This sort of image springs to mind when I see claims of forced fluoridation. Aren’t activists like “Forced Fluoridation Freedom Fighters” misrepresenting the real situation? Credit:FALUN DAFA MINGHUI.ORG – enacting claimed forced feeding in Chinese camp.
I think the “freedom of choice” argument is the most reasonable argument that anti-fluoride campaigners can use. Unfortunately for them, they usually only resort to it after their “science-based” arguments have been exposed as misleading or completely false. And even then, they usually present their “freedom of choice” argument in a naive and hostile way.
Have a look at this discussion from a local anti-fluoride Facebook page.
Here an opponent of community water fluoridation (CWF) has declared she doesn’t want fluoridation – fair enough. She has also declared that she doesn’t drink fluoridated water. Also fair enough.
I would say she has exerted her freedom of choice – she doesn’t drink fluoridated water so must have made other arrangements. And I am all for people exerting that right – even when they refuse to partake of a safe and effective social health policy.
But, in the next breath, she declares that she doesn’t have freedom of choice!
How does that work? It is as illogical as someone who votes on election day and then declares to everyone that they have been denied their right to vote!
“Forced fluoridation”
Some campaigners are even worse – declaring that they are being forced to drink fluoridated tap water!
That brings up a picture of someone being held down and water being forced down their throats. But we know that does not happen. Worse – we also know that most of the people making this claim do not even drink unfiltered tap water. The serious anti-fluoride person almost always uses a system to remove fluoride from the tap water, or finds a different source of water to consume.
When New Zealand councils provide “fluoride-free” public taps they get very little use. This suggests that the anti-fluoride campaigners (who may have lobbied for the taps) have already made their alternative arrangements (see Fluoridation: Freedom of choice – and responsibility).
So, I just don’t buy this naive “freedom of choice” argument – especially when presented in such aggressive ways. The fact is that where most social policies are concerned they are not forced on people – there is usually a chance for objectors to avoid the policy or use alternatives. No one is forced to send their kids to secular schools or to use free hospitals. There are alternatives in such cases.
A community’s freedom of choice
Anti-fluoride campaigners should just stop using this argument at the personal level – it just discredits them. Where it does have validity is at the community level. Because it is a controversial issue there is usually some level of public consultation when health authorities recommend the introduction of fluoridation.
The public has a right to feel aggrieved when they are denied their freedom of choice if decisions to start or stop fluoridation are just imposed on them by officials. But that “freedom of choice” argument is an argument for democracy – not an argument for or against a social health policy.
The freedom to deny others their freedom of choice
Unfortunately, many anti-fluoride campaigners will still advance their personal “freedom of choice” arguments even when decisions have been made democratically by using referenda or some other method of polling voters opinions. It’s like a voter who supported a minority party in a general election claiming their rights are being violated by the party or parties with the most votes actually got elected!
So what “freedom of choice” are these die-hard anti-fluoride campaigners really thinking about?
If they have already exerted their own personal freedom of choice by use of tap filters or alternative water supplies, and they have been given a chance to express their views or take part in a democratic referendum, what freedom do they think they have lost.
I can only conclude the freedom that really concerns them is their perceived freedom to prevent others from taking advantage off a safe and effective social health policy.
Oh . . . so we can’t get ‘aggressive’ if being forced to do something we don’t want to do . . . and in this case has no harmful effect on anybody else if we don’t do it . . . the facile ‘arguments’ in this article are laughable . . . if you don’t have the money to avoid artificially fluoridated tap water then you have no choice if you have no way of collecting enough water from the sky and making it safe to drink.
Democracies are not there to force a majority decision, that goes against personal freedom, on the minority that don’t want it, even if that minority is just one individual . . . that is simply unacceptable bullying at best and could be more accurately described as fascism.
People or cats may refuse to eat certain foods because the food is not suitable for their particular metabolism. I have 3 cats with differing preferences modulated by their health that day also.
Humans can have their appetite reduced by a lack of zinc even to anorexia.
Lack of vitamin B3 can produce the nasty disease of pellagra.
Lack of vitamin B1 produces beri beri.
Lack of iodine produces goiter and cretinism which is aggravated by fluoride intake.
They are not things which suddenly switch on to a whole population. Some individuals show symptoms first.
I suggest resistance to fluoridation to be an instinctive response to having a balance in our intakes.
Ken now admits we need calcium as well as fluoride. That is not just for the teeth. Fluoride affect calcium homeostasis.
If we force feed zinc to an anorexic there is a chance their anorexia will lessen. But it will not be the only nutrient needed.
So please check out what needs to go with fluoride and for whom, then make it easy to attain in correct quantities for that individual metabolism. So much fluoride research looks at population means and ignores tails of the distribution. That is not in line with human rights.
Wonder mouse States “Democracies are not there to force a majority decision, that goes against personal freedom,” So if the majority decide that they want Community Water Fluoridation in a community. you are being bullied because they will not provide you with a supply of non fluoridated Water.
Communities have provided the access to this water, and the use has been dismal at best.
Am I right in saying what you want is the council or water board to provide a special pipe to your residence, with non fluoridated water, because you think as a minority you have a right to this expense. Good luck with that
1: What procedure is being used to force you to drink publicly supplied tap wate4rr? Are you being held down? Is a tube forced down your throat?
2: Do you use an alternative to tap water? Filtered water, reverse osmosis, distillation of alternative source?
3: Do you think the party that wins most seats in a general election should not take power becvause that goes against personal freedom in that the minority don’t want that party?
Brian – it is offensive to make statements like “Ken now admits we need calcium as well as fluoride.” as this implies I have previously suggested we do not need calcium.
That has never been the case.
You should take greater care to avoid attributing claims to people without any justification.
Also, produce your evidence/citation for your claim “Fluoride affect calcium homeostasis” at the concentrations used in CWF.
Excess fluoride can of course influence Ca levels because of solubility considerations – but only at concentrations higher than used in CWF.
When New Zealand councils provide “fluoride-free” public taps they get very little use. This suggests that the anti-fluoride campaigners (who may have lobbied for the taps) have already made their alternative arrangements
To me, it suggests they drink the fluoridated water anyway, being too lazy to make other arrangements. Yet still moan and groan about it being a poison.
If sane persons believed the water from their tap to have been contaminated with a significant amount of cyanide, would they still drink it simply because it flows from their tap?
If sane persons believed the water from their tap to cause cancer, brain damage, thyroid damage, kidney damage, pineal gland damage, bone fractures, arthritis, and pitting of their teeth, would they drink it anyway simply because it flows from their tap?
Fluoridation opponents constantly claim they are being forced to drink fluoridated water, therefore admitting that they do drink it. So, either they are stark raving mad, or they don’t believe the nonsense they put forth any more than do I.
Water needs can be met with rain water, or that from rivers and streams, if nothing else. There are therefore alternatives available to those who do not wish to drink fluoridated tap water. Where there are alternatives, there is no force. Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force.
No one has a fundamental right to have water with a content customized to his personal preference piped directly into his dwelling. The “forced medication” argument is nothing but a ploy to exploit emotions felt for those unfortunate persons throughout history who have, indeed undergone the horrors of forced medication.
To me, the “personal rights” argument is the most absurd one utilized by fluoridation opponents.
Excellent article Ken – I agree with both your statements, “Unfortunately for them, [anti-fluoride campaigners] usually only resort to [the freedom of choice argument] after their ‘science-based’ arguments have been exposed as misleading or completely false.” and : “…that ‘freedom of choice’ argument is an argument for democracy – not an argument for or against a social health policy.”
Wonder Mouse, however, exemplifies the difficulty of allowing the decision to fluoridate water to be a democratic process. For a democracy to work, the voting public needs to be well and accurately informed. The disingenuous tactics of the fluoridation opponents, however, include spreading as much misinformation and unjustifiable fear to the public as possible.
Aggressively disseminating unwarranted, unsupported fear of brain damage and catastrophic health problems from drinking optimally fluoridated water is, unfortunately, an extremely effective tool for “adjusting” public opinion. A rational discussion of facts that expose the misleading or false arguments of anti-fluoride campaigners generally does not grab the public’s attention.
However, if the majority of voters or elected public officials who are charged with deciding whether or not to fluoridate a community can be scared and deceived into accepting the anti-F propaganda, the intended principles of democracy become a joke.
I am not in favor of eliminating democratic processes from decisions regarding fluoridation, but it is essential that the anti-fluoridation propaganda be aggressively and successfully countered in every instance where the public is responsible for making those decisions.
Ken: “it is offensive to make statements like “Ken now admits we need calcium as well as fluoride.” as this implies I have previously suggested we do not need calcium.”
Take a look at Steve’s use of the word, “admit.”
“Fluoridation opponents constantly claim they are being forced to drink fluoridated water, therefore admitting that they do drink it.”
But also commenting on Steve’s point, being forced, as when a cat is being forced to take a pill they do not wish to take does not mean they will end up taking it.
Often a vocal minority bring about change, and they may bring it about for a group that they are not members of.
Such questions as, “should the public fund alternative antibiotics to the penicillin family,” are fairly obviously answered in the affirmative.
