying.
They are out to get you. You must be constantly on your guard.
They are using things you don’t understand…..like…(spooky sound effect)… fluoride.
LikeLike
The Trevor Crosbie school of clever argument –
Assertion: Scientists are poisoning us with fluoride.
Challenge: That’s absurd
Supporting assertion: It is well known scientists poison us with chemicals.
Challenge: Name one.
Clever winning response: Fluoride.
LikeLike
Had a quick peek at the Facebook link.
Poor Pat McNair. She has her work cut out for her.
We have enough credible evidence as it is about other aspects of fluoride – we do not need to add “conspiracy theories” that cannot be substantiated. It does not help the cause at all!”
Yeah, good luck with that.
Let’s take a quick trip down memory lane, shall we?
“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.”
(…)
“Also well documented are the machinations, distortions and downright deceit that are part and parcel of the promotion of ‘stuff’ such as lead in petrol, asbestos and cigarette smoking, to name but a few, all of which were defended for decades by their promoters. Mainly through the use of skewed science and professional public relations experts.”
(…)
“Follow the money trail, it’s all about profits and “they” could care less about our health…..all of them it’s money…”
(…)
“The polluters make huge mega profits coming and going….and all the council members, I believe have deep pockets….”
(…)
“I think you are all paid by the polluters….”
(…)
“That is a fact. It does not make a conspiracy; and I am sure we are all equally confident that the vast financial sums at stake have no influence or consideration at all in arriving at the political decision to put fluoride effluent into water supplies.”
(…)
“We all know, from experience, that people running large financial concerns only ever act with the purest of motives and would never, ever deceive, simply to improve the balance sheet.”
(…)
“re you mostly part of the pushers who come into towns to push this down the council members throats and into our city coffers? And throw a bit in their pockets….I’ve seen those crews come into our town when at council meetings, etc…”
And that was just on one blog (this one) covering only about a week!
Where do these people come from? Why do they have no real lives?
LikeLike
OK so Trevor…I have tried now several times.
So SWANZ’s is not willing or able to answer any questions asked of it in a public forum?
I trust you have consulted with your Executive?
Is this the official positionof SWANZ?
LikeLike
Just imagine how Trev is going to perform in the high court witness box!
>
LikeLike
Keep digging gentlemen, you will eventually be in a hole you cannot get out of. My comments have nothing to do with my role as co-ordinator of SWANZ and cherry-picking comments and quoting material out of context is making you look less intelligent by the day. You are displaying similar traits to the religious zealots that you seem to hold in considerable contempt. Get some counselling before you become totally irrelevant and slide into oblivion!
LikeLike
I suppose they thought the leaded petrol was a conspiracy. As I understood it at the time leaded petrol was for technical reasons and at some considerable expense alternative technologies were implemented because it was increasingly recognised to be bad for cognitive development. Individuals may have “conspired” to keep it but it wasn’t a global conspiracy and it was science that established the case for getting rid of it along with lead contamination elsewhere. Trevor’s problem is his urge to be notable and significant probably among some peers in an areas he knows next to nothing about. Online pontificating provides a megafone and a degree of immunity to such people.
I have a personal problem with an outdoor club I am associated with. In the process of posting more general stuff on conservation and animal welfare I aroused some hostility and one individual arranged to “ban” my use of the club email system. It’s this ego game online that explains I think the appearance of these weirdos.
LikeLike
Hi Trevor,
My comments have nothing to do with my role as co-ordinator of SWANZ …
So if you can’t speak for SWANZ, who can?
LikeLike
What SWANZ does or says is none of your business.
I mentioned recently about lead in petrol and the science being skewed to support its on-going use. I was challenged to back up my assertion. Happy to do so!