Not so obvious may be whether hepatitis C virus screening and treatment should be done in prisons, where of course the rate is high. Or should the risk of catching it and the resulting decrease in life span be part of the punishment?
Should better but very expensive melanoma treatments be funded out of the public purse? Or more expensive hepatitis C virus treatments?
Should the possibility of minority response to fluoridated water be cared for in funding for people who want optimum dental appearance? (In that note that the sort of dental “fluorosis” caused by fluoride tends to be diffuse and symmetrical in the mouth. Statistics which say that fluoridated water is not increasing dental fluorosis may be confusing true fluorosis with other dental injury caused by trauma or something else which upsets the ameloblasts in a more demarcated and assymetrical fashion.)
Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.
Steve: “Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force.”
That is a strong statement.
Say I do not want composite resins in my teeth because they elute xenoestrogenic compounds, It may be so inconvenient to get some other type that I would have to lose teeth instead. Of course, not forced.
The way dentists talk. I had one filling when about 15. It was amalgam. At the next visit, to the same dentist, he commented, “who put that horrible filling in?” Mother did not understand that he was trying to suggest she should be paying for a gold filling for me. I don’t think I bothered to say anything. I preferred to keep having music lessons. But I suppose I wasn’t forced to go without a gold fiilli8ng.
Parents who wish to avoid infants having fluoridated water can buy bottled water but it will double the cost of infant bottle feeding. And you must claim they are not forced to have fluoridated water because going without something like books for another child is only an inconvenience.
That is if they know what was being done to them.
Rain water has low pH which must be getting lower as airborne CO2 increases.
Soundhill, your comment about fillings is irrelevant to CWF. Your comment that is relevant: “Parents who wish to avoid infants having fluoridated water can buy bottled water”
Please explain why any rational mother who understands the science would wish to avoid her infant from having fluoridated water.
“Probably the same reason dont want their new born to have a vitamin K shot Then wonder why they have a brain bleed.”
Doctors are being educated not to over-prescribe and cause drug-resistance &c. Each doctor think they better give their patients something just in case. But collectively they are overwhelming the resistance pool.
Once doctors are discussing such things with patients I think patients will start to trust them more.
And once nurses are given plenty of training not to damage the sciatic nerve of new-borns with the injection.
It the mother has had butter/vitamin K then maybe there is less need for the injection. But are prescribers trained to assess vitamin K from diet or finger prick?
Brian, David did use the word “rational.” Unfortunately, most of us aren’t rational most of the time. An obsessive concern over fluoride is irrational but the MoH gives a peace of mind advice for such parents.
This advice should not be used as evidence of harm. That would be dishonest.
Ken “An obsessive concern over fluoride is irrational”
I have read comments on Openparachute claiming that dental fluorosis can be though of as pretty, or at least of no concern. Now are we saying that it is irrational to be concerned about its appearance, or to think it may not be the first symptom of wider fluorosis? In my view it would be a VERY RATIONAL mother who would be open to understanding external bodily symptoms as possible indicators or something else being wrong.
You seem to be part of the “smart bashing” culture, known in schools and used to sell products to adults. Questioners are a nuisance.
And the very rational mothers will not be persuaded by averages. They will know how their own children have differing needs in the family. “You can’t punish him like the others or he will get asthma and an infection and you will be looking after a sick child for a week.” Or, “He can spend longer in the sun without getting burnt.” Or “She will nearly die if there are peanuts in her food.” But if they have trouble with one of their children they will watch out for similar in the others.
The way fluoride safety studies are done is by epidemiology averages which cover up individual responses so are not in line with human rights.
In this is listed some of the work which has been going on in genetics and fluoride-response.
Soundhill, your quote: “The Ministry of Health say parents who are concerned about dental fluorosis can use a different source of water for infant feeding.”
Ken beat me to it, but I’ll say it also. The MoH is pandering to irrational fears.
I thought we were talking about CWF. You are off on irrelevant topics like fillings, vitiman K, sunburn. . . . Please, try to focus.
Your quote: “I have read comments on Openparachute claiming that dental fluorosis can be though of as pretty, or at least of no concern. Now are we saying that it is irrational to be concerned about its appearance, or to think it may not be the first symptom of wider fluorosis?”
I also said a rational mother who “understands the science.” As you probably know, the dental fluorosis associated with CWF is Questionable, Very Mild, or Mild. Since teeth with this condition must be dried and put under special lighting in order for the condition to be photographed, yes . . . any mother who is concerned about this non-aesthetic is irrational.
An irrational person would then try to argue that dental decay is less of an aesthetic concern than a barely noticeable condition that makes teeth healthier and more resistant to decay.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049
“CONCLUSION:
This study’s findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.”
Surely you know all this since you have been arguing the issue long enough. And since you ignore the science, resort to off-topic discussions, and continue to argue in the face of reality . . . that makes you irrational also.
By the way, the topic of this post is “Freedom of Choice” as it applies to CWF. Since you didn’t dispute my comment on the topic at hand, I conclude you have conceded the point.
David Fierstien . It seems pretty funny that MOH would worry parents about increase in dental fluorosis and then pander to the fears they have just created in them.The NZ MOH reports this:”The ADA also noted that recent US research from the Center for Disease Control indicated a rise in the level of very mild or greater fluorosis in children and adolescents aged 16–19 years between 1988–94 and 1999–2004.
Based on that information, the ADA included in their interim guidance statement some simple precautionary advice for those parents, caregivers and health care professionals who may be concerned:
If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis …
The ADA indicated that more research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made on fluoride intake by bottle-fed infants.”
David Fierstien: “I also said a rational mother who “understands the science.””
Watered down version of the “science” without the genetics investigations I have just cited a review of.
Soundhill, your quote: “”The ADA also noted that recent US research from the Center for Disease Control indicated a rise in the level of very mild or greater fluorosis . . . ”
First, provide a link so we can see the quote in context. It’s not that I don’t trust you, but . .
Second, “very mild or greater . . ” That would be very mild or mild dental fluorosis. We already went over that. This is an improvement in teeth despite the paranoia you are trying to sell to the world.
Third, do you have any evidence that optimally fluoridated water leads to any of the more severe degrees of DF? Until you do, your comments are meaningless.
Fourth, your link to “genetics investigations” didn’t work.
Fifth, the subject of this post is “Freedom of Choice” as it relates to CWF. You failed to respond to this comment I made, therefore you concede the only relevant point:
“Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.”
Soundhill, your quote: “It seems pretty funny that MOH would worry parents about increase in dental fluorosis and then pander to the fears they have just created in them.”
The MoH is not the entity pushing paranoia; you, FFNZ, & FAN are. The MoH is pandering to the paranoia that you are creating.
David Fierstien: “By the way, the topic of this post is “Freedom of Choice” as it applies to CWF.”
So you wish “freedom of choice” to have its own special meaning when discussing fluoridation that it does not have for the other matters I raised?
Your sort of freedom of choice is like that offered to the American car buying public by Henry Ford: they can choose any colour of car they want so long as it is black from 1914 to 1925.
You can choose teeth with or without fluorosis so long as you do not demand fluorosis-free teeth, and presumably start a class action against the water supplier. Because Dvid says you are irrational to want fluorosis-free teeth, even if you do believe some individuals to be more damaged than others by fluoride and that dental fluorosis is the indicator of a deeper problem in which ameloblasts are not miraculously the only organs being damaged.
Soundhill, your quote: “So you wish “freedom of choice” to have its own special meaning when discussing fluoridation that it does not have for the other matters I raised?”
It would be great if you could focus on the issue at hand. Anti-fluoride fanatics, such as yourself, tend to skip from issue to issue for the sole purpose of confusion & distraction. When one of your issues has been answered you dodge to another. This is called Gish Galloping. One topic at a time. When one is resolved, we will move on to another.
Your quote: “Your sort of freedom of choice is like that offered to the American car buying public by Henry Ford: they can choose any colour of car they want so long as it is black from 1914 to 1925.”
I amend my previous statement:
“I thought we were talking about CWF. You are off on irrelevant topics like fillings, vitiman K, sunburn. . . . Please, try to focus.”
I would like to add your irrelevant discussion of antique automobiles to that list.
Your quote: “You can choose teeth with or without fluorosis so long as you do not demand fluorosis-free teeth, and presumably start a class action against the water supplier.”
You clearly do not have the ability to pay attention. Again, . . . the only degrees of fluorosis associated with CWF are Questionable, Very Mild, & Mild DF. These degrees of DF are not noticeable outside the dentist’s chair, dried & under special lighting. These degrees of DF are more resistant to dental decay – an ugly health hazard – and are therefore characteristic of healthier teeth.
Can you please give me a rational reason why someone would prefer ugly & painful dental decay to a barely noticeable condition that makes teeth stronger? Can’t wait to hear this.
Your quote: “Because Dvid says you are irrational to want fluorosis-free teeth, even if you do believe some individuals to be more damaged than others by fluoride . . ”
Who believes some individuals are damaged by drinking optimally fluoridated water? This is news to me. Do you have any evidence that any person has ever been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 ppm F in it? Can you name a single person who has ever been harmed by drinking it?
Your quote: ” . . and that dental fluorosis is the indicator of a deeper problem in which ameloblasts are not miraculously the only organs being damaged.”
Got any evidence of that? Or are you just making that up? Can you name any person whose organs have been damaged by drinking optimally fluoridated water. I’ll need to see some documentation with that.
Soundhill, btw, you never answered this, therefore you have conceded the point.
“Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.”
David Fierstien: ““Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health.”
If I use any freedom analogies of course you will say they are off topic.
The freedom to live in a country in which if they are susceptible genetic types they will not be burdened so much by dental or other fluorosis.
Tauranga-born Lisa Carrington is on a tail of the distribution of athletes, she has won gold in the Olympics. Would she have done so had she been born into a fluoridated area? I add that to the football statistics I have produced. I don’t have the mechanism yet. However i note that breast-fed children may perform better in IQ tests. I need to look at whether being born in a fluoridated area reduces IQ compared to that since the new-born gets a bacterial culture from the nipple if not from the birth canal and I suggest fluoride could partially inhibit it and so the new-born loses some of its advantages qualities. I have not had any replies from the Broadbent/Poulton team.
I am waiting for data collections of vision screening results from MOH to see whether any connection may be suggested with fluoridation. Noting that the eye lens/cornea tau-crystallin is a form of enolase an enzyme which fluoride is known to inhibit as in its use in holding glucose and alcohol levels in blood samples. Countries like Singapore with 100% fluoridation now have nearly 100% myopia. Of course I need to control for genetic type.
And I suggest your description of fluorosis degrees are not correct.
And I suggest you use the term, “gish gallop” correctly. It applies, as I recently said to Stuartg, when in a debating scenario with limited time for reply that too many points are listed to reply to. It does not mean they are incorrect.
“David, you are making a mistake trying to engage Brian in intelligent debate.
He doesn’t even believe the Moon landing were real.”
I have never claimed man didn’t go to the moon. I wouldn’t be so sure they would have got back. And there are problems of film fogging in the radiation of space. My suppositions depend on things like this which may have faults: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg185
In another thread I asked you to supply the evidence you have to support your fantasy that enolase in the human lens is acted on by fluoride to result in myopia. The subsequent silence from you about evidence has been very obvious. But here you go, again, stating the same thing, again without providing any evidence.
I pointed out that enolase is an intracellular enzyme and that the stroma of the non-foetal human lens is acellular. So the first thing you have to do to provide evidence for your fantasy is to show that there are cells for the enolase to reside in within the stroma of the mature human lens. That involves you overturning all histology since Leeuwenhoek. Here is your opportunity to do so…
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – you still need to provide ANY evidence.
Even if “tau-crystalin is a form of enolase” as you state (I’m not bothering to check), all that means is that it is not enolase. Different name, different structure, different function. – Or are you claiming something else? Again, you need to provide extraordinary evidence in order to overturn the science of the textbooks.
Note to everyone else: I’m not expecting a clear and rational reply from soundhill. Why would I? He’s never been able to supply one in the past. It’s exactly as if his comments were based on irrational, unscientific, conspiracist fantasies rather than science.
I have never claimed man didn’t go to the moon. I wouldn’t be so sure they would have got back
(ffs).
Let me rephrase:
David, you are making a mistake trying to engage Brian in intelligent debate.
He believes NASA have erected and maintained a 49 year old lie in regard to the success of the Moon landings.
Soundhill, were you addressing me and my comment on this topic, or were you talking to the air?
Absolutely nothing you said addressed my comment, which, again, was this:
“Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.”
Feel free to talk about vitamin K, the moon landings, sunburns, antique cars, the time-space continuum, or ants. But if your diatribe has nothing to do with what I said, please don’t put my name at the front of it.
“David, you are making a mistake trying to engage Brian in intelligent debate.
He believes NASA have erected and maintained a 49 year old lie in regard to the success of the Moon landings”.
Richard I think you are hoping that people will not watch the accompanying videos to that ref.
Can you guide me to the data on the radiation doses the various Apollo missions would have received related to solar flare activity happening during each mission? Or do you accept the results the videos stated which appeared very large?
NASA is an agent of the USA government. Are they so high on your faith scale you believe they have never done false flag either?
David Fierstien feeling challenged and in the common fashion resorting to dipping into emotive language: “But if your diatribe has nothing to do with what I said, please don’t put my name at the front of it.”
“The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational.”
Could you please explain “possibly’?
And I point out you appear to have faith that people are not being harmed. You will have to await my vision results which could go either way.
I suggest you give refs to pictures of “mild” dental fluorosis of teeth not under special lighting to back up your claim.
Stuartg: “In another thread I asked you to supply the evidence you have to support your fantasy that enolase in the human lens is acted on by fluoride to result in myopia. The subsequent silence from you about evidence has been very obvious.”
I have had some contact back from MOH about vision stats. Things take a while. Then if a trend shows between myopia and fluoridation it will make it more worth it to look for a possible mechanism.
A genetic component seems needed even with the near 100% myopia level in some Asian countries even if they are 100% fluoridated.
You don’t seem to have acknowledged my past ref to the COMT gene variants and fluoride effect.
Here is an interesting thought of mine. Usually analogies get ruled out as off-topic. But this time, ha ha, I’ll use the analogy of how fluoride ions get into tooth enamel to build a more acid-resistant structure. (Off topic in terms of eye structure because it is an analogy?) If fluoride ions change some of the tau-crystallin (enolase) then maybe the laying down of corneal material changes. I have not said that does happen, it is just an analogy of adding to a principle of what could happen.
“I have never claimed man didn’t go to the moon. I wouldn’t be so sure they would have got back”
“I” = singular. I take it that you disagree with the opinion of others? For example the leadership of the USSR? They would have loved to disprove the lunar landings and/or return! Unfortunately for your fantasies, they had the evidence to prove your fantasies wrong.
“Can you guide me to the data on the radiation doses the various Apollo missions would have received”
These are amateurs using science and evidence to explain what really happened. Not NASA, not KGB, not SIS or MI6. Just amateurs.
You’re still going to ignore the site completely, we acknowledge that. Because this site contradicts your fantasies with evidence, it will just be ignored by you and you will consider it to be part of the conspiracy.
“Eye lens contains enolase.” Only according to you. Evidence required to back up the statement.
“tau-crystalin is a form of enolase” Evidence required, including an explanation of why, if they are the same protein, they have different names, different structures and different functions. http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2816%2930043-5
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – you still need to provide ANY evidence to support your fantasies.
As I said before, I’m not expecting a clear and rational reply from soundhill. Why would I? He’s never been able to supply one in the past. It’s exactly as if his comments were based on irrational, unscientific, conspiracist fantasies rather than science.
“Stuartg, not the Van Allen Belts, the solar flares as described in the accompanying vids to my ref.”
Well, let’s see. What major solar flares were aimed at the planet during the lunar missions? There was…
Oh, right. There weren’t any. That means the maximum radiation the astronauts were exposed to was during their passage through the Van Allen belts.
I did suggest that you read the rest of http://www.clavius.org as well. Obviously you ignored me: “The closest call came when the Apollo 12 spacecraft’s external radiation sensors detected a minor flare, but the interior sensors did not indicate that any appreciable amount of this radiation penetrated the spacecraft hull.”
You have ignored the science and evidence of reality and constructed an unscientific fantasy based on no evidence at all.
I am not saying they are much different but even when things are different somewhat similar principles can still apply. For example haemocyanin in spiders and scorpions and haemoglobin in vertebrates both transport oxygen.
More than one thing can have fluoride stick to it and change its structure. So it could be better to use fluoride toothpaste rather than fluoridated water which gets in the eyes.
Soundhill, congratulations . . after all this time you have finally responded to my comment:
“And I point out you appear to have faith that people are not being harmed. You will have to await my vision results which could go either way.”
My vision results? Are you saying optimally fluoridated water has somehow affected your vision? I’ll need some documentation to swallow that one.
Yes, I do have faith that people are not being harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. Please . . if you can . . shake my faith.
Please name any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. Of course I’ll need some documentation with that.
No, I didn’t miss it, as you would have known if you had actually read my reference. Since your reference is 28 years old, I thought you would appreciate something more recent – like 2016.
Both references say the same thing – that a single gene can encode for multiple proteins that have different structures and functions. Nowhere in your reference does it say that tau-crystallin is the same molecule, has the same structure, or has the same function as enolase.
In case it was not apparent to you previously, proteins that have different structure, function and location are often given different names. It helps when scientists want to distinguish one protein from another.
Sorry if reality doesn’t agree with your fantasies.
Now, since your reference did not support your fantasies, can you supply one that you think does?
“Please name any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. Of course I’ll need some documentation with that.”
I’ll second that!
I’ve pointed out to soundhill, several times, that hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been drinking optimally fluoridated water for multiple decades, even multiple generations. People have been born and lived their entire lives whilst drinking optimally fluoridated water for the benefit of their teeth. None of them have been harmed.
I have repeatedly asked him to produce any evidence at all from those hundreds of millions of people to support his fantasies that CWF causes harm to anyone.