“Key assumptions that are critical to outcomes of harm or its absence were confidently asserted rather than demonstrated. For example, the initial assumption from the lead industry, in reply to the US Surgeon General’s query about possible health hazards from leaded petrol was to state that there were none, ‘although no actual experimental data has been taken’. This was an early example of assuming that ‘no evidence of harm’ is the same as ‘evidence of no harm’ when no relevant research is available to support that assumption. This is a still a common mistake in public health.
Another key assumption was that the intake of lead into the body was counteracted by excretion, which was sufficient to achieve a harmless physiological balance, whereby no, or only minimal accumulation of lead in the body would take place. This assumption was not supported by actual evidence of the absence of lead accumulation.
Early studies of workers and Mexican farmers did not serve as unexposed control groups as they too were contaminated with lead. When ‘unexposed’ control groups are also contaminated then true risks will be underestimated.
The first study of consumer risks from lead in petrol was too small and short term to detect effects other than acute and gross ones and it was not followed up by the publicly funded long-term monitoring that its authors strongly recommended.
Experimental studies in animals documented adverse effects of lead from environmentally relevant concentrations but this evidence was frequently ignored or regarded as irrelevant for humans.
Extensive scientific debates, sometimes focusing on diversionary details, or based on the potential for exploiting or even manufacturing scientific doubt helped to maintain the impression that the adverse health effects of environmental lead pollution were unproven. It is often more convenient for a hazardous industry to debate the science than to discuss options for reducing hazards.
It was assumed that there was a threshold between biological effects and ‘adverse’ effects. This is still a dominant assumption in conventional toxicology despite the accumulating evidence that biological effects can be critical steps on the way to adverse effects, as Patterson pointed out in the 1960s.
There is usually a biological continuum and not a discrete change. This means that action to avoid significant biological ‘effects’ will often be needed if we are to prevent, as opposed to merely observe, ‘adverse effects'”.
It is interesting to note the involvement of the Kettering Laboratory and the scientist, Robert Kehoe in the above process and how much of a parallel there is in the affirmative science around lead in petrol (safe and effective) and their prominence in finding the same affirmative science around fluoridisation. Safe, beneficial and effective, bullshit!
LikeLike
Oh, the irony, Trev. You are busy trying to ignore my article but are actually illustrating it very well.
You talk about “the science being skewed” to support something. This is exactly what the Fluoride Free groups do all the time and my article illustrated that with the fluorosilicate example.
Your example illustrates how “science is skewed” by another ideologically and financially motivated group – the oil industry. We have seen it with the tobacco industry and we see it again with the fossil fuel industry in their attacks on the science of climate change.
Yes, I am sure you will find a number of scientists who advocated for the oil industry – just as you will find those who advocated for the tobacco industry and do so for the fossil fuel industry. You can even find a few “nominal scientists” advocating for the natural health industry in their attacks on social health policies like fluoride. People like Connett, for example, Bill Hirzy, etc. even some people who call themselves scientists and researchers but have no professional experience or qualifications – people like Declan Waugh.
Scientists, more people with science qualifications like Connett, are just like other people. Some of them are corrupt, shills for an industry (like the “natural” health industry), getting financial or egotistical satisfaction out of their misrepresenting of the real science. But the vast majority of scientists are just doing their job. And scientific research, to be successful, means comparing ones ideas with reality, testing ideas in the real world, and submitting to the peer review and critique of ones colleagues. This does help to encourage honesty.
Connett and Hirzy of course don’t participate in the scientific endeavour so don’t submit their ideas to proper review. They end up being paid shills for the industry they ideologically support – the “natural” health industry. The same industry currently financing your little legal misadventure.
Have a look at the video in this link, Trev. http://www.vice.com/read/us-congressman-opens-climate-science-denial-conference-with-rant-against-water-fluoridation-708
http://www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DnnLoVgSRnko&h=GAQGWTPVs&enc=AZP2Wuagrl-MlOIQwer_-iuZuZ2cc-ucQkDpe5_md0P302yDFpbNaN40q_h95Z-r28z_xrUEdIzgrIXnuFR3O10br99MVUy1b_hNOU3ouBUMvSkeQSQ_OpB9Wru3ivb1rPY&s=1
It shows that the anti-fluoride people are on the same team as those who attack climate change science, support tobacco and Ob in petrol. You are on the team you criticise.