Result: he completely ignores the question.
Since the concept of CWF not causing harm in the real world doesn’t fit into his conspiracist fantasies, he won’t even allow himself to acknowledge that he’s been asked the question.
Stuartg the 1988 Wistow article was in the citation list of the 2016 Hong Ji article which I referred to on the other thread. I quoted the bit about the debriding of rabbit corneas. Just before that it said: “In the crystalline lens of mammals and chickens, THE ACTIVITY OF ENOLASE IS LOWER in cells that have grown for long periods of time in comparison with newly produced epithelial cells.” BUT THERE IS STILL AN ENOLASE ACTIVITY.
In a lens the enolase seems from what I gather to be about half of what is NORMALLY IN MAMMALS used as the glycolytic enzyme. That is a monomer, probably just the blue or green half of the dimer which I referred to in the wiki article,
I am not sure about in the cornea.
You are suggesting that though fluoride would affect the dimer it would not affect the monomer. Possible I suppose.
“My vision results? Are you saying optimally fluoridated water has somehow affected your vision? I’ll need some documentation to swallow that one.”
Ha ha David Fierstien you sound like my cats asking for food when it hasn’t been delivered yet. Not the flavour some of them want anyway. For one of them it needs an organic certification document.
“They should up Brian’s daily basket-weaving quota”
Well the picture of fluoride and calcium affecting teeth Ken posted on July 26 is a bit reminiscent of a basket for which stuff can get into the contents through the weave. Why not the eye cornea similarly?
“Please name any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. Of course I’ll need some documentation with that.”
I am more interested in the early part of life when the quantity of water taken, therefore fluoride from fluoridated water, is greater in proportion to body weight.
And when you say “show me the research,” it takes a bit of digging since things like myopia are so common they are taken as normal. Though tests on vision of children are done at about ages 4 and 11, the MOH does not even bother to collect together the 11-year-olds’ data.
In the 1960s, 1970 and 1980s, the Ministry of Health was recommending the use of fluoride tablets for children in non-fluoridated areas of the country. They were used by my own family in Canterbury (one of whom, coincidentally, twice declined the opportunity to represent his country at rugby).
Now, those All Blacks you are concerned about, were they among the children who took their fluoride tablets? Perhaps it’s the taking of recommended fluoride tablets that shaped their future sporting prowess? Or maybe you’ve just spotted the problem with statistics and p values?
Stuartg I think the effect is in infancy when they will not have been given the tablets. Well it is for the All Black Captains. As far as All Blacks from South Canterbury are concerned they didn’t produce All Blacks from their team after Timaru fluoridated. Richie McCaw was not from the fluoridated area of South Canterbury and I think he did not play for that team, he went straight to Canterbury.
Be interesting to look up old pharmacy records of fluoride tablet sales. I know a daughter of a nurse who took them and ruined her teeth trying to polish the brown marks off.
Statistics is also bad from the point of view of focusing on averages at the expense of the best and worst. We need our best to lead us on, and we don’t want our worst to be worse.
The 1988 article pointed out the connection between tau crystallin and enolase: (monomer – dimer I would say)
Tooth enamel is formed from ameloblasts early in life, and fluoride damages that process. In later life fluoride can still react with the mature enamel.
Corneas do heal and tau-crystallin would be involved. I hypothesise that fluoride could be causing extra build up of cornea by deregulating tau crystallin. Build of the cornea is one reason for development of myopia. It has been claimed contact lenses can resist that build up.
I hypothesise there could be a genetic component producing a susceptibilty which is triggered to excessive build up, perhaps because the cornea thinks it should be trying to repair itself.
Note the work on the COMT gene variant and fluoride. Also note The Dunedin Study saying that a COMT gene variant can predispose to psychological difficulties in a harsh environment of upbringing.
You said that enolase was found in the human lens, then some gobbledegook about fluoride and myopia. Since then you’ve squirmed around and are trying to deny your lack of evidence.
To clarify the science…
The mature human lens (and cornea) are transparent because they are acellular. They have no cells in them. If cells were present then the lens would be opaque and optically useless. So would the cornea.
Enolase is an intracellular enzyme. It’s part of the glycolytic pathway. It is only found inside cells, never outside.
Since there are no cells in the mature human lens, that means there is nowhere in the lens for any intracellular enzyme to be located.
Therefore, no intracellular enzymes are found within the stroma of the mature human lens.
You keep coming back to rugby. You seem to think that people are dismissive of you. No, they realise that your unscientific methods of thinking can be used to illuminate the scientific method by providing an example of the opposite.
Let’s have a look at your gobbledegook about rugby and why it is considered gobbledegook. Since you’ve never clearly stated your thoughts*, presumably so that you can say that’s not what you meant (or maybe your thoughts aren’t clear in the first place?), we’ll have to skirt around the idea in soundhill fashion.
Let’s first quote from your last comment, where your lack of clarity of thought is obvious:
“I think the effect is in infancy” “they didn’t produce All Blacks from their team after Timaru fluoridated”.
If an effect of fluoride on sporting prowess occurs only in infancy, then it should be measurable for at least a couple of decades after CWF started and not demonstrate an immediate effect. You just noted an immediate effect. Didn’t you notice that the evidence you gave refutes your own idea?
You will need to demonstrate that the same effect occurs with other national teams. After all, why would such an effect be limited to just men’s rugby? What about the women’s team(s)? The All Whites? The Tall Blacks? The Black Sticks? The Black Caps? What about national teams from other countries? Is the same effect seen in the rugby teams of France, England, Canada, USA, Kenya? Is it limited to team sports or can it be seen in individual sports? You will need to demonstrate that the same effect occurs around the world. If it is just limited to New Zealand men’s rugby, then your idea needs to explain why that is the case. You have to demonstrate that you are not merely observing a statistical fluke, a p-value discrepancy.
And why consider just CWF as a source of fluoride? Which of the All Blacks from non-fluoridated areas took the recommended fluoride tablets and were exposed to tablet sourced water fluoridation? Have your numbers accounted for this? Not as far as we can tell. If anything, it appears that my comment about fluoride tablets was the first time that you even considered anything other than CWF.
You mention looking at “old pharmacy records of fluoride tablet sales”. Why? You are talking about the effects of fluoride on specific individuals, so pooled data from the entire population is irrelevant. And doesn’t it also mean involving the statistics you so decry?
“Statistics is also bad from the point of view of focusing on averages at the expense of the best and worst.”
So why go looking for statistics yourself, especially when they are irrelevant, when you so readily ignore the statistics produced by others? You appear to have a large degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to statistics.
Since you are talking about a specific effect of fluoride on individuals, you will need to consider the entire fluoride exposure of those individuals, not just whether the area they lived in had CWF or not. In New Zealand, you need to document the entire fluoride exposure of each individual who has played professional level rugby, not just the All Blacks. Document CWF, “natural” water fluoride concentrations, the use of fluoride toothpaste, fluoride tablets, use of imported fluoridated salt, dental treatment with fluoride… Even then, if you limit yourself to New Zealand, the numbers are so small that missing the data on even one or two individuals will mean that any analysis is near useless.
So far you appear to have a single observation. No-one else is even in agreement with you about that.
You appear to say* that there is a specific detrimental effect from CWF, and that this effect is measurable. This is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Remember – all the science and evidence says that the only significant effect of CWF is the benefit on teeth.
You have a lot of work ahead of you before a scientist will spend more than a second or two considering the idea. The almost immediate dismissal of your idea by scientists is because of their knowledge of the related science that would have to be overturned to make such an effect possible.
Maybe you could start your work by learning some of that related science? A high school science class would be a good place to begin.
*Because of the lack of clarity of your statements, your habit of denying previous meaning, objections to the use of jargon whilst using it yourself, refusal to clarify or elaborate your statements, flight of ideas, Gish galloping, ignoring presented evidence, and not least, your refusal to produce relevant evidence yourself, no-one can really have much more than vague ideas about your meanings.
Open Parachute 
Oh . . . so we can’t get ‘aggressive’ if being forced to do something we don’t want to do . . . and in this case has no harmful effect on anybody else if we don’t do it . . . the facile ‘arguments’ in this article are laughable . . . if you don’t have the money to avoid artificially fluoridated tap water then you have no choice if you have no way of collecting enough water from the sky and making it safe to drink.
Democracies are not there to force a majority decision, that goes against personal freedom, on the minority that don’t want it, even if that minority is just one individual . . . that is simply unacceptable bullying at best and could be more accurately described as fascism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
People or cats may refuse to eat certain foods because the food is not suitable for their particular metabolism. I have 3 cats with differing preferences modulated by their health that day also.
Humans can have their appetite reduced by a lack of zinc even to anorexia.
Lack of vitamin B3 can produce the nasty disease of pellagra.
Lack of vitamin B1 produces beri beri.
Lack of iodine produces goiter and cretinism which is aggravated by fluoride intake.
They are not things which suddenly switch on to a whole population. Some individuals show symptoms first.
I suggest resistance to fluoridation to be an instinctive response to having a balance in our intakes.
Ken now admits we need calcium as well as fluoride. That is not just for the teeth. Fluoride affect calcium homeostasis.
If we force feed zinc to an anorexic there is a chance their anorexia will lessen. But it will not be the only nutrient needed.
So please check out what needs to go with fluoride and for whom, then make it easy to attain in correct quantities for that individual metabolism. So much fluoride research looks at population means and ignores tails of the distribution. That is not in line with human rights.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wonder mouse States “Democracies are not there to force a majority decision, that goes against personal freedom,” So if the majority decide that they want Community Water Fluoridation in a community. you are being bullied because they will not provide you with a supply of non fluoridated Water.
Communities have provided the access to this water, and the use has been dismal at best.
Am I right in saying what you want is the council or water board to provide a special pipe to your residence, with non fluoridated water, because you think as a minority you have a right to this expense. Good luck with that
LikeLiked by 1 person
W0onder Mouse – a few questions:
1: What procedure is being used to force you to drink publicly supplied tap wate4rr? Are you being held down? Is a tube forced down your throat?
2: Do you use an alternative to tap water? Filtered water, reverse osmosis, distillation of alternative source?
3: Do you think the party that wins most seats in a general election should not take power becvause that goes against personal freedom in that the minority don’t want that party?
LikeLike
Brian – it is offensive to make statements like “Ken now admits we need calcium as well as fluoride.” as this implies I have previously suggested we do not need calcium.
That has never been the case.
You should take greater care to avoid attributing claims to people without any justification.
Also, produce your evidence/citation for your claim “Fluoride affect calcium homeostasis” at the concentrations used in CWF.
Excess fluoride can of course influence Ca levels because of solubility considerations – but only at concentrations higher than used in CWF.
LikeLike
When New Zealand councils provide “fluoride-free” public taps they get very little use. This suggests that the anti-fluoride campaigners (who may have lobbied for the taps) have already made their alternative arrangements
To me, it suggests they drink the fluoridated water anyway, being too lazy to make other arrangements. Yet still moan and groan about it being a poison.
Yes, some people really are that stupid.
LikeLike
If sane persons believed the water from their tap to have been contaminated with a significant amount of cyanide, would they still drink it simply because it flows from their tap?
If sane persons believed the water from their tap to cause cancer, brain damage, thyroid damage, kidney damage, pineal gland damage, bone fractures, arthritis, and pitting of their teeth, would they drink it anyway simply because it flows from their tap?
Fluoridation opponents constantly claim they are being forced to drink fluoridated water, therefore admitting that they do drink it. So, either they are stark raving mad, or they don’t believe the nonsense they put forth any more than do I.
Water needs can be met with rain water, or that from rivers and streams, if nothing else. There are therefore alternatives available to those who do not wish to drink fluoridated tap water. Where there are alternatives, there is no force. Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force.
No one has a fundamental right to have water with a content customized to his personal preference piped directly into his dwelling. The “forced medication” argument is nothing but a ploy to exploit emotions felt for those unfortunate persons throughout history who have, indeed undergone the horrors of forced medication.
To me, the “personal rights” argument is the most absurd one utilized by fluoridation opponents.
Steven D. Slott, DDS
LikeLike
Excellent article Ken – I agree with both your statements, “Unfortunately for them, [anti-fluoride campaigners] usually only resort to [the freedom of choice argument] after their ‘science-based’ arguments have been exposed as misleading or completely false.” and : “…that ‘freedom of choice’ argument is an argument for democracy – not an argument for or against a social health policy.”
Wonder Mouse, however, exemplifies the difficulty of allowing the decision to fluoridate water to be a democratic process. For a democracy to work, the voting public needs to be well and accurately informed. The disingenuous tactics of the fluoridation opponents, however, include spreading as much misinformation and unjustifiable fear to the public as possible.
Aggressively disseminating unwarranted, unsupported fear of brain damage and catastrophic health problems from drinking optimally fluoridated water is, unfortunately, an extremely effective tool for “adjusting” public opinion. A rational discussion of facts that expose the misleading or false arguments of anti-fluoride campaigners generally does not grab the public’s attention.
However, if the majority of voters or elected public officials who are charged with deciding whether or not to fluoridate a community can be scared and deceived into accepting the anti-F propaganda, the intended principles of democracy become a joke.
I am not in favor of eliminating democratic processes from decisions regarding fluoridation, but it is essential that the anti-fluoridation propaganda be aggressively and successfully countered in every instance where the public is responsible for making those decisions.
LikeLike
Ken: “it is offensive to make statements like “Ken now admits we need calcium as well as fluoride.” as this implies I have previously suggested we do not need calcium.”
Take a look at Steve’s use of the word, “admit.”
“Fluoridation opponents constantly claim they are being forced to drink fluoridated water, therefore admitting that they do drink it.”
But also commenting on Steve’s point, being forced, as when a cat is being forced to take a pill they do not wish to take does not mean they will end up taking it.
LikeLike
Often a vocal minority bring about change, and they may bring it about for a group that they are not members of.
Such questions as, “should the public fund alternative antibiotics to the penicillin family,” are fairly obviously answered in the affirmative.
Not so obvious may be whether hepatitis C virus screening and treatment should be done in prisons, where of course the rate is high. Or should the risk of catching it and the resulting decrease in life span be part of the punishment?
Should better but very expensive melanoma treatments be funded out of the public purse? Or more expensive hepatitis C virus treatments?
Should the possibility of minority response to fluoridated water be cared for in funding for people who want optimum dental appearance? (In that note that the sort of dental “fluorosis” caused by fluoride tends to be diffuse and symmetrical in the mouth. Statistics which say that fluoridated water is not increasing dental fluorosis may be confusing true fluorosis with other dental injury caused by trauma or something else which upsets the ameloblasts in a more demarcated and assymetrical fashion.)
LikeLike
Donât be childish, Brian. You are simply attempting to rationalise away your offensive behaviour.
LikeLike
Ken: “Donât be childish, Brian. You are simply attempting to rationalise away your offensive behaviour.”
I presume you are referring to my first two sentences at 10:01 am.
In my vocab “admit” that does not indicate previously trying to cover up what had happened.
Sometimes it may be used in the sense that you had originally admitted denting a car in a parking lot so can’t deny it now.
LikeLike
Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.
LikeLike
Steve: “Inconvenience, regardless the degree, does not equate with force.”
That is a strong statement.
Say I do not want composite resins in my teeth because they elute xenoestrogenic compounds, It may be so inconvenient to get some other type that I would have to lose teeth instead. Of course, not forced.
The way dentists talk. I had one filling when about 15. It was amalgam. At the next visit, to the same dentist, he commented, “who put that horrible filling in?” Mother did not understand that he was trying to suggest she should be paying for a gold filling for me. I don’t think I bothered to say anything. I preferred to keep having music lessons. But I suppose I wasn’t forced to go without a gold fiilli8ng.
Parents who wish to avoid infants having fluoridated water can buy bottled water but it will double the cost of infant bottle feeding. And you must claim they are not forced to have fluoridated water because going without something like books for another child is only an inconvenience.
That is if they know what was being done to them.
Rain water has low pH which must be getting lower as airborne CO2 increases.
LikeLike
Soundhill, your comment about fillings is irrelevant to CWF. Your comment that is relevant: “Parents who wish to avoid infants having fluoridated water can buy bottled water”
Please explain why any rational mother who understands the science would wish to avoid her infant from having fluoridated water.
LikeLike
Probably the same reason dont want their new born to have a vitamin K shot Then wonder why they have a brain bleed
LikeLike
David Fierstien: “Please explain why any rational mother who understands the science would wish to avoid her infant from having fluoridated water.”
The Ministry of Health say parents who are concerned about dental fluorosis can use a different source of water for infant feeding.
LikeLike
“Probably the same reason dont want their new born to have a vitamin K shot Then wonder why they have a brain bleed.”
Doctors are being educated not to over-prescribe and cause drug-resistance &c. Each doctor think they better give their patients something just in case. But collectively they are overwhelming the resistance pool.
Once doctors are discussing such things with patients I think patients will start to trust them more.
And once nurses are given plenty of training not to damage the sciatic nerve of new-borns with the injection.
It the mother has had butter/vitamin K then maybe there is less need for the injection. But are prescribers trained to assess vitamin K from diet or finger prick?
LikeLike
Brian, David did use the word “rational.” Unfortunately, most of us aren’t rational most of the time. An obsessive concern over fluoride is irrational but the MoH gives a peace of mind advice for such parents.
This advice should not be used as evidence of harm. That would be dishonest.
LikeLike
David Fierstien | August 16, 2016 at 9:42 am |
“Soundhill, your comment about fillings is irrelevant to CWF”
“Off topic” is the excuse frequently used when commenters cannot answer, in this case my assertions about “inconveniece” that Steve brought up.
You lose that debate.
LikeLike
Ken “An obsessive concern over fluoride is irrational”
I have read comments on Openparachute claiming that dental fluorosis can be though of as pretty, or at least of no concern. Now are we saying that it is irrational to be concerned about its appearance, or to think it may not be the first symptom of wider fluorosis? In my view it would be a VERY RATIONAL mother who would be open to understanding external bodily symptoms as possible indicators or something else being wrong.