LikeLike
I was challenged to back up my assertion. Happy to do so!
(followed by long cut n paste screed full of uncited assertions. The rant enclosed in quotation marks without an attribution)
Trev, you are a first class clown .
LikeLike
A first class clown with funding from corporate interests – the “natural” health industry – for his little legal adventure.
>
LikeLike
I bet that funding will vanish as fast as Barry Brill should the case fail and costs go against them.
LikeLike
Oh Trevor –
You’re as funny as you are clever!
No need to get your panties all on a bunch – if SWANZ is one of those secret squirrel type of organizations where you all whisper in hushed voices about the dreaded F, shills and big business that’s fine by me.
I just thought as the ‘coordinator’ you were pretty important and therefore capable of answering stuff.
Anyways – you’re not entirely right, as an incorporated society you do have legal responsibilities, one of which is to supply a set of annual accounts – look forward to seeing them Trev!
But seriously, can I quote you when I say that SWANZ is unwilling to engage in constructive dialogue with science based organisations?
🙂
LikeLike
Last Chance Trev,
Is SWANZ willing to discuss issues of fluoridation with either the ‘Public’ on this blog or the Making Sense of Fluoride fb page? Elsewhere perhaps?
LikeLike
You people studiously avoid responding to the points opponents raise in their comments and focus on denigration, obfuscation and red herrings.
My only interest, based on personal experience and reasoned judgement, is to join the 95 per cent of the global community who do not fluoridate their community water supplies. Your arrogance in insisting that only people who are in favour of adding fluoride to water, as a solution to the disease of tooth decay are right and everyone else is wrong, is mind-blowing.
You can draw whatever conclusion you like about anything at all, as you usually do, but whether you get it right or wrong is your dilemma and nothing to do with me. Given your track record to date I wouldn’t be too confident in a long-term positive outcome
Have a happy day!
LikeLike
A simple ‘no’ would’ve done Trevor!
LikeLike
Trev, my conclusions about funding of these little legal misadventures are not made at random. They are based upon the financial returns of the NZ Health Trust which clearly show large sums coming in as “grants” from the “natural” health industry and similar large sums going out as legal payments at the time of the High Court action it’s subsidiary group took against South Taranaki. That is why we are keen to see the similar financial returns for next few financial years. We know you are not going to be up front about who is paying you.
As for “avoiding responding,” “denigration,” “obfuscation,” and “red herring” – well – your few comments seem to be full of them.
>
LikeLike
You people studiously avoid responding to the points opponents raise in their comments and focus on denigration, obfuscation and red herrings.
Trevor, I’m betting you didn’t do very well at school, did you? Especially in any subject that involved involved analysis, research, essays or report writing. In fact, pretty much anything that involved any sort of basic academic vigour.
You posted a copy and pasted screed without attribution. Worse than that, the rant included multiple claims and isolated quotes made without any means of verification, for example, lets just take one sentence, at random from the first paragraph.
Who spoke for the “lead industry”? When? Why have we been supplied with a quote of only half a sentence, and where do we go for the rest?
Anyway, what the hell has the “lead industry” got to do with the scientific community (you know, those bogeymen you are supposed to be making a case against).
No one is going to address unattributed and unreferenced copypasta.
Of course we ridicule you. You’ve been called out on these practises before and yet you refuse to learn anything or to cease doing it. You deserve to be ridiculed. That you swallow such horseshit opinion without question before you quote it just illustrates how gullible you are.
LikeLike
Does that include African people whose natural fluoride is up to 8 ppm. ( that means 8 parts per million Trev). Then there’s the 1.4 ppm in the oceans which finds its way into your fish and chips.
Have a good day Trev!
LikeLike