You seem to be part of the “smart bashing” culture, known in schools and used to sell products to adults. Questioners are a nuisance.
LikeLike
Brian, you will be resorting to the Galileo fallacy next.
You are a nuisance, no doubt about that. But good faith questions are always welcome.
LikeLike
And the very rational mothers will not be persuaded by averages. They will know how their own children have differing needs in the family. “You can’t punish him like the others or he will get asthma and an infection and you will be looking after a sick child for a week.” Or, “He can spend longer in the sun without getting burnt.” Or “She will nearly die if there are peanuts in her food.” But if they have trouble with one of their children they will watch out for similar in the others.
The way fluoride safety studies are done is by epidemiology averages which cover up individual responses so are not in line with human rights.
In this is listed some of the work which has been going on in genetics and fluoride-response.
Click to access Nelson_et_al.__2016_JAS_Reports.pdf
LikeLike
Soundhill, your quote: “The Ministry of Health say parents who are concerned about dental fluorosis can use a different source of water for infant feeding.”
Ken beat me to it, but I’ll say it also. The MoH is pandering to irrational fears.
I thought we were talking about CWF. You are off on irrelevant topics like fillings, vitiman K, sunburn. . . . Please, try to focus.
Your quote: “I have read comments on Openparachute claiming that dental fluorosis can be though of as pretty, or at least of no concern. Now are we saying that it is irrational to be concerned about its appearance, or to think it may not be the first symptom of wider fluorosis?”
I also said a rational mother who “understands the science.” As you probably know, the dental fluorosis associated with CWF is Questionable, Very Mild, or Mild. Since teeth with this condition must be dried and put under special lighting in order for the condition to be photographed, yes . . . any mother who is concerned about this non-aesthetic is irrational.
An irrational person would then try to argue that dental decay is less of an aesthetic concern than a barely noticeable condition that makes teeth healthier and more resistant to decay.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19571049
“CONCLUSION:
This study’s findings suggest that molars with fluorosis are more resistant to caries than are molars without fluorosis.”
Surely you know all this since you have been arguing the issue long enough. And since you ignore the science, resort to off-topic discussions, and continue to argue in the face of reality . . . that makes you irrational also.
By the way, the topic of this post is “Freedom of Choice” as it applies to CWF. Since you didn’t dispute my comment on the topic at hand, I conclude you have conceded the point.
LikeLike
David Fierstien . It seems pretty funny that MOH would worry parents about increase in dental fluorosis and then pander to the fears they have just created in them.The NZ MOH reports this:”The ADA also noted that recent US research from the Center for Disease Control indicated a rise in the level of very mild or greater fluorosis in children and adolescents aged 16–19 years between 1988–94 and 1999–2004.
Based on that information, the ADA included in their interim guidance statement some simple precautionary advice for those parents, caregivers and health care professionals who may be concerned:
If liquid concentrate or powdered infant formula is the primary source of nutrition, it can be mixed with water that is fluoride free or contains low levels of fluoride to reduce the risk of fluorosis …
The ADA indicated that more research is needed before definitive recommendations can be made on fluoride intake by bottle-fed infants.”
LikeLike
David Fierstien: “I also said a rational mother who “understands the science.””
Watered down version of the “science” without the genetics investigations I have just cited a review of.
LikeLike
Soundhill, your quote: “”The ADA also noted that recent US research from the Center for Disease Control indicated a rise in the level of very mild or greater fluorosis . . . ”
First, provide a link so we can see the quote in context. It’s not that I don’t trust you, but . .
Second, “very mild or greater . . ” That would be very mild or mild dental fluorosis. We already went over that. This is an improvement in teeth despite the paranoia you are trying to sell to the world.
Third, do you have any evidence that optimally fluoridated water leads to any of the more severe degrees of DF? Until you do, your comments are meaningless.
Fourth, your link to “genetics investigations” didn’t work.
Fifth, the subject of this post is “Freedom of Choice” as it relates to CWF. You failed to respond to this comment I made, therefore you concede the only relevant point:
“Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.”
LikeLike
Soundhill, your quote: “It seems pretty funny that MOH would worry parents about increase in dental fluorosis and then pander to the fears they have just created in them.”
The MoH is not the entity pushing paranoia; you, FFNZ, & FAN are. The MoH is pandering to the paranoia that you are creating.
LikeLike
David Fierstien: “By the way, the topic of this post is “Freedom of Choice” as it applies to CWF.”
So you wish “freedom of choice” to have its own special meaning when discussing fluoridation that it does not have for the other matters I raised?
Your sort of freedom of choice is like that offered to the American car buying public by Henry Ford: they can choose any colour of car they want so long as it is black from 1914 to 1925.
You can choose teeth with or without fluorosis so long as you do not demand fluorosis-free teeth, and presumably start a class action against the water supplier. Because Dvid says you are irrational to want fluorosis-free teeth, even if you do believe some individuals to be more damaged than others by fluoride and that dental fluorosis is the indicator of a deeper problem in which ameloblasts are not miraculously the only organs being damaged.
LikeLike
David, you are making a mistake trying to engage Brian in intelligent debate.
He doesn’t even believe the Moon landing were real.
LikeLike
Soundhill, your quote: “So you wish “freedom of choice” to have its own special meaning when discussing fluoridation that it does not have for the other matters I raised?”
It would be great if you could focus on the issue at hand. Anti-fluoride fanatics, such as yourself, tend to skip from issue to issue for the sole purpose of confusion & distraction. When one of your issues has been answered you dodge to another. This is called Gish Galloping. One topic at a time. When one is resolved, we will move on to another.
Your quote: “Your sort of freedom of choice is like that offered to the American car buying public by Henry Ford: they can choose any colour of car they want so long as it is black from 1914 to 1925.”
I amend my previous statement:
“I thought we were talking about CWF. You are off on irrelevant topics like fillings, vitiman K, sunburn. . . . Please, try to focus.”
I would like to add your irrelevant discussion of antique automobiles to that list.
Your quote: “You can choose teeth with or without fluorosis so long as you do not demand fluorosis-free teeth, and presumably start a class action against the water supplier.”
You clearly do not have the ability to pay attention. Again, . . . the only degrees of fluorosis associated with CWF are Questionable, Very Mild, & Mild DF. These degrees of DF are not noticeable outside the dentist’s chair, dried & under special lighting. These degrees of DF are more resistant to dental decay – an ugly health hazard – and are therefore characteristic of healthier teeth.
Can you please give me a rational reason why someone would prefer ugly & painful dental decay to a barely noticeable condition that makes teeth stronger? Can’t wait to hear this.
Your quote: “Because Dvid says you are irrational to want fluorosis-free teeth, even if you do believe some individuals to be more damaged than others by fluoride . . ”
Who believes some individuals are damaged by drinking optimally fluoridated water? This is news to me. Do you have any evidence that any person has ever been harmed by drinking water with 0.7 ppm F in it? Can you name a single person who has ever been harmed by drinking it?
Your quote: ” . . and that dental fluorosis is the indicator of a deeper problem in which ameloblasts are not miraculously the only organs being damaged.”
Got any evidence of that? Or are you just making that up? Can you name any person whose organs have been damaged by drinking optimally fluoridated water. I’ll need to see some documentation with that.
LikeLike
Soundhill, btw, you never answered this, therefore you have conceded the point.
“Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.”
“
LikeLike
David Fierstien: ““Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health.”
If I use any freedom analogies of course you will say they are off topic.
The freedom to live in a country in which if they are susceptible genetic types they will not be burdened so much by dental or other fluorosis.
Tauranga-born Lisa Carrington is on a tail of the distribution of athletes, she has won gold in the Olympics. Would she have done so had she been born into a fluoridated area? I add that to the football statistics I have produced. I don’t have the mechanism yet. However i note that breast-fed children may perform better in IQ tests. I need to look at whether being born in a fluoridated area reduces IQ compared to that since the new-born gets a bacterial culture from the nipple if not from the birth canal and I suggest fluoride could partially inhibit it and so the new-born loses some of its advantages qualities. I have not had any replies from the Broadbent/Poulton team.
I am waiting for data collections of vision screening results from MOH to see whether any connection may be suggested with fluoridation. Noting that the eye lens/cornea tau-crystallin is a form of enolase an enzyme which fluoride is known to inhibit as in its use in holding glucose and alcohol levels in blood samples. Countries like Singapore with 100% fluoridation now have nearly 100% myopia. Of course I need to control for genetic type.
And I suggest your description of fluorosis degrees are not correct.
And I suggest you use the term, “gish gallop” correctly. It applies, as I recently said to Stuartg, when in a debating scenario with limited time for reply that too many points are listed to reply to. It does not mean they are incorrect.
LikeLike
Ken your ref to the Falun organisation, please take note: http://www.highstrangeness.tv/0-7013-is-the-cia-behind-falun-gong.html
LikeLike
Richard Christie | August 17, 2016 at 9:11 am:
“David, you are making a mistake trying to engage Brian in intelligent debate.
He doesn’t even believe the Moon landing were real.”
I have never claimed man didn’t go to the moon. I wouldn’t be so sure they would have got back. And there are problems of film fogging in the radiation of space. My suppositions depend on things like this which may have faults:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread566601/pg185
LikeLike
soundhill,
In another thread I asked you to supply the evidence you have to support your fantasy that enolase in the human lens is acted on by fluoride to result in myopia. The subsequent silence from you about evidence has been very obvious. But here you go, again, stating the same thing, again without providing any evidence.
I pointed out that enolase is an intracellular enzyme and that the stroma of the non-foetal human lens is acellular. So the first thing you have to do to provide evidence for your fantasy is to show that there are cells for the enolase to reside in within the stroma of the mature human lens. That involves you overturning all histology since Leeuwenhoek. Here is your opportunity to do so…
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – you still need to provide ANY evidence.
Even if “tau-crystalin is a form of enolase” as you state (I’m not bothering to check), all that means is that it is not enolase. Different name, different structure, different function. – Or are you claiming something else? Again, you need to provide extraordinary evidence in order to overturn the science of the textbooks.
Note to everyone else: I’m not expecting a clear and rational reply from soundhill. Why would I? He’s never been able to supply one in the past. It’s exactly as if his comments were based on irrational, unscientific, conspiracist fantasies rather than science.
LikeLike
I have never claimed man didn’t go to the moon. I wouldn’t be so sure they would have got back
(ffs).
Let me rephrase:
David, you are making a mistake trying to engage Brian in intelligent debate.
He believes NASA have erected and maintained a 49 year old lie in regard to the success of the Moon landings.
LikeLike
Soundhill, were you addressing me and my comment on this topic, or were you talking to the air?
Absolutely nothing you said addressed my comment, which, again, was this:
“Freedom of choice? Exactly what freedom of choice is being denied? The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational. Moreover, they are attempting to impose that irrational mindset upon those who could truly benefit from CWF. That is not only irrational, it’s selfish.”
Feel free to talk about vitamin K, the moon landings, sunburns, antique cars, the time-space continuum, or ants. But if your diatribe has nothing to do with what I said, please don’t put my name at the front of it.
LikeLike
“David, you are making a mistake trying to engage Brian in intelligent debate.
He believes NASA have erected and maintained a 49 year old lie in regard to the success of the Moon landings”.
Richard I think you are hoping that people will not watch the accompanying videos to that ref.
Can you guide me to the data on the radiation doses the various Apollo missions would have received related to solar flare activity happening during each mission? Or do you accept the results the videos stated which appeared very large?
NASA is an agent of the USA government. Are they so high on your faith scale you believe they have never done false flag either?
LikeLike
David Fierstien feeling challenged and in the common fashion resorting to dipping into emotive language: “But if your diatribe has nothing to do with what I said, please don’t put my name at the front of it.”
“The reality is that these people are asking for the freedom of choice to possibly have poorer oral health. That is completely irrational.”
Could you please explain “possibly’?
And I point out you appear to have faith that people are not being harmed. You will have to await my vision results which could go either way.
I suggest you give refs to pictures of “mild” dental fluorosis of teeth not under special lighting to back up your claim.
LikeLike
Can you guide me to the data on the radiation doses the various Apollo missions would have received ……
… blah blah erg wuz bubble gook blah ….
….NASA is an agent of the USA government. Are they so high on your faith scale you believe they have never done false flag either?
Brian, you are a first class kook. A crank of the highest order.
All your comments should carry a rider to that effect,
LikeLike
Stuartg: “In another thread I asked you to supply the evidence you have to support your fantasy that enolase in the human lens is acted on by fluoride to result in myopia. The subsequent silence from you about evidence has been very obvious.”
I have had some contact back from MOH about vision stats. Things take a while. Then if a trend shows between myopia and fluoridation it will make it more worth it to look for a possible mechanism.
A genetic component seems needed even with the near 100% myopia level in some Asian countries even if they are 100% fluoridated.
You don’t seem to have acknowledged my past ref to the COMT gene variants and fluoride effect.
Here is an interesting thought of mine. Usually analogies get ruled out as off-topic. But this time, ha ha, I’ll use the analogy of how fluoride ions get into tooth enamel to build a more acid-resistant structure. (Off topic in terms of eye structure because it is an analogy?) If fluoride ions change some of the tau-crystallin (enolase) then maybe the laying down of corneal material changes. I have not said that does happen, it is just an analogy of adding to a principle of what could happen.
LikeLike
Brian – what hubris:
LikeLike
Richard: “….NASA is an agent of the USA government. Are they so high on your faith scale you believe they have never done false flag either?”
Brian, you are a first class kook. A crank of the highest order”
Then do you have faith that no country has ever used false flag, it is just an imaginary concept?
LikeLike
soundhill,
“I have never claimed man didn’t go to the moon. I wouldn’t be so sure they would have got back”
“I” = singular. I take it that you disagree with the opinion of others? For example the leadership of the USSR? They would have loved to disprove the lunar landings and/or return! Unfortunately for your fantasies, they had the evidence to prove your fantasies wrong.
“Can you guide me to the data on the radiation doses the various Apollo missions would have received”
Try http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html for starters.
Maybe the entire site would help you? http://www.clavius.org/
These are amateurs using science and evidence to explain what really happened. Not NASA, not KGB, not SIS or MI6. Just amateurs.
You’re still going to ignore the site completely, we acknowledge that. Because this site contradicts your fantasies with evidence, it will just be ignored by you and you will consider it to be part of the conspiracy.
LikeLike
Stuartg, not the Van Allen Belts, the solar flares as described in the accompanying vids to my ref.
LikeLike
soundhill,
“Eye lens contains enolase.” Only according to you. Evidence required to back up the statement.
“tau-crystalin is a form of enolase” Evidence required, including an explanation of why, if they are the same protein, they have different names, different structures and different functions. http://www.cell.com/cell/abstract/S0092-8674%2816%2930043-5
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence – you still need to provide ANY evidence to support your fantasies.
As I said before, I’m not expecting a clear and rational reply from soundhill. Why would I? He’s never been able to supply one in the past. It’s exactly as if his comments were based on irrational, unscientific, conspiracist fantasies rather than science.
LikeLike
soundhill,
“Stuartg, not the Van Allen Belts, the solar flares as described in the accompanying vids to my ref.”
Well, let’s see. What major solar flares were aimed at the planet during the lunar missions? There was…
Oh, right. There weren’t any. That means the maximum radiation the astronauts were exposed to was during their passage through the Van Allen belts.
I did suggest that you read the rest of http://www.clavius.org as well. Obviously you ignored me: “The closest call came when the Apollo 12 spacecraft’s external radiation sensors detected a minor flare, but the interior sensors did not indicate that any appreciable amount of this radiation penetrated the spacecraft hull.”
You have ignored the science and evidence of reality and constructed an unscientific fantasy based on no evidence at all.
LikeLike
Stuartg did you miss this when I gave it before?:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2462567
I am not saying they are much different but even when things are different somewhat similar principles can still apply. For example haemocyanin in spiders and scorpions and haemoglobin in vertebrates both transport oxygen.
More than one thing can have fluoride stick to it and change its structure. So it could be better to use fluoride toothpaste rather than fluoridated water which gets in the eyes.
LikeLike
Soundhill, congratulations . . after all this time you have finally responded to my comment:
“And I point out you appear to have faith that people are not being harmed. You will have to await my vision results which could go either way.”
My vision results? Are you saying optimally fluoridated water has somehow affected your vision? I’ll need some documentation to swallow that one.
Yes, I do have faith that people are not being harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water. Please . . if you can . . shake my faith.
Please name any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. Of course I’ll need some documentation with that.
LikeLike
soundhill,
“I am not saying they are much different” I agree with that; you say they are the same.
“Stuartg did you miss this when I gave it before?:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2462567”
No, I didn’t miss it, as you would have known if you had actually read my reference. Since your reference is 28 years old, I thought you would appreciate something more recent – like 2016.
Both references say the same thing – that a single gene can encode for multiple proteins that have different structures and functions. Nowhere in your reference does it say that tau-crystallin is the same molecule, has the same structure, or has the same function as enolase.
In case it was not apparent to you previously, proteins that have different structure, function and location are often given different names. It helps when scientists want to distinguish one protein from another.
Sorry if reality doesn’t agree with your fantasies.
Now, since your reference did not support your fantasies, can you supply one that you think does?
LikeLike
David,
“Please name any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. Of course I’ll need some documentation with that.”
I’ll second that!
I’ve pointed out to soundhill, several times, that hundreds of millions of people worldwide have been drinking optimally fluoridated water for multiple decades, even multiple generations. People have been born and lived their entire lives whilst drinking optimally fluoridated water for the benefit of their teeth. None of them have been harmed.
I have repeatedly asked him to produce any evidence at all from those hundreds of millions of people to support his fantasies that CWF causes harm to anyone.
Result: he completely ignores the question.
Since the concept of CWF not causing harm in the real world doesn’t fit into his conspiracist fantasies, he won’t even allow himself to acknowledge that he’s been asked the question.
LikeLike
They should up Brian’s daily basket-weaving quota, get him away from the internet.
LikeLike
Stuartg the 1988 Wistow article was in the citation list of the 2016 Hong Ji article which I referred to on the other thread. I quoted the bit about the debriding of rabbit corneas. Just before that it said: “In the crystalline lens of mammals and chickens, THE ACTIVITY OF ENOLASE IS LOWER in cells that have grown for long periods of time in comparison with newly produced epithelial cells.” BUT THERE IS STILL AN ENOLASE ACTIVITY.
In a lens the enolase seems from what I gather to be about half of what is NORMALLY IN MAMMALS used as the glycolytic enzyme. That is a monomer, probably just the blue or green half of the dimer which I referred to in the wiki article,
I am not sure about in the cornea.
You are suggesting that though fluoride would affect the dimer it would not affect the monomer. Possible I suppose.
LikeLike
“My vision results? Are you saying optimally fluoridated water has somehow affected your vision? I’ll need some documentation to swallow that one.”
Ha ha David Fierstien you sound like my cats asking for food when it hasn’t been delivered yet. Not the flavour some of them want anyway. For one of them it needs an organic certification document.
LikeLike
Richard Christie | August 18, 2016 at 7:46 pm |
“They should up Brian’s daily basket-weaving quota”
Well the picture of fluoride and calcium affecting teeth Ken posted on July 26 is a bit reminiscent of a basket for which stuff can get into the contents through the weave. Why not the eye cornea similarly?
LikeLike
“Please name any person who has ever been harmed by drinking optimally fluoridated water . . even for as much as a lifetime. Of course I’ll need some documentation with that.”
I am more interested in the early part of life when the quantity of water taken, therefore fluoride from fluoridated water, is greater in proportion to body weight.
And when you say “show me the research,” it takes a bit of digging since things like myopia are so common they are taken as normal. Though tests on vision of children are done at about ages 4 and 11, the MOH does not even bother to collect together the 11-year-olds’ data.
LikeLike
Ken | August 18, 2016 at 12:52 pm |
“Brian – what hubris:
“You will have to await my vision results which could go either way.”
I am sure they will go the same way as your All Black results and all the other silliness you have indulged in.”
I think my analysis of football results does go somewhere. Further since vision aids can be a problem in sport that factor needs to be looked at.
LikeLike
soundhill,
“I think my analysis of football results does go somewhere. ”
Click to access 66060M.pdf
In the 1960s, 1970 and 1980s, the Ministry of Health was recommending the use of fluoride tablets for children in non-fluoridated areas of the country. They were used by my own family in Canterbury (one of whom, coincidentally, twice declined the opportunity to represent his country at rugby).
Now, those All Blacks you are concerned about, were they among the children who took their fluoride tablets? Perhaps it’s the taking of recommended fluoride tablets that shaped their future sporting prowess? Or maybe you’ve just spotted the problem with statistics and p values?
LikeLike
soundhill,
The 1988 Wistow article was about developing lenses, aka foetal, and not even human ones at that.
I patiently explained to you that the foetal lens has both blood vessels and cells present, so of course it will have enolase present.
What relevance does the article have to the avascular and acellular mature human lens, without intracellular enolase, that you were talking about?
LikeLike
Stuartg I think the effect is in infancy when they will not have been given the tablets. Well it is for the All Black Captains. As far as All Blacks from South Canterbury are concerned they didn’t produce All Blacks from their team after Timaru fluoridated. Richie McCaw was not from the fluoridated area of South Canterbury and I think he did not play for that team, he went straight to Canterbury.
Be interesting to look up old pharmacy records of fluoride tablet sales. I know a daughter of a nurse who took them and ruined her teeth trying to polish the brown marks off.
Statistics is also bad from the point of view of focusing on averages at the expense of the best and worst. We need our best to lead us on, and we don’t want our worst to be worse.
LikeLike
The 1988 article pointed out the connection between tau crystallin and enolase: (monomer – dimer I would say)
Tooth enamel is formed from ameloblasts early in life, and fluoride damages that process. In later life fluoride can still react with the mature enamel.
Corneas do heal and tau-crystallin would be involved. I hypothesise that fluoride could be causing extra build up of cornea by deregulating tau crystallin. Build of the cornea is one reason for development of myopia. It has been claimed contact lenses can resist that build up.
I hypothesise there could be a genetic component producing a susceptibilty which is triggered to excessive build up, perhaps because the cornea thinks it should be trying to repair itself.
Note the work on the COMT gene variant and fluoride. Also note The Dunedin Study saying that a COMT gene variant can predispose to psychological difficulties in a harsh environment of upbringing.
LikeLike
soundhill,
You said that enolase was found in the human lens, then some gobbledegook about fluoride and myopia. Since then you’ve squirmed around and are trying to deny your lack of evidence.
To clarify the science…
The mature human lens (and cornea) are transparent because they are acellular. They have no cells in them. If cells were present then the lens would be opaque and optically useless. So would the cornea.
Enolase is an intracellular enzyme. It’s part of the glycolytic pathway. It is only found inside cells, never outside.
Since there are no cells in the mature human lens, that means there is nowhere in the lens for any intracellular enzyme to be located.
Therefore, no intracellular enzymes are found within the stroma of the mature human lens.
The science is entirely transparent.
LikeLike
soundhill,
Tau-crystallin is not enolase. (I repeat myself since you obviously ignored it the first time).
Different structure, different function, different location and different names, in case you hadn’t noticed.
LikeLike
soundhill,
You keep coming back to rugby. You seem to think that people are dismissive of you. No, they realise that your unscientific methods of thinking can be used to illuminate the scientific method by providing an example of the opposite.
Let’s have a look at your gobbledegook about rugby and why it is considered gobbledegook. Since you’ve never clearly stated your thoughts*, presumably so that you can say that’s not what you meant (or maybe your thoughts aren’t clear in the first place?), we’ll have to skirt around the idea in soundhill fashion.
Let’s first quote from your last comment, where your lack of clarity of thought is obvious:
“I think the effect is in infancy” “they didn’t produce All Blacks from their team after Timaru fluoridated”.
If an effect of fluoride on sporting prowess occurs only in infancy, then it should be measurable for at least a couple of decades after CWF started and not demonstrate an immediate effect. You just noted an immediate effect. Didn’t you notice that the evidence you gave refutes your own idea?
You will need to demonstrate that the same effect occurs with other national teams. After all, why would such an effect be limited to just men’s rugby? What about the women’s team(s)? The All Whites? The Tall Blacks? The Black Sticks? The Black Caps? What about national teams from other countries? Is the same effect seen in the rugby teams of France, England, Canada, USA, Kenya? Is it limited to team sports or can it be seen in individual sports? You will need to demonstrate that the same effect occurs around the world. If it is just limited to New Zealand men’s rugby, then your idea needs to explain why that is the case. You have to demonstrate that you are not merely observing a statistical fluke, a p-value discrepancy.
And why consider just CWF as a source of fluoride? Which of the All Blacks from non-fluoridated areas took the recommended fluoride tablets and were exposed to tablet sourced water fluoridation? Have your numbers accounted for this? Not as far as we can tell. If anything, it appears that my comment about fluoride tablets was the first time that you even considered anything other than CWF.
You mention looking at “old pharmacy records of fluoride tablet sales”. Why? You are talking about the effects of fluoride on specific individuals, so pooled data from the entire population is irrelevant. And doesn’t it also mean involving the statistics you so decry?
“Statistics is also bad from the point of view of focusing on averages at the expense of the best and worst.”
So why go looking for statistics yourself, especially when they are irrelevant, when you so readily ignore the statistics produced by others? You appear to have a large degree of cognitive dissonance when it comes to statistics.
Since you are talking about a specific effect of fluoride on individuals, you will need to consider the entire fluoride exposure of those individuals, not just whether the area they lived in had CWF or not. In New Zealand, you need to document the entire fluoride exposure of each individual who has played professional level rugby, not just the All Blacks. Document CWF, “natural” water fluoride concentrations, the use of fluoride toothpaste, fluoride tablets, use of imported fluoridated salt, dental treatment with fluoride… Even then, if you limit yourself to New Zealand, the numbers are so small that missing the data on even one or two individuals will mean that any analysis is near useless.
So far you appear to have a single observation. No-one else is even in agreement with you about that.
You appear to say* that there is a specific detrimental effect from CWF, and that this effect is measurable. This is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Remember – all the science and evidence says that the only significant effect of CWF is the benefit on teeth.
You have a lot of work ahead of you before a scientist will spend more than a second or two considering the idea. The almost immediate dismissal of your idea by scientists is because of their knowledge of the related science that would have to be overturned to make such an effect possible.
Maybe you could start your work by learning some of that related science? A high school science class would be a good place to begin.
*Because of the lack of clarity of your statements, your habit of denying previous meaning, objections to the use of jargon whilst using it yourself, refusal to clarify or elaborate your statements, flight of ideas, Gish galloping, ignoring presented evidence, and not least, your refusal to produce relevant evidence yourself, no-one can really have much more than vague ideas about your meanings.
LikeLike